The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age

THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE

CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST E D I T E D BY

B. HALPERN, M.H.E. WEIPPERT TH. PJ. VAN DEN HOUT, I. WINTER V O L U M E 13

THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE BY

NICOLA SCHREIBER

' 6 8^

BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON 2003

L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Schreiber, N i c o l a , 1971T h e C y p r o - P h o e n i c i a n pottery o f the Iron A g e / by N i c o l a Schreiber. p. c m . — ( C u l t u r e a n d history o f the ancient N e a r East; v. 13) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004128549 1. C y p r u s — A n t i q u i t i e s . 2. Pottery, Cypriote. 3. Pottery, A n c i e n t — C y p r u s . I. Title. II. Series. D S 5 4 . 3 .S34 2002 939'.37—dc21 2002033201

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e Schreiber, N i c o l a : T h e C y p r o - P h o e n i c i a n pottery o f the Iron A g e / by N i c o l a Schreiber. - Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2 0 0 2 (Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; Vol. 13) ISBN 90-04-12854-9

ISSN ISBN © Copyright 2003

1566-2055 9 0 0 4 12854 9

by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The

Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. P R I N T E D IN THF. N E T H E R L A N D S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures, Maps and Tables Acknowledgements

ix xviii

INTRODUCTION

xix

Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery Aims and Methodology Chapter One: T H E INITIAL APPEARANCE Definition Earliest Appearances of BoR Black-on-Red Antecedents? Conclusions Chapter Two:

OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY.

xxii xxix 1

1 5 10 19

T H E DISTRIBUTION OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY

IN THE LEVANT AND THE N A T U R E OF ITS T R A D E

Methodology Results A Comment on Chronology Phoenician Pottery and BoR Aspects of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery Imports Deposition Contexts The Popularity of BoR The Dynamics of BoR Trade: Open versus Closed Vessels Trade in BoR: A Trade in the Vessels or their Contents? The Nature of Their Contents - BoR and a Possible Trade in Perfumed Oil Uses and Types of Oils Implications Possible Routes of BoR Trade from Cyprus Cargoes Routes over the Sea The Coast: Ports and Harbours Routes Inland Conclusions

25

27 28 46 48 51 54 56 59 62 65 67 72 73 74 75 77 78 80

Chapter Three:

T H E CHRONOLOGY OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY.

83

SECTION I : THE 1 0 T H CENTURY

The 10th Century and the Problem of Shishak 85 Shishak, Ben-Hadad or Hazael? Identifying the Archaeological Context 88 Megiddo 92 Hazor. 103 Tell Ta'anach 113 Tel Michal 117 Tel Qiri 121 Beersheba 124 Beth-Shan 129 Tell el-Far'ah (N) 137 Tel Mevorakh 142 Tel 'Amal 146 Mt. Carmel 149 Tell Keisan 152 Tell el-Hammeh 154 Tel Halif 157 Tel Rehov 159 Tell Abu Hawam 160 Sarepta 163 Other 10th Century Sites 166 Conclusions 169 Cultic Contexts 170 Associated Pottery 173 Establishing 'Phase Γ of BoR 180 SECTION I I : THE 9 T H - 8TH CENTURIES

Megiddo Hazor. Ta'anach Tel Michal

186 189 195 195

Tel Qiri

195

Beersheba Beth-Shan Tell el-Far'ah (N) Tel Mevorakh

196 197 198 198

Tel 'Amal Tell Keisan Tell el-Hammeh Lachish Hurvat Rosh Zayit Tel Kabri Tell Kazel Sarepta Tyre Tell Sukas Hama Other Sites Conclusions

199 196 199 201 201 202 204 205 205 208 209 210 212

Chapter Four: T H E O R I G I N OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY Gjerstad and the Problem of the Origin of BoR Post-Gjerstad - Reassessments Post-Birmingham - Origin of BoR Post-Birmingham - Chronology of Cyprus The Scientific Contribution 'Deconstructing' Gjerstad A: BoR on the Mainland versus BoR in Cyprus B: Gjerstad's Typology: Does it Fit on the Mainland? BoR within Cyprus Test-Case: Palaepaphos-Skales Other Iron Age Sites in Cyprus 'Non-Ceramic' Dating Evidence Absolute Chronology and (Towards) a Reconciliation of the Chronologies of Cyprus and the Mainland The Origin and Development of BoR "Imitation" BoR Conclusions

221

Chapter Five: T H E

221 226 230 232 234 239 240 249 253 255 259 269 271 273 277 280

LATER HISTORY OF B O R AND THE QUESTION OF

PHOENICIAN INVOLVEMENT IN ITS DISPERSAL TO THE W E S T

The Latest Stage of BoR in Cyprus Cypriot Pottery West of Cyprus BoR in Rhodes BoR in Cos

281

281 285 286 290

BoR in Crete The Phoenicians of Ialysos? Assessment of the Phoenician Involvement in BoR Trade to the West

293 299

CONCLUSION

307

Appendix I: Comparative Distribution Table of BoR Pottery on the Mainland by Site and Phase Appendix II: Cypriot Pottery Statistics Appendix III: BoR Vessel Types: Chronological 'Phase' on Mainland versus Gjerstad's Classification Appendix IV: The Earliest Appearance of BoR pottery at Palaepaphos-Skales: Proportions of BoR types versus White Painted

341

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

361

INDEX

407

313 327 331

LIST O F FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES

FIGURES Figure

1 - Group of BoR juglets from PalaepaphosSkales 347 Figure 2:1 - BoR juglet from Lapithos tomb 417 (82) (Photo courtesy of K. Kaiser) 348 2:2 - Selection of BoR pottery from Palaepaphos-Skales (Photo by author) 348 Figure 3 BoR I(III) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 349 3:1 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV:9) 3:2 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 10) 3:3 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 13) 3:4 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:3) 3:5 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1) 3:6 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:2) 3:7 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 11) 3:8 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:9) 3:9 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10) 3 : 1 0 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 16) 3:11 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 17) 3:12 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:7) 3:13 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:6) 3:14 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 12) 3:15 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:22) 3 : 1 6 - B o R I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 18) 3:17 - BoR I (III) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVL2) 3:18 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 11) Figure 4: BoR I(IV) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 350 4:1 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 1) 4:2 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL2) 4:3 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL3)

4:4 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL4) 4:5 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 10) 4:6 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:7) 4:7 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:9) 4:8 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 14) 4:9 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15) 4:10 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 16) 4:11 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 17) 4:12 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 19) 4:13 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:20) 4:14 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24) 4:15 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:23) 4:16 - BoR II (IV) jar (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:2) 4:17 - BoR II (IV) jar (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:5) 4:18 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:21) 4:19 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:7) 4:20 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:8) 4:21 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:9) 4:22 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 10) 4:23 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 11) 4:24 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:12) 4:25 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 13) 4:26 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:23) 4:27 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 19) 4:28 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:24) Figure 5: BoR II (IV) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 351 5: 1 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:8) 5:2 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2) 5:3 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6) 5:4 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 13) 5:5 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:9) 5:6 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 10) 5:7 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 11) 5:8 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18) 5:9 - BoR II (IV) flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 17) 5:10 - BoR II (IV) zoomorphic vessel (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:20) 5:11 - BoR II (IV) anthropomorphic jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 15)

5:12 - BoR II (IV) anthropomorphic juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:21) 5:13 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:4) 5:14 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:1) 5:15 - BoR II (IV) amphoriskos (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:2) 5 : 1 6 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 16) Figure 6: BoR III(V) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 352 6:1 - BoR III (V) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:1) 6:2 - BoR III (V) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:2) 6:3 - BoR III (V) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:11) 6:4 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:6) 6:5 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:7) 6 : 6 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:10) 6:7 - BoR III (V) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:9) 6:8 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:12) 6:9 - BoR III (V) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:13) 6:10 - BoR III (V) krater (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:5) Figure 7: Other Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland Levant 353 7:1 - Pyxis, Beersheba Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:15) 7:2 - Pyxis, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinksi 1983, PI. 143:5) 7:3 - Pyxis, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 27:21) 7:4 - Bottle, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:22) 7:5 - Jug, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4) 7:6 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:21) 7:7 - Amphoriskos, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 19:42) 7:8 - Bowl, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 22:1) 7:9 - Bowl, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 29:14) Figure 8: Other Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland Levant (cont) 354 8:1 - Flask, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 159:7) 8:2 - Flask, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 37:2) 8:3 - Flask, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 20:13)

8:4 - Jug, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 148:1) 8:5 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:8) 8:6 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:14) 8:7 - Spouted jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 35:3) 8:8 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 6 (Dothan 1971, Fig. 74:15) 8:9 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971, Fig. 41:26) 8:10 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971, Fig. 41:22) Figure 9: Phoenician pottery 355 9:1 - Phoenician globular jug (Bikai 1987, PI. V:24) 9:2 - Phoenician globular jug (Bikai 1987, PI. V:67) 9:3 - Phoenician trefoil-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XV:395) 9:4 - Phoenician trefoil-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XIV:357) 9:5 - Phoenician heavy-walled juglet (Bikai 1987, PI. X:161) 9:6 - Phoenician heavy-walled juglet (Bikai 1987, PI. X:162) 9:7 - Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XIII:298) 9:8 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, PI. 11:14) 9:9 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, Pl. XXIV: 12) 9:10 - 'Red Ware' flask (Bikai 1987, PI. 11:2) 9:11 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, PI. 111:21) Figure 10: White Painted and Bichrome I pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 356 10:1 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:14) 10:2 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:13) 10:3 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:10) 10:4 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:12) 10:5 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:1) 10:6 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:4) 10:7 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:3) 10:8 - White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:12) 10:9 - White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:17) 10:10-White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:1) 10:11 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:15) 10:12 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 10)

10:13 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 13) 10:14-White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:13) 10:15 - Bichrome I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14) 10:16- Bichrome I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 15) 10:17 - Bichrome I flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII:22) 10:18 - White Painted I spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 17) 10:19 - White Painted I bottle (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. V:6) Figure 11: White Painted and Bichrome II pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 357 11:1 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:8) 11:2 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:9) 11:3 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII: 14) 11:4 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:5) 11:5-White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII: 16) 11:6 - White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:7) 11:7 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:9) 1 1 : 8 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIV: 1) 11:9 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:8) 11:10-White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 11) 11:11 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 12) 11:12-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 16) 11:13 - White Painted II spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 21) 11:14-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 18) 11:15-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 14) 11:16- White Painted II amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIV:6) 11:17 - Bichrome II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:4) 11:18 - Bichrome II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5) 11:19- Bichrome II spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:9) Figure 12: White Painted and Bichrome III pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 358 12:1 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVIII: 10) 12:2 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XVIII:9) 12:3 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XVIII:4) 12:4 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX:2) 12:5 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:3) 12:6 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:4)

12:7 - White Painted III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX: 10) 12:8 - White Painted III spouted juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX: 15) 12:9 - White Painted III flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX:17) 12:10 - White Painted III amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XX:5) 12:11 - Bichrome III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XXI: 10) 12:12 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:9) 12:13 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 10) 12:14- Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 11) 12:15 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:12) 1 2 : 1 6 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 13) 12:17 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:6) 12:18 - Bichrome III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 14) 12:19 - Bichrome III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIII:2) 1 2 : 2 0 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIII: 1) 12:21 - Bichrome III amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 1) Figure 13:1 - Corinthian aryballos (Cook 1960, Pl. 10B) 359 13:2 - Cypriot Bichrome jug with ship motif (Hadjisavvas 1995, Figs. 5a, 5b) 13:3 - Map of wind routes in the eastern Mediterranean (Murray 1995, Fig. 4) 13:4 - Terracotta equid from Rhodes,Ialysos Tomb 73 (Mountjoy 1993, Fig. 391) Figure 14: Pottery Associated with 'Phase I' BoR 360 14:1 - One-handled cooking jug, Beersheba Stratum VII (Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:11) 14:2 - One-handled cooking jug, Beersheba Stratum VII (Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:13) 14:3 - One-handled cooking jug, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:3) 14:4 - One-handled cooking jug, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:2) 14:5 - Black-burnished juglet, Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 5:127) 14:6 - Black-burnished juglet, Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 5:128) 14:7 - Black-burnished juglet, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig.8:7)

14:8 - Plain red-slipped jug with ridged rim, Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:7) 14:9 - Red-slipped jug with neck-ridge and thickened rim, Tel Halif (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:7) 14:10-'Hippo'storage jar, Tel 'Amal Strata IV-III (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 8:6) 14:11 - Spouted jar, Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:1) 14:12-Spouted jar,Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:2) 14:13 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2) 14:14 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:1) 14:15 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:6) Figure 15:1 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus 361 (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 123:480) 15:2 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 123:520) 15:3 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 65:349) 15:4 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 65:352) 15:5 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLL12) 15:6 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:7) 15:7 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:4) 15:8 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI: 14) 15:9 - Red Slip I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVI: 16) 1 5 : 1 0 - Bichrome Red I (IV) spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLIL5) 15:11 - Bichrome Red I (IV) spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLIL3) 1 5 : 1 2 - R e d Slip II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XLIII:6) 15:13 - Red Slip I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XXVIL6) 1 5 : 1 4 - R e d Slip I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XXVIL3) Figure 16:1 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, 362 Rhodes, Camiros Tomb XLV (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 151) 16:2 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery,

Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb LI (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 76) 16:3 - Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug, Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb CXXXII (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 139) 16:4 - Juglet with 'spaghetti' decoration, Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb LVI (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 93) 16:5 - Imitation BoR juglet with 'fugitive' slip, Cos, Fadil Tomb III (Morricone 1978, Fig. 467) 16:6 - 'Hellenizing' handle-ridge juglet, Cos, Serraglio Tomb 20 (Morricone 1978, Fig. 282) 16:7 - Bowl showing influence of Cypriot pottery, 'fugitive' slip, Cos, Serraglio Tomb 43 (Morricone 1978, Fig. 468) 16:8 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 2:58) 16:9 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 2:64) 16:10 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXVL69) MAPS

Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Map

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8:

Map 9: Map 10: Map 11: Map 12: Map 13:

Distribution of BoR Pottery in the East Mediterranean Sites in the North-East Mediterranean and Cyprus Sites in the Southern Levant Sites west of Cyprus Distribution of BoR Juglets in the East Mediterranean Distribution of BoR Jugs in the East Mediterranean Distribution of BoR Bowls in the East Mediterranean Distribution of Early (Pre-BoR) Cypriot Pottery on the Mainland Levant Distribution of White Painted Juglets in the East Mediterranean Distribution of White Painted Jugs in the East Mediterranean Distribution of White Painted Bowls in the East Mediterranean Distribution of Bichrome Juglets in the East Mediterranean Distribution of Bichrome Jugs in the East Mediterranean

20 21 22 23 29 32 33 36 40 41 43 44 44

Map 14: Distribution of Bichrome Bowls in the East Mediterranean 45 Map 15: Distribution of Phoenician pottery in Context with BoR in the Southern Levant 49 Map 16: Distribution of LB A Cypriot Pottery in the Levant 52 Map 17: Distribution of BoR Bowls in the Levant (detail) 60 Map 18: Distribution of BoR Juglets in the Levant (detail) 60 Map 19: Distribution of 'Phase Γ BoR Pottery in the Levant 214 Map 20: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Pottery in the Levant 215 Map 21: Distribution of 'Phase Γ BoR Juglets in the Levant 216 Map 22: Distribution of 'Phase 1 ' BoR Bowls in the Levant 217 Map 23: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Juglets in the Levant..218 Map 24: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Bowls in the Levant..219 Map 25: Sites in Cyprus 254 TABLES

Table A: Well-Stratified Reliable Loci for 'Phase 1 ' of BoR Chronology Table B: Summary of Dating Evidence for Sites with 'Phase Γ BoR Table C: Some Examples of BoR Tested with Gjerstad's Characteristics Table D: Gjerstad's Divisions of BoR Types Table E: Chart Showing Relative Quantities of Vessel Types and their Chronological Phases on the Mainland Table F: The Early Tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales Table G: Four Early Iron Age Tombs at Lapithos

184 185 246 250 252 257 261

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is based upon my DPhil thesis 'An Archaeological and Historical Investigation into the "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery of the Iron Age Levant,' Oxford 2000. The altered title reflects my view that this study has important implications for a broader region than the Levant alone. The use of the name 'Cypro-Phoenician' for the pottery is thus to indicate this breadth of scope, rather than to serve as an alternative for 'Black-on-Red', which is to be preferred. A number of people provided invaluable advice and support during the writing of my thesis. I owe special gratitude to Roger Moorey, for his wisdom, clear-sightedness and expert supervision. I would particularly like to mention Vassos Karageorghis, Susan Sherratt, Nicolas Coldstream, Robin Lane Fox, John Boardman, John Baines, Patricia Bikai, Judith McKenzie, George Williamson and Eleanor Robson, and for encouragement along the way, Jenny Morris, Gerald Cadogan, Peter Parr, John Woodhead, Sy Gitin, Barry Gittlen, Nancy Serwint, Jeff Zorn, Aaron Brody, Eric Lapp and Ezra Marcus. The following generously provided me with access to unpublished material: Amihai Mazar, Eilat Mazar, Ephraim Stern, Ayelet Gilboa, Gunnar Lehmann, Yardena Alexandre, Annabelle Zaretsky, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Vassos Karageorghis, Pavlos Flourentzos, Estelle Villeneuve de Montlivault, Karen Excel, Ian Carroll, Kevin Kaiser, Sam Moorhead, and Claude Doumet. I owe a great deal to Somerville College, Oxford, for the Katherine and Leonard Woolley Travelling Fellowship which gave me the chance to spend two years in Jerusalem during 1994 - 1996, and to the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, which was a source of inspiration while I was there. I am also grateful to the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute in Nicosia for exceptionally warm hospitality. In all cases, I use the term 'the mainland' to refer to the Levantine mainland, which for these purposes is taken as the south-eastern part of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. For clarity of reference, I use where possible the original site names adopted by the excavators. Thus 'Tel' in Hebrew and 'Tell' in Arabic.

INTRODUCTION

Since the earliest excavations of the last century in Cyprus and the Levant, scholars have noted the presence of a group of Iron Age wares which stand alone amongst other ceramics of the period. Two different terms are used to describe this pottery, one descriptive: "Black-on-Red," the other cultural: "Cypro-Phoenician." The coexistence of these terms illustrate on the one hand the distinctiveness of this pottery and on the other the prevailing confusion about whence it originally came. The main characteristics of this pottery are the delicate forms in which it is made and its striking geometric decoration. The 'classic' forms of the pottery are single-handled neck-ridged juglets, with flaring lips and flat bases, and large shallow or deep bowls with two horizontal loop handles and flat base. The vessels are unusually fine and made of well-levigated clay, slipped red or orange, usually carefully burnished and painted with thin black horizontal lines, bands and sets of small concentric circles. Some forms are peculiar to the ware, such as the conical juglet with handle-ridge and flat base, while other shapes, such as the krater, the barrel-juglet and many of the bowl shapes, as well as some motifs found on the vessels, show influence of other pottery types of the period. At its latest stages, 'Black-on-Red' ware becomes less easily distinguishable as a 'type' from other finewares. Its motifs and decorative technique converge with a range of other pottery forms, from White Painted (black paint on a pale buff clay) to Bichrome (black and red paint on a pale buff clay) and Bichrome Red (black and white paint on a red slipped clay). 'Black-on-Red' wares have generally been dated approximately two centuries earlier in Palestine than in Cyprus, where it is regarded as beginning in the late Cypro-Geometric period and flourishing in the Cypro-Archaic period, ie 9th-7th centuries BC. In the southern Levant it is seen as almost a trademark of 10th century BC 'early Iron II' assemblages, possibly extending back into the 11th century and in rare cases down into the 8th century BC. Its appearance in Phoenicia has often been regarded as significant; limited excavations in this

region have tended towards later dates, close to those put forward for Cyprus. The appearance of the pottery in fairly late Iron Age contexts, at least until the 7th century, at sites in Cyprus and further west in the Mediterranean is generally accepted, although much of this pottery is believed to consist of local, and often fairly free, imitations. Lastly, the pottery appears in much greater quantities in Cyprus than in the Levant, where it has a broad distribution but occurs in limited numbers. The term 'Cypro-Phoenician,' although less current now than earlier in the century, indicates general assumptions about the origin of the pottery. On the basis of the prominent trading role held by Cypriots and Phoenicians during the Iron Age, as well as the ceramic affinities of this ware to local pottery types of these regions, its origin has generally been assigned to one or other of the regions, or both. The appearance of 'Black-on-Red' wares very often in contexts with other decorated fine wares of the period - eg Cypriot White Painted or Bichrome pottery - has led some to describe a "Phoenician and Cypriote Mischkultur" in which a range of related wares might have been traded together in the same commercial market (Koehl 1985, 24). One assumption arising from use of this term is that it is a trademark ware of Phoenician commercial enterprise, particularly connected with Phoenicians in Cyprus, or that it defines a particular "Cypro-Phoenician" commercial network (Coldstream 1998, 258). Confusingly, other finewares with similar distributions have sometimes been included as "Cypro-Phoenician" wares for this reason (Amiran 1969, 286). The term has also been seen as characterising a particular period of time: a "Cypro-Phoenician" period (eg du Plat Taylor 1959, 87); or simply as synonymous with pre-Iron Age 'east Mediterranean' pottery (eg Albright 1924, 16). Most recently, it has been suggested that the term "Cypro-Phoenician" is appropriate to describe early Iron Age Phoenician Bichrome pottery which has adopted aspects of contemporary Cypriot decoration (Gilboa 1999, 12). In Palestine particularly the use of the term "Cypro-Phoenician" has been found convenient to cover what are regarded as the significant 'imported' wares of the early Iron II period (Amiran 1969, 286). While it should be noted that the term is not used in Cyprus, it remains a concept entrenched in Palestinian Iron Age archaeology (Tufnell 1953, 297; Birmingham 1963, 23; Stern 1978, 52, 62; Culican 1982, 55, 60, 61;

Koehl 1985, 25, 26, 48; Mazar 1985, 81; Bikai 1987, 2; Ben Tor & Portugali 1987, 202; Tappy 1992, 129). The history of this cultural terminology begins early in the last century with J. L. Myres and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter's Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum of 1899. Myres defines the "Graeco-Phoenician Age" as stretching "from the First Introduction of Iron, to the Ptolemaic Conquest of Cyprus in 295 B.C... so named, because throughout it Cyprus was the principal meeting-point of Greek colonists and traders from the West, and of Phoenicians from the East" (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, 21-22). This enormous span of time included Iron Age Black-on-Red ware as well as late Mycenaean-influenced Cypriot types (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, Pl. IV). In 1924, Albright published his excavations at Tell elFul (Gibeah), where he describes "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery concurrent with Aegean Late Bronze Age types and preceding "Philistine" wares (Albright 1924, 16). Albright's use of the term here appears to describe a general region of pottery production. He uses the same terminology in his subsequent Tell Beit Mirsim publication of 1932, but there he also distinguishes a "Cypro-Phoenician" form "of the Iron Age type" which he dates to the 11th century BC (Albright 1932, 54-55, 61). It is from this point it seems that the term "CyproPhoenician" for the Iron Age Black-on-Red ceramic, particularly the small 'perfume'juglet, enters Palestinian archaeology. In 1948, Gjerstad published Volume IV:2 of his Swedish Cyprus Expedition report, in which he set out a typology for the 'Black-onRed' pottery of Cyprus, following Furumark's definition (Furumark 1941, 127). The ware he described corresponded to the Black-on-Red decorated pottery found on the mainland. His typological classification, which included a survey of similar pottery found outside Cyprus in the Levant and Anatolia, served as a basis for future studies of the ware, and the term "Black-on-Red" has since been widely accepted. Gjerstad's corresponding definitions are also used for the related wares, White Painted, Cypriot Bichrome and Bichrome Red (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73, 242-262). Problems remain with this definition as local variants are identified - eg Culican's "Local Blackon-Red" - and scholars attempt to distinguish between 'Cypriot' and 'non-Cypriot' versions of the pottery, following Gjerstad's division (Gjerstad 1948, 270 n.l, 287; 1953, 23; Culican 1982, 55; see Chapter Four). Bikai rightly points out the confusions inherent in this

'cluttering' of the class with "Cypriote, Phoenician and SyroPalestinian Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983,400 n.32). Currently a variety of designations for this distinctive type of pottery are in use (Tappy 1992,129). Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery Few scholars, especially in the Levant, have published or referred to Black-on-Red pottery without attempting to set out their understanding of its origin and chronology. The result is a history of debate on the subject, from the middle of the last century to the present day, and increasing calls for scientific analysis to contribute more conclusive evidence to the issue.1 The main arguments are set out below. In 1932, William Foxwell Albright began the debate with his publication of the pottery from Tell Beit Mirsim, where he asserts that "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery was found in context with Philistine pottery (Albright 1932, 61-62, 72). He states that the "imported Cypro-Phoenician perfume juglet... always occurs in EI I and early EI II deposits in Palestine, and does not descend to a date later than the ninth century... it is absolutely certain that Myres' date for Cyprian specimens of the same category, cir. 700-500 BC is several centuries too low" (Albright 1932, 72). In 1938-1939, Elihu Grant and George Ernest Wright published the early excavations at Beth-Shemesh. They dated Stratum III at the site to the 12th-mid-l 1th century BC, and stated that a "Cypriote" juglet (decorated in Black-on-Red) found in this level "is one of the few in Palestine which can be dated with confidence in the 11th century" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). They further note that this vessel is comparable to pottery appearing in Cyprus "in the early part of Cypro-Geometric I" and accept Albright's lower limit of the 9th century for this ware, though they suggest "it was probably used later than this date in Cyprus" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). In 1948, Einar Gjerstad included Black-on-Red pottery in Volume IV:2 of his Swedish Cyprus Expedition publication. He suggested that it developed in Cyprus from a non-Cypriot prototype that had been 1 The two best summaries of the history of this debate on Black-on-Red pottery are Tappy 1992, 126-132 and Brodie & Steel 1996, 263-264.

imported simultaneously to Cyprus and Palestine from a "third region" which was probably Syro-Anatolia (Gjerstad 1948, 288, 314, 435; 1953, 24). From its first appearance in Cyprus in CyproGeometric IA, c. 1050-950 BC, until the beginning of CyproGeometric III, c. 850 BC, Gjerstad regards this ware as a foreign import (Gjerstad 1944, 99; 1953, 23, 24). The pottery type then continued as a locally made (and exported) type from CyproGeometric III until Cypro-Archaic IIB (Gjerstad 1948, 314). Gjerstad links the development of Black-on-Red pottery with an immigrating people: "From [CG III], the Black-on-Red and Red Slip wares are Cypriote, and represent in shape and decoration a combination of Cypriote and Syrian elements of art... The influence of this pottery extends even to the earlier White Painted and Bichrome wares, so that an entirely new Cypriote art of pottery is formed, characterized by an artistic unification of the foreign and Cypriote elements and indicating an immigration of Syrian tribes to Cyprus at this date" (Gjerstad 1948, 314-315). In 1951, G us Van Beek challenged Gjerstad's chronology, claiming that as this chronology for the Cypriot Iron Age is based on finds of Cypriot pottery in Palestine it is no basis from which to argue against the Palestinian dates assigned to that pottery. He restates Albright's position and claims that "on the basis of the Palestinian evidence... Black-on-Red I must go back to before c. 1025 BC in Cyprus and perhaps before 1050 BC" (Van Beek 1951, 28). He also disputes Gjerstad's denial of the Cypriot origin of the pottery pointing out that it is much more abundant on Cyprus than in any other region, and argues that there is no basis for the Syro-Anatolian migration proposed by Gjerstad (Van Beek 1951, 27). In 1953, Albright published a correspondence with Gjerstad on the chronological discrepancy noted between the ware at Palestinian sites and on Cyprus. Gjerstad reiterates his view that Black-on-Red occurs early in Palestine at the same time as its sporadic appearance in Cyprus, from Cypro-Geometric I, datable c. 1050-950 BC, but that it is manufactured on Cyprus only from Cypro-Geometric III, c. 850700 BC. Gjerstad states that the challenge to his Cypriot dates suggested by the apparent occurrences of Cypriot Black-on-Red in pre-9th century sites in Palestine, can only stand if the material in question is proven to be Cypriot in origin (Albright 1953, 25-26). This he suggests remains in question.

In 1958, Gustavus Swift published the pottery of the 'Amuq sequence in Syria. He re-examined the problems of chronology associated with the Cypriot pottery found in the 'Amuq sites (Tell Tayinat, Tell el-Judeidah and Chatal Hiiyiik) and questioned Gjerstad's claim that the pottery began as a mainland phenomenon before its manufacture was transferred to Cyprus. Swift proposed that the ware was Cypriot in origin, and that Van Beek's high Palestinian dates for Black-on-Red pottery should be lowered and the Cypriot dates raised slightly. He suggests, however, that Gjerstad's view that the pottery was "not made in Cyprus before the ninth century" was probably correct (Swift 1958, 159-161). In 1959, Joan du Plat Taylor re-evaluated the dating of the early levels at the site of Al Mina, at the mouth of the Orontes, in the light of the Cypriot pottery found in them. Woolley had dated Level VIII at the site to c. 700-675 BC (Woolley 1938, 1-30). Du Plat Taylor concludes that Black-on-Red should be subsumed under the group of "Phoenician" wares originating on the southern Phoenician coast and spreading from there to Cyprus (du Plat Taylor 1959, 88). She notes that the Black-on-Red pottery at Al Mina exhibits "at least four classes of fabric, of which the later Slip wares from Levels VII-VI most nearly approach the Cypriot types;" the disappearance of Blackon-Red wares after Level VI indicates that "the Cypro-Phoenician period lasted from the mid-ninth century until the Assyrian invasion in the last half of the eighth" (du Plat Taylor 1959, 75, 77, 87) In 1963, Judy Birmingham reiterated Van Beek's views that Blackon-Red in Cyprus should be dated early, from the 10th century, to correlate with the material in Palestine, chiefly on the basis of the existence of a "homogenous Cypro-Levantine cultural province" during this period. She states that this ware continues in use on the mainland "throughout the ninth... ending in most regions by the end of the eighth" and that its date in Cyprus should be adjusted accordingly, "with late advanced forms only surviving into the seventh." Apart from the later stages of the ware, when it was "widely copied in a variety of Cypriot fabrics," it was a "coastal Phoenician" product, exported to neighbouring areas from the 11th century onwards and "increasing rapidly with the Phoenician 10th century expansion" (Birmingham 1963, 24, 25, 32, 36). In 1963, George Hanfmann published the Iron Age pottery from Tarsus in Cilicia, and distinguished two types of Black-on-Red:

imported and local Cilician, the latter found in kilns at the site. Hanfmann dates 'imported' Black-on-Red, which he suggests has little relation to the local product, to the 11th century and considers "that these small perfume flasks were originated by Phoenicians, perhaps as early as 1100 BC and spread abroad by the Phoenician trade" (Hanfmann 1963, 57). He believes that the appearance of the concentric circle style represents a general change in pottery style at the beginning of the Iron Age, which was adopted earlier in Cilicia than in Cyprus (Hanfmann 1963, 111). In 1968, Frieda Vandenabeele published a discussion of the pottery from Amathus in Cyprus, and proposed a Phoenician origin for Black-on-Red ware, introduced to Cyprus through Phoenician "transactions commerciales" (Vandenabeele 1968, 110). She observed in particular that the burnished examples of Black-on-Red pottery found in Cyprus were specifically Phoenician (Vandenabeele 1968, 111). In 1969, Ruth Amiran, in a broad survey of early pottery in Palestine, stated that current knowledge was insufficient to assign Black-on-Red or any other of the "Cypro-Phoenician" wares an origin "along the coasts of Cilicia, Phoenicia, Israel and Cyprus, where highly developed cultures flourished in the Iron Age," but that the evidence suggested that "this kind of pottery was foreign to the Judaean and Israelite ceramic repertoire and that it was imported from abroad" (Amiran 1969, 286). She notes an increase of this pottery, especially Gjerstad's categories of "Black-on-Red I-II," in the Palestinian chronological periods Iron II Α-B and a decline in Iron II C (c. 800 BC) (Amiran 1969, 286). In 1972, Susan Chapman, publishing pottery from four cemeteries in Syria and South Lebanon, stated that the ware was "unlikely to have originated from the area around Tyre and Sidon" where few examples were found. She observes that it "possibly dates back to the tenth century but the bulk of the material must come from the ninth and eighth centuries" (Chapman 1972, 181-182). She also notes the occurrence of a similar pottery type in the area, perhaps a local imitation, which she calls "Local Black-on-Red" (Chapman 1972, 140, 182). Also in 1972, Moshe Prausnitz published an article on a selection of pottery from the Phoenician cemetery site of Achziv. He argues for the presence of a "proto black-on-red" group that is related to the appearance on the mainland of red-slipped pottery, and from which

the Black-on-Red pottery found in Cyprus develops, but the discussion of the relevant wares and their relationships is brief and unclear (Prausnitz 1972, 156). In 1978, Ephraim Stern published the imported wares found at Tel Mevorakh in some detail, using finds from other Levantine sites to construct a typology of Black-on-Red pottery. He notes regional variations in the forms, and suggests a date range of 10th to 8th centuries BC for the ware on the mainland. In particular, Stern notes that the neck-ridged juglet is "an almost constant component of tenth century tomb assemblages" (Stern 1978, 55). In conjunction with the scientific project of Joseph Yellin and Issac Perlman (1978), he concludes that the origin of the pottery is uncertain, but that it was probably linked with the Phoenician expansion and that there were likely "several contemporary places of manufacture" (Stern 1978, 62). In her studies of Phoenician pottery in Cyprus and in her publication of the Tyre pottery, in 1978, 1983 and 1987, Patricia Bikai attempted to redefine Black-on-Red as an exclusively Cypriot product, distinct from the similarly decorated mainland ware (Bikai 1983, 400 n. 32). Bikai suggests that "true Cypriot Black-on-Red" may have developed from a heterogeneous pottery type she terms "Red Ware," which is found in Cyprus. This shows elements of mainland (ie Phoenician/Canaanite) manufacture but also a "thin black-line decor... that points to the later development of Cypriote Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 400-402). Bikai views all examples of the 'Cypriot' type of Black-on-Red, even when occurring on the mainland, as late, around the 8th century BC, with a relatively short time span (Bikai, pers. comm.). Neutron Activation Analyses were conducted on four samples of Black-on-Red ware from Strata II, V and IX at Tyre and published as an appendix alongside Bikai's study (Bieber 1978). These samples showed a compositional similarity to two sherds of Black-on-Red found in Cyprus, but on the basis of "an overall compositional dissimilarity of this group to the other Cypriot groups and its very general similarity to groups of specimens from Palestine," the author suggests that "this group may be of Syro-Palestinian origin" (Bieber 1978, 88). In 1982, William Culican, in a review of Phoenician pottery, stated that "origins of Cypro-Phoenician Black-on-Red are uncertain, though a growing body of opinion supports, on circumstantial

evidence, an origin in Phoenicia" (Culican 1982, 61). Culican defines two 'traditions' of Black-on-Red found on the mainland, "Local" and "Cypro-Phoenician," the former datable from the 12th to 9th centuries, the latter beginning before the end of this period and continuing to c. 700 BC (Culican 1982, 55-70). In 1985, Amihai Mazar, publishing the few fragments of Black-onRed pottery from Tell Qasile, stated that "most of the juglets and bowls of this ware were found in 10th century BC contexts" and in Cyprus they continue "in smaller numbers" until the 7th century (Mazar 1985, 82). "[TJhe origin of the group remains a mystery. Could it have originated in the Acre Plain and the Carmel region? In any case it must be Levantine in origin, passing to Cyprus with the massive Phoenician immigration there during the 10th century BC, as suggested by Birmingham. The continuation of production of Black on Red ware in Cyprus later than the 10th century BC was the result of this massive Phoenician colonisation" (Mazar 1985, 82 n.220). Mazar further notes: "the relationship between the technique of black decoration on red slip and the origin of the Cypro-Phoenician Blackon-Red group should be considered. It might be argued that the former technique is the predecessor which led to the development of the distinctive Black-on-Red technique, probably somewhere along the Phoenician littoral" (Mazar 1985, 84). In 1987, Melvin Hunt in his discussion of the Tel Qiri pottery (published by Amnon Ben-Tor and Yuval Portugali) concludes "it is clear, given the NAA results from Mevorakh, that separate sources for Cypro-Phoenician and Black-on-Red wares are very unlikely. It seems that the basic chronologies of many sites in one culture or another are off by at least a century. The preponderance of the evidence supplied by Birmingham and van Beek demonstrates that the dates from Palestine are to be preferred" (Hunt 1987, 202). In 1992, Ron Tappy re-examined Kenyon's stratigraphy and chronology of Israelite Samaria, and reviewed the chronology and origin of Black-on-Red pottery which he believed she had misinterpreted (Tappy 1992, 126-132). Tappy restates Mazar's claims for an Israelite origin for this pottery and confirms the 10th century date for the bulk of the pottery put forward by Levantine archaeologists (Tappy 1992, 129 n. 120, 131 ). "The current trend is to view the B-o-R ware as representing a single class of vessel and to direct research to clarifying its place of origin" (Tappy 1992, 127 n.l 14).

Scientific analyses of Black-on-Red have been limited (see Chapter Four, 234-239) for further discussion). In 1978, Joseph Yellin and Issac Perlman conducted Neutron Activation Analyses on a selection of sherds from Tel Mevorakh, comparing them to Black-onRed pottery from three sites in Cyprus. Their results were inconclusive; the pottery from Mevorakh showed similarities to Cypriot wares, but required the blending of various local Cypriot ceramics to gain sufficient correspondence (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 89-90). Also in 1978, Alan Bieber analysed four Black-on-Red sherds from Tyre, but with inconclusive results (see above) (Bieber 1978, 8890). In 1983, J. Matthers, D J. Liddy, G.W.A. Newton, V.J. Robinson and H. Al-Tawel conducted further Neutron Activation Analyses with cluster analysis on Black-on-Red pottery, taking samples from Cyprus, Syria and Palestine. The results were interpreted as indicating several areas of manufacture, including the import of Cypriot wares to Al Mina in Syria, as well as possible different periods of importation between the groups (Matthers et al. 1983, 378-379). In 1996, Neil Brodie and Louise Steel published another archaeometric study of Black-on-Red. This discounts the previous scientific studies on the grounds of their poor sampling range, use of material of unknown provenance, and misleading choice of elements for definition (Brodie & Steel 1996, 271). Using Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, Brodie and Steel examine material from Cyprus, modern Turkey (Al Mina), and sites in Palestine, using both Blackon-Red and local wares as control groups, and conclude that all the pottery was of Cypriot origin. The authors note the presence of two apparent fabric distinctions and draw tentative conclusions about the production and distribution of the wares, attempting to correlate the results of the analysis with Phoenician involvement and settlement on the island in the Iron Age (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274-5). In the Aegean, the appearance of Black-on-Red pottery in the Dodecanese islands and Crete has long been of interest to scholars in indicating the eastward links of Dark Age and post-Dark Age Greece. Research published over the last thirty years by Nicolas Coldstream proposes that Black-on-Red ware is likely to be a product of Cyprus but manufactured under Phoenician influence, especially at Kition from where the Phoenicians exported it (Coldstream 1969, 1982, 1984, 1998). Coldstream views the initial appearance of Black-onRed ware on Rhodes, Cos and Crete as due to Phoenician commerce

with these islands, exploiting a lucrative "unguent trade" (Coldstream 1998, 260). He further suggests that the initial development of the pottery type may have been "influenced by a heavier and coarser Black-on-Red fabric evolved earlier in the southernmost reaches of the Phoenician homeland" (Coldstream 1998, 258). Aims and

Methodology

The implications of the origin and chronology of Black-on-Red pottery are wide-ranging and particularly pertinent to current controversies over Iron Age Levantine chronologies, as well as trade relations in the East Mediterranean during this period. The pottery is distinctive, widely distributed and found in tomb and settlement contexts. Geographically it appears as far west as Crete and the Dodecanese islands, in the Egyptian Delta, Anatolia and in inland Syria as well as throughout the Levant and Cyprus. As is clear from the survey above, past studies of this material have been contradictory, inconclusive and limited in scope and have suffered from the relative regional isolation in which the material has been considered. This book resolves the questions of origin and dating of the material by: • Establishing geographical distribution with association and context. • Establishing a chronology on the basis of key archaeological sites on the mainland. • Investigating the appearance of the ware in Cyprus. • Assessing current scientific data relating to origin. The book also assesses the nature of trade in the ware, its latest stage of production and distribution in the Mediterranean, and its possible implications for the role of the traditional main 'players' in the East Mediterranean, Cyprus and Phoenicia. Chapter One assesses the initial appearance of Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland; Chapter Two assesses the distribution of the pottery on the mainland and its implications; Chapters Three and Four investigate the chief issues of the chronology and origin of the pottery, and, finally, Chapter Five examines its later history and appearance in the west. A database of Black-on-Red pottery has been compiled. This

draws on published and unpublished material and includes sites in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, modern Turkey, Cyprus, Crete and the Dodecanese islands. Where possible the pottery was examined directly. The database is used in assessment of the geographical distribution of the pottery. The chronology of the ware is investigated through examination of the stratigraphical contexts of the pottery at key sites in the Levant and its appearance in Cyprus. Appendix I presents a modified version of the database, including sites from the Levantine mainland. Related material, such as other Cypriot and Phoenician decorated finewares, is investigated stratigraphically and typologically and related to Black-on-Red.

CHAPTER O N E

THE INITIAL APPEARANCE OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY As set out in the introduction to this book, the chief problems of Black-on-Red pottery are those of its origin and chronology. This chapter lays the foundations for subsequent investigation of these issues by examining the background to the appearance of Black-onRed. First, in view of the prevailing confusion over definition of the ware, the chapter defines Black-on-Red pottery as a specific type. Second, it assesses the validity of claims for the earliest examples of this ware at sites on the mainland and establishes a terminus post quern for it. Third, the form, typological development and decoration of Black-on-Red pottery is examined in the light of its initial appearance and the vessel types which might plausibly be its antecedents. The extent to which Black-on-Red pottery bears similarities to Phoenician, Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Cypriot pottery is also assessed. Definition Integral to the question of definition of the Black-on-Red group is the establishment of a single type meaningful as a recognisable and marketable commodity. This requires distinguishing the ware from other similarly decorated types current in the same period, based on a "diagnostic set of design characteristics" (Plog 1990, 63). The existence of a number of so-called 'Black-on-Red' wares has been noted in the preceding survey of past scholarship. Many publications have attempted to borrow from each other in the definition and description of these wares and to postulate the relationships between them. While the pottery type often designated 'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red is, in fact, easily recognisable on examination and has seldom been mistaken for another ware, 'Black-on-Red' continues to be used as a broad classification for a variety of potentially unrelated wares. The

apparent chronological priority of one 'group' of 'Black-on-Red' wares to the 'Cypro-Phoenician' group has increased this confusion, with serious chronological repercussions. One is often assumed to be a forerunner of the other, with the consequent creation of an "early "Black-on-Red"" group (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 77), a "Proto Black-on-Red" group (Prausnitz 1972, 156) and a class of "Local Black-on-Red ware" which "has no immediately obvious relation to the Cypro-Phoenician ware traditionally called Black-onRed" but "could be ancestral or an early parallel" (Culican 1982, 55). The confusion over nomenclature and the interchangeablity of the term 'Black-on-Red' is evident in the publication of Tel Masos, for example, where 'Ashdod ware' is called "a local variant of "Black-on-Red"," and the general dating of this pottery type confirmed by examples of an "early type of "Black on Red" ware" (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 77). The potential confusion over 'Black-on-Red' pottery is due, first, to the simplicity of this definition, and second, to the use of a combination of colours on these wares that was basic to the repertoire of the Levantine potter throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Red and black concentric circles on the bodies of flasks were a common decorative motif in the Late Bronze Age (Amiran 1969, PI. 51:11-15). Red burnished slip was generally rare in the Late Bronze Age but occurs occasionally on chalices and goblets (Amiran 1969, 134; PI. 40:7, 11, 13). Beginning in the late Iron Age I period, however, red slipped and burnished vessels began to appear throughout the Levant, from the regions of Syria and Phoenicia in the north to southern Palestine (Mazar 1985, 83-85; 1998, 373-377). By the Iron II period (10th century onwards) other decorative wares such as Philistine Bichrome pottery had disappeared and the burnished red slip technique became the ceramic hallmark of the region (Mazar 1985, 83-84; 1998, 373-377; Holladay 1990). While the mode of transmission of this technique throughout the Levant remains uncertain, the attractive finish it produced clearly had widespread appeal and its development in different regions is likely to have been related to each another (Mazar 1985, 45, 83-84; Mazar 1998, 376-377). Mazar suggests that the earliest appearance of this technique may have been in the region of Philistia in the southern Levant (Mazar 1985, 45, 83-84; 1998, 376-377). It is likely to have

derived initially from attempts to imitate the surface appearance of copper alloy vessels (cf. Vickers & Gill 1994, 141-144). The application of black paint to the red slipped surface developed naturally alongside the plain red slip technique. In 11th10th century strata at many sites in the southern Levant and in tomb groups in Phoenicia, pottery occurs decorated with bands of black paint on a red surface, either horizontal circumventing the body and neck of a vessel, or as black spirals or concentric circles painted on the interior of bowls (eg. Mazar 1985, 83-84, Figs. 18:18-21, 35: 23, 41:8; Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157). The relationship between these various black painted wares has not yet been satisfactorily studied and is discussed briefly below. It is the resemblance of this 'Black-on-Red' decorative style, however, to that of 'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red that has been responsible for the persistent confusions and lack of precise definition of 'Black-on-Red' pottery. As noted above, one 'Black-on-Red' decorated type stands out amongst these various similarly decorated types. For the purposes of this book, Black-on-Red pottery is defined as the ware described in Gjerstad's typology of 'Black-on-Red' ware in Cyprus (henceforward BoR) (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73). The problematic aspects of Gjerstad's typology, which was constructed for the pottery in Cyprus, are fully examined in Chapter Four. For example, Gjerstad defined a separate category of pottery, the 'non-Cypriot Black-on-Red,' which preceded the pottery of Cypriot origin. This was not included in his typology. The establishment of a single origin for both categories of the pottery would require combining the two into a single group. Also requiring investigation is the extent to which the stratified examples of the pottery on the mainland correspond with the chronology proposed by Gjerstad, in which BoR III (V) follows from II (IV) and I (III). Nevertheless, the pottery type to be investigated in this book is that described by Gjerstad. The following is therefore an abbreviated version of the main characteristics of Gjerstad's BoR pottery. The categories of "BoR I (III)" followed by "BoR II (IV)" represents the location of these pottery types within the overall Cypriot Iron Age pottery sequence. This is further explained in Chapter Four; the divisions are included here simply to indicate Gjerstad's views on the development of the pottery. Gjerstad's typology of BoR focuses on the form and decoration of the wares and incorporates only the

briefest descriptions of their fabric. In general, however, the clay is finely-levigated, with only very small either white or more commonly black inclusions, thin-walled and well-fired. The black line decoration, which sometimes fades to purple or brown, is always carefully applied and the concentric circles are compass-drawn. BoR I (III) (Figure 3) Wheel-made; the clay is reddish-brown; the slip red or reddish-brown, lustrous, or polished; on this slip the ornaments are painted in black, mat colour... The decoration sometimes consists only of encircling lines and bands. The jugs are frequently decorated with intersecting, concentric lines, but isolated, concentric circles, which are placed below the rim of the deep bowls and on the shoulder of the jars, jugs, amphorae, and hydriae, are the most characteristic ornament. (Gjerstad 1948, 68-69).

The main forms belonging in this category are illustrated in Figure 3. The most characteristic types found on the mainland are the deep or shallow bowl with loop handles below the rim or bar handles at the rim, the pedestalled bowl, the barrel-juglet, the handle-ridge juglet and the trefoil-lipped globular-bodied jug (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. XXIV-XXVI).

BoR II (IV) (Figures 4 & 5) Wheel-made; the slip is usually lustrous, but never polished and thinner than that of Black-on-Red I (III); the ornaments on the slip are painted in black, mat colour... 1 The circle style of Black-on-Red I (III) is further advanced in accordance with the development of the circle style in White Painted and Bichrome IV: groups of circles border the circular, intersecting lines: the circles are often connected into vertical or horizontal rows; the outer circle-line is sometimes thicker than the others; the latticed lozenge ornaments have developed into a group of intersecting straight lines. (Gjerstad 1948, 70-71).

1

Note that Gjerstad's observation that this 'second' group of pottery is not burnished ("polished") is not borne out by examination of a large range of this pottery in Cyprus and on the mainland. Evidence of burnishing is present on the majority of BoR pottery throughout the period of its occurrence; where it is not clearly present, the slip is usually lustrous and may have been additionally polished with a cloth or piece of leather. Rarely, and only on late examples of the ware, is the slip entirely matt.

The main forms belonging in this category include the simple-rimmed small bowl with no handles, deep and shallow bowls similar to those appearing earlier and the bowl with carinated rim. Handle-ridge juglets remain especially characteristic, and also in this category are trefoil-lipped juglets, conical juglets and trefoil-lipped jugs (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. XXXVII-XL). BoR III (V) (Figure 6) W h e e l - m a d e ; the slip is usually slightly lustrous or nearly mat, often dark-brown in c o l o u r . . . The decoration is chiefly executed in the circle style, but the ornamental syntax is poor, and the main part of the decoration of the red wares of Type V is in the bichrome technique and is, therefore, found in Bichrome Red II (V). (Gjerstad

1948, 71-72). Few of these late wares have been found on the mainland. The tendency amongst the closed types is towards an increasingly biconical shape or 'heavy' appearance. Bowls tend to be lower and shallower versions of the earlier forms (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII). Earliest Appearances of BoR As seen in the survey of past scholarship on this pottery, an appearance of BoR pottery in early Iron Age contexts at sites in Palestine is at the crux of arguments concerning its origin. If this is the case, either a mainland origin to the pottery must be accepted, against the Cypriot claims, or a serious attempt is required to reassess the low Cypriot chronology so that the period in which the pottery appears on the island is contemporary with its occurrence on the mainland. Chapter Three examines comprehensively the chronology of BoR pottery. Here it is instructive to provide a brief survey of the few early contexts which are claimed to have produced BoR vessels in the 11th century and examine their reliability (Van Beek 1951, 28). This analysis also assesses the stratigraphical relationship of BoR pottery (as defined above) to the other similarly decorated wares of the region. The mainland sites for which an 11th century date for BoR has been proposed are: Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2, Beth-Zur, Gezer Tomb 59, Beth-Shemesh Stratum III, Beersheba Stratum VII and

Shiqmona (Van Beek 1951, 28; Albright 1932, 72; 1943, 9; Sellers 1933, 37, Fig. 31; Macalister 1912a, 330, Fig. 171:6; 1912b, PI. LXXXIV; Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXI:39, PI. LX:22; 1939,133; Herzog 1984, 20-22, 50, Pl. 24:7; Elgavish 1993, 1373-1378). Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2 The debate over the early appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland began with Albright's publication of Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932, 72). The neck and rim of a BoR juglet was found in Silo 43, Locus 12B3, underneath a "stone on which was found a small, but characteristic Philistine crater" (Albright 1943, 9; 1932, Fig. 31:43). A second, complete BoR juglet was found in Room 22 B-4, next to this silo, which Albright dates on the basis of the context of the juglet in the silo (Albright 1932, 72, PI. 51:9; 1943, 9). These two loci belong to Stratum B2; Albright places the end of this stratum at c. 1050, on the basis that the BoR juglet "is not likely to be earlier than cir. 1050 BC" (Albright 1943, 9). A recent attempt to reassess the Iron Age strata at the site fails to take account of the apparent juxtaposition of BoR and Philistine ware in Silo 43, commenting that pottery in the silos is "of a rather homogeneous nature" (Greenberg 1987, 61). The other vessels published from Silo 43 are dated by Greenberg to the 11th century (Greenberg 1987, 75). It is evident that Albright's dating of Silo 43 is not only circular, based on an early date for BoR, but also that the lack of real stratigraphy in the silos, as well as the early excavation and publication of the site, render this early BoR context unreliable. Beth-Zur This site, located near Hebron, was published by Sellers in 1933. A fragment of a possible BoR handle-ridge juglet is published in a photograph of "Early Iron Age Forms" (Sellers 1933, 37, Fig. 31). It is impossible to determine if this is a true BoR juglet, and difficult to see on what basis Van Beek incorporates this vessel into his discussion of 11th century BoR pottery (Van Beek 1951, 28). This evidence is therefore an inadequate basis on which to assess the date of this ware. Gezer Tomb 59 A small fragment of a BoR juglet is published from Tomb 59 at Gezer in association with early Iron Age and Philistine ware (Macalister

1912a, 330, Fig. 171:6; 1912b, Pl. LXXXIV). Although it is not clear whether this tomb had been robbed, it was evidently in use over an extended period with numerous re-interments. Remains of over thirty skeletons were found and "bones and pottery were piled up in complete disorder" (Macalister 1912a, 325). Pottery belonging to this tomb included fragments of Philistine Bichrome pottery, spoon-mouthed pilgrim flasks, basket-handled spouted jugs and an Iron II blackburnished juglet (Macalister 1912a, Fig. 168; 1912b, PI. LXXXIV: 10, 20). The range of the pottery and the state of preservation of the tomb render this context insufficient to provide an indication of date. Beth-Shemesh

Stratum 111

A fragment of a BoR juglet base and, less certain, a BoR rim are assigned to Stratum III at this site (Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXL39, PI. LX:22). A third fragment appears to be White Painted ware (Grant & Wright 1938, PI. XXXVIIL3). The excavators date Stratum III at the site to the 12-11th centuries BC and describe the juglet fragment Pl. LXL39 as "one of the few in Palestine which can be dated with confidence in the 11th century" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). The presence of BoR in Stratum III would make it contemporary with Philistine ware which is dominant in the stratum; other pottery includes wares generally datable to the late Iron I period (eg. Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXI: 37, 31; 1939, 127). No other pottery, however, is published from Room 448 in which the juglet fragment was found and there is no discussion of the loci of any of these fragments. The stratigraphy of this site is generally too imprecise to rely on this early BoR attribution. Beersheba Stratum VII An example of a BoR handle-ridge juglet is published from Stratum VII at this site, from Locus 2307, a floor in Building 2309 (Herzog 1984, 20-22, 50, Pl. 24:7). The excavators suggest a date for this stratum "in the late 11th - early 10th century BCE" on the basis of ceramic parallels with Tel Masos Stratum II and Megiddo Stratum VI (Herzog 1984, 51). Part of Building 2309, however, is noted by the excavators as continuing in use in Stratum VI after the dismantling of the Stratum VII house (Herzog 1984, 20). This suggests that the BoR juglet may have belonged to the later, 10th century Stratum VI. The stratigraphy of the Iron Age levels at Beersheba, including this particular context, is fully discussed in Chapter Three.

Shiqmona This site has not yet been fully published, but preliminary reports indicate the presence of BoR pottery in the latest Iron I level: in a house "probably destroyed in the eleventh century B.C.E." (Elgavish 1993, 1374). In the absence of full publication of this site this finding must remain in question. Discussion These contexts therefore represent the earliest examples of BoR cited from levels on the mainland. The excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim, BethZur, Gezer and Beth-Shemesh were conducted in the first part of the century and the contexts of the pottery under consideration are therefore of very limited reliability. No detailed plans of the settlement loci are published and the Gezer tomb is too disturbed to provide a satisfactory date. The context of the BoR juglet in Beersheba Stratum VII is not wholly reliable because of re-use of the building in which it was found and, while more reliable in terms of modern excavation techniques, the overall dating scheme for the Iron Age levels at this site is problematic. As noted, this is discussed further in Chapter Three, but the excavators' transitional 11th-10th century BC date may be too early. While Shiqmona may possibly provide evidence for an early appearance of the ware, assessment of this site awaits full publication. In considering the position of this early BoR pottery on the mainland, three additional points are to be noted: 1. The absence of BoR in contexts prior to the 10th century at sites where earlier levels are present and well preserved: 2 Hazor Megiddo Tell Keisan Tell Qasile Ta'anach Beth-Shan Tell el-Far'ah (N) 2

(BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR

appears in Stratum XB, none in XI) in Stratum VA-IVB, none in Stratum VI) appears in Niv. 8, none in Niv. 9) in Stratum IX, none in Stratum X) in Period IIB, none in Period IIA) in Lower Level V, none in Level VI) appears in Stratum Vllb, none in Vila)

For full discussion of the contexts of BoR and the Iron A g e stratigraphy at these sites, see Chapter Three; for Tell Masos which is not included, see Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 80.

Tell Abu Hawam Tel Masos

(BoR in Stratum III, none in IV) (no BoR in Stratum II, dated late 11th-10th century BC)

2. The presence of other Black-on-Red pottery types in strata immediately preceding those in which BoR is present: Tell Qasile Beersheba

(Stratum X) (Strata IX-VIII)

Red slip jugs decorated with black bands, pilgrim flasks and spoonmouthed flasks with black concentric circles on a red slip and basket-handled strainer-spouted jugs with black bands are all assigned to Stratum X at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985, 63-65, 71, 74; Photo 63; Figs. 35:2-3, 36:1, 49:5-6, 50:2). At Beersheba, a redslipped black-painted basket-handled jug appears in Stratum IX, and a red slipped pyxis decorated with black horizontal lines in Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984, Figs. 19:7; 20:15). These pottery types will be further examined below, but their appearance in levels preceding those containing early BoR examples should be noted. 3. The presence of what may be an imported BoR juglet at Lapithos in Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I. Gjerstad describes this vessel, which appears in Tomb 417, as a "Red Slip painted small, depressed oval jug with flat base; narrow neck with handle-ridge; handle from neck to shoulder. Encircling lines round neck and body; one group of concentric circles on shoulder. Mouth missing. Foreign ware. Height 7.6. Inside no. 81 [WPI oval amphora]." (Gjerstad 1934, 230, No. 82, Pl. L). Recent photographs have confirmed that this vessel is a BoR juglet (Figure 2:1). Gjerstad further comments that "all the Cypriote pottery found in this tomb is exclusively of early Type I... which shows that the tomb dates from the early part of Cypro-Geometric I. The three specimens of foreign pottery are noteworthy" (Gjerstad 1934, 232). This context may, therefore, support an early production date for BoR, on Gjerstad's dating of Cypro-Geometric I c. 1050-950 BC (Gjerstad 1948,427). However, the problems of correlation between the Cypriot and mainland chronologies remain to be investigated. This vessel is also further discussed in Chapter Four (261).

Black-on-Red

Antecedents?

As was seen in the introductory survey of scholarship on BoR pottery, the question of the origin of the ware has been addressed either in scientific terms, or on a quantitative or chronological basis. Neutron Activation Analysis and other scientific methods have been employed in attempting to pinpoint regions of production but the results have been inconclusive (Yellin & Perlman 1978, Matthers et al. 1983, Brodie & Steel 1996; see Chapter Four, 234-239). Both other approaches have been unsatisfactory, with the quantitative approach tending to support a Cypriot origin and the chronological generally an origin on the mainland. Little research has yet been conducted on the typological development of BoR, despite recognition of its "Cypro-Phoenician" affinities and the possibility of association with other similarly decorated forms (Mazar 1985, 84). While an increasing quantity of early 'Black-on-Red' decorated wares published from the region of Phoenicia encourages assessment of the relations between these pottery types, pottery from Phoenicia generally comes from tomb groups, which are less reliable than stratified sites (eg. Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). The most reliable 'Black-on-Red' decorated pottery, therefore, in terms of its precedence to BoR is that found at stratified sites in the southern Levant, and these are the focus of the discussion below. The following questions are addressed here: 1. How can BoR proper be related typologically to these early Black-on-Red types? Are there other forms from the preceding period that may have influenced the earliest manufacture of the BoR type? 2. Are there any Phoenician types that could be chronologically as well as typologically significant? 3. How does the earliest BoR relate typologically to Late Cypriot and early Cypro-Geometric forms? Other Early Black-on-Red

Pottery on the

Mainland:

Black-on-Red decoration appears on a fairly narrow range of early

Iron I vessels. A single example of a pyxis decorated with red slip and black horizontally painted lines was found in each of Tel Masos Stratum II (Area H), Beersheba Stratum VIII, and Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:5; Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:15; Mazar 1985, 77, Fig. 27:21) (.Figure 7:1-3). This pottery type, a fairly squat vessel carinated at the shoulder and near the base and with either two lug or loop-handles, was originally derived from a Mycenaean prototype (Amiran 1969, 277; PI. 96). It was already imitated in the Late Bronze Age, and continued into the Iron I period, occasionally decorated with painted bands. It declined by the Iron II period (Amiran 1969, 277; Mazar 1985, 77). At Beersheba, the Black-on-Red decorated pyxis appears in the same locus (1306) in Stratum VIII as another red slipped but undecorated, taller pyxis (Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:16). The excavator notes the scarcity of painted vessels in the succeeding strata at the site, VII and VI (in which BoR pottery appears) and that the ceramic repertoire of Stratum VIII is more closely associated with Stratum IX (the earliest Iron Age stratum) than with VII and VI (Herzog 1984, 46). This suggests that this early Black-on-Red decoration may be derivative of the early Iron Age ceramic tradition (see below). At Tel Masos, the Black-on-Red decorated pyxis appears in the same locus as a Black-on-Red decorated jug in Stratum II: House 314, Room 307 (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4) (Figure 7:5). The jug is not burnished, unlike the pyxis. The Black-on-Red pyxis from Tell Qasile is the only vessel published from the locus (302) in which it is found (Mazar 1985, Fig. 27:21). However a variety of other Black-on-Red decorated vessels are found in Stratum XI at Tell Qasile: a Black-on-Red decorated bottle, which resembles an elongated pyxis (Figure 7:4), bowls (Figure 7:8-9), an amphoriskos (Figure 7:7) and a fragmentary vessel on three feet (Mazar 1985, Figs. 19:42, 22:1, 5, 29:14, 15, 30:22, 31:6). The form and decoration of the bowls and pyxis bear similarities to local Philistine pottery found in the same stratum, while the origin of the bottle shape is less certain. 3 Black-on-Red decoration also appears on pilgrim flasks in the 3

Note however that this bottle shape is paralleled by similar vessels in Cyprus from Cypro-Geometric I, decorated in White Painted and Bichrome techniques, and it may perhaps indicate a similar sphere of influence (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. V:5-6, VIII: 23; Amiran 1969, 277).

Iron Age (Figure 8:1-3). This is again a Late Bronze Age shape which continues into the Iron Age. Lentoid flasks with a black painted concentric circle design on red slip are found at Tell Qasile Stratum X, Ashdod Stratum X and Tel Masos Stratum II (Mazar 1985, 71, Fig. 37:2; Dothan 1971, 159; Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 159:7). In the earlier Stratum XI at Tell Qasile, an example of a variation on this form with a spoon-mouthed rim and two loop handles on the shoulder was found decorated in black concentric circles on a red slip (Mazar 1985, 74, Photo 80; Fig. 20:13). Amongst the other examples of this type from Iron I contexts elsewhere, however, none have been found similarly decorated (Mazar 1985, 74). A development from the original lentoid pilgrim flask is the spherical or globular jug, which sometimes has one handle only. This is also found in Iron I contexts, but only one example is so far known decorated in Black-on-Red (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 148:1) (Figure 8:4). These globular jugs are generally not red slipped and are decorated instead in black or red or a combination of the two colours. The 'Phoenician Bichrome' version of this vessel becomes characteristic of the early Iron Age Phoenician pottery repertoire (Mazar 1985, 74-76; Bikai 1987, 48). Several examples of plain jugs with high neck and flat base have also been found with red slip and black painted horizontal lines (Figure 8:5). Three examples of this type are found at Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Figs. 41:8, 49:5-6). A number of similar jugs in this stratum are decorated only in red slip, including one small example with a faint neck ridge (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:7, 49:7-8; 41:14) (Figure 8:6). A jug with a more pronounced neck ridge and decorated with black horizontal bands on a burnished red slip was found at Tel Masos in Stratum II (Area H) in context with the Blackon-Red pyxis (noted above) (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4). It should be noted, however, that a ridged neck is rare on these Blackon-Red decorated wares, while it is common on the Bichrome decorated globular jugs from the same period which are characteristic of the Phoenician repertoire (Chapman 1972, 150-152, Fig. 3; Bikai 1987, 48). Culican suggests that the jug from Tel Masos should be related to his category of "Phoenician Local Black-on-Red ware" (Culican 1982, 57; and see below). Another early Black-on-Red type is the basket-handled strainer jug (Figure 8:7). This shape, known as early as the Middle Bronze Age,

continues into the Iron Age, and is adopted into the Philistine repertoire of shapes (Amiran 1969, 251; Mazar 1985, 64-65). At Qasile, however, four examples are known of Black-on-Red versions from Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Figs. 35:2-3, 36:1, 50:2). The first three of these were found in the same locus (188) as almost identical jugs with Philistine Bichrome decoration. A parallel example is found at Beth-Shemesh Stratum III (Grant & Wright 1938, PI. LX:18). It should, in addition, be noted that a variety of other Black-on-Red decorated wares are known from levels on the mainland which are contemporary or later than the initial appearance of BoR ware. These are most likely developments from the earlier Black-on-Red wares, or at least related to the same local pottery traditions, but the technique is now applied to the range of forms common in the later period. These later types include "Ashdod ware," which first appears in the 10th century Stratum X at Ashdod and continues throughout Iron Age II at the site in a range of (non-Philistine) forms (Dothan 1971, 97-98, Figs. 74:15; 41:22, 25-27; also Culican 1973, 98) {Figure 8:8-10). Mazar notes the peculiarity of the appearance of this Black-on-Red pottery at Ashdod at a point at which the early Black-on-Red decorated wares had ceased at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985, 83-84). While this is perhaps surprising, this regionality of the Black-on-Red technique suggests that it is an organic development from the introduction of red slip pottery, and it should caution against attempting to relate the origin of BoR pottery to a single production area of earlier Black-on-Red. Phoenician

Pottery

Belief in the Phoenician involvement in the development of BoR is reflected in the designation "Cypro-Phoenician" for this pottery, as has been discussed above. Lack of excavation in the area of Phoenicia, modern Lebanon, however, and the consequent uncertain chronology for Phoenician ware, which is largely typological and based on tomb groups from this region, from Cyprus and from further west, renders it particularly problematic in attempting to assess its relationship to BoR (cf. Gal 1992, 185 n.9). Scholars of Phoenician pottery have been reluctant to align the chronology of these wares with any of the currently available Near Eastern chronologies for the region, relying instead on internal pottery schemes (Culican 1982, 68; Bikai 1987,48 n. 1,50-63).

In general, the shapes of Phoenician pottery bear little resemblance to BoR shapes: the earliest phase of Phoenician pottery is represented by the development of the globular neck-ridged jug which appears predominantly with bichrome or polychrome decoration (Bikai 1987, 48) (Figure 9:1-2). Gradually, however, red slipped vessels become more popular in the Phoenician repertoire. The most common of these are the conical-necked jug with trefoil lip, the heavy-walled juglet and later the mushroom-lipped jug which appears with both Bichrome and Red Slip decoration (Bikai 1987, 49) (Figure 9:3-7). The heavywalled juglet with its flat base, handle from neck to shoulder, faint neck ridge and everted rim (Figure 9:5-6) has in particular been regarded as a significant shape in the development of the BoR juglet (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). None of these red-slipped types, however, appear to precede the introduction of BoR pottery on the mainland (although the earliest examples of trefoil-lipped jugs are probably contemporary with the earliest BoR; see also Chapter Two, 48-51). These vessels cannot therefore be viewed as precedents for BoR. Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus, however, identifies a type of Phoenician ware occurring in early contexts on Cyprus which she designates "Red Ware" and suggests may be a possible predecessor of BoR (Bikai 1983,400-404; 1987, 59-60). This ware is coarse and soft with a thick, dark red slip and is hand-burnished, with painted decoration in "fine black (and sometimes white) lines or circles" (Bikai 1983,401). The forms in which the ware appears are lentoid pilgrim flasks, globular flasks and large "dipper" juglets with trefoil rim (Bikai 1983,401; 1987, 5-6, 59-60, PI. Π: 2-4, 7-9, 10-12, 14, Pl. Ill: 21, 19) {Figure 9:8-11). Bikai notes that only one globular jug with neck-ridge was found in this ware type; this vessel also dates later than the other examples of this type, to Cypro-Geometric II-III (Bikai 1987, 60, PI. XXV:20). The earliest 'Red Ware' vessels in Cyprus are found in context with Late Cypriot IIIB pottery but are more commonly found in Cypro-Geometric I-II contexts (Bikai 1987, 59-60). Both the pilgrim flask and the dipper juglet are common in the Iron I period on the mainland, although the currently limited excavation in Phoenicia precludes our assessment of early Iron Age wares in this region (eg. Amiran 1969, PI. 93, 84:13-15). A limited number of examples of 'Red Ware,' however, have been found in Phoenician tombs on the mainland, probably belonging to early Iron Age contexts and contemporary with the early Black-on-Red pottery in the south,

in the 11th century BC (Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157; Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). The forms in these tombs bear some similarities to those found in the south-pilgrim flasks, a red-slipped jug with black bands similar to that at Tel Masos and a strainer spouted jug with single handle (Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157; Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). As at sites along the southern Levantine coast, Black-on-Red decorated wares continue to appear in the region of Phoenicia in the same period as BoR. Culican's group of "Local Black-on-Red Ware" included Bikai's 'Red Ware' group amongst his early examples of "Local Black-on-Red," but also examples of Black-on-Red decorated "globular jugs with squared-off or rounded rims in the tradition of the (usually smaller) bichrome flasks" (Culican 1982, 59). Culican dates these latter until the mid-9th century (Culican 1982, 59, 68; Abb. 5ac). A number of other (unpublished) examples of Black-on-Red decorated wares in forms that show interesting similarities in motifs to BoR have been found in tombs at Tell er-Rachidiyeh and are tentatively dated later than the 9th century (Doumet, pers. comm.). 'Red Ware' is further discussed in Chapter Four. Late Cypriot and Early Cypro-Geometric

Pottery

Although Late Cypriot pottery was frequently found on the mainland during the Late Bronze Age, there is little in either the forms themselves or their decoration to relate them to BoR. No Late Cypriot pottery was decorated in Black-on-Red. In the Cypro-Geometric period various forms later found on BoR pottery begin to appear on decorated wares in Cyprus. Wide and shallow bowls and the deeper bowl, with two horizontal handles either at the rim or below it, are known in White Painted I ware (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. I) (Figure 10:1-5). These have bands of horizontal dark paint around the bodies of the vessels, and painted handles. The bowl on a raised foot also appears, decorated in the typical White Painted metope design (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. II) (Figure 10:6-7). Jugs are either ovoid or more globular with a low foot and pinched rim, or globular or barrel-shaped with "collar-shaped" rim. A small neck ridge appears on one form of the latter and both types have a single handle (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. 111:12-15, 17, IV:9-13) (Figure 10:8-9, 11-13). Examples of the basket-handled jug with spout and low foot are also present in White Painted I as well as a "squat" juglet

with round base, flaring rim and handle from neck to shoulder (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 1, 15-18) {Figure 10:18,10). Bichrome I ware (Figure 10:15) appears in similar shapes to White Painted I, with the addition of a flat base on the globular jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14, 15) (Figure 9:15). Also present in Bichrome I is a flask with two handles and lentoid body with features of both the pilgrim flask and the barrel juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 22) (Figure 10:17). In White Painted II ware the bowls tend to have flatter, wider bases; those with raised foot become a goblet-type shape (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:7-16) (Figure 11:1-5). The barrel-shaped jugs now have a flared rim and handle-ridge, "the collar-shaped mouth of the White Painted I jugs having been elongated into a funnel, while the rudiment of the collar has been transformed into a handle-ridge, from which the handle runs down to the shoulder" (Gjerstad 1948, 52; Fig. XIII:6-7) (Figure 11:6). Small globular juglets also appear without handle-ridge but with flared rim, flat base and handle drawn from the neck (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. ΧΙΠ: 11-12) (Figure 11:10-11). The footed base of the pinched-rim jugs tends to be elongated and the baskethandled jugs have a more pronounced ovoid body and footed base (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 17-21) (Figure 11:13-14). Bichrome II is again similar to WP II in shape. Among the shapes only assigned to Bichrome II are the globular juglet with flared rim and round base, handle drawn from the neck (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:4), the oval jug with ring base, handle-ridged mouth and flared rim (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5) and the strainer-spout jug with handle from shoulder to neck, which appears for the first time at this stage (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:9) (Figure 11:17-19). A trefoil-lipped jug with flat base and handle from rim to shoulder also seems to be new at this time (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5). White Painted III sees the introduction of the juglet with handleridge which is "influenced from the Black-on-Red I (III) ware" (Gjerstad 1948, 54; Fig. XIX:4) (Figure 12:6). A similar Black-onRed I (III) influence is noted in Bichrome III: the juglet with wide flat base and small body (Gjerstad 1948, 61; Fig. XXIIilO) (Figure 12:13). Another new type is the "sack-shaped jug...which seems to be influenced from the Plain White jugs with a sack-shaped body" (Gjerstad 1948, 61; Fig. XXIII:2) (Figure 12:19). This general survey of the early Cypro-Geometric pottery types, as classified by Gjerstad in his typology of 1948, suggests that there are

possible similarities between the shapes of BoR and earlier ceramic shapes in the Cypriot repertoire. A crucial consideration, however, in the use of Gjerstad's pottery typology in assessment of Cypriot traits to be found in BoR, is his chronology for these pottery types. This generally places White Painted and Bichrome I and II in the 11th-10th centuries BC and fits BoR pottery into a scheme which puts its introduction only at the later stages of these Cypriot wares, in group III. Stratigraphical evidence from the mainland may suggest that BoR is in fact appearing contemporaneously with these early decorated types. The possible example of "foreign" BoR in a CG I context at Lapithos in Cyprus should also be taken into account. These issues are further examined in Chapters Three and Four. Discussion The relationship between the technique of black decoration on a red slip and the origin of the Cypro-Phoenician Black-on-Red group should be considered. It might be argued that the former technique is the predecessor which led to the development of the distinctive Black-on-Red technique, probably somewhere along the southern Phoenician littoral. (Mazar 1985, 84)

It is clear from the survey above of early Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland, in the southern Levant and Philistia, and further north in Phoenicia, that the shapes in which this Black-on-Red pottery occurs bear little resemblance to BoR forms. A few BoR forms, however, possess features also found on the earlier mainland Black-on-Red pottery. These are: 1. The handle-ridge juglet, which is possibly the most common BoR form to be found in early Iron II levels in Palestine, and is noted by Gjerstad as a non-Cypriot type (Gjerstad 1948: 69, Figs. XXV:9-10, Fig. XXXVIII: 9-10) (Figure 3:9). Gjerstad places the handle ridge for the first time in his White Painted II category as a development of the "collar-shaped" rim of the White Painted I style (Gjerstad 1948, 52). The essential features of this vessel type, however, also bear similarities to the globular jug with neck-ridge which appears in early Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland (Figure 7:5). 2. The bottle, which Gjerstad assigns to his BoR II (IV) category and is similar in shape to the pilgrim flask (Gjerstad 1948: Fig.

XXXIX: 17) (Figure 5:9). The pilgrim flask occurs decorated in mainland Black-on-Red style (Figure 8:1-3). 3. The elongated oval 'dipper' style vessel, which resembles the typical Iron Age mainland dippers and the examples found decorated in Bikai's 'Red Ware' (Gjerstad 1948, 69, Fig. XXV: 16) (Figure 3:10, 9:8-9). In general, however, the forms in which BoR appears do not bear a strong resemblance to the early Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland. In the case of the Black-on-Red pottery along the southern coastal region, in Philistia, the shapes and ornamentation of this Black-on-Red ware follow closely the 'Philistine' tradition of decorated wares. This pottery is perhaps best regarded as a local and reasonably popular variant on the later styles of Philistine decoration with which it is contemporary. It also appears from examination of Bikai's 'Red Ware' that this pottery type is a Black-on-Red decorated variant of local Phoenician pottery types in early Iron Age contexts. Nevertheless, the presence of these Black-on-Red decorated vessels in circulation in the period prior to the introduction of BoR should be noted. It must remain a strong possibility that the introduction of red slip, often burnished, to pottery on the mainland in the Iron Age I period was the source of inspiration for the red slip which characterises the later BoR pottery. It is also possible that the combination of black paint on a red slip inspired the decoration of BoR. In assessing the means of transmission of the Black-on-Red decorative technique, the presence of examples of 'Red Ware' on Cyprus should be noted, as well as the presence of BoR in levels succeeding Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland. The transference of the decorative technique could therefore have taken place in either location. Also notable is the similarity between some BoR types and those found in the earlier Cypriot pottery repertoire. Of the main BoR bowl types, Gjerstad claims that four out of six are "of entirely Cypriote tradition," while the two other types appear in the contemporary WP III and Bichrome III wares (Gjerstad 1948, 69, Fig. XXV:2-3). This may be of significance in assessing the means of diffusion of the BoR style. Chapter Two examines the distribution of container versus noncontainer vessels. The possibility that this apparent discrepancy between the common forms of closed vessel, which bear some

similarities to mainland types, and open vessels, which are closer to local Cypriot shapes, suggests that BoR was initially developed as a ware for container vessels and developed in local Cypriot shapes once they had been introduced to the island is considered there. Conclusions This chapter has assessed some of the outer parameters of BoR pottery. It has investigated the apparently early contexts of BoR pottery on the mainland, and established that there is no satisfactory evidence with which to date this pottery to the 11th century BC. A survey of the strata on the mainland in which the pottery first appears suggests that a terminus post quem for this ware can be established in terms of relative chronology. These strata are further investigated in Chapter Three and an absolute chronology proposed. Finally, this chapter has defined the pottery as distinct from other Black-on-Red decorated wares and investigated the relationship of form and decoration between the types. It seems likely that the early Black-onRed decorated wares on the mainland were local variations on the local pottery repertoires of the coastal Levantine regions, and that the similarity between these types and BoR essentially lies only in its decorative combination. These issues are fully assessed in Chapter Four which investigates the origin of BoR pottery.

s:

«5 -J •s s ο to to 02

ίο. U è
§

CHAPTER TWO

THE DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY IN THE LEVANT AND THE NATURE OF ITS TRADE This study, as with any involving the analysis of archaeological material, is subject both to the vicissitudes of its original deposition and to the naturally random element of excavation work. Thus it has certain and obvious limitations. First, there is the question as to how far the corpus of pottery studied at a site is representative of the range and quantity of pottery originally in use in the stratum excavated. It is impossible to estimate the percentage of surviving vessels from those originally in circulation, especially outside burial contexts. In the absence of preserved whole assemblages, such as those from the storage areas of a shipwreck, we cannot be secure in our calculations of the proportions of different vessel types in use. Burial contexts often produce proportionately a far higher quota of pottery than settlement contexts, which tends to inflate the prominence of the site concerned in the overall pottery distribution pattern. Lastly, when a single stratum is seldom completely exposed over a whole site, the number of vessels preserved for the archaeologist from that stratum will be arbitrary. Second, the study may be compromised by the research strategy and the reliability of excavation techniques employed. The personal goals of the excavator, particularly in older excavations, are often selective, as at Al Mina where Leonard Woolley attempted to identify a Greek colony and consequently gave disproportionate emphasis to "Greek" material in his reports (Woolley 1938).1 Many of the excavations in the Levant were conducted in the first half of the century when there was inadequate control over the material and therefore now little possibility of retrospective analysis of pottery loci and context from the publications. Many more recently excavated sites have not yet been published.

1

See Papadopoulos 1997 for discussion of 'Hellenocentric' views, particularly in relation to Euboean enterprise.

Third, there is the nature of the pottery under investigation. In the case of BoR, this is primarily the extent to which its high "recognition-factor" may have influenced the proportions of this ware recorded relative to local wares. There is also the possibility of recurrent confusion between unpainted BoR sherds and sherds of Red Slip or Bichrome Red pottery. The arbitrariness with which BoR pottery is still being classified by excavators as 'Phoenician' or 'Cypriot' on account of persisting confusions over definition and origin has been discussed in the Introduction and is one of the primary reasons for undertaking the investigations in this book. In addition to these factors, the pattern of excavation in the Levant is unequal throughout the region. In Cyprus and Phoenicia most sites are cemeteries or groups of tombs isolated from the settlement to which they were originally attached. The only settlement sites so far excavated from the period of Iron Age in Phoenicia proper are Tyre and Sarepta, both of which were limited soundings. The sites are for the present inaccessible. More recent excavations in Beirut, Sidon and Tell Kazel further north may succeed in balancing the picture, but excavation in Lebanon is presently hindered by political circumstances. In Egypt, few sites have been excavated from the Third Intermediate Period (21st to 25th Dynasties: 1070 - 665 B.C.) and at fewer still has the pottery been fully published. In Israel a far greater proportion of settlement sites have been excavated and excavation is much denser throughout the country, in large part because of the high international profile of the country's Biblical history and consequent financial support for excavation from within Israel and from interested parties abroad. Archaeological techniques have advanced significantly over the past fifty years and the modern political situation in Israel has been conducive to their exploitation. While much of our knowledge of ancient Phoenicia and Syria must therefore still rely on the results of early, poorly published excavations, the results of recent investigations in Israel, which include the re-excavation of old sites, have produced an impressive databank for ceramic studies. Account must, therefore, be taken of possible discrepancies in the archaeological record for some regions. However, despite these discrepancies, analysis of the distribution of BoR pottery in the Levant can provide some important clues to its origin, to its date, to the nature of the trade itself and to the trade networks through which it travelled.

Methodology The chief issues investigated in this chapter, with the aid of distribution maps, contribute, it is hoped, to resolution of the fundamental problems of BoR pottery, its origin and date, which are fully examined in Chapters Three and Four. In assessing the distribution patterns of this pottery, this chapter also throws important light on the nature of trade in BoR. The chapter is therefore divided into several parts. First, the relative distribution patterns of BoR open and closed shapes on the mainland (Israel, Phoenicia, Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt) are assessed. This provides an indication of whether these types seemed to have been traded together, perhaps as part of a 'set' of decorated pottery for household use. Alternatively, differences in the distribution pattern of these vessels might indicate that the juglets were container vessels, transported and acquired with their contents, while the bowls, and perhaps jugs, were used in a domestic context as "tableware." Second, the distribution of BoR is compared to other distinctive wares of the period, in order to elucidate the trade networks through which it may have been distributed. White Painted and Bichrome pottery are first examined, which have generally been accepted as beginning at an earlier stage than BoR and might provide an indication of whether BoR represented a continuation of trade in these wares. Second, the extent to which BoR is associated with Phoenician pottery is examined. Third, while essentially too broad a subject for consideration here, a brief discussion of the general pattern of Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery distribution in the Levant is included in order to determine whether BoR distribution shares any features with this earlier trade in Cypriot wares. The sequence of appearance of BoR juglets versus other BoR forms is also assessed in order to help determine whether the BoR style developed for other vessel shapes as a 'spin-off' from a lucrative established trade in the contents of the juglets. Finally, the last part of this chapter discusses two chief aspects of the distribution pattern of BoR in the light of the results attained in this survey: first, the commodities possibly conveyed in the pottery, and, second, the routes by which it may have travelled. The Distribution Maps (1-24) relate to the issues outlined above. The quantities of pottery in each case are based primarily on published material, largely because of the inaccessibility of pottery from unpublished excavations. Where possible, unpublished material

has been included and in all cases the BoR pottery from the sites in this study has been examined. For this reason, however, the numbers of each pottery type may be taken as a minimum. The following survey is likely to be reasonably representative of the proportions of pottery in each case, but it is hoped that future excavation will be able to increase the present corpus. In the interests of the clarity of the text, references to all the vessels included in this Chapter are listed separately in Appendix I at the end of the book. Also, in view of the extensive investigation into the stratification of BoR pottery in the following Chapter Three, the stratification of BoR is discussed here only where directly relevant to the argument. It should further be noted that not all the strata included in the study below are equally reliable. Appendix II presents some statistical results from this distribution study. Results BoR Juglets (Map 5) 364 juglets (59% of the total amount of BoR pottery) were found from the sites on the mainland investigated in this survey. In Israel, the distribution of BoR juglets is very widespread at early Iron II sites 2 and reflects a significant level of contemporary use. The juglets appear in relatively similar quantities throughout the region west of the Jordan, ranging from one or two vessels to upwards of fifteen. In the south they are found in the region of Judea and in the northern Negev, from Tell ez-Zuweyid, Tell er-Reqeish, Tel Fara (S), Tell Jemmeh and Tell el-Ajjul near the coast, to Tel Halif and Beersheba further inland. A relatively large number are found in the tombs at Lachish and at Tell en-Nasbeh, and small numbers at Beth-Shemesh, Jerusalem, Jericho and Hebron. BoR juglets are found in the Jordan Valley, at Beth-Shan, Pella, and in the current excavations at Tel Rehov, but so far no further east than the eastern shore of the Galilee, at 'Ein Gev. No BoR pottery has yet been published from the Transjordan itself. Examples are also found at Samaria and nearby Tell el-Farah (N). 2

This has been noted by numerous Israeli excavators, and is at the root of the problem of its use in chronological assessment of strata at Israeli sites. See Stem 1978, 55.

In northern Israel, BoR juglets are found at almost all sites of the period and in proportionally higher quantities than in the south of the country. They are found especially around the Akko Bay area, at Mt. Carmel, Tell Abu Hawam, Achziv, Tel Kabri, Tell Keisan and Hurvat Rosh Zayit. They appear also further south along the coast at Tel Mevorakh and Tel Dor, and at sites along the River Kishon: Yoqneam, Tel Qiri and Tel Qashish. Further inland they appear at Ta'anach and in relatively large quantities at Megiddo. In Phoenicia proper, BoR juglets appear at Tyre, Sarepta, Byblos, Beirut, and at a few inland cemetery sites - Joya, Qraye and Khirbet Silm. Juglets are present in minimal quantities at some of the few sites excavated along the northern coast, such as Tell Sukas, Ras Bassit and Tabbat al-Hammam and in relatively larger quantities at Tell Kazel. Excavation in this region is at present notably limited. The total quantity of BoR pottery at Tell Kazel (23 vessels) suggests that future excavations, for example those currently in progress at Sidon, may uncover a more significant sample of pottery, but the present evidence shows a limited distribution in this region. In Syria, BoR juglets occur inland in the 'Amuq region, at Hama and further east in the Yunus graves at Carchemish. A limited number only of non-classical sites have been excavated in modern Turkey, especially in the more inaccessible southern region of the country closest to the Levant and directly opposite Cyprus (Mellaart 1955, 122).3 Al Mina, at the north-eastern corner of the Mediterranean yielded a number of juglets, as also did nearby Kinet Hoyiik and Kilise Tepe (unpublished) and Zinjirli. BoR juglets are also found at Tarsus. 4 In Egypt, BoR pottery is altogether rare. In part this is probably due to haphazard excavation of the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (cf. Weinstein 1998, 192). Little material from this period has been published since Petrie's excavations at the turn of the century and the subsequent survey of Cypriot pottery abroad by Gjerstad in 1948. Archaeological excavation was also in its infancy when most of the major sites were investigated, and BoR pottery is often published as part of an "Aegean" repertoire intermixed with Late Bronze Age 3 Birmingham notes that the southern part of Anatolia generally s h o w s "little contact with the Cilician-Cypriot zone," and no BoR pottery is found in this region (Birmingham 1964, 33). 4 Pottery kilns found at Tarsus provide evidence of the production of imitation BoR wares at the site, alongside the 'imported' wares. This phenomenon is examined further in Chapter Four.

wares, and seldom presented in any detail. 5 Gjerstad notes that one BoR juglet was found at Lahun, just south of the Fayum, one at Sanam, one at Memphis and possibly two at Naukratis (Gjerstad 1948, 240-241). The only BoR pottery noted so far from beyond the Delta is a possible BoR bowl at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt. 6 Late Bronze Age importation of Cypriot pottery to Egypt is similarly restricted: while Base Ring juglets appeared in some quantity, especially at coastal sites such as Marsa Matruh (Hulin 1989, 120121), White Slip pottery is very rare, and both pottery types have a restricted chronological range in Egypt (Prag 1985, 157, 159; Bergoffen 1991, 69). BoR Jugs (Map 6) While the distribution of BoR jugs in Israel covers a range as broad as that of BoR juglets, the quantities of this larger vessel type are minimal (only 35 in total). A limited number of jugs appear at a few southern sites in Israel, like Ashdod, Gezer and Tell Jemmeh. Four coastal cemeteries have six jugs between them: Tell ez-Zuweyid, Tel Mevorakh (the 'Israelite' Tomb 100) and Achziv. They are found sporadically in northern Israel, at Hazor, Beth-Shan, Tel Rehov, Hurvat Rosh Zayit and Megiddo, and two appear inland at 'Ein Gev. In Phoenicia, two BoR jugs are reported at Sarepta and two at Tell Kazel. One BoR jug is published from Al Mina and two from Tarsus, and in Egypt, one BoR jug has been noted at Sanam. BoR jugs are therefore significantly under-represented in BoR vessel distribution: of total BoR pottery found on the mainland they

5 Eg. Petrie 1894, Pl. XXVII: 30. R.S. Merrillees observes that minimal quantities of BoR pottery have been found in Egypt (Merrillees, pers. comm.). 6 Petrie 1894, Pl. X X V I L 3 0 . The "Aegean" pottery in which Petrie includes the Cypriot wares at this site came largely from the rubbish heap outside Akhenaten's palace, and the BoR is clearly not related to the period of the palace itself (Petrie 1894, 15-16; contra Montet 1928, 220). Gjerstad comments that no BoR was found beyond the Delta, but note that he disregards what he believes to be 'non-Cypriot' BoR: "It is easy to understand that this pottery was mistaken for Cypriot parallels, and the corresponding Syro-Palestinian pottery was unknown at that time. The SyroPalestinian origin of the pottery has, however, now been recognized..." (Gjerstad 1948, 240, 242). The scarcity of BoR pottery in Egypt may be a reflection of the position of Egypt vis-à-vis the East Mediterranean in the Iron A g e . Redford, for example, notes a trend in Third Intermediate Period Egypt, aside from the expedition of Shoshenq I (see Chapter Three), towards parochialism and a general reduction of avenues of exchange with the Levant (Redford 1973, 14-16).

comprise only 6%. The pattern of distribution appears random. Jugs appear to be totally absent from some sites with relatively large BoR assemblages, such as Tell Keisan, and only one appears at Tell Abu Hawam amongst 40 vessels. BoR Bowls (Map 7) The plotting of BoR bowls on the distribution map offers the most interesting results. There is a noticeable clustering of bowls at sites around the Carmel and Akko Plain region and an absence in the southern Levant. BoR bowls are found at most sites in this northern coastal region and the quantities are significant: 46 at the upper limit of a single site (Tell Keisan), ranging down to 27 vessels at Tell Abu Hawam, 16 at Tel Kabri and 3 at Hurvat Rosh Zayit. South along the coast, 11 bowls appear at Tel Dor and 10 at Tel Mevorakh, but no bowls appear further south than Tel Michal. Inland from Tel Michal, 7 bowls are found at Tell el-Farah (N), and small numbers of bowls at Samaria, Tel 'Amal and Tel Jezreel. Eighteen bowls are found at Megiddo and 11 at Hazor. The excavators of Yoqneam and Tel Qiri comment that bowls are the most common BoR form at the two sites (Hunt 1987, 202). Fewer BoR bowls have so far been found in Phoenicia - 4 so far at Sarepta, 1 at Tyre, 1 at Khalde and 1 in the recent excavations at Beirut. 7 The 13 bowls at Tell Kazel suggest, however, that the limited excavation in this region may be partly responsible. One BoR bowl is found at Tarsus in Cilicia and one at Aspendos in Pamphylia. In total, 215 BoR bowls have been found at sites on the mainland, comprising 35% of all BoR pottery. White Painted and Bichrome

Pottery

This study also analysed the distribution of two pottery types that have been claimed as indisputably Cypriot: White Painted and Bichrome. Gjerstad's sequence of these pottery types in Cyprus placed White Painted and Bichrome pottery before the introduction of BoR. He noted: The first group, White Painted and Bichrome, is the only decorated pottery during Cypro-Geometric I and II. Of the second group, Black-onRed begins in Cypro-Geometric III (a few stray specimens at the end of

7

Koehl Phoenicia.

1985, 4 9 notes particularly the limited number of BoR b o w l s in

Cypro-Geometric IIB disregarded), and Bichrome Red does not appear before Cypro-Archaic IB. White Painted is commonest in CyproGeometric I, and decreases gradually in number until Cypro-Archaic IIB when it reaches a minimum, and continues in approximately the same quantities during the Cypro-Classical period. Bichrome is rare in CyproGeometric I, but then increases gradually in quantity, so that it becomes more numerous than White Painted in the Cypro-Archaic period. In the Cypro-Classical period, it suddenly falls off to a trifle. Black-on-Red culminates in Cypro-Geometric HIB and Cypro-Archaic IA, ie, very soon after its introduction. In Cypro-Archaic IB, it begins to decrease in quantity, but is then supplemented by its sister ware, Bichrome Red, which culminates in Cypro-Archaic IIB and Cypro-Classic IA. (Gjerstad

1948, 205-6) This chapter therefore examines the appearance of White Painted and Bichrome pottery on the mainland in terms of its chronological span, its geographical range and its association with BoR. The early White Painted and Bichrome pottery found on the mainland is generally believed to represent the reestablishment of trade connections between Cyprus and the Levant after the deterioration of these relations at the end of the Late Bronze Age (eg. Mazar 1991, 95, 102-103). Although increasing studies are focusing on this early stage of contact, as yet no thorough research has been conducted on these wares and a number of the sites at which this pottery appears are not well-stratified or published. 8 It should also be noted that most examples of the pottery are highly fragmentary and difficult to assess in terms of Gjerstad's typological sequence of the wares. While the chronological and geographical distribution of this early Cypriot pottery are therefore included here (see Map 8), the issues arising from the distribution pattern are too broad to be fully investigated in this book. (See, however, further comments in the Conclusion.) White Painted pottery begins to appear in the southern Levant in the period generally succeeding that of 'Philistine' pottery. 9 It has a broad geographical range from the northern coast inland to the southern Shephelah, although the quantities of vessels found are not large. The two most popular forms appear to be the barrel-juglet and 8

For the most important studies to date, see especially Gilboa ( 1989, 1998, 1999), as well as general discussions by Mazar 1985, 81-82; 1991; 1994; Stern 1978, 57-62. 9 Although note that at Tell Qasile, a "last generation" of 'Philistine' pottery continues into Stratum X, alongside the first appearance of White Painted pottery at the site (Mazar 1985, 81, 87, 105).

ο All Early (Pre-BoR) Cypriot pottery ' Rivers I 1-akes j 1 .and Ocean

Tell Abu Tel Tell Qasile

Map 8: Distribution of Early (pre-BoR) Cypriot Pottery in the Levant

the bowl (Mazar 1985, 81; Gilboa 1989, 216), and it seems that both forms had a contemporaneous circulation, like the later BoR vessels. Early Bichrome pottery is less common but has a similar distribution. Early White Painted

Bowls

Of their earliest appearances, four White Painted bowls were found at Tell Qasile X, one at Megiddo VIA, one at Tel Gerisa (unpublished), one at Beth-Shemesh (Tomb 1) and one at Tel Fara (S) (Tomb 506). Several White Painted bowls have been found in the (unpublished) Phase 9/7 at Tel Dor, Areas Β and G. Three White Painted bowls were found in Tyre Stratum XIII-1; two further fragments of White Painted pottery in Strata XII and XI at Tyre and seven White Painted bowls were found in Stratum X-2.

Early White Painted

JugsUuglets

A number of White Painted barrel-juglets were found in cist tombs at Achziv, one in a (possibly early) cist tomb at Tel Zeror, one at Shiqmona, one in the Period II Citadel at Tell el-Ful, possibly one at Tel Fara (S) and one in a silo at Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2. In the north, early White Painted barrel juglets were found at Tell Sukas and at Tell Darouk, south of Sukas and c. 17 km inland. Two White Painted barrel-jugs were found at Tyre Stratum X-2 and fragments of barrel jugs at Sarepta Substratum D-2. Other early White Painted pottery includes a White Painted amphoriskos from Tel Dor Phase 9/7, another example with baskethandle from Ashdod X, a White Painted amphora from Sarepta Stratum Ε and a krater from Tyre Stratum X-2. Fragmentary White Painted pottery is found in Beth-Shan VI, possibly Tell Abu Hawam IV and at the 'Amuq sites in the Phase Oa period. At Ras al-Bassit, while the excavators mention examples of "Proto-White Painted et CG I ou II, et III" from the site (Courbin 1986, 190), the earliest White Painted pottery presented belongs to the later Iron Age. 10 Early Bichrome

Pottery

A smaller quantity of early Bichrome pottery was found than of White Painted wares. An early Bichrome II bowl was found in Tomb 221b at Megiddo, a Bichrome barrel-juglet at Tyre Stratum XII and another at Sarepta Substratum D-2, a Bichrome II bowl at Ras Bassit and examples of Bichrome pottery in the 'Amuq sites in Phase Oa. An apparently early Bichrome bowl found at Tel Dor was examined by Neutron Activation Analysis and found to be of local (mainland) origin (Yellin 1989, 223-227). White Painted Pottery Contemporary

with BoR (Maps 9-11 )

White Painted pottery continues in Iron II, alongside but in smaller quantities than BoR (21% of all Cypriot pottery). It is present in the earliest BoR levels on the mainland at Beth-Shemesh III, Hazor IX, Megiddo VA-IVB, Tel Mevorakh VII, Tell Qasile IX-VIII, Tell Beit Mirsim B2, Tell Far'ah (N) Vllb, Tyre XI and Yoqneam XIV. It con10

Bounni also notes at Ras Ibn Hani "abondants sont aussi les vases chypriotes des styles Myc. IIIC2 ou proto-White Painted et chypro-Geométrique" (Bounni 1991, 110), but this pottery could not be traced in the publications o f the site.

tinues throughout the period of BoR, occurring in levels as late as Hazor IV, Tell Keisan Niv. 4, Tel Kabri Area Ε Stratum 3b and 2," and Tell Qiri VIIC, but in decreased quantities. It is noticeably absent at Megiddo IV & III at Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vlld. 131 White Painted vessels have been found in total on the mainland from the strata in which BoR also occur. Bichrome Pottery Contemporary

with BoR (Maps

J2-14)

Cypriot Bichrome pottery is also found throughout the period of BoR on the mainland, with a similar distribution pattern to White Painted pottery, but in still smaller quantities (8% of all Cypriot pottery). The possibilities of confusion of this ware with Phoenician Bichrome are higher than in the case of the other types, but the relative proportions of Cypriot Bichrome to White Painted and BoR are probably reasonably reflected in the record. Bichrome pottery is found in early contexts with BoR at Beth-Shemesh III, Megiddo VA-IVB, Tel Keisan Niv. 8, Tel Mevorakh VII and Tyre IX. It is present as late as Tell Keisan Niv. 5, and Tyre III, but these are single examples; there are no more than 69 Bichrome vessels from the mainland in total from the strata in which BoR occurs. The chronological range of White Painted and Bichrome pottery therefore accords with Gjerstad's belief that the two pottery types began earlier than BoR, continued alongside it and declined in number in later Iron II. It is also clear from the quantities of pottery retrieved on the mainland that BoR pottery exceeds White Painted and Bichrome in popularity on the mainland from the moment of its introduction. This has been a contributing factor to the argument for a mainland origin for this pottery and is considered further below. Combined Appearances

of the Wares

The geographical range, in terms of physical extent, of White Painted and Bichrome pottery was examined and compared to that of BoR, in order to assess whether they may have followed the same distribution routes. White Painted and Bichrome both occur together with BoR in the far north, at Al Mina and Carchemish, and in Phoenicia, at Tyre 11

Publication of the Iron A g e pottery from Tel Kabri Area Ε is in press. (Lehman, forthcoming.)

and in tombs at Khirbet Silm and Qraye. In Israel both types occur with BoR at Beth-Shan in the Jordan Valley, Megiddo, Tell Keisan, on the coast from Tell Abu Hawam to Tel Mevorakh, Tel Dor and Tel Michal, and as far south as Lachish, Tel Jemmeh and Tel Fara (S). One White Painted juglet is found with a Bichrome juglet and a BoR juglet at Memphis in Egypt. White Painted and BoR, without Bichrome, occur together at Zinjirli in Anatolia and in Israel at 'Ein Gev, Hazor, Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tel Jezreel and Tell el-Far'ah (N), on the coast at Tell Qasile and south to Tell er-Reqeish. Bichrome and BoR, without White Painted, occur together at Tell Kazel and Tell Sukas on the Phoenician coast, Samaria and Khan Sheikhun. At only two sites is White Painted pottery possibly found alone: at Tell Tebilleh in Egypt (4 juglets) and at Ras Ibn Hani in the north. It is clear, therefore, that even given the minimal numbers of the pottery vessels involved, their geographical range is generally similar. White Painted and Bichrome Bowl Distribution (Maps 11, 14) The distribution of White Painted and Bichrome bowls in particular was analysed to provide a comparison with the apparently localised BoR bowl distribution. The small quantities of these vessels should, again, be noted. This assessment showed that unlike BoR bowls, White Painted bowls were not confined to the Carmel and Akko Plain region. White Painted bowls (42 in total) occur from Tabbat-alHammam in the north, Tyre, Beirut, Tell Abu Hawam, Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tel Dor, Tel Jezreel, Tel Mevorakh, Tell Qasile to Tel Fara (S) and Tell er-Reqeish in the south. None occur in the Mt. Carmel tombs. Bichrome bowls (28 in total) are found more exclusively in the north, at Ras al-Bassit, Tell Sukas, Tyre, Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Mevorakh, Tel Dor, Tell Keisan, and Megiddo. Neither White Painted nor Bichrome bowls seem to have been found in Egypt. White Painted and Bichrome Jug!Juglet Distribution (Maps 9, 10, 12,13) The distribution of the closed vessels of each type were also compared to identify any possibly related patterns of trade in their contents. White Painted juglets (41 in total), which may have had a similar function to the BoR vessels, have a similarly widespread distribution in this period. They occur from Zinjirli to Tyre and Khirbet Silm, inland in the Galilee at 'Ein Gev, at Beth-Shan, Hazor,

Megiddo, Tell Keisan, Tel Michal, Tel Zeror, Tell Hammeh, Lachish, and Tel Fara (S).12 Bichrome juglets (only 16 in total) appear in small quantities both in the north and south, from Tell Kazel to Tel Fara (S). Forty-eight White Painted jugs have been found plus 7 White Painted amphorae, 25 Bichrome jugs and 7 Bichrome amphorae. White Painted jugs have a broad distribution and are found from Zinjirli and Carchemish in the north to Al Mina, Tyre and Qraye in Phoenicia, Hazor, Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo, Tell Keisan, Yoqneam and southern sites such as Beth-Shemesh and Tell Jemmeh. One White Painted jug is found from Gurob in Egypt. Bichrome jugs also have a fairly broad distribution: Al Mina, Carchemish, Ras alBassit, Tyre, Khirbet Silin, Khan Sheikhun, Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo, Tell Keisan and Tel Michal. BoR jugs are relatively rare in the Levant and the sample may be too small for conclusive analysis. The small number of examples at Gezer, Ashdod and Tel Jemmeh suggest they reached the southern region in minimal quantities. Summary In the subsequent period, White Painted and Bichrome pottery seems to have been in circulation alongside BoR but in smaller quantities. Jugs and juglets in the three pottery types have a broad and generally similar distribution. BoR jugs are minimal and White Painted jugs appear to be marginally more popular, but BoR juglets far outweigh White Painted and Bichrome juglets in popularity. The concentration of bowls in one general area is unique to BoR; however this is clearly observable because of the larger quantities of this type and it is possible that equal quantities of the other types might show a similar distribution. There seems to be no particular pattern of co-existence of any two of the types. A Comment on Chronology One of the chief problems of BoR pottery is its chronology. Chapter Three investigates the chronology of BoR through detailed analysis of assemblages on the mainland and the contexts in which they appear. This is then compared to the evidence from Cyprus and a proposal

12

The quantity of White Painted juglets at Tel Fara (S) is notable, and correlates with the high proportions of other imported wares: it is likely that the site was on a key trade route.

made as to its date. Here, in this general survey of the strata in which BoR appears, the chronological contemporaneity between BoR open and closed shapes should be particularly noted. BoR bowls are appearing already in Hazor XA, Megiddo VA-IVB, Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tell Keisan Niv. 8, Tel Mevorakh VII, Tel Michal XIV, Tel Qiri VIIC, Tell Abu Hawam III, and Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vlld, alongside BoR jugs and juglets. These are the earliest strata in which BoR pottery appears and they may represent the earliest 'phase' of BoR production and distribution in the eastern Mediterranean. This result has interesting implications. First, it undermines the suggestion that there was an early phase of BoR on the mainland during which the juglets preceded the circulation of bowls and open vessels. It had previously been thought plausible that the distinctive BoR decorative style was developed for the juglets as a form of advertisement for their contents, presumably precious oils; this 'trademark' decoration was thought to have been subsequently applied to other non-container vessels such as the larger jugs and the bowls. Instead, it now appears that both the open and closed vessels were being traded simultaneously, or at least within the length of the first phase of BoR distribution. This discovery may provide support for the theory of a single region of manufacture and export, and even for some element of central production and distribution. These issues are discussed further later in this chapter. In view of these findings, however, the results of a statistical study of Cypriot Iron Age pottery in Cyprus should be noted (S0rensen 1987). In assessing the relative popularity of Iron Age decorated pottery types in Cyprus, S0rensen observes that BoR bowls begin contemporaneously with BoR juglets on the island, and that BoR bowls represent in fact a quarter of all bowl types in the first period of its occurrence (S0rensen 1987, 130-131). The pottery distribution in Cyprus, therefore, correlates quite significantly with the distribution evidence from the mainland. The relative lack of popularity of BoR jugs in Cyprus is also paralleled by its rarity on the mainland, and the contrasting popularity of the BoR juglet form is evident in both locations. See Table Ε in Chapter Four, 252. 13 13

It is important to note here that the full potential of S 0 r e n s e n ' s study is flawed by her complete reliance on Gjerstad's typology and chronology of the various pottery types ( S 0 r e n s e n 1987, 129). Gjerstad excludes, for example, from his chronological scheme the ware he considers "non-Cypriot" BoR. See Chapter Four for a detailed analysis of Gjerstad's typology and chronology. S 0 r e n s e n ' s results are, however, useful in terms of general trends in popularity of the pottery types.

The chronological contemporaneity of bowls and juglets is also important in terms of Gjerstad's original suggestion that the BoR juglet form was of Levantine inspiration, while the bowls were predominantly traditional Cypriot shapes (see Chapter One). The discovery that there was apparently no chronological distinction between the two types suggests that production of the BoR style was more homogenous than has been supposed. Gjerstad's dichotomy between 'Levantine' and 'Cypriot' features may in fact have been over-emphasised and the inter-cultural contacts between the island and mainland during the Late Bronze Age inadequately appreciated 'Levantine' features on Cypriot pottery may instead reflect these connections. Furthermore, concurrent production of the same ware type with both 'Levantine' and 'Cypriot' traits may have important implications for the cosmopolitan nature of east Mediterranean pottery manufacture in this period. These issues are addressed in discussion of the origin of the pottery in Chapter Four. Phoenician Pottery and BoR (Map 15) The traditional view of BoR proposed Phoenicia as a candidate for the earliest manufacture and export of BoR pottery (du Plat Taylor 1959, 88; Vandenabeele 1968, 110-111; Culican 1982,46,61; Mazar 1985, 82, 84). While scholars now increasingly tend to assign to Phoenicia the inspiration behind BoR's production in Cyprus, the view of a Phoenician association with the ware is persistent (eg. Coldstream 1998, 257-258). Here the distribution of Phoenician pottery on the mainland was examined in order to establish whether it appears in context with BoR with any consistency, indicating that BoR might have at least have been carried by Phoenician merchants. The results of this survey indicate that the distribution of Phoenician pottery at sites outside Phoenicia proper is minimal, except in those sites further south which are clearly under Phoenician influence, such as Achziv, Tell Keisan and possibly Tel Dor. In these cases, BoR does not seem to increase correspondingly. The types investigated here were closed vessels: Phoenician Bichrome jugs and juglets, Phoenician plain juglets and Phoenician red slip trefoil-rimmed jugs, often termed 'Achziv' ware. These are the most prominent vessels in the early Phoenician repertoire and it is likely that BoR pottery, had it been produced or distributed through Phoenician trade, would have accompanied these wares. Phoenician 'mushroom-

lipped' jugs, dating from the 8th century onwards, were also included but these vessels generally occurred in levels later than BoR. The sites investigated here are those which have a relatively high quantity of BoR pottery, so the proportions of Phoenician pottery to BoR will be most apparent. Twenty-three BoR juglets have been found in total at Lachish, but only one Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jug. At Hazor, three Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jugs and two possible Phoenician Bichrome jugs were found in Strata IX-X, which also contained nine BoR vessels and small quantities of White Painted ware. At Megiddo, Phoenician pottery does not appear in Stratum VA-IVB alongside the earliest BoR, but only in Strata IV-II, where five red slip trefoil-lipped jugs and one 'mushroom-lipped' jug were found. A Phoenician Bichrome neck-decorated juglet and a Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jug was found in the tombs at Mt. Carmel, as well as twelve BoR juglets. In the Iron Age tomb at Tel Halif, two red slip trefoil-lipped jugs were found with five BoR juglets. Two Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jugs were found at Tel Mevorakh Stratum VII, and two Phoenician jugs at Tel Qashish. Three Phoenician plain and bichrome neck-decorated juglets (as well as several Phoenician-type amphorae) appear in the tombs at Tell er-Reqeish, in addition to six BoR juglets. Possibly three Phoenician juglets appear at Tell Jemmeh, and one possible Phoenician jug at Tel Fara (S). One Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jug appears in Niv. Vllb at Tell el-Far'ah (N), alongside eight BoR vessels. At Yoqneam, which is not yet fully published, the excavators note the rarity of Phoenician pottery-only 12 Phoenician rims were found in total, in contrast to 90 BoR rims (Hunt 1987, 203). The site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit, also not yet fully published, contains two Phoenician Bichrome jugs, a Phoenician Bichrome amphora and two possible heavy-walled red slip juglets, along with a fine assemblage of BoR and White Painted pottery. The excavators particularly note the absence of 'Achziv'jugs (Gal 1992, 182).14 These results indicate a sparse distribution of Phoenician pottery in association with BoR. The site of Achziv provides additional important evidence for a disassociation of BoR pottery from the Phoenicians. 15 The graves at 14

Note also this appearance o f Phoenician heavy-walled juglets no earlier than BoR at the site, contra Brodie and Steel's suggestion that these v e s s e l s were prototypes for BoR (Gal 1992, Fig. 9:3; Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). 15 S e e E. Mazar 1996 for the most thorough study to date of the Achziv cemeteries.

Achziv are largely of Phoenician type and the bulk of the pottery contained within them is Phoenician. The main pottery types in the tombs are the red slip trefoil-lipped jug and the Phoenician Bichrome jug, and in the later tombs the Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug (Mazar 1996, 21). Despite the location of the site at the southern reaches of 'metropolitan' Phoenicia and near the Carmel region where, as noted above, a high proportion of BoR pottery has been found, only 20 BoR vessels in total have been found in the main cemeteries at Achziv (Schreiber, forthcoming). Note also that no BoR pottery has been found in the late 8th- 6th century Phoenician cemetery at 'Atlit (Johns 1938, 133). The site of Tell Keisan produced two BoR vessels in Niv. 8, preceding the increased quantities of Phoenician pottery from Niv. 7 onwards. The apparently large numbers of BoR pottery from the later levels at this site are not fully published so it is not possible to assess their relation to the Phoenician ware (see Chapter Three). The site of Tel Dor, apparently under Phoenician influence during the 10th century BC, produced a number of BoR sherds. As this site is also not yet fully published, it is not at present possible to assess the relative proportions of Phoenician to BoR ware. It should also be noted that both Tell Keisan and Tel Dor are located at or near the coast and so as easily penetrated by goods from overseas as from Phoenicia to their north. Other sites which would no doubt be important in determining the relative proportions of these wares are either unpublished, such as Akko, or have problematic stratigraphy, such as Tell Abu Hawam. Although, therefore, the evidence provided by a survey of the Phoenician association with BoR is not entirely conclusive, due to the sparse distribution of Phoenician pottery in the southern regions, there are good indications that BoR pottery was not distributed by Phoenicians. The generally small quantities of BoR pottery further north in Phoenicia itself, assessed above, further supports this view (Chapman 1972, 171, 182; cf. Bikai in Coldstream 1988, 37). Aspects of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery Iniports (Map 16) While no comprehensive study has yet been published of Cypriot pottery imports to the Levantine mainland in the Late Bronze Age, several studies have illuminated aspects of this trade (Oren 1969; Holmes 1975; Gittlen 1975, 1977, 1981; Artzy 1985; Prag 1985; Bergoffen 1991; Knapp & Cherry 1994, 42-47). The most notable

feature of the distribution of Cypriot pottery on the Levantine mainland during the Late Bronze Age is its widespread occurrence. The distribution of the main Cypriot types - Base Ring jugs, juglets and bowls and White Slip bowl - covers almost every site at which Late Bronze occupation has been found. Recent studies have included Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware (of which the most prominent type is the spindle bottle) as a Cypriot product. This ware also has a broad distribution in the Levant and its origin has consequently been long debated (Eriksson 1991). Base Ring ware appeared predominantly in closed shapes and the Base Ring juglet is overall the dominant Cypriot pottery import to the mainland (Gittlen 1981, 51, Artzy 1985, 93; Prag 1985, 159; Bergoffen 1991, 64). Base Ring bowls are considerably rarer (Bergoffen 1991, 65). 16 White Slip pottery on the mainland occurs exclusively as bowls, notably the 'milk bowls,' and this pottery represents c. 25% of the total Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery imports to Palestine (Gittlen 1981, 54; Artzy 1985, 98; Prag 1985, 156). While Base Ring is reasonably popular in Egypt, very little White Slip pottery has been found in Egypt (Prag 1985, 157). Cypriot White Shaved and Bichrome pottery are found in smaller quantities in the Levant than Base Ring and White Slip. Artzy notes that these wares were commonly imitated on the mainland, beyond the period of importation of the Cypriot specimens, and suggests that the market for these wares may have been satisfied by the local imitations (Artzy 1985, 96-98). Cypriot Bucchero ware was imported in very small quantities (Prag 1985, 162; Bergoffen 1991, 64). The period of exportation of Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery to the Levant seems to have begun in the Late Bronze I period, peaked in Late Bronze IIA and almost completely ceased by the end of the period (c. end 13th century) (Gittlen 1981, 50-51). Gittlen suggests that some types continued to be produced in Cyprus beyond the period of their export to the mainland, but Base Ring pottery may have continued as an export almost to the end of Cypriot production, c. 1190 BC (Gittlen 1981, 51; Prag 1985, 159). In view of the range of exported wares, Gittlen argues that the

16

Note, interestingly, the inclusion of Base Ring b o w l s in the cargo of the Ulu Burun shipwreck (Bass 1986, 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 ) .

Cypriot export trade "catered to a known Palestinian market," on the basis that "the dominant position of the jug and juglets [in Base-Ring ware] in both Palestine and Egypt can clearly be seen to be grossly out of proportion to their manufacture on Cyprus" (Gittlen 1981, 52-53). He further believes that "White Shaved juglets were manufactured specifically for export to Palestine" (Gittlen 1981, 53). The quantity of Late Cypriot pottery at Tell-el-Ajjul suggests that this site was a "principal trading partner of Cyprus at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age" (Bergoffen 1991, 60, 69). Bergoffen also identifies a pattern of "unofficial," 'on the side' trade in Late Cypriot pottery in the southern part of the Levant (Bergoffen 1991, 72-73). She notes that "there was no steady fall-off from the point of origin" in "quantities, wares and shapes," possibly due to a degree of "intraregional trade" (Bergoffen 1991, 72). Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery distribution differs, therefore, from BoR in the ubiquity of all types, open and closed, although the especial prominence of the Base Ring juglet is interesting. The marked reduction in quantities of BoR bowls far inland from the Carmel and Akko region, and their virtual absence in the southern Levant may suggest that the distribution of BoR pottery was not based on "intraregional" trade, which would have picked up and circulated BoR bowls as well as the juglets. Deposition

Contexts

This study of BoR distribution also throws light on the deposition contexts. The traditional belief that BoR juglets are the most common form to be found in tombs while bowls are largely restricted to settlements is upheld by this examination. 17 BoR bowls are not exclusive to settlements, but only five have so far been found in tombs - at Tel Zeror, Megiddo, Mt. Carmel and Qraye in modern Lebanon. This is a small proportion (2%) of the 215 bowls discovered in total. However, the previously noted geographical limit to the distribution of bowls

17 S e e also Gittlen 1981, 5 2 and Maguire 1995, 55 re the large proportions of Cypriot jug and juglet shapes in Middle and Late Bronze A g e tombs. Rasmussen notes an extraordinary quantity of small oil juglets in s o m e tomb contexts in the Archaic Aegean: out of 297 objects in a single 6th century grave at Rhitsona in Boeotia, 2 5 3 were Corinthian aryballoi (Rasmussen 1991, 78). The popularity of the oil juglet in graves of the Roman period has been noted by Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 105-122.

should be noted here as also should the fact that tombs provide only 146 vessels in total (24% of total BoR). The contrasting situation in Cyprus should also be taken into account. There by far the greater proportion of BoR pottery comes from tombs, including bowls in quantity (S0rensen 1987, 131). It is difficult, therefore, to assess the significance of this distribution pattern on the basis of the limited material available and the random element of tomb location throughout the area over which BoR is found. There is little in the deposition contexts of BoR juglets to indicate their function in the tombs. There is a possibility that these vessels sometimes were non-functional and produced especially for funerary use. Anderson-Stojanovic notes that in the necropolis at Myrina, in modern Turkey, "a number of graves were found to contain small alabastra and unguentaria that were of solid clay and obviously of no practical use;" at Stobi in Macedonia unguentaria were found within a tomb "with the body cavity sealed off by clay at the neck" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 120-121, 122). However, scientific analysis of Corinthian aryballoi which are believed to have come from graves found evidence of an adherence of oily compounds to the soil inside them, suggesting that the vessels had been deposited filled with their contents (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 25, 29; and see below). 18 There is only limited evidence from the deposition contexts of BoR pottery that these vessels were associated with a certain part of the body - BoR juglets found in Tomb 1 at Mt. Carmel are noted as near the heads of the occupants (Guy 1924, 48) - and no evidence as yet that they were genderspecific. 19 The contents of the tombs are, however, often too fragmentary or disturbed to enable assessment of these associations; careful future publications may reveal some vessel distribution patterns within tombs.

18 It is interesting to note in this context that the bulk of miniature (and essentially non-functional) BoR vessels found on the mainland were not from tomb contexts. 19 Compare t w o studies of Cypriot Bronze A g e wares: Maguire observes that Base Ring juglets in Middle Bronze A g e tombs at Tell ed-Dab'a were placed near the head or body of the deceased (although this is a fairly general area) (Maguire 1995, 55). Eriksson, in her study of Late Bronze A g e Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware, notes that "a large percentage of the v e s s e l s c o m e from female burials" and "a position c l o s e to the skull or upper torso has been observed in both female and male burials" (Eriksson 1991, 93).

The Popularity of BoR The quantities of BoR found on the mainland are not large and presently number under a thousand vessels. Despite this, the pottery type is considerably more popular on the mainland than the White Painted and Bichrome pottery examined above (see also Appendix II). This is somewhat surprising. White Painted, Bichrome and BoR juglets are comparable in shape, size and general decorative fields. The clays in each case are finely levigated and well-fired. The manufacturing processes of the different pottery types were likely to have been similar to one another and White Painted pottery may indeed have been simpler and cheaper to produce (S0rensen 1987, 132) - few examples of White Painted pottery are in fact finished to the level often achieved by BoR and they are not burnished. The function of BoR juglets as perfumed oil containers will be examined below, but the closed shape and small mouth of these vessels indicates that they must have held a liquid. One factor in the popularity of these BoR vessels was perhaps, therefore, a low porosity. While a degree of porosity was often desirable for ceramic water containers, which helped keep the liquid cool through evaporation (Orton, Tyers & Vince 1993, 220-221), impermeability was an obvious requirement for vessels which contained precious liquids and oils. 2 0 The porosity of ceramic vessels is affected by the heat level to which the ceramic has been fired, as well as the treatment and quality of the clay itself (Shephard 1956, 125-130). While it was clearly preferable for small oil juglets to be non-porous, tests conducted on Hellenistic ceramic unguentaria from the Athenian Agora excavations and from the site of Stobi in Macedonia suggested that not all of these vessels were satisfactorily so. Poorly-made grave unguentaria were particularly porous - "both water and oil seeped through two wellmade but unslipped examples from Stobi within eight hours" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 116). Perhaps surprisingly, the Athenian glazed unguentaria were not necessarily less porous than unglazed. In 20

Ceramic v e s s e l s were not, of course, the optimum material for holding precious liquids - stone, metal or glass are far superior in terms of impermeability - but clay w a s cheap and widely available. Theophrastus and Pliny, writing in the late 4th century B C and 1st century A D respectively, recommended particularly alabaster or lead vessels which helped to keep their contents cool (Theophrastus, On Odours 41; Pliny, Natural History, XIII: 19). It is likely that ceramic v e s s e l s did not contain the costliest perfumes, as Pliny also notes (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 28, 29; Pliny, Natural History, VII. 28-30; and see discussion below).

these tests, "an unglazed gray unguentarium... lost only 20% of its water in five days and only 5.5% of its contents in a week when tested with oil. In contrast, the black glazed examples belonging to the same period were more porous, losing 36-100% of their water in only two days" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 116). While it was common to line amphorae with resin to enhance their impermeability, no evidence of the use of resin has been found in BoR juglets, (nor in the Hellenistic unguentaria examined) (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 116). In view of the popularity of BoR juglets, therefore, it is possible that the slip and high burnish of the BoR juglets increased the impermeability of the ware. The burnishing process itself may have compacted the clay particles on the surface of the vessel and rendered it less porous (Orton, Tyers & Vince 1993, 126). A recent chemical analysis of BoR pottery - using Atomic Absorption Spectrometry techniques - has, however, additionally proposed that the use of noncalcareous clay for some BoR pottery may have enhanced the vitrification of the ceramic, making it especially impermeable (Brodie & Steel 1996, 273). Bichrome and White Painted pottery was slipped but not burnished, and AAS tests on sherds of these wares indicated that they were manufactured from calcareous clay, which would not vitrify to the same extent. The exceptionally good levigation and uniformly fine grain-size characteristic of BoR juglets would also increase vitrification, since "fineness increases areas of contact" between particles during the firing process (Shephard 1956, 127). While, therefore, it should be noted that calcareous clay was also used for other BoR vessels, it is plausible that the BoR juglets were especially non-porous and that this may have been a factor in their popularity. Other scientific tests have noted general compositional differences between BoR ware and other types of Cypriot pottery (Yellin & Perl man 1978, 89).21 In the case of the popularity of the BoR bowls, which were generally manufactured from calcareous clay, the slip and burnish of BoR ware is likely to have created an especially pleasant eating surface. 22

21

Scientific analyses on BoR pottery are fully assessed in Chapter Four. The appeal of the BoR b o w l s might be paralleled by the popularity of (marginally later) Greek pendent semi-circle plates in the Levant. Coldstream observes that "the attraction of the A e g e a n imports would have lain in the watertight, "metallic" quality o f their surface paint, superior to all local products except the best "Samarian" ware" (Coldstream 1988, 39). 22

A further consideration in this ware's popularity is the notably "metallic" look of some of the finer BoR vessels. The polished red slip may well have recalled the sheen on copper alloy vessels (Vickers & Gill 1994, 141-144). The angular shape of the neck and rim of many of the juglets and especially the ridge on the neck of the vessels which resembles a metal strip joining the handle to the neck on a metal vessel, suggests that the potter may have been imitating a contemporary metal design. 23 The intrinsic value of metal, and therefore the recyclable properties of metal vessels, have left very few examples remaining from this period, and the association of metals and ceramics is therefore difficult to trace. Parallels are known but rare. Three examples of metal trefoil-lipped jugs, two bronze and one silver, identical to the Phoenician red-slipped ceramic versions, have been found in Cyprus (Amiran 1969, 272, Photo 283; Culican 1976, Figs. 1-2). 24 A bronze jug with plain mouth was found in Sidon (Culican 1976, Fig. 3). Also, several examples of bronze bowls with horizontal handles and pedestal bases have been found in early Cypro-Geometric tombs in Cyprus, which bear strong similarities to White Painted and BoR pedestal bowls (Flourentzos 1997, 210, fig. 6). A metal pilgrim flask, probably tin, found on the Ulu Burun shipwreck, indicates a stylistic association between ceramic and metal forms in the Late Bronze Age (Bass, Pulak, Collon & Weinstein 1989, 12, Fig. 22). The popularity of metal drinking sets in the Late Bronze Age has been noted by Sherratt and Sherratt, who suggest the possibility that pottery forms developed in the latter part of the period as substitutes for metal vessels, perhaps as wine consumption increased (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991, 363). The especial metallic appearance of BoR, and the range of bowl and jug forms in which it appears, as well as the occasional appearance of this range of 23

Note, however, that Coldstream suggests this feature also served a practical purpose on ceramic vessels, in reinforcing a weak part of the vessel (Coldstream 1977, 67). Myres, at the beginning of the century, proposed that this ridge was an imitation of a separate "funnel" piece inserted either into or over the neck of an alabaster vase, with a ridge at the point of juncture (Myres 1914, 80). Such prototype alabaster vases are not, however, known to this author. 24 The jug illustrated by Amiran w a s cast in one piece with handle and body, which indicates possible west Mediterranean workmanship (R. Moorey, after Brian Shefton, pers. c o m m . ) .

different BoR vessels in associated contexts, such as at the site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit (see Chapter Three, 201-202), suggests that some of the appeal of BoR may have lain in its resemblance to contemporary drinking sets. It is also possible that pottery imitations of metal vessels were particularly useful as substitutes for metal in grave offerings. A study of the Iron Age pottery from tombs in Cyprus indicates an abnormal popularity of Red Slip bowls and Black Slip jugs (67% of the total number of jugs) in tombs (S0rensen 1987, 130, 133), both of which have a markedly metallic appearance in shape as well as colour: the black, possibly tarnished silver and the red, copper alloy (cf. Vickers & Gill 1994, 141-144). 25 The Dynamics of BoR Trade: Open Versus Closed Vessels: (Maps 17, 18) As is evident from the study above, the distribution of open and closed vessels in BoR ware, and to a lesser extent, White Painted and Bichrome ware, shows different patterns. Bowls are found in a fairly dense concentration but in a limited geographical range, predominantly near the coast, while the juglets are both more popular and wide-reaching. Yet the appearance of the full range of open and closed vessels at several sites, and their chronological contemporaneity, discussed above, suggests that these two categories did not belong to two entirely different trade networks and that they most likely originated from the same general source. Although the smaller juglets may have been marginally easier to transport than the larger bowls, perhaps on pack-animals, this alone is not an adequate explanation for their broader distribution. Explanation for the difference in distribution patterns should most logically be sought in their 'value' factor: the vessels which functioned as containers for added 'value' goods, and those, like the open vessels, which were purely of value for themselves. Sherratt distinguishes between gradients of "added value" goods: 25

The reasons for transference of s o m e of the elements of metal design to ceramic vessels, and the extent to which these ceramics were true substitutes (as opposed merely to imitations), are difficult to assess. It is possible that trade in bronze and copper alloy objects decreased after the disruption at the end of the Late Bronze A g e and potters attempted to fill the market for these unobtainable g o o d s (cf. discussions by Sherratt 1998, 295; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991, 3 6 3 , 373; Sherratt 1994).

Map 18: Distribution

of BoR Juglets in the Levant

(Detail)

open pottery vessels might be termed basic "added value" items (value added to the basic properties of clay) but closed vessels, if acquired containing precious goods, would have supplementary "added value," along with, perhaps, a degree of "cultural value" (Sherratt 1994, 62-63). In terms of function, a distinction can be made between eating and drinking vessels - the 'table-ware' - and vessels of probable cosmetic, not culinary, use, such as the handleridge juglets. The broader dimension to trade in BoR juglets suggests, therefore, that these had an additional value to the BoR bowls, which, popular though they evidently were in coastal regions, were not of sufficient value to the occupants of the inland regions to make their distribution further afield worthwhile to the merchants involved. A study of Metallic Ware in the Early Bronze Age Levant (Greenberg & Porat 1996) offers comparative data for the distribution pattern of open and closed vessels in BoR. Analysis of this pottery type suggests that while the full range of forms was encountered over a surprisingly broad range, "at greater distances, small quantities of Metallic Ware were distributed either as containers (eg. ' A b y d o s ' j u g s ) or as fine ware" such as a fine platter found at Arad (Greenberg & Porat 1996, 19). This again suggests that in the case of a range of pottery vessels in a single ware type, the vessels reaching maximum geographical distribution were those of particular value, in either functional features or status, which made their transport further from the point of origin profitable regardless of the extra cost involved. The popularity of closed vessels is also a feature of international trade in the Late Bronze Age. Cline notes, for example, that many more closed vessels than open were imported into Late Minoan I-II contexts in Crete, and suggests that "the most common open shape, bowls, may indicate a passing interest in unique tableware as a luxury item for the wealthy or as a curio for the collector of the unusual" (Cline 1994, 75). Maguire's study of Cypriot pottery imports to Tell el-Dab'a and the nearby site of 'Ezbet Helmi in Egypt in the Middle and Late Bronze Age observes that "primarily, though of course not exclusively, the Cypriot forms exported comprise jugs and juglets" (Maguire 1995, 55). Maguire notes particularly the extensive distribution of Cypriot Base Ring jugs and juglets throughout the Levant in the Late Bronze Age, which

dominate the closed shapes in circulation, along with smaller proportions of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware (spindle bottles) (Maguire 1995, 63). She suggests that these closed vessels were intended to hold "a commodity that was precious... one might imagine an oil or perfume (Maguire 1995, 54). 26 The less dramatic pattern formed by the distribution of open and closed vessel types in White Painted and Bichrome pottery may simply be accounted for by the smaller quantities of these vessels involved. However, there is some indication that the BoR juglets had a greater value to the distributor and to the consumer than the other contemporary wares available. Trade in BoR: A Trade in the Vessels or their

Contents?

The distribution pattern of BoR wares, shows, therefore, that there was probably an "added-value" factor to the BoR juglets. The question then arises - was this added factor the quality and attractiveness of the juglets and their superiority to locally-available vessels, or was it their contents, which are commonly presumed to have been perfumed oil? Was, in fact, this simply a trade in a popular ceramic vessel that would have, amongst other and various uses, served to contain perfume and exotic oils? Although the most popular view of the BoR juglets (eg. Brodie & Steel 1996, 273), the assumption that these vessels were transported with their contents is problematic. We have no firm evidence of the use of any White Painted, Bichrome or BoR juglets as transport containers for the perfumed oils postulated. No stoppers of any description have been found either in place in the vessels or in association with them, even when the vessels are found intact in tombs. Some form of stopper must have been used in the case of the transportation of a liquid, and particularly in the storage of aromatic oils which would have spoiled on prolonged exposure to air. These requirements for perfumes were noted by the late 4th century BC 26 Merrillees' claim that Base Ring juglets contained (and exported) opium from Cyprus (Merrillees 1962) has been consistently challenged, eg. by Gittlen, w h o suggests instead s o m e other "prized Cypriot product" (Gittlen 1981, 5 5 - 5 6 ) . H o l m e s also believed these vessels more likely to have contained "some kind of oil or ointment" ( H o l m e s 1975, 93). Merrillees' analysis of the insides of s o m e of these juglets found that different Base Ring v e s s e l s bore traces of different contents: crude opium, "some kind of wax" or pure fat (Merrillees 1968, 161). These latter could possibly have been ingredients in perfumed oil production.

writer, Theophrastus, who observed: "men put them into vessels of lead and try to secure phials of alabaster.... For evaporation destroys the perfume, and so does any foreign substance which finds its way in: for even draughts of air destroy odours and cause them to waste" (Theophrastus, On Odours, 41). One explanation of the absence of stoppers found in tombs may be that the vessels were intentionally left open to perfume the air within, in lieu of burnt incense or resin, but it is doubtful whether this method would have been effective. It is likely, therefore, that they were stopped up either with a clay plug (which might occasionally have been expected to survive) 27 or perhaps organic matter, such as a wooden stick, waxed cloth or leather. 28 Another possibility is cork: two 6th century BC Etruscan shipwrecks found in France, at Cap D' Antibes and Bon-Porté, were carrying amphorae sealed with cork discs (Parker 1992a, 74, 101). A juglet of similar proportions to the BoR vessels was found in a cave at EnGedi from the Roman period, still containing a viscous oil thought to be balsam (opobalsamum), and was sealed with a small stone (Patrich & Arubas 1989, 50). It is noteworthy that no stoppers have been found associated with any of the numerous Hellenistic and Roman ceramic unguentaria which occur at sites all over the Mediterranean, supporting the view that stoppers were generally of organic materials which do not survive (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 114). It should be noted, however, that the BoR trefoil-rimmed juglet, which is found frequently alongside the 'classic' handle-ridge flaredrimmed juglet, would have been difficult to seal effectively. The relatively wide rim is often inturned into the neck of the juglet (as also with the trefoil jug) and would in most cases prevent any attempt to seal the mouth of the vessel by obstructing it. The popularity of this juglet type in terms of its function as a transport container is therefore perplexing, and perhaps suggests that these juglets were used as "dippers" with which to withdraw liquids from larger jars, or were

27

The large stirrup jars found in situ in the 'House of the Oil Merchant' at M y c e n a e were sealed with lumps of clay still in place over the spouts of the vessels (Knapp 1991, 29; see also Shelmerdine 1985, 143). 28 An exterior seal, however, such as material bound over the necks of the vessels, would be expected to leave friction marks, of which w e have no trace.

used to pour oils over one's body or head. The possibility of multiple uses for closed vessels should be borne in mind. 29 There is, further, a possibility of a 'décantation' process of oils from larger vessels into smaller vessels. Shelmerdine's study of the perfumed oil industry at Pylos associates the abundance of stirrup jars found at the site with the perfume manufacture recorded in the Pylian Linear Β tablets (Shelmerdine 1985, 51, 141-143; Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 481). Stirrup jars with a false neck and easily stoppered narrow spout were well-suited to containing oils (Shelmerdine 1985, 142-143). Shelmerdine suggests, however, that bulk quantities of perfumed oil, or even unscented oil, were probably exported in large coarse stirrup jars, alongside smaller ones "for individual quantities of scented oil" (Shelmerdine 1985, 145).30 Were perhaps the contents of the larger only decanted into the smaller at their destination? Dayagi-Mendels, in her study of perfumed oil in antiquity, concurs that "presumably only a little of the quantity produced was decanted into small flasks, while the greater part was poured into larger containers, suitable for delivering to various destinations," and that the large stirrup jars at Pylos were probably "used for transporting perfume, while the exquisitely made small stirrup jars were intended to hold perfumes for personal use" (DayagiMendels 1989, 101). A storage jar found on the mainland from the Roman period inscribed with the word "balsameh" provides further evidence of the use of larger jars to hold bulk quantities of luxury oil (Dayagi-Mendels 1989, 108). The physical risks encountered in the transportation of ceramic vessels might support a 'décantation' trade in BoR, rather than the conveyance of small and delicate vessels filled with valuable contents. Anderson-Stojanovic comments on the liability of breakage of the Hellenistic and Roman unguentaria in her study: "Considering the cost of transport and the danger of the neck breaking off from the body of the unguentarium, it seems more likely that, in most cases, 29

Our only iconographie evidence for BoR juglets is the painted depiction, on the shoulder of a BoR conical juglet, of a small juglet - possibly a handle-ridge juglet - next to a large rectangle with t w o "wishbone" handles and a diagonally checked interior rectangle (a net?) (Karageorghis & des Gagniers 1974, 500, PI. X X I X : 6 ) . The meaning of this depiction is now obscure. 30 Hankey suggests that the larger stirrup jars may have been "specially made to order for grand customers or for wholesalers, w h o then re-sold perfumed oil in smaller, more profitable quantities" (Hankey 1995, 123).

the contents of the small bottles were transported in bulk, in large vessels, and later transferred to smaller containers" (AndersonStojanovic 1987, 115). The Late Bronze Age Ulu Burun shipwreck provides direct evidence for the transportation of small closed vessels, presumably empty, within larger jars. A large pithos from this wreck was found to contain a variety of intact LBA Cypriot vessels in both open and closed shapes - including Cypriot White Slip milk-bowls and White Shaved juglets - with some of the bowls still stacked inside one another (Bass 1986, 279-281; 1987, 710-711; Pulak 1988, 11-12; Gates 1996, 304-305). Traces of organic materials were found in these pithoi suggesting that the smaller vessels may have been packed in organic matter to prevent breakage (Gates 1996, 304). Given these observations, however, and the possibility of a décantation process in the transport of BoR pottery, there is still not sufficient evidence with which to reject the likelihood that the "added value" of BoR juglets, which appealed to the consumer to a greater degree than BoR bowls, lay in their contents. Consequently, we must assume that trade in BoR juglets essentially represented trade in the contents of these vessels, as well as a possible subsidiary trade in the "recyclable" properties of closed vessels of unusually good quality. 31 The Nature of the Contents - BoR and a Possible Trade in Perfumed Oil Examination of the distribution pattern of BoR pottery accords, therefore, with the hypothesis that the distribution of BoR juglets represented trade in their contents, which has been presumed to be perfumed oil. Several factors further support this view. First, although there is no evidence of pot-marks on the vessels specifically identifying their contents, the distinctive 'packaging' of BoR juglets would have served as an effective advertisement for their contents. 32 Second, BoR juglets show considerable standardisation in size - the juglets range within c.8 31

Merrillees observes similarly that the Base Ring jugs of the Late Bronze A g e were no doubt "prized at the time of their purchase for the contents, but subsequently perhaps valued for the containers themselves" (Merrillees 1968, 168). Prag notes the possible "varied purposes of domestic use suggested for re-use o f BR jugs and juglets" (Prag 1985, 163).32 32 S e e for packaging in cosmetics, Askinson 1923, 374, 380.

cm to c.lO cms high, and c.5-6 cms in diameter - and these sizes are retained throughout the period of the vessels' production. 33 It is possible that the retention of this size by the manufacturers was intended to indicate to the consumer a certain quantity of contents. Merrillees' observation that Late Bronze Age customers of Base Ring jugs "would have been constantly reassured by the sight of goods which never showed much difference in shape, decoration or size" may therefore hold true also for the later BoR juglets (Merrillees 1968, 157). By contrast, the lack of volume standardisation of some Hellenistic and early Roman unguentaria has been interpreted as suggesting that they were "probably not made by the potters as containers for a standard amount of oil or perfume, but were purchased empty to be filled as the need arose" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 117-118). Third, despite the problems of the porosity of ceramic containers discussed above, the shape of the 'classic' globular flared-rimmed BoR juglet was ideally suited to use for a precious viscous liquid such as perfumed oil. A liquid inserted through the narrow neck could be poured out slowly, in small quantities, and the wide flared rim would force any surplus to drip back into the vessel. A significant factor in considering the association of BoR juglets with a trade in perfumed oil is the appearance of these vessels in some quantity in the latter stages of its currency on the Dodecanese islands of Rhodes and Cos, and on Crete. The appearance of BoR further west is fully discussed in Chapter Five. In the case of these islands, BoR ware is found almost exclusively in juglet form. The association of the juglets with perfumed oil on these islands is suggested by this exclusivity of shape, the extensive imitation of these juglets in local wares of similar proportions and their subsequent replacement in popularity in the 7th and 6th centuries BC, especially on Rhodes and Cos, by Corinthian aryballoi. Scientific testing of Corinthian aryballoi and "plastic" vases has confirmed that they were used for some kind of perfumed oil (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 28, 32; and see below). Later classical sources also specifically associate the islands of Rhodes and Cos with perfumed oil production (Pliny, Natural History XIII:2; and see below). 33 Miniature BoR vessels (under c.6 c m in height), which were probably nonfunctional, are rare. These vessels are further discussed in Chapter Five. It is most likely that the attraction of the miniatures to the consumer lay in the established appeal of the standard BoR juglets, and perhaps their 'luxurious' connotations. The production of the miniatures further underlines the easy recognisability of the BoR shape.

Some aspects of the contexts in which BoR juglets are found on the mainland also possibly support the use of these juglets for perfumed oil. These contexts are fully discussed in Chapter Three. Here it should be noted that the juglets are associated in a number of contexts with vessels that are believed to have served as censers for incense - the perforated three-legged bowl and the perforated flat-based bowl, which may have served as a strainer (see 170-173). While BoR juglets may have been present simply as small vessels for domestic use, it is also possible that they were associated with some kind of anointing ritual, of the body or a cult object, alongside perhaps the burning of incense and offering of wine. It should be noted that the production of perfumed oil at Pylos is also specifically associated with a context of offerings to divinities and regional sanctuaries (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 476, 483; Shelmerdine 1985, 123-125; Palaima 1991, 294). Uses and Types of Oils Aside from this possible occasional use in ritual, perfumed oils in the ancient Mediterranean would generally have had secular uses, similar to those today - emollients and cleansers for the skin and hair in a hot dry climate, and a pleasant fragrance to mask body odour. Oils could also be sprinkled on clothing, as was customary in Egypt and apparently in Mycenaean Pylos (Manniche 1999, 8, 91, 95; Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 482). 34 Fragrant gums could be chewed to sweeten the breath. Many oils would additionally have had medicinal uses, as preventatives (such as preventing lice, which are suffocated by oils) as well as cures for a myriad of internal and external ailments (Manniche 1999, 113-125). The astringent and disinfectant properties of many of the oils known to have been produced in antiquity would have rendered them as effective as their modern counterparts. 35 No ancient texts directly describe the uses to which perfumed oils were put before the writings of Theophrastus in the late 4th-early 3rd century BC, but there are Biblical references to uses of such oils. Joab, 34

The Linear Β text from Pylos reads "Olive o i l . . . for the Mistress of Hyp..., ointment for robes: 9.6 1. oil." A l s o Psalms 45:8: "All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad." See also Psalms 133:2 for Biblical uses of oils. 35 For discussion of the uses and nature of Mediterranean perfumed-oils in antiquity, see especially Shelmerdine 1985, D a y a g i - M e n d e l s 1989, Manniche 1989, Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, and most recently the comprehensive study o f ancient perfumes and c o s m e t i c s in Egypt by Manniche 1999.

for instance, indicts a woman not to anoint herself: "I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead" (II Samuel 14:2).36 The New Testament tells a story of the anointing of Jesus with spikenard oil: "And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head" {Mark 14:3). A similar story is told in John 12:3: "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment." The use of cosmetic oils was common in Classical Greece, and Greek vase paintings from this period show scenes of the use of small globular aryballoi by women bathing and athletes anointing themselves (Dayagi-Mendels 1989, 18, 32, 33). Similar uses of oils are described in the Homeric texts (eg. The Odyssey, VI: 79-80). In the absence, as yet, of Gas-Chromatography studies of the contents of BoR juglets, the scientific tests which have been conducted on twenty-four 6th century BC Corinthian aryballoi and "plastic" vases, to detect traces of perfumed oils, are invaluable (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994) (Figure /3.7). 3 7 A Gas-Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry study of the insides of these vessels found evidence of a vegetable oil base (possibly olive oil) with traces of plant terpenoids probably from coniferous resins - such as from juniper (Juniperus communis or Juniperus oxycedrus), cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) pine (Pinus or Abies species) and cedar (Cedrus libani) - and cholesterol, indicating animal fats (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 23-29). These ingredients suggest that the oils were possibly manufactured using the 'enfleurage' process, which required flower petals to be either pressed into animal fat or steeped in cold oil, which released their essential oils (Lucas 1989, 86; Shelmerdine 1985, 12-13; Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 24). Alternatively, the animal fat may have entered the compounds as a thickening agent (Biers, Gerhardt &

36

Text taken from the Authorized King James Bible. T h e s e Corinthian v e s s e l s were taken from m u s e u m c o l l e c t i o n s in North America, but include at least three v e s s e l s b e l i e v e d to be from East Greece, perhaps from the islands under consideration (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 11). A future study w o u l d d o well to utilise v e s s e l s from k n o w n archaeological contexts or at least sites. 37

Braniff 1994, 24). The results of these tests also suggest that the carrier oil was olive oil, rather than almond oil which was regarded as the preferred carrier of later antiquity (Theophrastus, On Odours, 16). Lastly, the presence of the coniferous resins could have served to provide the dominant scent for the oil, or these could have served as astringents to 'stabilise' the oil (make it less volatile), on top of which the final scent could be added (Shelmerdine 1985, 13; Theophrastus, On Odours, 17; Pliny, Natural History, XIIL7). Pliny specifies that "tears" from Abies trees "are added to unguents to overcome the hardness of the oil" (Pliny, Natural History, XII: 134). The authors of the study conclude that scents used in the Corinthian vases may have been "pungent, rather than sweet (floral), and the connection of certain contents, such as those suggesting cedar, indicate that oil of this scent could also have served as insect repellent or in embalming" (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 32). The study of the perfumes contained in the Corinthian vases provides, therefore, valuable indications of the constituents of these popular scents in 7th-6th centuries, the period succeeding that of BoR. The Linear Β tablets from Knossos and Pylos provide, additionally, important evidence for Late Bronze Age perfumes and their production. The tablets record "rose-scented" (wo-do-we), "sage-scented" (pa-ko-we) and "cyperus-scented" (ku-pa-ro-we) perfumes and mention the role of the "unguent-boiler" in perfume production, suggesting that the perfumes were prepared by boiling the ingredients together (maceration), as mentioned later by Pliny (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 477; cf. Pliny, Natural History, XII: 109). A recipe for a Mycenaean perfume at Pylos is preserved, which contains coriander seed, cyperus seed, fruits, wine, honey, wool [fennel?] and must [low quality wine?] (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 223-224; Shelmerdine 1985, 18-19). 38 Other spices and herbs mentioned in the Linear Β texts include fennel seeds, cumin, sesame seeds, red safflower and mint (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 228). It is should be noted that the Linear Β tablets at Knossos record Cyprus as an exporter of cyperus-seed and probably coriander; for example, 38

T h e use o f wine, honey, "fruits" (probably raisins) and different herbs in this recipe is similar to those for the w e l l - k n o w n Egyptian "kyphi" perfume, recorded from the period of R a m e s s e s III onwards (12th century BC) (Manniche 1999, 4 7 - 5 9 ) . Theophrastus writes that the addition of wine to a heavy perfume lightens it

(Theophrastus, On Odours, 44).

Text 102 at Knossos records "120 1. of cyperus seed from Cyprus"(Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 221-223). 39 Note also, in this context, that the annals of Thutmosis III in Egypt (c. end 16th-early 15th century BC) refer to the distribution amongst the troops of a "Cypriot speciality oil" (Bergoffen 1991, 61, 72). Egyptian recipes for perfumes include a vast array of ingredients using plants, flowers and resins (Manniche 1999, 10-31). The Book of Exodus describes a composite perfume including "pure myrrh" which would have been imported from Somalia and southern Arabia (Manniche 1999, 26-28): The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels. And of cassia five hundred shekels... and of oil olive an hin: And thou shall make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

(Exodus 30: 22-25) Myrrh was common in Egyptian recipes for composite perfumes, but the Linear Β texts mention it only at Knossos (Shelmerdine 1985, 23). Mycenaean perfumes appear to have been simpler and probably less heavy than most Egyptian perfumes - a base olive oil, made astringent with coriander, cyperus or pine resin and an added scent of one main component (Shelmerdine 1985,22). The tests on the Corinthian aryballoi uphold this view, and it is likely that the perfumes manufactured in the Iron Age Mediterranean were of comparable components. Our knowledge of the perfumes which may have been manufactured in the Iron Age in the regions of BoR distribution is limited and relies largely on the later classical writers, as well as our modern knowledge of the aromatic plants and flowers native to these regions (eg. Georgiades 1985).40 By Pliny's day, Cyprus was especially associated 39

Elsewhere the Linear Β texts at K n o s s o s refer to an unidentified "Phoenician spice" (po-ni-ki-jo) (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 222). This does not, however, appear to be related to unguent production and may have been a culinary ingredient. 40 We know that a huge variety of Mediterranean plants produced scented oils in the Classical period. Pliny writes that oils were made from "aspalathus, reed, balsam, iris, cardamomum, melilot, Gallic nard, all-heal, marjoram, helenium, and cinnamomum root, by steeping all these plants in oil and then pressing out the juices. Similarly also rose-oil is made from roses, and rush-oil, which is very similar to oil of roses, from the sweet rush, and likewise oils are extracted from henbane and from lupins and narcissus" (Pliny, Natural History, XV:30). Theophrastus includes also bergamot-mint, tufted thyme, myrtle as sources of perfume (Theophrastus, On Odours, 27). Georgiades notes

with "vine-flower scent" and "cyprus-scent," 41 Rhodes with "oil of saffron" and Cos with "scent of marjoram" and "quince-blossom unguent" (Pliny, Natural History XII: 133, XIII:4-6). Scent of marjoram was also, however, associated with Cyprus: "Sampsuchum (otherwise amaracum, sweet marjoram) of which the most valued, and the most fragrant, comes from Cyprus, counteracts the stings of scorpions..." (Pliny, Natural History, XXI: 163). Theophrastus notes that 'drop-wort' "grows in Cyprus on the hills and is very fragrant: that which grows in Hellas yields no perfume, being scentless" (Theophrastus, On Odours, 27). Pliny and a later writer associate the herb 'aspalathos' with Rhodes and Crete, and Theophrastus says this herb was used in making rose perfume (Theophrastus, On Odours, 25; Pliny, Natural History, XXIV: 112; Zohary 1982, 195; Manniche 1999, 4). Spikenard perfume was highly esteemed by the later period but the plant was not native to the Mediterranean and had to be imported from India or Nepal; it may not have reached the Mediterranean in the Iron Age (Theophrastus, On Odours, 38,42; Mark 14:3; John 12:3; Manniche 1999, 23). Plants native to the mainland Levant included the Pistacia atlantica L. and Pistacia terebinthus L. trees, which produced terebinth resin, juniper (Juniperus phoenicea), cedar, Balanites aegyptiaca L. and c. opobalsamum, both of which produced fine balsam and grew especially in the desert areas of the southern Levant, and hyssop (Manniche 1999, 21, 61, 67; Moldenke 1952, 55; Crowfoot & Baldensperger 1932, 78; Zohary 1982, 110, 117). II Chronicles 2:8

the presence of numerous aromatic plants and shrubs growing wild on Cyprus today: including Cypressus sempervirens (cypress), Juniperus phoenicea (juniper), Pistacia terebinthus, Salvia cypria (sage), T h y m u s capitatus (thyme), Origanum microphyllum and Origanum heracleotium (origanum), Rosemarinus officinalis (rosemary) and Laurus nobilis (sweet bay), as well as the fragrant flowers Geranicum tuberoscum (geranium), Chrysanthemum coronarium (crown daisy), Calendula arrensis (field marigold), Myrtus c o m m u n i s (myrtle), Matriciaria chamomilla (camomile), a modern variety of iris (Iris germanica), Cistus monseliensis and Cistus villosus creticus (rock roses) (Georgiades 1985, 2 0 - 8 9 ) . 41 Note the distinction between "cypros" scent, from the flowers of the henna plant Lawsonia inermis L„ and Cyperus, or 'sedge' (Manniche 1999, 17-19; Zohary 1982, 190). Pliny writes that the "cypros" perfume from Cyprus "has a sort of sweet scent" (Pliny, Natural History, XII: 109). Cyperus was apparently more c o m m o n l y used as an astringent than as a scent in itself (Shelmerdine 1985, 21-22). D y e s were perhaps applied to Mycenaean perfumes, and are also referred to by Theophrastus (Shelmerdine 1985, 23, 27-31 ; Theophrastus, On Odours, 31). Perhaps it is possible to speculate that if vessels served as advertisements for the scents within, a reddish-coloured "cyprosscent" might be appropriately advertised in a red-slipped ( B o R ) juglet?

tells of Solomon requesting algum trees, probably sandalwood, from Hiram of Tyre: "Send me also cedar trees, fir trees, and algum trees, out of Lebanon." Pliny mentions that "cypros" (henna) from Ashkelon was famous in his time (Pliny, Natural History XII: 109). Implications From this survey of ancient perfumes, it appears most likely that the consumption and no doubt production, to varied extents, of perfumed oil was common to all regions of the eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age. However, this chapter has also shown that, on current evidence, it is plausible to suggest an association between BoR pottery and trade in perfumed oil. If BoR juglets were intended for this commodity, then it appears that we should look for a single region which both manufactured the ware and produced its contents. The distribution of the later Corinthian aryballoi provides a good parallel. Although these aryballoi were "exported far and wide, ...no doubt many of them were filled at Corinth itself, which clearly was trading in perfumes and unguents as well as the containers for them" (Rasmussen 1991, 65). The question of the origin of BoR pottery is fully examined in Chapter Four; other factors such as visual examination of the BoR pottery from Cyprus and that found on the mainland consistently suggest that the pottery originates from a single source. 42 The chronological contemporaneity of BoR juglets and bowls on the mainland, discussed above, has already implied some degree of central production for the pottery. The distribution pattern of BoR pottery on the mainland, predominantly along the coastal Levant with a degree of concentration in the Akko Plain region, does not exclude the possibility of either Cyprus or Phoenicia as sources for BoR. The possibility of local manufacture of the pottery in the Akko or Carmel region should not be discounted, although there is, as yet, no evidence for this. 43 However, the points noted above - early textual references to Cypriot export of oils and ingredients desired in perfumed oil production, later classical associations between the production of perfumed oil with Cyprus, and the abundance of aromatic plants 42

The most recent general discussion of BoR by Tappy upholds this v i e w : "The current trend is to v i e w the B - o - R ware as representing a single class o f vessel and to direct research towards clarifying its place o f origin" (Tappy 1992, 127 n. 114). 43 This suggestion has been put forward by Mazar 1985, 8 2 n.220. See, also, discussion o f the pottery at Tell Keisan in Chapter Four, 279.

flourishing on this island in modern times - suggest that Cyprus is a good candidate for perfumed oil production. The distribution of Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware in the Late Bronze Age may, perhaps, be viewed as a parallel phenomenon. Eriksson's study of this ware makes a strong case for an origin in Cyprus (Eriksson 1991). The spindle-bottles in particular appear to have been designed to contain some sort of precious liquid. Perhaps, however, the most significant parallel is Eriksson's observation that while the range of Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware shapes found in different localities varied, "on the islands of Rhodes and Crete only the spindle bottle has been recorded" (Eriksson 1991, 90). Possible Routes of BoR Trade from

Cyprus

In view of the distribution patterns of BoR on the mainland, therefore, it remains to examine the actual routes by which BoR pottery may have travelled. Chapter Four, as noted, discusses the origin of the ware in greater detail and attempts to show that even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the proposition of a Cypriot origin for BoR is well-grounded. The following discussion assesses the plausibility of this hypothetical Cypro-Levantine maritime trade route in light of the distribution patterns determined on the mainland. In addition, with the establishment of a key zone of BoR distribution in the coastal/Carmel region, the routes inland from this region along which BoR may have been traded are investigated. One of the most important sources of evidence for maritime trade are, of course, shipwrecks themselves. In addition, studies of the East Mediterranean coastline in antiquity are valuable - the range of its natural harbour facilities and lighterages, and the geomorphological changes the coastline may have undergone over the centuries. 44 Modern ethnographic accounts of transhipment in the region, especially those recorded earlier this century, are also illuminating, as are studies of ancient wind routes and conditions at sea. 45 Nevertheless, analysis of maritime trade in the largely prehistoric Iron Age is restricted by the limited nature of the evidence and can offer only informed hypotheses. The following discussion will utilise all

44

S e e especially Shepstone 1937; Raban 1985; Marcus 1998; Wachsmann 1998. Note that no geomorphological study has yet been conducted for this early period. 45 S e e Casson 1938, 1951; Mallowan 1939; Murray 1995.

available evidence to construct what may be a plausible picture of the Iron Age trade in pottery from Cyprus to the Levantine coast and inland to their final destinations. Cargoes This Cyprus is so fertile and so abounds in products of every kind, that without the need of any help from without, by its native resources alone it builds cargo ships from the very keel to the topmost sails, and equipping them completely entrusts them to the deep. (Ammianus Marcellinus, History, XIV, 8, 14) Despite the importance of shipwrecks for our knowledge of maritime shipping for any given period, the Early-Middle Iron Age is barely represented in our evidence. The two most important shipwrecks, in terms of their state of preservation, date from the Late Bronze Age: the merchant ships excavated at Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidonya in Turkey (Bass 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991; Pulak 1988, 1997; Wachsmann 1998, 206-208). In particular, the Ulu Burun shipwreck, as noted above, provides valuable evidence for the transport of pottery in considerable quantity in ships' cargoes (see above, 73). The Cape Gelidonya wreck in Turkey and the Point Iria wreck in the Argolid, both dating c. 1200 BC, were much more fragmentary but included stirrup jars in their cargo (Lolos 1995, 72-73; Wachsmann 1998, 208). A survey of known Mediterranean shipwrecks published in 1992 notes only fifteen from the Iron Age in total, of which only four are of good preservation (Parker 1992a). These wrecks, the Giglio wreck dated c. 600-590 BC, the wreck at Cap D'Antibes dated c. 540 BC, that at Bon-Porté dated c. 550-525 BC, and the Gela wreck dated late 6th-early 7th century were all involved in Etruscan or Archaic Greek trade and were found in the western Mediterranean (Parker 1992a, 192, 101, 74, 189). They provide, however, valuable evidence of pottery involved in maritime trade, mostly amphorae presumably filled with their contents. The Giglio ship, in addition to Laconian and Ionian bowls and Etruscan amphorae, was carrying twenty-eight Corinthian aryballoi and six Laconian aryballoi (Bound 1991, 16). There is limited iconographie evidence from the Iron Age showing pottery travelling by ship. A late Bichrome Cypriot jug from the Karpas peninsula, now in the British Museum, is decorated with a painted boat loaded with two amphorae (Hadjisavvas 1995, Figs. 5a, 5b) (Figure

13:2a-b). The groups of concentric circles in the style of Iron Age painted pottery decorating the front of the amphorae probably simply indicate the prevalence of this motif, but it is appealing to imagine them representing the contents within (Wachsmann 1998, Fig. 12:4). The profitability of pottery cargoes has been challenged by scholars of classical Greek vases, who used prices marked on Greek vases to calculate their relative value against other commercial goods; these scholars suggest that even fine-ware pottery was exceptionally inexpensive and would have functioned only as "saleable ballast" in ships' cargoes (Gill 1988a, 739; 1988b; Vickers & Gill 1994, 90). The Ulu Burun wreck, however, as well as more recent critiques of Vickers' and Gill's analysis have tended to undermine this view (Williams 1996, 231). The scale of large consignments of pottery travelling on boats in the Iron Age may, however, be overestimated. It should be noted that the quantities of BoR pottery found on the mainland altogether are fairly minimal. This would be in accordance with small-scale and perhaps intermittent trade in BoR pottery over the relatively long period in which it is found, rather than large or necessarily regular consignments. Routes over the Sea The precise maritime route used by merchant ships on a passage from Cyprus to the mainland in the Iron Age is more difficult to determine. As has been noted above, the greatest proportion of BoR pottery seems to have been found in the region of the Akko Plain and the Carmel. Lack of excavation further north on the coast in the territory of Phoenicia may have unbalanced the picture, but it is plausible that the 'peak' trade in BoR was directed at this lower part of the Levantine coast. Aside from the quantity of imported pottery at sites along this part of the coast, Artzy points out that the Carmel region had been especially associated with maritime trade in the Late Bronze Age. She notes that an "incised "fleet" of diverse boat types which was discovered on the rocks of the Carmel Ridge, especially the area of the Me'arot (Caves) River, marked not only a landfall but also one of the routes which connected [Tel Nami] to the hinterland" (Artzy 1998, 440, 444). It is plausible that this region may have been a natural point of disembarcation for ships arriving from overseas. Artzy also notes that the "jaw-like crevice" in the Carmel mountain ridge carved out by the Me'arot river was a "distinctive marker... readily discernible from the sea" (Artzy 1998, 441). A bone scapula found at Tel Dor may also provide evidence of

Cypriot Iron Age connections with this part of the coast. The scapula was decorated with an incised manned boat, possibly representing a "cultic" departure scene, and was inscribed on the reverse with a CyproSyllabic script (still undeciphered) (Stern 1994b, 7). Various features of the dress and pose of the sailors suggest Egyptian influence while the ship itself shows "hybrid" features and is similar to Cypriot boat depictions from the 7th century BC (Stern 1994b, 9). It is possible that this item, though found in a later Persian context at Tel Dor, is not only indicative of trade between Cyprus and this part of the Levantine coast, but also reflects the generally cosmopolitan nature of East Mediterranean trade. The use of sails by merchant ships in the Mediterranean had been established by around 2000 BC and developed throughout the Bronze Age until sail construction was such that ships could be manoeuvred in directions other than before the wind (Roberts 1991, 59; Georgiou 1991, 62). 46 The development of sail was particularly advantageous to the merchant ship in allowing more cargo to be taken on board, in place of an oared crew. This was doubtless the method of transport from Cyprus to the mainland in this period. Unlike the Aegean area, which is broken up by numerous islands and peninsulas and subject to fairly volatile wind changes, the waters of the East Mediterranean are generally more predictable and less hostile to the sailor (Raban 1991, 130). The sailing season in the East Mediterranean would, however, have probably been confined to the summer months of early April to November (Raban 1991, 130). The most prominent winds in the Mediterranean blow from the west and north-west, and the main coastal winds around Cyprus blow from the west (Murray 1995, 39-40) (,Figure 13:3). A vessel taking a direct route from Cyprus to the mainland would therefore land far north of Tyre on the Phoenician coast. Travel southwards down the Levantine coast would, it seems, have been difficult under sail, as local sea breezes also blew from the south-west along this stretch of coast. During the months of September to November, however, winds from the north-west and north prevail which might have taken a ship from the southern coast of Cyprus to the region 46

Evidence of sailing methods in the Bronze and Iron A g e s is chiefly limited to Egyptian depictions of ships, the Akrotiri ship painting, and the Ulu Burun wreck. Details of the methods e m p l o y e d have been widely discussed, predominantly in context of long-distance maritime trade from the Near East to Greece. Relatively sophisticated sailing techniques are likely e v e n for this period. For discussion, see Roberts 1991, 55-59; Georgiou 1991, 6 1 - 7 1 ; Wachsmann 1998, 2 4 7 - 2 5 4 .

of the Akko Plain (Murray 1995, 40). We must bear in mind therefore that, in the case of BoR pottery, we might be looking at seasonal trade, in the autumn months. The relative lack of BoR in Egypt, although possibly due to the chance factors of excavation, suggests that as with Cypriot pottery in the Late Bronze Age (Prag 1985, 157, 159) BoR may seldom have been included in major trans-Mediterranean trade, from Cyprus to Egypt and up the Levantine coast, but rather in smaller-scale crossings from island to mainland. Raban suggests that the crossing at the narrowest point between the Levantine coast (in north Syria) and Cyprus "could be made easily within less than a day's sailing in both directions" (Raban 1985, 140). Travel from Cyprus to the lower part of the coast need not have taken substantially longer. 47 The Coast: Ports and

Harbours

It is also interesting to assess the terrestrial or river routes by which BoR pottery may have been distributed from the coastal regions to which it was first imported, to the range of inland sites at which it was found. The limited number of good harbours along the coast of modern Israel and Phoenicia is well known (Raban 1985, 11; Frost 1995, 2). There are few natural bays along this coast, and apart from the Bay of Akko and the natural lagoons at Dor, the coastline is open and relatively unprotected. Even Jaffa, which the Bible mentions in connection with Solomonic maritime trade, was not a natural haven (Shepstone 1937, 263; Raban 1985, 27; 1998, 430). Artificial construction could enhance coastal protection for ships but there is limited evidence for man-made harbours along this coast during the early part of the Iron Age. Only Tel Dor, unique in not being located at a river outlet, was enhanced with an ashlar quay during the 13th11th centuries (Raban 1995, 148; 1998, 432). 48 Later ashlar quays, usually moles extending out into the sea, were constructed at Tabbat al-Hammam on the north Phoenician coast (9th century), and in the Carmel region at 'Atlit (7th century) and Akko (6th century) (Raban 47

The southern coast of Cyprus to the Carmel cape is approximately 135 nautical miles; sailing at a speed of c. 6 knots would take a merchant ship a little less than a day to make the crossing. At 2 knots, the journey might take 2.5 days (Marcus, pers. comm.). 48 There is also e v i d e n c e of Middle Bronze A g e attempts to enhance the natural anchorages of this part of the coast: earthwork dams were built at Achziv, a sandstone wall at Dor and perhaps similar constructions at Tel Nami (Raban 1995, 144-148; Artzy 1994, 123-125).

1995, 148-158). The Iron Age sites in the region of the Akko Bay, however, such as Achziv, Akko and Tell Abu Hawam, would probably have provided reasonably safe anchorages (Markoe 1999, 192-194). An alternative to the actual harbour was to dock a ship out at sea and transport goods by freighters to the shore. This was a risky process, and the quantities of pottery recovered from the seabed off the coast of Ashkelon and Ashdod, for example, suggest that loss of a cargo in the process was not infrequent (Barag 1963, 16).49 However, while limited quantities of pottery from the early Iron Age have been recovered from the sea off the Israeli coast, and especially few imported wares, an increase by the Iron Age in the quantities of locally-made storejars recovered suggests that, by this period, navigation from one coastal city to another was reasonably welldeveloped (Barag 1963, 17). We may surmise therefore that the transportation of goods along the coast of modern Israel may have been conducted by sea as well as land. Small boats could have transported cargoes from the Akko Plain area, if this was a major import point, south to sites such as Tel Dor, Tel Mevorakh and Tel Michal. Occasionally, a southern site such as Tell-el-Ajjul, at which a considerable quantity of Cypriot pottery has been found, may have been a direct recipient of cargoes from Cyprus. This site was also a notably prominent recipient for Cypriot goods in the Late Bronze Age (Bergoffen 1991, 60; Knapp & Cherry 1994, 43). Routes Inland Our knowledge of the inland routes in this period from the east Mediterranean coast into the hinterland is not extensive. 50 It is possible that river mouths served as havens for small ships (Raban 1985, 18) and that goods were unloaded there and either taken inland by pack-animal, or possibly smaller vessels used to ship cargoes further upstream. This latter option may have been contingent on the season, for many rivers may have dried out in the hot summers of the region (Raban 1985, 19). Others would have been too shallow or narrow to be navigable, or the river outlet 49

Or, as Artzy suggests ( 1 9 9 8 , 4 4 3 ) , that much of the quota of imported pottery found at coastal sites is due to breakages en route or in the process of unloading. 50 See especially Raban 1985 and 1998 for detailed discussion and maps of the estuaries and harbours of the coast of Israel during the Bronze and Iron A g e s . A l s o Artzy 1998.

would be swampy, unsuitable either for boat or animal (Artzy 1998, 440). Of the inland sites at which BoR pottery appears, many are located on or near river routes: Tel Kabri on Nahal Ga'aton; Tell Abu Hawam, Yoqneam, Tel Qiri and Tel Qashish on Nahal Qishon; Tel Mevorakh on Nahal Ta'aninim; Tel Zeror on Nahal Hadera; Tel Qasile on Nahal Yarkon; Tel Ashdod and Lachish on Nahal Lachish, Tell el-Ajjul, Tell Jemmeh, Tell el-Farah (S) on Nahal Besor and Beersheba on Nahal Beersheba (Raban 1985, 14-17, 23, Figs. 2-3). There is, however, evidence for a rise in sea level during the last two centuries of the 2nd millennium, and a likelihood that many of the riverine anchorages were silted up during this period (Raban 1998, 432). Few of these rivers during the Iron Age, aside from perhaps Nahal Besor, may have served as more than sources of fresh water (Raban 1985, 23, 29). While these rivers may not, therefore, have been used as waterways, their track from the coastal plain into the hinterland may have been used by merchants seeking convenient passage. Artzy suggests, in particular, that the Me'arot river bed inland from the Carmel coast was "used as a route supporting humans and pack animals" and notes also that Nahal Oren which led inland from 'Atlit would have been passable: Iron Age II pottery has been found on the slopes of Khirbat Shalaleh on this route, which might then open up access to Megiddo (Artzy 1998, 441, 442). The Carmel Ridge itself may not have been an obstacle to merchant traders (Artzy 1998, 442). An inland route from the Akko Plain to the Galilee and the Jordan Valley would have been possible through the Beth-Netopha Valley (Gal 1992b, 8). Also, from Yoqneam and Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley a route led eastwards through the Harod Valley to Beth-Shan and Pella (Dorsey 1991, 110-111, Map 5). In the south, the site of Tell Jemmeh, directly inland from Tell el-Ajjul, would link eastwards both with routes to Beersheba and to Tel Halif (Dorsey 1991, 58, 67-68, Map 1). The use of pack-animals for conveyance of goods is well established by this period and we must surmise that this was the major means of transporting cargoes of pottery to inland sites (Dorsey 1991, 13-17; Artzy 1994, 134-135). Donkeys were especially well-suited to negotiate the stony mountain paths of much of the region inland from the Akko Plain, which camels would have found difficult, and wagons or carts would have required wider and better cleared roads (Dorsey 1991, 14-16). The distances involved are noticeably small; a day's journey by foot covered

approximately 20 miles, rising to approximately 25-30 miles with a pack animal (Dorsey 1991, 12-13). Artzy estimates that "the distance between Nami or Dor to Megiddo is no more than a day's walk, even with pack animals" (Artzy 1998, 442). (See Figure 13:4). While very limited quantities of BoR pottery have been found in inland Syria, the ware does occur far inland at the site of Hama. Riis points out that the route of goods travelling to Hama from the Syrian coast was unlikely to have followed the Orontes River from Al Mina, but instead merchants arriving at the coast probably found a pass in the mountain ridges further south. Such a route could be followed from the coastal site of Tell Sukas to Hama (Riis 1982, 257). The route from Al Mina to the 'Amuq was feasible via the Orontes (Riis 1970, 161, Fig. 56). Conclusions This chapter has attempted to answer some of the chief questions posed by BoR pottery: how much can we tell from its distribution pattern and what was the nature of trade in these vessels. The chapter has identified a broad but relatively minimal distribution, over a lengthy period, with a concentration of the ware on the coast, especially in the Carmel area. This accords with the ware being imported to the mainland from overseas, probably as small consignments. It also suggests that trade in BoR was essentially a 'filtering-through' trade from key import points on the coast, similar to the "unofficial," "on the side" trade in Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery in the Levant, defined by Bergoffen (Bergoffen 1991, 60). Although it appears to have followed the same principal trade network as the earlier White Painted and Bichrome wares, BoR has altogether a more intensive distribution. This may simply reflect larger quantities of the pottery arriving at the coast. It may also, however, perhaps reflect an increase in contact between the coast and the hinterland of the Levant from the beginning of the Iron II period onwards. 51 It seems likely that while BoR pottery may occasionally have travelled as 'sets' of fine ware, including BoR bowls and jugs, the 51

For an interesting contrasting analysis of the difference between local coastal and inland pottery distributions in the area of Phoenicia and Syria, which persists until the expansion of Assyrian power in late Iron II, see Lehmann 1998.

contents of the BoR juglets rendered them of greater value and hence they reached a broader consumer market than other shapes in this ware. The juglets most probably contained perfumed oil. There is some evidence that perfumed oil was produced in Cyprus from the Bronze Age onwards and that similar commodities were perhaps exported during the Late Bronze Age in Red Lustrous Ware spindle bottles, and, perhaps, Base Ring juglets. Given that, in addition, no clear association between Phoenician pottery and BoR was found, a Cypriot origin to BoR ware seems plausible. This chapter, therefore, throws valuable light on the more fundamental issues of the pottery - its origin and date. The following two chapters investigate these issues thoroughly, through examination of the archaeological contexts of the pottery on the mainland and a study of BoR pottery in Cyprus.

CHAPTER THREE

THE CHRONOLOGY OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY This chapter seeks first to establish a chronology for BoR pottery use at individual sites on the mainland and then assess the implications of the results for the current chronologies of this ware in Cyprus and in the Levant in general. The problems of the chronology of BoR have been discussed briefly in the Introduction to the book. In Chapter One, it was noted that contrary to the claims of some scholars there was no evidence that this pottery initially appeared in the 11th century BC on the mainland. The claim that it is, however, a 'hallmark' of the 10th century there is persistent, and the ware is generally believed to range in date from the 10th century, continue throughout the 9th century and disappear by the end of the 8th century. However, especially at some sites in Syria and Lebanon, it has been argued that BoR is still found in levels attributed to the 7th century. This chapter assesses the accuracy of this chronological scheme and outlines the best current evidence for the earliest appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland, its 'peak' period, and the point at which it seems to have disappeared from circulation. The legacy of BoR, in terms of its influence on pottery production on the islands of Crete, Rhodes and Cos, is examined in Chapter Five. The establishment of a reliable chronological scheme for BoR is important not least on account of its high "recognition-factor." As a consequence, it holds a significant place in all future excavation of the relevant periods and in clarification of internal site chronologies. It also provides a crucial link between Cyprus and the mainland. These two regions, although geographically adjacent and historically intertwined, at present have independent archaeological chronologies, largely because few studies have attempted to correlate them. Analysis of the chronology of BoR on the mainland will not only aids the establishment of a satisfactory chronology for both regions, but it also throws important light on the trading relations between them.

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first (Section I) provides an analysis of archaeological contexts on the mainland in which BoR is found presently dated to the 10th century BC. The second (Section II) investigates contexts dated to the 9th and 8th centuries BC. The resulting information is used to establish the main 'phases' of the pottery and these phases will be plotted on distribution maps to assess any shifts in the circulation of the pottery (Maps 1924). The peak period of BoR distribution, in terms of the quantity of the material in each phase, is noted. Chapter Four assesses the chronology of the ware in Cyprus and correlates this with the data presented here. In addition to assessment of the stratigraphical context of BoR on the mainland, indications of different social status between the contexts are considered. The question of whether, during the earliest phase of distribution of BoR, the pottery appeared in 'elite' contexts and later became more popular in broader contexts, or whether that the pottery was distributed throughout the market at a low level in all periods is addressed. Although in many cases it remains impossible to determine whether the individual vessels published were found intact or as sherds of a single vessel, this does not cause major discrepancies in the chronological assessment. Notes In the following analysis full references are given for each BoR vessel examined. Beyond this, direct references are only given to 'other finds' from relevant contexts when they are of especial interest or it is expected that the reader will want to investigate them. It is possible in all cases to find the vessels mentioned below in the original publication according to the locus from which they came. (See also Appendix I). The archaeological features defined by locus numbers are referred to in some instances as 'Locus X' and, where the nature of the locus is relevant or useful, as 'Room X'/'Building X'/or 'Floor X.' A specific stratum at a site will often be referred to simply by its number, eg. Megiddo VA-IVB. Note also the different terms for the ancient mound: 'tel' in Hebrew, and 'tell' in Arabic. The names of the site originally used by the excavators

are preserved here, as are the stratigraphie terms they employed, eg. 'Niveau X' for a level published in French. Internal vessel 'Type' numbers are included where this is helpful in tracing the vessels described, for example at Megiddo. Finally, where the identification of a vessel type cannot be confirmed from the publication, this is indicated by a question mark. Section I: The 10th Century The 10th Century and the Problem of Shishak A brief discussion of one of the chief factors in the dating of archaeological strata to the 10th century is useful here. This is the campaign of the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonq I (the same pharaoh as the Biblical Shishak - see below), attested in three independent sources to have invaded Palestine and brought about the destruction of many of its major cities. One source of this evidence is the Old Testament, which records that: in the 5 t h y e a r o f k i n g R e h o b o a m , . . . S h i s h a k k i n g o f E g y p t c a m e

up

against Jerusalem; he took a w a y the treasures o f the H o u s e o f the Lord a n d t h e t r e a s u r e s o f the k i n g ' s h o u s e - h e e v e n t o o k a w a y all: a n d h e t o o k a w a y all t h e s h i e l d s o f g o l d w h i c h S o l o m o n h a d m a d e . . . A n d h e t o o k t h e f e n c e d c i t i e s w h i c h p e r t a i n e d t o J u d a h , a n d c a m e t o J e r u s a l e m . . . (I K i n g s 14: 2 5 - 2 6 ; II C h r o n i c l e s 12: 4 ) .

The second source of evidence is Sheshonq's triumphal relief, inscribed on the walls of the Temple of Amon at Karnak (Thebes) (Redford 1973, 12-13; Kitchen 1986, 432-447; Hughes 1990, 191). The inscription records names of the cities in Palestine that the pharaoh razed, amongst which those that have been archaeologically identified are T a ' a n a c h , Megiddo, Tirzah (probably Tell el-Far'ah (N)), Tel Rehov and Beth-Shan. A reconstruction of Sheshonq's campaign suggests that task-forces were sent out to include east Jordan, the plain of Acco and the Galilee, and that the returning route led from Megiddo through

1

This stela was originally about 10 feet high (Kitchen 1986, 299).

the Carmel ridge and south across the Sharon plain towards Philistia and Egypt (Kitchen 1986, 296-300, 436). A third source of evidence of the campaign is provided by a fragment of a commemorative stela erected by Sheshonq at Megiddo 1 and found in Schumacher's early excavations at the site, although out of context (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 61, Fig. 70). 2 Sheshonq's accession is generally dated to c. 945 BC and his military campaign to c. 925 BC (Kitchen 1986, 179, 295). The evidence of widespread destruction and conflagration discovered at many of the previously flourishing sites in Palestine excavated between levels dated independently to the Iron I period and the later, Assyrian, period, is believed to be best assigned to

2

For discussion of Sheshonq's campaign, see Kitchen (1986, 2 9 6 - 3 0 0 , 4 3 2 - 4 4 7 ) , Redford ( 1 9 7 3 , 3-17), Hughes ( 1 9 9 0 , 1 8 9 - 1 9 3 ) and Rast (1978, 26-27). For maps o f Sheshonq's possible routes, see Kitchen (1986, 2 9 7 , 4 3 4 ) . The motivation for this Palestinian campaign is not certain. Redford suggests that Sheshonq required tribute to replenish the treasury that had been empty o f military booty for around t w o centuries and to make offerings to the god A m u n , perhaps to o v e r c o m e the suspicion that his foreign origins (as chief of a Libyan tribe, the M e s h w e s h ) had incurred in T h e b e s (Redford 1973, 11-13). There are signs that the high priests at T h e b e s were reluctant to name Sheshonq with a royal cartouche early on in his reign, indicating tensions of this kind, although the extent to which the 'foreignness' o f Sheshonq was a burden to him may be overstated (Redford 1973, 9; Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . An alternative theory proposes that Sheshonq invaded at the request of Jeroboam I of Israel, w h o had been an exile at the Egyptian court and w h o sought help in war against R e h o b o a m of Judah; the pharaoh may have been bought off with Rehoboam's treasures from Jerusalem and turned against Jeroboam in the north ( D a v i e s 1986, 96). Kitchen suggests that "the formal casus belli was probably a border incident — incursions across Egypt's East-Delta boundaries by Semitic tribesmen" (Kitchen 1986, 294), although Sheshonq's claim at Karnak that he "smites the lands that attack him" is customary justification of Egyptian military action (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . Sheshonq's campaign was probably predominantly a s h o w o f strength (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . The exact nature of the campaign is also uncertain. Redford suggests that Sheshonq's list d o e s not necessarily represent the cities that were devastated but merely "a set of itineraries extracted from the army day-book;" the list should therefore be reconstructed as "the towns o f Palestine that he visited on this campaign" (Redford 1973, 11 n.74). Examination o f the relief at Karnak reveals in fact a suspiciously rounded number of 150 cities conquered in total by the pharaoh. One line of the relief lists towns in Nubia while the remainder is devoted to a list of towns in Asia (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . It is highly unlikely that these place-names are representative of the real campaign route and they are more likely to be a standard list of Asian cities in Egyptian records (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . Redford c o m m e n t s that although the likelihood of a destructive campaign is high, Sheshonq did not attempt to "annex" the territory he covered (Redford 1973, 11). In sum, there is little evidence for the precise form taken by the pharaoh's campaign in Palestine.

Sheshonq's campaign (eg. Rast 1978, 26-27). This is especially so in the case of sites noted in his list at Karnak. 1 Loci sealed by destruction material at many of these sites are therefore traditionally attributed to the last quarter of the 10th century. The problems associated with use of the Sheshonq evidence to provide an absolute chronology of Iron Age Israel have, however, been much discussed. First, some scholars have proposed a wholesale disassociation of Shishak with the pharaoh Shoshenq I in etymological terms (James et al. 1992, 229-231). This is not convincing. Although the "nun" character is missing from the Hebrew version of the name, the Akkadian rendering of the name, susinqu, and the later Greek name, sesonchosis, are close enough etymologically to be one and the same (Baines, pers. comm.). Of the Shoshenq pharaohs of the 22nd Dynasty, the inscriber at Karnak is clearly most likely to be the 'Shishak' of the Bible. 4 Second, the absolute dating of Shoshenq's reign is in danger of circularity. Hughes suggests that "the seemingly impressive agreement" between Egyptian dates for Shoshenq's campaign, in around the 20th or 21st year of his reign, and the Biblical dates - the 5th year of king Rehoboam - "results from the fact that Egyptian chronologists, without always admitting it, have commonly based their chronology of this period on the Biblical synchronism for Shoshenq's invasion" (Hughes 3 See Mazar 1956, 60. Sites in the Levant which feature on the list at Karnak and have major destruction levels in this period include: No. 12 Gezer, No. 17 Rehob, N o . 5 9 Tirzah (Tell el-Far'ah (N)), N o . 16 Beth Shan, N o . 14 Ta'anach, N o . 27 M e g i d d o and N o . 53 Penuel (possibly Tell e l - H a m m e h ) . 4 The other arguments offered by James et al. for disassociating Shishak with Sheshonq are equally unconvincing. These rely wholly on use of Old Testament evidence (of a campaign aimed predominantly at Jerusalem) to refute the evidence provided by Sheshonq's inscription at Karnak (which lists a range of cities subjugated throughout Palestine) (James 1992, 2 3 0 - 2 3 1 ) . Chronicles II, 12: 2-13, however, provides a theological rationale for the campaign, suggesting that when the overreaching "princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves," the Lord imposed o b e d i e n c e through Shishak's e x a c t i o n o f tribute from Jerusalem: "when he I R e h o b o a m ] humbled himself, the wrath o f the Lord turned from him, that he would not destroy him altogether: and also in Judah things went well" (II Chronicles 12: 6, 7, 12). The central role of Jerusalem in the Biblical text cannot be used to postulate a non-invasive campaign involving only Judah and unrelated to Sheshonq I. A more acceptable interpretation of the Biblical text, aside from the possibility that the scribes were working from an extant c o p y of a contemporary chronicle which records only the tribute paid by Jerusalem (Na'aman 1997, 59), w a s simply that Sheshonq did not devastate the country entirely. This has been argued also with regard to the victory stela erected at M e g i d d o (Ussishkin 1990, 73-74).

1990, 192). Hughes also questions the use of Biblical evidence for Sheshonq's campaign on the basis of proven irregularities elsewhere in the Book of Kings which shows a tendency towards producing dates in multiples of five (Hughes 1990, 78, 193). The absolute chronology of Third Intermediate Period in Egypt is, in fact, generally recognised as uncertain with no true chronological anchor of its own. Few modern scholars attempt to produce more than provisional dates for the reigns of the pharaohs within it.5 Third, the generally accepted view of Sheshonq's campaign occurring late in his reign (commonly adduced as his 20th year) has been challenged by Redford, who placed it "fairly early" (Redford 1973, 10; cf. Hughes 1990, 193). Redford argued that while the relief at Karnak "may have been erected long after the Palestinian campaign, the latter, significantly, is termed in the relief 'his first victorious [campaign].' It would be singular indeed if an Egyptian monarch delayed such a glorious baptism of fire until the closing years of his reign!" (Redford 1973, 10). Redford's view, although seldom observed by scholars seeking absolute dates for historical events of the period, is perhaps the most convincing interpretation. The date of the 20th year is extrapolated from evidence that Sheshonq began quarrying stone at Thebes in his 21st year, with which it is assumed that he intended to construct his Temple of Amun (Kitchen 1986, 301; Hughes 1990, 191). It seems, however, that Sheshonq carried out a wide-scale building programme throughout his country, any part of which may have been the recipient of the stone quarried in this year.6 In the absence of additional reasons to associate the reliefs on the Temple of Amun with the stone-quarrying activity, therefore, it is impossible to locate the pharaoh's campaign at any fixed point during his reign. Despite these problems, however, absolute dating of Sheshonq I's reign to some time in the second half of the 10th century BC is wellestablished. The presence of the Egyptian pharaoh in Palestine and the requisition of a form of tribute mentioned in Sheshonq's supplication to the god Amun is reasonably secure. Sheshonq can be associated with 5 Note that Kitchen, however, asserts that the reliance on the Biblical narrative in Egyptian chronology has been over-stated; the ten 22nd Dynasty kings must be placed before 7 1 5 / 7 1 3 BC, with a total of 2 3 0 years: "This brings the accession of Shoshenq I back absolutely minimally to 9 3 9 / 9 3 6 BC, but in fact to 9 4 5 / 4 2 BC, most likely 9 4 5 BC. Which happens to agree well with the Near Eastern data" (Kitchen 1997, 111). 6 The god A m u n in Sheshonq's relief proclaims that his protégé had constructed monuments in Upper and L o w e r Egypt, "and in every city" (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) .

Shishak of the Bible with confidence. The traditional date for Sheshonq's accession is 945 BC, with a campaign in his 20th year in 925 BC. On the basis of a slightly revised Biblical chronology, and calculating the campaign as in Sheshonq's 20th year, Hughes dates the pharaoh's accession to c. 951 BC and a campaign in c. 932 BC (Hughes 1990, 191). A later date for Sheshonq's campaign - 918 BC - is preferred by some, in line with a low Biblical chronology (eg. Rast 1978, 26-27), but has gained little acceptance amongst Egyptologists (Hughes 1990, 192). Given the possibility that Sheshonq's campaign may have been conducted at any point in his reign, it is in fact impossible to narrow the dates further than some time during the 3rd quarter of the 10th century, approximately c. 950-925 BC (Baines, pers. comm.). Sheshonq's death is traditionally placed c. 924 BC, prior to the completion of his building programme (Kitchen 1986, 302). Redford places the end of the reign at c. 906 BC, but this may perhaps be too late (Redford 1973, 13). In sum, for the purposes here, it is possible to place Sheshonq/Shishak's campaign in the last third or quarter of the 10th century BC. TO provide consistency in the remainder of this chapter, the date of this campaign is taken as c. 925 BC and Sheshonq is referred to by the Biblical name of Shishak. Shishak, Ben-Hadad or Hazael? Identifying the Archaeological Context The archaeological visibility of Shishak's campaign is a perhaps irresolvable problem. First, the difficulty of identifying a military invasion in an archaeological destruction level, as opposed to a localised or accidental conflagration, is seldom given full consideration. In the absence of a commemorative stela set in the burnt remains from such an invasion, the attribution of a destroyed archaeological level to a specific military campaign is hypothesis only. The presence of military equipment (arrowheads, slingshots) in situ in the remains is, naturally, a valuable indicator of military activity.7 An extraordinarily intense

7

For example, the discovery of a large quantity of iron arrowheads in the destruction level of a building in Niveau Ε at Hama supported the excavators' belief that this destruction represented the attack by Sargon referred to in the literary sources (Fugmann 1958, 258). A second e x a m p l e might be the destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib in 7 0 2 BC, depicted in an Assyrian relief and represented at the site itself by numerous ballista balls and iron arrow heads found at the base of the defensive ramparts around the city. S e e Ussishkin 1982, 5 1 - 5 8 .

destruction, especially from which the settlement did not appear to recover for a period of time subsequently (i.e. a period of abandonment) is also likely to be a consequence of a military campaign. 8 Second, Shishak is not the only possible candidate for agent of the destructions of many of these levels. Campaigns by the Aramaean king Ben-Hadad I against northern Israel during the early part of the Divided Monarchy are referred to in I Kings 15:20 (cf. II Chronicles 16:4): So Ben-Hadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains of the hosts which he had against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah, and all Cinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali. This campaign, which is noted only in the Bible, has been dated to c. 885 BC (Mazar 1962, 104). It is possible that the destructions more usually assigned to Shishak could instead, especially in the north, be related to this campaign by Ben-Hadad I (eg. Ben-Tor 1989, 36). It also appears that Ben-Hadad's successor, Ben-Hadad II, fought against Ahab and his sons, Ahaziah and Joram (c. 875-842 BC) as I Kings 20, 22 and II Kings 6:24, 8:7 suggests (cf. Mazar 1962, 106).9 Some scholars, attempting to lower the current Iron Age chronology, have instead attributed the destructions to the military campaign of Hazael, king of the Aramaeans, dated c. 841 BC or later (Na'aman 1997, 127; Finkelstein 1999, 59-61). II Kings 8:7-15, for example, tells the story of Elisha's prediction to the future king, Hazael: I know the harm that you will bring upon the Israelites: you will set their fortresses on fire; you will put their young men to the sword; you will dash their little ones in pieces and rip open their pregnant women... (II Kings 8: 12). II Kings 8:25 follows with reference to conflict between the kings of Israel and Judah with Hazael: ...[Ahaziah] joined Joram son of Ahab in battle against Hazael king of Aram at Ramoth-Gilead; but the Aramaeans defeated Joram. 8

Dever, for example, points out that a massive desruction at Gezer in this period "literally 'melted' the boulders of the outer towers of the Gate" i Field III (Dever 1997, 242). An example of destruction followed by abandonment is found in the recent excavations at Tel Rehov: the destruction of Stratum I was followed by a period of abandonment and then reoccupation on a greatly decreased scale (Mazar, pers. comm.). 9 There is s o m e debate about the sequence of Aramaean kings and the possibility o f an Aramaean king - Ben-Hadad I or II - fighting the strong Omride dynasty of the early 9th century has been challenged (Pitard 1992, 6 6 3 - 6 6 5 ; Finkelstein 1999, 59). Assyrian texts mention an Aramean king Adad-Idri as contemporary with Ahab, w h o is presumably Ben-Hadad II (contra Pitard 1992, 664).

An Aramaic inscription found at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel is also attributed by these scholars to Hazael, who is proclaiming his victory over the kings Joram and Ahaziah (Biran & Naveh 1993, 90; 1995, 13; Na'aman 1997, 126): ...I slew [seve]nty kin[gs],10 who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]-g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation...].11 The scholars propounding this view have assigned the destruction of the enclosure settlement at Iron Age Jezreel to Hazael (Na'aman 1997, 126-127; cf. Ussishkin & Woodhead 1997, 69-70). Chiefly on the basis of alleged similarities between the ceramic repertoire of this site and that of Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB, Yoqneam Stratum XIV, Beth-Shan Stratum Lower VB, Tel 'Amal Stratum III, the cultic site at Tell Ta'anach and Hazor Stratum IX, these scholars have also assigned the destructions of all the above levels to Hazael (Na'aman 1997, 126-127; Finkelstein 1999, 59-61). There are equally, however, problems with this attribution. 12

10 Translation: Biran & N a v e h 1995, 13. Na'aman reconstructs this as "[migh]ty C d ] m ) kin[gs]". 11 Most of the sites mentioned as locations for battles with the Aramaeans are east of the Jordan river, but II Kings 12:17-18 relates that Hazael captured Gath and took tribute from Jerusalem (cf. Biran & N a v e h 1993, 95). 12 Not only is there, as yet, no more substantial evidence to associate the destruction of these sites with destruction by Hazael than Shishak (or in the case of Hazor, Ben-Hadad), but the argument itself is problematic. For example, Finkelstein views Hazor X, Megiddo VA-IVB, and the enclosure at Jezreel as contemporary, with Hazor X only perhaps "slightly earlier" in the late 10th - early 9th centuries (Finkelstein 1999,59-60). Yet, he also suggests that Megiddo VA-IVB, the enclosure at Jezreel and Hazor IX (as well as a range of other sites) were destroyed by Hazael, dated c. 835 B C (Finkelstein 1999,59-63). Given that Hazor IX was a relatively long-lived stratum this interpretation sits uneasily. On the basis of the present evidence, Yadin's view that Hazor IX was destroyed by the Aramaean king Ben-Hadad I in c. 885 BC is preferable, although a military end to this stratum is also uncertain (Ben-Tor 1989,36; see below, 124 n.22). While the aggressive policies of Hazael are evident from the Biblical texts and in the reconstruction of the Dan stela, and an association between destructions at sites in the north and Hazael's activities are plausible, it seems there is as yet little evidence with which to reassign a large range of sites to this substantially later period. The proposed correlations between the pottery of the Jezreel enclosure and Megiddo VA-IVB (Zimhoni 1997, 92) also require further study. In the opinion of this author, the similarities are not based on an adequate quantity of diagnostic wares to warrant this shift in the chronology of the period, nor is the longevity of certain ware types sufficiently taken into account (cf. Mazar 1999, 38-42).

It is clear that in view of these issues, however, attribution of some of the destructions excavated at the sites examined below to a historical figure, such as Shishak, must be cautious. Analogous ceramic assemblages found with some consistency in destruction levels at sites in the possible 'path' of Shishak's campaign, however, renders the attribution of these destructions to the Pharaoh's campaign more likely. The evidence of associated pottery assemblages and the correlation of the various strands of evidence for the dating of these sites are presented at the end of Section I of this chapter. Megiddo The site of Megiddo was first excavated in 1903 by a German team led by G. Schumacher. The finds of this excavation, most notably the Middle Bronze Age 'Mittelberg' and 'Nordberg' and remains of a 'Palast' (which later became 'Palace 1723' - see below) were published by Watzinger in 1929. In 1925, a Chicago expedition began further excavation, and this continued under different directors until 1939. The results of these excavations were published in 1939, as Megiddo I, by Lamon and Shipton, and in 1948, as Megiddo II, by Loud. Subsequent excavations were carried out in the 1960s by an Israeli expedition under Yadin and have been renewed by Ussishkin and Finkelstein in recent years. The results of these later excavations, though important to the clarification of the site's stratigraphy, have not been published in complete volumes. For the purposes of determining the chronology of BoR, the publications of the two Chicago expeditions are the most comprehensive. The inclusion of site plans and photographs, as well as lists of loci and their finds, renders it possible to establish a good chronology for BoR pottery at the site. For this analysis, it is most productive to examine the two major volumes representing successive expeditions separately. First therefore the pottery from the 1925-1934 Chicago expedition is catalogued, followed by a discussion of context and other finds, and then the publication of the 1935-1939 Chicago expedition. A possible date for the earliest appearance of BoR pottery at Megiddo is then discussed. Further discussion of the subsequent appearances of BoR at the site takes place in Section II of this chapter.

The

Stratigraphy

The stratigraphy of Iron Age Megiddo is controversial, due to the pioneering nature and early date of the major excavations at the site, the range and complexity of the architectural layout, and scholars' persistent attempts to find traces of the Biblical Solomon in the site's monumental architecture. In addition, it has become clear that Strata V-IV, with which we are concerned in the case of BoR, require certain reassessment. The first main publication of the site, Megiddo I (Lamon & Shipton 1939) presented Stratum V as a single stratum; a city of predominantly domestic buildings, unfortified and protected only by a perimeter ring of houses, and probably representing a "peaceful agricultural settlement" (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 3). In 1948, the later excavators of the mound published two separate strata, VB and VA (Loud 1948, 45-46). Stratum VB was a poor and sparse stratum; Stratum VA contained a rich variety of finds, well-defined architecture and areas of possibly cultic nature (eg. Locus 2081, Area AA). It is clear from examination of the stratigraphy of the 'Stratum V' of the Megiddo I publication that some of the buildings in this stratum, such as Building 10 and Building 1A, should be reassigned to Stratum VA. The excavators state that there were " a number of walls under Building 10" and that there was most likely "rebuilding within the V period" (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 6-7). 13 Building 51, which is nearby Buildings 1A and 10 (and of similar construction to Building 10), should also probably be assigned to Stratum VA.14 A reassessment of the stratigraphy, therefore, places the BoR pottery from these two Buildings, 10 and 51 into Stratum VA. The discovery by Albright and Wright that Stratum VA was in fact the same level as Stratum IVB at the northern and southern areas of the mound led to the definition of a new, single, stratum: VA-IVB (Davies 1986, 8687). This was preceded by Stratum VB, (of predominantly domestic nature, as described by Lamon and Shipton), and succeeded by Stratum IVA (or ' I V ' ) . The stratigraphie associations of the 13

S e e also Rast 1978, 2 4 - 2 5 w h o notes Yadin's personal communication that Building 10 belongs to Stratum VA-IVB; D a v i e s 1986, 79, and Ussishkin 1990, 73. 14 Yadin believed Buildings 1A and 10 to be the residential buildings associated with the Palace 6 0 0 0 he discovered at the north of the mound. This Palace has generally been accepted as belonging to Stratum VA-IVB, as its foundations overlie the remains of Stratum V B and V I A structures beneath ( D a v i e s 1986, 87-88).

fortification systems and city gates in these strata are further problems and are not discussed here. It is found that, as is the general assumption, the earliest appearance of BoR is in Stratum VA-IVB. Megiddo I: (Lamon & Shipton

1939)

The BoR: '5 • BoR Juglet ÍJugl Type 123 (1939, pi. 5). Handle-ridge juglet. 9 examples assigned to Stratum V. Fragments of this vessel type were found in Locus N=1710 in Area B, possibly belonging to Stratum VB (see below). One example was found in Locus 1669, a room in Area Β (Square Q8). This room is illustrated only by photograph (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 123) and is located in the area north of Building 1482 and between Courtyard 1693 and the later courtyard of the Southern Stables 1576. It may have been associated with Building 1482 and should be assigned to Stratum VA-IVB. Three juglets of this type were found in Locus 50, one example found in Locus 52 and one example found in Locus 53 (rooms in Building 51, Area C). One further example was found in Locus 6 and one in Locus 7 (rooms in Building 10, Area C). • BoR Juglet Marl Type 87 (1939, pi. 17). Two-handled juglet. 5 examples assigned to Stratum V. One juglet of this type was found in Locus 50 (Building 51). A second example was found in Locus 1710, Area B, a small room beneath Courtyard 1693. One further example was found in Locus '-1693 (Q10),' which corresponds to the level beneath the lime plaster paving of Courtyard 1693. Courtyard 1693 was ascribed to Stratum IVB by the excavators (later called Stratum VA-IVB) and is associated with Building 1723. The BoR juglets from Locus - 1 6 9 3 and Locus 1710, as well as the handle-ridge juglet from Locus N=1710 (above), may therefore possibly belong to Stratum VB. Two further juglets of this type were found in loci E=1673 and S=1682, Area A. These loci are related to rooms of two separate buildings (1673 and 1682) located beneath the lime-plaster courtyard of Southern Stables 1576. The small buildings are possibly contemporary with Building 1482. Southern Stables 1576 belong to Stratum IVA and Building 1482 is dated to Stratum VA-IVB ('IVB'). The BoR pottery within the smaller-scale 15

Note that, due to the large amount of BoR pottery in g o o d contexts at Megiddo, the f e w fragments found in contexts named only by square, or dissociated from any structure, will not be included in this survey.

buildings should therefore be dated to Stratum VA-IVB, with a possible, but unlikely, extension into Stratum VB. 16 • BoR Jug Type 176 (1939, pi. 8). Trefoil-lipped jug, double-handled, c. 30 cm high. I example assigned to Stratum V. Found in Area C, Locus 52 (Room in Building 51). • BoR Bowl Type 107 (1939. pi. 29). Wide open bowl with foot, looped handles, c. 20 cm diameter. 3 examples assigned to Stratum V. One example was found in Area C, Locus 398 (Room nearby Building 51). Two further examples are assigned to Stratum V: from Loci 294 (square S i l ) and S=1673 (square Q7). Locus S=1673 belongs to Area A (beneath Southern Stables 1576), and should probably be dated to Stratum VA-IVB. Locus 294 belongs to a room at the south-east corner of the mound, between Areas Β and C, directly to the east of Building 1723. This room is not drawn in the plans, and it is impossible to identify its relationship to Building 1723. Its relatively rich finds however, such as a steatite scaraboid, seals of steatite and limestone, beads of lapis lazuli and shell and a bone hairpin (as well as bowls partly wheel, partly hand-burnished discussed below) suggest that it might be associated with the 'palace' 1723, and therefore at a corresponding level, Stratum VA-IVB. • BoR Bowl Type 140 (1939, pi. 30). Wide open bowl with foot, horizontal bar handles, c. 20 cm diameter. 2 examples assigned to Stratum V. One example was found in Area C, Locus 52 (Room in Building 51). The second example of this bowl type was found in Locus S=1685. 16

D a v i e s 1 9 8 6 , 7 7 c o m m e n t s that the f i n d s o f Stratum V B can be " s u p p l e m e n t e d with those attributed indiscriminately to Stratum V in Area A , b e c a u s e it is n o w clear that Stratum VA is represented in this area by the higher level w h i c h the e x c a v a t o r s c a l l e d Stratum I V B (Palace 1723, its courtyard and the adjacent B u i l d i n g 1482). T h e structures w h i c h underlie this must b e l o n g to Stratum V B . " H o w e v e r , although B o R pottery is found beneath the courtyard o f B u i l d i n g 1576, this c o m p l e x w a s built later than B u i l d i n g 1482, w h i c h b e l o n g s to Stratum V A - I V B (although c o n t i n u i n g into Stratum IV in d i m i n i s h e d form). T h e e x c a v a t o r s note: "the w a l l s o f certain r o o m s b e l o n g i n g to the h o u s e [ 1 4 8 2 ] p l u n g e d under w a l l s and f l o o r s o f the stable c o m p l e x [ 1 5 7 6 ] " ( L a m o n & Shipton 1939, 9). T h e smaller b u i l d i n g s located to the w e s t o f B u i l d i n g 1 4 8 2 m a y have been a s s o c i a t e d with it, and cannot, therefore, with c o n f i d e n c e , be pushed into the earlier Stratum V B . In addition, the p r e s e n c e o f a d e e p fill ( L o c u s 1 6 7 4 ) beneath the courtyard o f B u i l d i n g 1576 and p r e s u m a b l y o v e r l y i n g these b u i l d i n g s m a y have c o n t a m i n a t e d the r o o m s l y i n g beneath it ( L a m o n & Shipton 1 9 3 9 , 3 2 - 3 3 ) . Finally, attribution o f the small Area A b u i l d i n g s beneath B u i l d i n g 1576 to Stratum V B , as D a v i e s s u g g e s t s , c a u s e s a c h r o n o l o g i c a l gap in this area during the m i s s i n g Stratum V A - I V B period. S e e d i s c u s s i o n o f ' C o n t e x t s ' b e l o w .

This locus belongs beneath the court of Building 1576 (see above). It should be assigned to Stratum VA-IVB, with a possible extension into Stratum VB. • BoR Bowl Type 169 (1939. pi. 32) Bowl with carinated body, looped handles, c. 18 cm diameter. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. Found in Area C, Locus 53 (Room in Building 51). The

Contexts

Despite the problems of assessing the stratigraphy of the Megiddo Iron Age levels, the archaeological contexts for the BoR pottery from the first Chicago expedition are good. Buildings 10 and 51 were both built of mud-brick on stone foundations, with Building 10 particularly large. The excavators comment that Building 51 contained "much pottery in a surprisingly good state of preservation" (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 7). Building 10 also contained "a considerable amount of pottery" in situ on the floors of the two rooms, 6 and 7 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 3). The excavators suggest that part or all of Building 10 may have been used as a storehouse - some of the jars in rooms 6 and 7 contained charred grain. The presence of objects of a cultic nature in Building 10, as well as Building 1A nearby, suggest that these buildings may also have had 'cult significance' and a recent study of Iron Age cult places has confirmed this possibility (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 3; Gilmour 1995, 57). The BoR recovered from beneath Courtyard 1693 (Loci -1693, 1710 and N=1710) is in contexts sealed by the courtyard above. The excavators comment on the thickness and strength of the lime plaster floor of this courtyard (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 17). However, although there is no mention of fill beneath this courtyard, a degree of levelling may well have taken place in its construction, and there are also repairs to the floor during its occupation (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 17). The BoR from these contexts may, therefore, belong to Stratum VB, but may also possibly have been contaminated by construction of the Stratum VA-IVB level. The location of the other BoR pottery, found beneath the courtyard of Building 1576 ('The Southern Stables') is problematic. 17 We have a terminus ante quem for the pottery, as the buildings from which the pottery came were clearly overlain by the courtyard, which is datable 17

S e e note above.

to Stratum IVA, and the pottery must therefore be prior to this. However, these few small-scale buildings beneath the courtyard may have been associated with Building 1482 (this is not clear in the publication) and it is possible that they belonged to the same period (VA-IVB). In addition, the lime plaster courtyard surface lay on top of a fill (Locus 1674), which was itself composed of debris from the adjacent water shaft (Locus 925). The pottery of this fill is mixed and although chiefly of Stratum V and IV types, it contained also Middle Bronze and Chalcolithic sherds, which may have contaminated the rooms beneath. The buildings in question may, therefore, belong to Stratum VB, but taking account of the chronological gap then required between the construction of these buildings and the later courtyard of Stratum IVA, as well as the possibility of contamination from Fill 1674, it would be unwise to date the BoR pottery found within them any earlier than Stratum VA-IVB. Other Finds Alongside the BoR pottery of Buildings 51 and 10 in Area C were black-burnished juglets, plain wide-mouthed jugs, red-slipped and burnished ridged neck jugs, and jugs decorated with black and red bands. A type common to these loci was the open one-handled cooking jug (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5: 119; PI. 7: 167). (This type is common also to Tel Halif, Tel 'Amal and Ta'anach - see discussion at the end of Section I, 174-175). A perforated vessel and a spouted jar were found in Locus 6 of Building 10. Bowls were generally red-slipped with a combination of hand and wheel burnish on the same vessel. A few bowls were irregularly handburnished and one of the red-slipped wheel/hand burnished bowls was decorated with simple dark painted bands. Several interesting objects such as bronze bracelets, an ivory pendant and ivory inlays, a sacred eye, faience beads and pottery shrines were found in Loci 6 and 7 in Building 10, and faience beads and a scarab in Building 51. A Bichrome bowl ('possibly a sub-Mycenaean import' - Lamon & Shipton 1939, 169) was found in Locus=1701 of Area B. Alongside the BoR of Locus 1710, which may possibly be assigned to stratum VB, were found ovoid store jars, wheel/hand burnished red slipped bowls, and a 'cup-and-saucer' vessel. In Locus ' - 1 6 9 3 (Q10),' which may also possibly be assigned to stratum VB, we

find, again, wheel/hand burnished red slipped bowls, plus a faience sacred eye, a bronze chisel and a bronze bracelet. In E=1673, Area A, the excavators found an interesting red-slipped black-painted jug with lozenge decoration and striped handles, wheel/hand burnished red slipped bowls, a wide open bowl with punched decoration on the base, a similar black-banded red slip bowl to that from the Area C buildings, and a large multi-handled krater. In S=1682, alongside the BoR juglet was a red-slipped hand burnished jug, as well as a bronze ring and carnelian, faience and 'blue composition' beads. In Locus 398, a room near Building 51 in Area C, black-burnished juglets were found, storage jars, red-slipped wheel/hand burnished bowls, as well as irregular hand-burnish bowls. Room 294, as noted above, is not indicated in the plans of the site, but is next to 'Palace 1723.' This room produced exotic items, as detailed above, but of the pottery, only wheel/hand burnished red-slip bowls, as well as one irregular hand burnished bowl. In Locus S=1685, below the courtyard of Building 1576, the pottery in context with BoR was mostly in sherd form (suggesting that it was fill) and consisted of wheel/hand burnished bowls, an irregular hand-burnished bowl and a chalice. One possible Bichrome sherd has been noted above. One White Painted juglet was found in Locus 1674. This is, specifically, the Stratum IV fill beneath Building 1576, which is rich and varied in finds but of mixed origin and stratigraphically unreliable. Megiddo 11: (Loud 1948) The publication of the excavation season of 1935-1939 in Megiddo II (Loud (1948) divides Stratum V at Megiddo into Stratum VB followed by VA. Here BoR pottery does not appear in Stratum VB. The finds from Stratum VB in areas AA, BB, CC and DD are minimal and include black-burnished juglets (Loud 1948, PI. 87:17-19), a perforated 'strainer' bowl, a red-slip burnished bowl (hand/wheel burnish not specified) (Loud 1948, PI. 87: 21, 22), a carinated redslipped fine ware bowl (Loud 1948, PI. 146: 8), and plain jugs and juglets (Loud 1948, PI. 87: 14-16). Also included in this stratum are fragments of a limestone horned altar (Locus 2074), a bronze human figurine (Loud 1948, PI. 239:31) and a bronze bowl (Loud 1948, PI. 190: 13).

The BoR • BoR Bowl Type 373 (1948. pi. 90:1). Wide open bowl, looped handles. 2 examples assigned to Stratum VA. Two bowls were found in Locus 2081, Area AA. This was a room in a building complex to the north-west of the city gate, along the perimeter of the mound. • BoR Bowl Type 374 (1948. pi. 90:2). Deep bowl, two looped handles. 4 examples assigned to Stratum VA. Two bowls were found in Locus 2081, one in Locus 2111 and one in Locus 2100, all rooms of buildings in Area AA. • BoR Bowl Type 375 (1948. pi. 90:3). Deep large bowl with looped handles and 'feather' motif. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. This bowl was found in Locus 2081 in Area AA. • BoR Bowl Type 376 (1948, pi. 90:4). Small bowl ('Cypriote imitation (?)'), one horizontal handle. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. Bowl found in Locus 2081, Area AA. • BoR Juglet [Jarl Type 171 (1948. pi. 89:6). Two handled juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. Juglet found inside large jar with perforated body, in Locus 2081, Area A A. • BoR Juglet Type 470 (1948. pi. 88:6). Trefoil-lipped juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. Juglet found in Locus 2162, room adjacent to Locus 2081, Area AA. • BoR Juglet Type 471 (1948. pi. 88:7). Trefoil-lipped juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. Juglet found in Locus 2100, room in building adjoining Locus 2081, Area AA. • BoR Juglet Type 472 (1948. pi. 88:8). Trefoil-lipped squat juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. Juglet found in Locus 2081, Area AA. • BoR Jug Type 473 (1948, pi. 88:9). Trefoil-lipped jug. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. Jug found in Locus 2081, Area AA. • BoR Juglet Type 482 (1948. pi. 88:18). Conical juglet. 4 examples assigned to Stratum VA. Two conical juglets from Locus 2081, one from Locus 2100 and one from Locus 2164, all rooms in buildings in Area AA. • BoR Juglet Type 483 (1948. pi. 88:19). Basket-handled spouted juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA.

Found in Locus 2164, room in building next to Locus 2081, Area AA. • BoR Jug Type 492 (cf. 1939. pl. 5:123). Handle-ridge juglet. 3 examples assigned to Stratum VA (not illustrated). Two examples found in Locus 2081, Area AA, one example found in Locus 2100, Area AA. The

Contexts

Only limited details of the contexts of the BoR pottery published from the excavation seasons of 1935-1939 at Megiddo are available. The excavators note that of the Stratum AA buildings, none is complete. Pottery is abundant in the rooms of the buildings in this area, however, and many of the rooms are stone-paved, although this does not seem to have been preserved throughout the rooms. The excavators comment on the difficulty of determining the exact layout of the room structure: "Stone floors are present in so much of the stratum that they lose their usual value in distinguishing courts f r o m covered rooms. The absence of thresholds and the fact that tops of walls as found are in many cases at floor level, so that most door locations are lost, also make positive restoration difficult." (Loud 1948, 45). The excavators' reconstruction of the building complex in this area proposes that Locus 2081 may be a forecourt. Two upright stones were found in the rooms to its north, and the 'cultic' association of many finds from Locus 2081 suggests that this area may have been associated with ritual of some sort (Loud 1948, 45, fig. 102; cf. Gilmour 1995, 62-63). The location of one of the BoR juglets from this locus inside the large perforated jar is particularly interesting in terms of the function of the vessels. 18 The probability that the BoR juglet was used for perfumed oil was considered in the previous chapter. There are other examples of BoR juglets found in context with perforated vessels, such as in Building 10 of the Megiddo I publication (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 23:20, see above). This combination of vessels also appears at other sites, such as Hazor and Beth-Shan. At Ta'anach a perforated vessel is found, without any BoR pottery, in the 'Cultic Structure' (Rast 1978, 33, 35). The possibility of some

18 N o t e also the B o R juglet contained within an unspecified "grande jarre" in a burial at Hama in Syria (Riis 1948, 19).

pouring/anointing ritual should therefore be considered. Note also the number of trefoil-lipped BoR juglets in this locus, designed particularly for pouring. In his publication of the pottery from Ta'anach, Rast, following Crowfoot, suggests that the perforated vessel was probably used as a censer, rather than a strainer (Rast 1978, 35). The large perforated jar probably also functioned as a censer, while the bowls with perforation on the bottom of the vessel were probably strainers. There seems to be strong evidence, therefore, that the BoR juglet and its contents were part of the perfume paraphernalia of some cultic activity. The BoR pottery from Stratum VA of the Megiddo II publication comes therefore only from Area AA; Stratum VA was barely represented in Area BB, not represented in Area CC and while Area DD has traces of "impressive" architecture from Stratum V (VB and VA), these features are "so interwined and their levels so wandering" that no attempt was made to decipher them (Loud 1948, 116). No BoR was found in this area. Other Finds The finds from Stratum VA alongside BoR pottery are particularly significant in the case of Locus 2081. The range of items recovered from this locus was extensive (Loud 1948, 161-162). It included redslipped burnished bowls (no details on the form of burnish are given, other than in some cases, "irregular burnish"), cylindrical juglets, plain jugs, a double-handled cooking jug, a red-slipped pyxis, a chalice and a large 'cult' stand. Also found in this locus were scarabs, seals of steatite, limestone and hematite, four iron arrowheads, fragmentary iron axes, amulets, carnelian, faience, glass and shell beads, pendants, a bronze toggle pin, fibula and bracelets, limestone altars and a limestone offering stand, basalt vessels, astragali in a clay bowl, possible clay game pieces, and preserved grain. The other loci in which BoR was found seem to have been associated with the same complex as that of Locus 2081 : Loci 2111, 2100, 2162, 2164. These loci contained beads, a steatite seal, a bronze spear or arrowhead, a faience Ptah-Sokar amulet (in Locus 2162) and a faience ape amulet (Locus 2164), as well as plain jugs and red-slipped kraters. Few bowls were found in these loci. A large White Painted amphora was found in Locus 2102, adjacent to Loci 2100 and 2162.

Discussion of Chronology This analysis of the middle Iron Age strata at Megiddo is instructive. It is likely that BoR pottery appears for the first time in Stratum VAIVB. Three exceptions to this may be the BoR juglets that were found in Loci 1710, N=1710 and - 1 6 9 3 (all below Locus 1693) in Area A, by the Megiddo I expedition. Notwithstanding possible contamination of these loci beneath the courtyard, the dating of Courtyard 1693 to Stratum VA-IVB, in association with Palace 1723, places the pottery beneath it into the preceding period, Stratum VB. The possibility of a small quantity of BoR pottery in Stratum VB at Megiddo should, therefore, be observed. The large quantity of BoR pottery in Stratum VA-IVB, however, suggests that the pottery was by far most popular in this period. The absolute dating of Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB has continued to be a subject of scholarly controversy since the early excavations at the site. 19 One of the main diagnostic wares of the early Iron II period is red-slipped pottery, in particular red-slipped bowls. The transition from irregularly hand burnished red slip, to a combination of hand and wheel burnished pottery, and finally to the solely wheel burnished ware has been studied at length in attempts to define diagnostic pottery for the early Iron II.20 The pattern in Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo of irregularly hand burnished red-slipped bowls appearing alongside bowls with a combination of wheel/hand burnish is interesting. This phenomenon has usually been dated, with a degree of circularity, to the mid - late 10th century, on the basis of the supposed date of the destruction of this level at Megiddo to Shishak's campaign of c. 925 BC (Holladay 1990, 63). However, for our present purposes, a date of the mid-late 10th century for the earliest appearance of BoR at Megiddo is satisfactory. Various other finds from the contexts examined above support a 10th century date, such as the predominance of bronze as opposed to iron objects (see also the conclusions to this Section). The absence of any Phoenician pottery is

19 See, most recently, the attempts to date M e g i d d o V A - I V B to the 9th century, on the basis largely of its supposed association with the 'enclosure' period pottery at Tel Jezreel (Finkelstein 1996) and subsequent rejection of these claims by Mazar 1997, Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998, w h o reinstate the level in the 10th century. A l s o see Rast 1978, 4, for a brief but useful discussion. 20 For discussion of red slipped and burnished pottery, see particularly Mazar 1985, 33-36; Holladay 1990, Stager 1990, 102-103; Mazar 1998, 3 6 8 - 3 7 8 .

also significant and perhaps indicates a date prior to the ascendance of the Phoenician trading networks. Of the contexts themselves, the association of BoR pottery with areas of possible cultic affiliation, such as Locus 2081 and part of Building 10, suggest that BoR pottery was a reasonably high-status ware at this stage, although the focus of excavation on 'key' areas at the site must be taken into account. The quantity of BoR pottery at Megiddo, c. 40 vessels, is considerably above average. The scale of excavation at the site is also greater than at most other sites investigated, and it may be that this number represents a more accurate quota of BoR than is represented by other sites. The appearance of the pottery in relatively large quantities for the first time in Stratum VAIVB at Megiddo supports the excavators' original assessment that the level represents a departure from the preceding stratum in terms of both architecture and ceramics (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 7). Hazor The site of Hazor, north of the Galilee, was first investigated by Garstang in the 1920s. Major excavation, however, only began in 1955 with an Israeli expedition led by Yigael Yadin. These excavations continued until 1958 and are published in three volumes, Hazor I (the first season of 1955), Hazor II (the second season of 1956) and Hazor III-IV (the third and fourth seasons of 1957-1958). The plates volume of this latter was published by Yadin in 1961. The text volume was published posthumously in 1989, edited by Amnon Ben-Tor.21 One further season at Hazor was conducted by Yadin in 1968. Excavations at Hazor were renewed in the 1990s under the directorship of Ben-Tor and the results of Yadin's 1968 season as well as these recent excavations have appeared in the publication Hazor V (Ben-Tor 1997). This latter publication represents, however, the selective excavation of old areas and small-scale new areas on the mound, and offers only a very small quantity of BoR pottery. This investigation, therefore, focuses on the publications of Hazor I-TV. As with the Megiddo volumes, each consecutive publication is considered individually. 21

The text of Hazor III-IV is thus referred to as Ben-Tor 1989, but Yadin's v i e w s are specified where relevant. Hazor I, II and the plates of III-IV were published by Yadin ( 1 9 5 8 , 1960, 1961).

An important article clarifying some of the issues surrounding Strata X-IX at Hazor appeared in 1998 (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998). This was based on further excavation beneath the Pillared Building, in an extension of Yadin's area, and a general re-assessment of the evidence. The information provided in this article is incorporated into the following discussion. The stratigraphy of the site of Hazor is beset by fewer problems than at Megiddo, although the 'Solomonic' contribution to the Iron Age architecture of the site continues to be a subject of debate. Iron Age occupation of the site is evident only in the Upper City (the tell). Three areas of excavation on the tell, Area A at the centre of the mound, Area Β at the western edge of the tell, and Area G at the eastern edge of the tell all exposed structural remains from the Iron Age. The first phase of the Iron Age at Hazor is represented by Stratum XII; Stratum X is commonly believed to be the 'Solomonic' period of occupation, and Stratum III represents the (post-) Assyrian occupation of the site. During Strata X-IX, only the western part of the tell was occupied and fortified (with a casemate wall and a city gate in the middle of the tell). This occupation was exposed in Areas A and B. In Stratum VIII, occupation expanded to include the whole tell, and fortifications (including a solid wall) extended to the eastern edge (excavated in Area G). BoR pottery makes its first appearance in Strata X-IX: these strata, and the subsequent Stratum VIII in Area G is therefore investigated here. Hazor I: (Yadin 1958) The BoR • BoR Juglet (1958, Pl. XLVI: 1,2) Probably handle-ridge. 2 examples assigned to Stratum IX-X. Two fragments of possibly the same BoR juglet were found in Area A, Locus 92a, in square H I 3 - 'Sounding - Stone Flooring.' This was located beneath the 'Pillared Building' and was the only square in Area A in which remains of Strata X and IX were noted during this season. A 'conspicuous burnt layer' was visible in Locus 92a covering the structures assigned to Strata IX-X, but the intrusion of part of Garstang 's trench made distinction between the two strata impossible (Yadin 1958, 10). No more BoR was published from the first season of excavation, prior to Stratum III. In this stratum one BoR juglet (possibly a jug), and

three possible BoR bowls were published from Citadel III. This structure was built using a considerable quantity of fill, and therefore produced pottery of earlier as well as later strata (Yadin 1958, 49-54). The

Contexts

As noted above, Locus 92a lay beneath burnt material, but the excavators do not specify whether this was a deposit that sealed the locus (Yadin 1958, 10).22 No plans of Strata IX-X from the 1955 season are offered in the publication. The relationship between the 'walls' in this square belonging to the Casemate City Wall and the "cobbled pavement belonging to an earlier stratum" (Yadin 1958, 10) is, therefore, unclear. The presence of the pottery beneath a burnt deposit may, however, secure it in association with the other wares found in the same locus. 23 Other Finds A limited quantity of pottery was found in Locus 92a. This included lamps, jug fragments and a number of red-slipped burnished bowls. The publication does not always note which vessels are handburnished and which wheel-burnished, but the wheel burnish technique is intermittently present. Hazor II: (Yadin 1960) The BoR • BoR Bowl (1960, PI. LI: 7) Wide open bowl with two looped handles. 1 example assigned to Stratum X. No decoration is noted on this bowl, but it appears to have a 'brown' slip and is of BoR shape. It is found in Area A, Locus 174b, square J11. This is the Street in between the Casemate Wall and the Buildings to the west (these 'Buildings' became the Pillared Building of Stratum VIII) (Yadin 1960, 2).

22

S e e ' D i s c u s s i o n of C h r o n o l o g y ' b e l o w for c o m m e n t . T h e burnt matter noted by Yadin's excavations w a s attributed by Yadin to destruction by the Arameans c. 8 9 0 B C at the end o f Stratum I X A . Aharoni attributed the s a m e burning to an Aramean destruction at the end o f Stratum I X B , before the final phase of Stratum IX. Ben-Tor and B e n - A m i , in their most recent study, suggest that the burning is instead "evidence o f s o m e sort o f industrial activity" in the building (Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998, 10). 23 Rast, in his study o f primary loci from sites comparable with Ta'anach Stratum IIB, c o m m e n t s that L o c u s 9 2 a is "problematical" in that it contains "later forms" as well as those contemporary with Ta'anach IIB ( 1 9 7 8 , 25).

• BoR Juglet (1960. PL LII: 17) Juglet. no handles preserved. 1 example assigned to Stratum IX. Found in Area A, Locus 116b, square J13. This was part of the Street 174b. The

Contexts

As the excavators noted, the nature of the street which was reused from Stratum X through IX to Stratum VIII put it under "suspicion of 'infiltration' from stratum to stratum" (Yadin 1960, 5). In Stratum X the street was cobbled, and varied in width from 3m (where the BoR bowl was found) to 8m. A drainage channel ran down its centre. In Stratum IX, the paving had been covered over with an earthen floor, with some areas of new paving. New structures were built abutting the street next to the Casemate Wall. The street continued, at a raised level, in Stratum VIII. The excavators note that the phases of construction in the street were well defined. Although, therefore, two fragments are too small a sample to use for chronological purposes, we can cautiously assign the BoR here to Strata IX-X. Other Finds Alongside the BoR from Street 174b in Stratum X, Area A, were found a red-slipped burnished bowl and two kraters, one red-slipped and burnished, as well as a black-burnished juglet (from Stratum XIX). In Stratum IX, the street produced 'Samaria bowls' and a part of a decorated storage jar (Yadin 1960, Pl. LIL20). Further west in Stratum IX was found a storage jar decorated in brown with a large metope (Yadin 1960, PI. LII:21). This decoration, as well as the sharpangled shoulder of the vessel, also appears in Stratum VIII (Yadin 1960, PI. LIX: 4, 7). Hazor III-IV: (Yadin 1961)™ The BoR • BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CLXXII: 1) Hand1e-ridge(?) juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum XB. This juglet was found in Area A, Locus 203d, square F l 5 . This locus belongs to a room in the building complex (Building 200-202) to the 24

N o t e that the contexts of the pottery referred to b e l o w from Yadin's v o l u m e of 1961 are discussed in Ben-Tor 1989.

north of the pillared building (and underlying it), west of the casemate wall. Room 203d contained clay ovens and was of domestic nature. • BoR Bowl (1961, Pl. CLXXIV: 9) Deep bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum XA. This bowl was found in Area A, Locus 213c, square G13. This is a southern room in the building complex (Building 200-202). Part of this room underlay the Pillared Building of Stratum VIII. • BoR Juglet (1961. PL CLXXIV: 15) Fragment of juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum XA. 25 The juglet sherd was found in Area A, Locus 221c, square H14. This locus was assigned to the 'open space' in Building 200-202, adjacent to the street. This area contained a clay oven and was a rebuilding of the open, possibly cooking area of Stratum XB (which contained three ovens). Locus 221c adjoins Room 213c (above). • BoR Bowl (1961. Pl. CLXXV: 18) Deep carinated bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum IXB. This bowl belongs to Area A, Locus 216b, square J13. This locus is assigned to the open space in Building 200-202, adjacent to the street, a rebuilding of Locus 221c (above). • BoR Juglet 26 (1961. Pl. CLXXVII: 14) Rim and neck of juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum IX-X. The juglet is found in Area A, Locus 239a, square J19. This represents the southernmost of the two gate towers in Area A (pl. XVIII: 4). This was the only room in the gate structure in which floors were preserved. The excavators comment that the vessels found here are most likely from the gate's latest phase (Stratum IXA) (Ben-Tor 1989, 31). • BoR Juglet (1961. Pl.CCVIII: 38) Squat-shaped trefoil-lipped juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum IX. This juglet belongs to Area B, Locus 3281, square Ε12. This was part of the casemate wall exposed from Stratum X in the west of the mound. In Stratum X, the room is presumed to have had an (unpreserved) entrance, on the basis of the quantity of pottery found on its floor (Ben-Tor 1989, 83; Yadin 1961, PI. XL:6). No plans are given of any alterations to this area in Stratum IX, but a photograph 25 Note the error: in the text of Hazor III-IV (Yadin 1989, 38) this juglet is noted as Stratum IXA, while in the plates and plans Locus 2 2 1 c belongs to Stratum X A . 26 This juglet neck is referred to as White Painted in the text (Yadin 1989, 38). H o w e v e r , its shape (PI. C L X X V I I : 14) and description "Pink levigated clay, burnished. Decorated (brown)" suggest that it might be BoR. In any event, its location and date is of interest.

illustrates the cache of pottery lying on the 'Stratum IX' floor. 27 Two further examples of BoR juglets may be assigned to the same locus (Yadin 1961, Pl. CCVIII: 39, 40) but the rims and part of the necks of the vessels only are preserved and descriptions of the ware type are minimal. • BoR Jug (1961. Pl. CCXLVIII: 18) Base of jug. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIII. This jug is found in Area G, Locus 10061, square O/P 8. This locus belongs to a sounding east of the Forward Bastion of the Stratum VIII city wall at the east of the tell (Ben-Tor 1989, 174-180). The Contexts Building 200-202, excavated in the seasons of 1957-1958 in Area A, lay partly underneath the Pillared Building of Stratum VIII. This building was excavated further in the most recent seasons at the site, after the Pillared Building had been removed and relocated to another area of the mound. The building complex was found to continue south underneath the Pillared Building, although only two examples of BoR were found in the new excavations (Ben-Tor et al. 1997, Figs. 11.49:8, 11.51:21). The pottery from Locus 92a, Area A, excavated in the initial 1955 season (see above), may well have come from this same complex of buildings. The excavators comment that clear phases could be determined in the stratigraphy of this area, as they underwent alterations in each period from Stratum X to IX. The excavators labelled these phases XB, XA, IXB and IXA (Ben-Tor 1989, 32). Re-examination of this area by the excavations of the 1990s have confirmed Yadin's original assessment of the sequence of strata here (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 12-13). The rooms themselves are well-defined with straight walls and, in places, stone paving is preserved. The BoR juglet found in Room 203d belonged to the earliest phase of Stratum X. This room contained clay ovens and was stone paved, part of which was preserved. In the next phase, this room continued in form but a clay floor was laid on top of the stone paving (Ben-Tor 1989, 33): the location of the BoR juglet therefore on the stone floor is relatively 27

There are s o m e discrepancies in the textual description of the phases of the Casemate Wall in Area B: s o m e of the pottery assigned to Stratum IX (see eg. PI. CCVIII) s e e m s to belong to the architectural structures described as Stratum X (Yadin 1989, 82-87). This may perhaps best be placed in 'Stratum IX-X.'

secure. In the next phase, two BoR vessels were found: a juglet from an open space (221c) backing onto the street, and a bowl in an adjoining room (213c) only partially excavated. Neither of these areas had stone flooring and the location of Open Space 221c next to the Street, which was itself re-paved in this phase, renders these contexts marginally less secure. In the next phase, part of this open space was built into by adjacent rooms. Locus 216b in which the BoR bowl is found, is an open space next to the street but is subsequently overlaid by other rooms. The context is reasonably secure. The BoR (or possibly White Painted) juglet found in Gate Tower 239a, is found in association with Phoenician pottery (PI. CLXXVII: 15-16) and belongs to a context that may have been re-used in periods later than that of the gate (Ben-Tor 1989, 31). The excavators suggest, however, that it dates to Stratum IXA. Of the contexts in Area B, the BoR trefoil-lipped juglet found on the floor of Casemate 3281 is in a good archaeological context, but whether this locus should be assigned to Stratum X, as it appears in the plans, or Stratum IX is uncertain. 28 In Area G, the excavators note particularly that Locus 10061, the sounding east of the Forward Bastion of the city's fortifications, is a secure context, and date it to Stratum VIII. The plans of this area do not illustrate the nature of this sounding (Pl. XXXI), and we must rely on the excavators' views here. The contexts in which the BoR pottery is found in these strata are largely domestic. In Building 200-202, especially, the BoR appears in proximity to food preparation utensils, such as clay ovens and basalt grinders. The renewed excavations of the 1990s found several more ovens in Locus 8019 to the south, possibly the central courtyard of the whole complex. The additional presence of "metal slag and what appear to be stone tubes (bellow parts?)" in this area led them to suggest instead the presence of "industrial activity" (Ben-Tor & BenAmi 1998, 10). Yadin's excavations, however, suggest that this complex must have served as living quarters. "Considering the large number of small rooms clustered together into living units, and their location near the city wall and gate, it seems likely that they served the garrison or royal officials" (Ben-Tor 1989, 32). In contrast, the Gate Tower 239a contains an assemblage of relatively unusual pottery (see below) and may possibly reflect either that this was a storage area 28

See note above.

for more valuable utensils, or that it served as an area of some sort of ritual, or, equally possibly, that discarded pottery was simply deposited there. Of the nature of the contexts of the BoR found in Areas Β and G, less can be determined. The Casemate 3281 may have been a guardroom, or possibly had a commercial function (see the other finds below). Other Finds As noted above, the finds from Building 200-202 in Area A are mostly of a domestic nature. In Stratum XB, Room 203d, a redslipped and burnished wide flat bowl, a perforated vessel with three feet and cooking pots, open jugs and store jars were found alongside the BoR juglet. This room also contained several ovens, as well as basalt grinders, pestles and a bone spindle whorl. Also found in Stratum XB of this Building 200-202 were a red-slipped bowl with rounded carination (Ben-Tor 1989, 37), a red-slipped jug, a jug painted with a bichrome band and a decorated store jar. In Stratum XA, the finds continue to be of domestic type. In Locus 213c, the room underlying part of the Pillared Building Stratum VIII, a small number of plain juglets and bowls were found alongside the large BoR bowl. In other rooms of the Building 200202, also in Stratum XA, were basalt mortars, an incised stone seal, and a bronze artefact, possibly an arrowhead, from the Street area (Locus 207c). In Locus 221c, the open space adjoining Locus 213c, a black-slipped bowl (burnt?), plain bowl, cooking pot and large store jar were found with the BoR juglet sherd. In Stratum IXB, the BoR bowl was found in Locus 216b. The only other find recorded from this locus is a 'cup-and-saucer' vessel. Overall however, Stratum IXB in this building contained red-slipped and burnished bowls, cooking pots, two bichrome single-handled globular jugs (Pl. CLXXVI: 6, 7), one from the adjacent room to Locus 216b, a second example of a 'cup-and-saucer' vessel, the base of an 'Achziv' Phoenician jug, a basalt bowl and scraper, lamps, a bone spatula, a bronze figurine, a large clay amulet, a bone amulet and a faience eye-amulet. Gate Tower 239a (Pl. CLXXVII) is an interesting locus in terms of the quality of its finds. Alongside the BoR (or White Painted) juglet was found a White Painted jug, a 'Samaria' bowl, four single-handled drinking bowls, two red-slipped trefoil-lipped 'Achziv' jugs, red-

slipped wheel-burnished bowls, three 'cup-and-saucer' bowls, a clay zoomorphic (horse) vessel, and a basalt bowl. In Area B, Casemate 3281 produced a large amount of pottery, including plain bowls, 'Samaria' bowls, a strainer bowl, a large redslipped wheel-burnished krater, possibly an 'Achziv' ware Phoenician jug, two fragments possibly of Phoenician globular jugs (Pl. CCVIII: 44,45), a basalt weight, a large ceramic tray, lamps, a black-burnished 'Achziv-type'jug, cooking pots and store jars. Sounding 10061 excavated in Area G (Pl. CCXLVII-III) exposed, alongside the base of a BoR jug, bowls decorated with a red-banded rim, and a red-slipped bowl. Also found in Area G, but less well stratified, was a (Cypriot) Bichrome jug, dated by the excavators to Stratum VII-VIII. Discussion of

Chronology

Excavation of Area A at Hazor by the expeditions of the 1950s, in conjunction with the renewed excavations of the 1990s, have produced a well-defined architectural and ceramic sequence for the early Iron II period at the site. The re-examination of the extended Building 200-202 by Ben-Tor's recent excavations has confirmed the stratigraphy of Yadin's original publications and his division of the earliest Iron II strata into Stratum XB, XA, IXB and IXA (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 13). Examination here of the Iron Age levels at Hazor has established that BoR pottery first appears in loci assigned to Stratum X. The pottery continues to appear in Stratum IX, and is present in subsequent levels to the end of the Iron Age at the site. Of this corpus, one BoR vessel only is dated to Stratum XB, one to Stratum X in the Street, two vessels to Stratum XA and six vessels to Stratum IXB or IX-X. The reliability of a Stratum XB date for BoR pottery at the site is minimised by the presence of only one vessel in this context, but there is no specific reason to discount it. The relative dating of Strata X-IX can be confirmed by the sequence of levels in Area A: the extension of Building 200-202 was found to cover an Iron I pit of 12th - 11th century type (BenTor & Ben-Ami 1998, 3) and it was itself overlaid by the later Pillared Building of Stratum VIII. The excavators, therefore, state that "the two strata, divided into four phases, are... 'sandwiched' into a time span between the late eleventh and the early ninth

century B.C.E." (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 5). The absolute dating of these strata is more problematic. There is some doubt over the attribution of the ashy burnt layer encountered at the end of Stratum IX to a destruction of the site. While Yadin and Aharoni believed it the result of the Aramaean king BenHadad's destruction of the site in c. 890/885 BC, the most recent excavations have instead proposed that this burning was simply the result of large-scale industrial activity in the building (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 10, 12). The use of a historical parallel to date these levels is therefore not secure. There is further confusion over the dating of the burnt layer itself - Yadin assigned it to the end of Stratum IXA (Ben-Tor 1989, 36), while Aharoni placed it at the end of Stratum IXB, regarding Stratum IXA as an "intermediate stratum which existed for a short time between Ben-Haddad's destruction of the city and the renewed building activity of Stratum VIII" (Ben-Tor 1989 [Ed's note], 36). Ben-Tor's excavation seems to support the presence of this burning at the end of Stratum IXB (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 10). On the assumption that a military conquest would tend to terminate a stratum in which it occurred, rather than be followed by a secondary phase of the same level, an interpretation of the burning as industrial waste may be preferred. The dating of Hazor X-IX, therefore, relies principally on dating of 'parallel' assemblages at other sites. Hazor is located in the Huleh valley, far north of the Jezreel valley and the other major excavated inland sites flourishing in the Iron Age. However, a comparison between the Iron Age ceramic repertoires of Hazor, Yoqneam and Megiddo has recently been published by ZarzekiPeleg (1997). 29 While Megiddo's stratification is complex, the site of Yoqneam has a fairly dense and clear series of strata for the early Iron II. Its Strata XVI-XIII have been found to show significant 29 The excavations at Yoqneam have not yet been fully published. The article by Zarzeki-Peleg comprises, to an extent, a preliminary publication o f the material from the Iron A g e and her conclusions are the result of a detailed study of the pottery from the site. S o m e further Iron A g e pottery from Yoqneam was published in a study of the Tel Qiri pottery by M. Hunt (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987, 1 3 9 - 2 2 3 ) and see analysis below. Note, however, one of the problems o f unpublished stratigraphy: Hunt's Strata 11 and 10 at Yoqneam appear to correspond with Str. XV-XIII as published by Zarzeki-Peleg (eg. Hunt 1987, 202; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 280. S e e also Table 8, 216). Future publication is required for clarification o f these strata; until then Zarzeki-Peleg's stratigraphical labelling is to be preferred.

parallels to Hazor XB-IXA (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 280, 283). The stratum immediately preceding Yoqneam XVI, Stratum XVII, is also found to bear striking similarities in its ceramic repertoire to Megiddo Stratum VIA (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 283). The dating of these strata, as has been discussed, is controversial, but a late 11th - early 10th century date for Megiddo VIA is generally accepted. A comparison with the strata at Yoqneam would therefore place the subsequent strata there, which parallel Hazor Strata XB-IXA, into the 10th century and following. Given the number of strata at the two sites, there is a reasonable possibility of Hazor Stratum IXA (and Yoqneam Stratum XIII) continuing into the beginning of the 9th century. These dates would fit with an Aramaean destruction at the site in c.890/885 BC should further evidence be uncovered to support this. The quantity of BoR in its earliest appearance at Hazor is notably small - eleven vessels (or parts of vessels) only have been found from Strata X-IX. This is most probably due to the small areas excavated on the tell from this period: chiefly the fortifications and the domestic (or industrial) structures that may have been associated with them. It may also, perhaps, be explained by the inland location of the site, beyond the usual area of circulation of imported wares in this period. A recent article by Ben-Tor has proposed that Building 200-202, which existed during Strata XB - IXA should be dated "from the second half of the tenth century to the beginning of the ninth century BCE" (Ben-Tor 1999, 33). This dating, as is seen below, corresponds well with the evidence from other sites assessed in this study and should be taken as representing the period of the initial appearance of BoR at the site. Tell Ta'anach The site of Ta'anach, located 8 km southeast of Megiddo, was first excavated by a German expedition, led by Sellin in 1902-1904, and published as Tell Taannek in 1904. Four BoR juglets and possibly one BoR or White Painted bowl were included in this publication but their exact find spots are not specified. Further excavation took place in 1963, 1966 and 1968 under the direction of Paul Lapp. A preliminary publication by Lapp appeared in 1967. After Lapp's premature death in 1970, excavation ceased and the first, and so far,

only, major publication of the site appeared as a study of the Iron Age pottery at the site (Rast 1978). Most importantly, Rast's analysis used well-stratified comparable pottery assemblages from relevant sites in the region to elucidate Ta'anach's chronology, as well as to throw light on the broader Iron Age chronology in the region. In the absence of publication of the stratigraphy at the site, as well as the appearance of only two, poorly stratified, examples of BoR pottery (Rast 1978, 29), Ta'anach's value here lies in this comparative study. The pottery assemblages he discusses bear striking parallels to those at Megiddo and Hazor, and they therefore aid clarification of the chronology of the earliest levels in which BoR appears. 30 The

Stratigraphy

As noted, the detailed stratigraphy of the site still awaits publication. Architectural and fortification remains from the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages were exposed (Lapp 1967, 3-26) but the stratigraphical sequence from the Iron Age was particularly clearly defined in certain areas on the mound. The Iron Age sequence was designated Periods IA and IB, followed by IIA and IIB. The period regarded as corresponding with Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB and Hazor X is Ta'anach Period IIB. This pottery group from Period IIB at Ta'anach is also comparable with assemblages at Tel 'Amal III and IV, Beth-Shan Lower Level V, and Tell el-Far'ah (N) Niv. Ill (Vllb) (Rast 1978, 24-26). Ta'anach IIB, like Megiddo VA-IVB, was destroyed in a fierce conflagration and some of its key loci were found sealed by destruction debris (Rast 1978, 23). The part of the mound in which Period IIB was best defined was the 'Cultic Structure' in SW 2-7 (Lapp 1967, 27-30; Rast 1978, Fig. 97a-b), and this will be examined below in comparison with Megiddo Locus 2081 and Building 10. Hazor Stratum X will also be examined in terms of the dating of the pottery sequence. Tell Taannek:

(Sellin 1904)

The BoR Four BoR juglets and one possible BoR bowl were illustrated in Sellin 's publication of his 1902-1904 excavations. 30 Finkelstein's recent attempts to m o v e Ta'anach IIB with M e g i d d o V A - I V B d o w n to the early 9th century BC are not convincing (Finkelstein 1998a).

• BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 8b) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example. From Sellin's "Nordburg." • BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 44) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example. From the "Westburg." • BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 97) Conical juglet. 1 example. • BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 94) Possibly trefoil-lipped juglet. 1 example. Neck and rim missing. Unclear from drawing whether this is BoR or White Painted. • BoR Bowl (1904, Taf. V: 1). Fragment of wide shallow bowl. 1 example. Unclear from drawing whether this is BoR or White Painted. Ta'anach I: (Rast 1978) The BoR Two BoR juglets were found by Lapp's expedition. • BoR Juglet (1978, Fig. 93:5) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example. Found in SW 1-9, Locus 19 and assigned to Period IIB, although poorly stratified (Rast 1978, 54). • BoR Juglet (1978. Fig. 93:6) Conical juglet. 1 example. Found in SW 2-8, Locus 21 and assigned to Period IIB, although poorly stratified (Rast 1978, 54). The Cultic Structure at Ta'anach Although no BoR was published from the Cultic Structure, the similarity of the pottery from this area to the pottery from Megiddo Locus 2081, which may have cultic associations, is striking. The pottery from Megiddo Building 10 is also notably similar (Rast 1978, 24). BoR pottery was found in both these latter contexts and it is useful to examine Ta'anach's Cultic Structure for comparative purposes. Excavation of the Cultic Structure by Lapp in the 1960s exposed two rooms of the building, Rooms 1 and 2. Publication of this building is limited to the pottery and one basic plan and section. Of the non-ceramic finds associated with this structure, the excavators found a large rectangular basin, probably, at least in its final phase, "employed for cultic purposes" (Lapp 1967, 27-30; Rast 1978, 23). The exact stratigraphie association of this basin with the Cultic Structure was rendered unclear by Sellin's previous excavation in the area, but Lapp proposes that of its three phases, the second was most probably

associated with the destruction of the Cultic Structure (Lapp 1967, 30). In addition to the basin, astragali and a figurine mould were found (Rast 1978, Fig. 97a). No further details of the finds have yet been published. The destruction of the Cultic Structure is indicated by an ashy burnt level approximately 0.75 m deep in Rooms 1 and 2, found above a "floor of tamped earth." In Room 1 the destruction material lay beneath a loose Iron II fill and in Room 2 beneath an Iron II floor (Rast 1978, 23). The contexts of the final phase of occupation of the Cultic Structure can therefore be regarded as well-sealed. Much pottery was retrieved from this building. It would be superfluous to provide here detailed citations of the parallels between pottery types at Ta'anach, Megiddo and Hazor which are discussed at length by Rast (Rast 1978, 27-35). For our purposes, a few examples only are noted. Quantities of store jars, some still containing grain, were found in Room 1. Some of these (Rast 1978, Fig. 34: 1,4,5) resemble the "Hippo jars" noted at Hazor Strata X-IX and Yoqneam (Rast 1978, 27-28; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997: 277, Fig. 11:13, c.f. Alexandre 1995, Fig. 2). Jugs are generally plain with thickened rims (Fig. 37:1, cf. Loud 1939, PI. 7:174) and juglet types (Fig. 40) vary from black-burnished juglets to an example of a cylindrical juglet (Fig. 40:8), which is similar to a specimen from Locus 2081 at Megiddo (Loud 1948, PI. 88:13). Of the large bowls, many good parallels are found at Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (Rast 1978, 30-31). Irregularly hand burnished bowls also appear in the Cultic Structure, of parallel types to those noted at Megiddo Locus 2081 and Building 10 (Rast 1978, 33). An important pottery type appearing in Ta'anach's Cultic Structure is the perforated vessel (Fig. 51:3), which has parallels at Hazor Stratum XB and Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (see discussions above). Rast concludes that "the cumulative evidence for the contemporaneity of the Cultic Structure, Megiddo Locus 2081 and Megiddo Building 10 groups is impressive. Nearly one out of every four or five forms in the Cultic Structure group has an identical or close parallel in one of these two groups from Megiddo" (Rast 1978, 35). In addition, Cistern L. 69, in which a cult incense stand was found, is shown to be fairly homogeneous and comparable to the pottery from the Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, 35). These conclusions have important bearing on our analysis of the chronology of Megiddo and Hazor above. BoR pottery appears in

contexts at Megiddo which bear strong similarities to contexts at Ta'anach. At both sites the contexts are sealed by destruction debris. The epigraphic records of Shishak at Karnak list Ta'anach followed by Megiddo amongst the cities he destroyed in approximately 925 BC (Rast 1978, 26; see beginning of the chapter, 85-89). It is plausible that the levels at Megiddo and Ta'anach which are destroyed by fire should, therefore, be associated with Shishak's military campaign. While BoR pottery does not appear in well-stratified levels at Ta'anach, it is present at the site and may well have belonged to Period IIB (Rast 1978, 54). There is therefore some persuasive evidence that BoR pottery was present in levels at the end of the 10th century BC in this region of the mainland. Tel Michal The site of Tel Michal is located amongst sand dunes on the coast of Israel, approximately 6.5 km north of the River Yarkon. The site is composed of a High Tell and various nearby hillocks to the north, south and east. Excavation took place in 1977-1980 by an Israeli team and the results were published in a single volume in 1989 (Herzog 1989). The importance of the site to this study lies particularly in its coastal location (and therefore access to overseas trade), as the lack of continuous occupation throughout the Iron Age prevents the construction of a complete Iron Age ceramic sequence. The dating of the site relies primarily on pottery parallels with other sites. However the excavators' dating of their initial Iron Age stratum to the 10th century is of interest to our study of BoR chronology. The

Stratigraphy

The site has suffered greatly from erosion and its remains are badly preserved. Iron Age occupation at the site is represented by Strata XIV-XII. Strata XIV and XIII, dated by the excavators to the 10th century, were exposed in architecture and ceramics on the upper and lower terraces of the High Tell. There was then a gap in occupation until Stratum XII, dated to the 8th century, which was represented on the High Tell only by potsherds. Occupation of the Eastern Hillock was badly preserved in Stratum XIV, but a cult building was uncovered in this area dating to Stratum XIII which had been constructed along the lines of a previous building. Stratum XII was

again represented in this area only by potsherds. Traces of Stratum XIV/XIII occupation were found on the Southeastern hillock. (Singer-Avitz

1989)

The BoR • BoR Bowl (1989, Fig. 7.1.1) Wide open bowl, two loop handles. 1 example assigned to Stratum XIV. Found in Locus 1522 of the High Tell. This was a room/courtyard in a free-standing house at the northern corner of the upper terrace of the tell. • BoR Juglet (1989. Fig. 7.1.15) Handle-ridge juglet. Neck only. 1 example assigned to Stratum XIV. Found in Locus 378, a fill underneath Floor 777 in a room of a building on the lower terrace of the High Tell, attributed to Stratum XIV. • BoR Juglet (1989. Fig. 7.3.10) Two-handled juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum XIII. Found in Locus 418 of Structure 423 on the upper terrace of the High Tell. This was a building reused from Stratum XIV, and may be a four-room house. • BoR Juglet (1989. Fig. 7.3.11) Conical juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum XIII. Found in Locus 423, the courtyard of Structure 423 on the upper terrace of the High Tell. • BoR Bowl (1989. Fig. 7.5.1) Large bowl, possibly imitation BoR. 31 1 example assigned to Stratum XIV/XIII. Found in a favissa, Locus 140, on the north side of the Eastern Hillock cultic structure. The

Contexts

The contexts of the BoR pottery at Tel Michal are not wholly satisfactory due to the partial state of preservation of the architecture. Much of Building 1522 (Stratum XIV) on the upper terrace of the 31

The excavators' v i e w that this bowl may have been imitation B o R is based largely on the coarseness of the clay, which could not be verified for this study. The pierced bar handle on the rim o f the bowl is not, however, as stated, a non-Cypriot feature, and appears quite c o m m o n l y , for e x a m p l e , in the tombs at PalaepaphosSkales in Cyprus (eg. no. 15 in Tomb 4 6 ) . T h e fine regularity of the painted lines on this b o w l , evident particularly in the photograph o f the vessel (PI. 59:3), warrant its inclusion here, provisionally, as BoR.

High Tell was robbed out, but there is evidence that it had originally been destroyed by fire. The BoR bowl is noted as amongst the vessels "recovered from a thick layer of ashes and fallen brick debris on Floor 1514" (Moshkovitz 1989, 64) and it may be that this context was sealed by the construction of Building 1513 on top. Room 1522 may have been the courtyard or working area of the building; it also contained an oven and a silo. The BoR juglet found in Fill 378 on the lower terrace belonged to "a rich collection of pottery vessels" underneath Floor 777 of an Iron Age building. The building however is poorly preserved and the excavators comment that the "attribution of these remains to Stratum XIV instead of XIII is based more on assumption than hard fact" (Moshkovitz 1989, 67). Of the pottery assigned to Stratum XIII, one BoR juglet was found on a "tilted floor" in Room 418 of Structure 423, possibly a four-room house. A BoR conical juglet came from the courtyard of this house, Locus 423. Structure 423 and its floors continued in use from Stratum XIV, and its finds are therefore assigned to the latest phase, XIII, although possibly belonged earlier. The possible imitation BoR bowl (Fig. 7.5.1) was found in afavissa probably associated with a building to its south which has been interpreted as a Cultic Structure (Moshkovitz 1989, 69-71). The several favissae found in this area were attributed to Stratum XIV-XIII on ceramic evidence. Other Finds One White Painted barrel-juglet neck, storage jars, a burnished jug, a red-slipped bowl, a bronze fibula and basalt grinding vessels were found from Locus 423, the courtyard of Structure 423. Floor 99, in a room in the centre of the building, produced cowrie shells, bone/faience beads, faience gaming pieces and a bone handle with an iron rivet (Moshkovitz 1989, 69). A basalt grinder and a stone weight were found in Locus 418 of this building, as well as a red-slipped thickened-rim dipper juglet (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.3.8). An almost identical dipper juglet was found in the repository of the Iron Age tomb at Tel Halif (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 8:11 ). A large redslipped krater, a red-slipped juglet and two storage jars were found in context with the BoR bowl in Locus 1522 of the High Tell, assigned to Stratum XIV. Alongside the handle-ridge juglet of the lower terrace of the High Tell, in Locus 378, a red-slipped bowl, a juglet, two cooking pots and a storage jar were found (Moshkovitz 1989, 67).

T h e f a v i s s a of the Eastern Hillock contained, alongside the BoR-style bowl, two red-slipped bowls, a chalice, and a cooking pot; other favissae nearby contained two other chalices. Discussion

of

Chronology

The stratigraphy of Tel Michal is not as precise as that of other sites studied here, nor did it produce a significant amount of BoR pottery. The contexts in which BoR appears are only in one case reasonably secure (Moshkovitz 1989, 64, Fig. 7.1.1), and publication details are minimal. No explanation is given by the excavators for the conflagration that evidently took place on the High Tell at the end of Stratum XIV (Moshkovitz 1989, 64). To surmise an association with the destruction levels noted at other sites in the northern region is tempting but unwise in the absence of any further evidence. The BoR bowl however in Locus 1522 may be regarded as fairly securely in Stratum XIV. The other contexts examined here are less securely attributed. The lack of any further architectural construction overlying the second Iron II phase, Stratum XIII, however, and the relative homogeneity of the pottery of the two strata (Singer-Avitz 1989, 86-87) suggests that this period of Iron Age occupation was relatively short-lived. Of the pottery, the great majority of the red-slipped bowls from Strata XIV are hand-burnished; wheel burnish is not yet present which suggests an early date for this stratum. Relative to other sites examined here, the site produced minimal quantities of pottery altogether. However, the excavators' attribution of these strata to the end of the 10th century on the basis of comparisons with other sites is plausible (Singer-Avitz 1989, 86). The red-slipped dipper juglet with thickened rim, for example, paralleled in the repository of the tomb at Tel Halif, as well as at Lachish Stratum V (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.3.8; Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 8:11; Aharoni 1975, PI. 42:10) supports a late 10th - early 9th century date for Strata XIV-XIII (see also 'Tel Halif' below). Most interesting in terms of a possible Cypriot connection to BoR pottery is the remarkable amount of Cypriot pottery found at the site from the Late Bronze Age (Negbi 1989, 62). So much so, that the excavators have suggested that "connections with the island of Cyprus itself were the raison d'etre for the occupation of the site from the late 17th century onward" possibly corresponding with "the founding of the first harbour towns (such as Enkomi) in eastern

Cyprus" (Negbi 1989, 62). The BoR pottery from the site is minimal in comparison with that from other sites under examination, but as a proportion of all the pottery published from Tel Michal, taking account of the small-scale occupation in the Iron Age, it is not perhaps insignificant. Tel Qiri The site of Tel Qiri is located on the slopes of Mt. Carmel, within 10 miles of Megiddo and a few miles from Yoqneam and Tel Qashish. The site was excavated as part of a salvage operation in 1975-1977. Later excavation of the nearby sites of Yoqneam and Tel Qashish as part of the Yoqneam Regional Project set out to investigate the relationship of these three sites to each other, and the project concluded that Tel Qiri and Tel Qashish were satellite settlements of Yoqneam. Tel Qiri was published in a single volume which drew also on the preliminary results of the regional project (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987). The pottery from the site was additionally discussed by Hunt (1987). A relatively small quantity of BoR pottery was found at Tel Qiri, eleven vessels only, but a complete sequence of Iron Age strata were exposed at the site. In the absence as yet of publication of the Iron Age levels at Yoqneam, therefore, which had a far larger quantity of BoR, Tel Qiri can be used to shed light on the chronology and contexts of BoR pottery at a small agricultural settlement in the Carmel region. The publication of Tel Qiri is somewhat brief in discussion of loci and contexts, although it is valuable in terms of data presented in addition to the stratigraphy and pottery. The following discussion, however, attempts to clarify the initial appearance of BoR at this site. The

Stratigraphy

The Iron Age strata at Tel Qiri represent a continuous occupation, with no evidence of any destructions by conflagration or major resettlement, from Stratum IX to Stratum V. Stratum VIIC was the first phase of Iron II, directly following a ceramically and architecturally rich Stratum VIII, in which a building with clear cultic associations was uncovered. Stratum VIIC was followed by VIIB and VIIA.

(Ben-Tor & Portugali

1987)

The BoR • BoR Juglet ( 1 9 8 7 . Fig. 1 4 . 3 ) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIIC. Found in Area D, Locus 657. This was a room in the western part of a building. This building may have been purely residential. • BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 14.5) Medium wide and deep bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIIC. Found in Area D, Locus 659. This was a room in the eastern part of the building noted above. • BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 14.6) Fragment of small bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIIC. Found in Area D, Locus 659. This was a room in the eastern part of the building noted above. • BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 14.7) Fragment of large bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIIC. Found in Area D, Locus 659. This was a room in the eastern part of the building noted above. • BoR Juglet (1987. Fig. 14.4) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIIA. Found in Area D, Locus 530. This may have been a courtyard associated with the same building as above, now associated with an agricultural industry which was probably olive oil production. • BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 24.8) Small shallow bowl. 1 example (unstratified) assigned to Stratum VII. Found in Area C, Locus 1/14. • BoR Bowl (1987, Fig. 30.7) Large wide bowl. 2 examples assigned to Stratum VI/VII. Found in Area F, Locus 1806. Area F was excavated on the southern slope of the site; Locus 1806 seems to have been a street running north to south between residential buildings. The Contexts Little information is published about the contexts or the function of the buildings in which the BoR pottery appears. The reliability of the contexts themselves is not clear from the publication, although the plans present well-defined walls and structures, often with stonepaved floors. The continuous sequence of occupation in the areas exposed during the Iron Age will have enabled the excavators to

locate each assemblage stratigraphically, especially for the earlier periods that had been least damaged by bulldozing activity. The building in Area D belonging to Stratum VIIC comprised an open courtyard, and a long narrow room in which were found a stone-built installation and an oven. Of the contexts in Areas C and F where BoR pottery was found, little can be determined. Other Finds Two kraters and a baking tray were found in context with the BoR juglet in Stratum VIIC in Area D. A storage jar was found with the BoR bowls in the same building (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 9, Photo 27). Elsewhere in the building of Area D, the excavators found four chalices, two in a room south of Locus 657, and two in possibly a courtyard area. In Stratum VIIA, Area D, several cooking pots with incised rims were found, including one in Locus 530, alongside a BoR juglet rim. One of the rooms in the building in Area D also contained a perforated vessel, belonging to Stratum VIIA. In Area F, the BoR bowls appear alongside red-slipped juglets and a large red-slipped jug (rim not preserved) in Stratum VI/VII. Discussion

of

Chronology

Tel Qiri is less valuable than more thoroughly published sites for the purposes of establishing BoR chronology. However, the high standard of relatively modern excavation at the site and its continuous Iron Age occupation can provide an indication of the first appearance of BoR in the region of the Carmel. BoR appears in Stratum VIIC at the site and clearly continues throughout Stratum VII. The pottery from Tel Qiri's Stratum VIIC is minimal and therefore not easily comparable with assemblages from other sites. One red-slipped burnished bowl found in Locus 680 and attributed to Stratum "VIIIB (VII?)" is similar in shape, but with a slightly sharper carination, to a bowl from the Iron Age tomb at Tel Halif (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 10:2; Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2). The tomb is dated by the excavators from the "end of the tenth century and the beginning of the 9th century" onwards (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167).32 This may, therefore, support a date in the second half of the 10th century for the beginning of Stratum VII at Tel Qiri. The marked cooking pots which appear in 32

S e e ' T e l H a l i f below.

Stratum VII are also regarded as diagnostic of the 1 Oth century (BenTor 1993, 1228) Hunt's analysis of Iron Age pottery at Tel Qiri states that BoR "shows a decline in frequency" during the 9th century at the site (Hunt 1987, 208). Although this may be the case, it is not especially borne out by a study of the strata at the site, and is perhaps a reflection of the traditional view of BoR as typical of the 10th century. In fact, of eleven BoR vessels at Tel Qiri, only five are in stratified contexts in Stratum VII; the rest are assigned to Strata VI/VII or V/VI. The greater preservation of the buildings in Area D in Stratum VII should be taken into account. In conclusion, while the evidence from Tel Qiri is not wholly satisfactory, there is some support for the dating of Stratum VII to the latter half of the 10th century.

Beersheba Beersheba lies in the Beersheba valley at the confluence of Nahal Hebron and Nahal Beersheba. It lies at a cross-roads between Mt. Hebron to the north, the Judean Desert and the Dead Sea to the east, the Coastal Plain to the west, and the Negev Hills to the south. Excavations were conducted by a team from Tel Aviv University from 1969-1975. The later Iron Age was published in preliminary form in 1973 as Beersheba I (Aharoni 1973). The early Iron Age remains were published by Ze'ev Herzog in 1984 as Beersheba II. This latter represents the final report of the excavations of these levels, and is a good standard of publication. The

Stratigraphy

While Chalcolithic remains were found in the vicinity of the tell, no settlement earlier than the Iron Age was found on the mound itself. Remains from the first part of the Iron Age were found only on the south-eastern slopes of the tell: Stratum IX - VI. The later period, Strata V-II, saw the fortification and settlement of the summit of the mound. Beersheba is one of the few sites at which BoR pottery is published from a level assigned to the 11th century. Since, of these sites, Beersheba is alone in having good and well published stratigraphy, it is a key site in examination of the initial period in which BoR appeared on the mainland. The dating of BoR to the 11th

century has in general been discredited (see Chapter One) but the site may provide evidence of a secure 10th century date. Beersheba II: (Herzog 1984) The BoR • BoR Juglet (1984. Fig. 24:7) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example, assigned to Stratum VII. This juglet (rim missing) was found in Locus 2307. This is part of the 'left wing' of the largest house preserved from the stratum, Building 2309. The juglet was found on the floor of this room. • BoR Juglet (1984, Fig. 30:8) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example, assigned to Stratum VI. This juglet was found in Locus 2757. This is a floor on the eastern side of Alley 2744 which led from the gateway of the settlement in towards the city, between two rows of houses. • BoR Juglet (possibly White Painted) (1984. Fig. 30:9) Barreljuglet? 1 example, assigned to Stratum VI. This juglet (neck only preserved) was found in Locus 2072. This is the courtyard area of the 'principal' house found in Stratum VI, Building 2072, in which "a rich and varied group of very well preserved artifacts" were found (Herzog 1984, 31). A long narrow room stood on the right of the courtyard, separated by pillars, and a broadroom stood at the back of the building. The

Contexts

The context of the juglet assigned to Stratum VII is of particular importance in view of the early date given to this level. The attribution is not wholly secure. Building 2309, in which the vessel was found, was re-used and subdivided in the later Stratum VI (Rooms 2029 and 1689) (Herzog 1984, 20, 29, 33). The BoR juglet was found on the floor of Room 2307, which makes up the larger part of the eastern wing of the house. Virtually nothing of the external walls of the house, or the wall dividing this room from Courtyard 2029, were preserved in this area. The condition and nature of the floor of Room 2307 is not specified. The excavators note that it lay on top of a black ashy fill which levelled off a pit belonging to Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984, 23) and that the floor of Courtyard 2029 next door, lying beneath Paving 2075 of Stratum VI, was constructed of beaten earth. Anomalies elsewhere in this house, which resulted in

the floor of Stratum VI lying on top of the under-floor fill of Stratum VII in some areas (Herzog 1984, 33) (when the buildings of Stratum VII were dismantled down to their foundations) suggests that it is possible that finds attributed to some loci in Stratum VII may have actually belonged to Stratum VI. The BoR juglet attributed to Locus 2307 of Stratum VII, should perhaps be considered in this category. It is also possible, however, that the BoR was correctly attributed to this Stratum VII context. The other finds from Building 2309, although minimal, in fact have notable similarities to pottery from other BoR contexts. The contexts of the remaining BoR at Beersheba are reasonable. A BoR juglet was found in Locus 2757 in the gateway area. This was a floor adjoining Alley 2744 which led inside the settlement, but no relevant walls of rooms or the original structures were found with it (Herzog 1984, 36). The gate itself was abandoned in Stratum VI, and the alley and the associated houses replaced it. These may have been themselves abandoned at the end of the stratum (Herzog 1984, 36). The attribution of the BoR to Stratum VI is therefore acceptable. The third BoR (or possibly White Painted) juglet was found in the courtyard of Building 2072. The juglet was found in the northwest corner of the courtyard amongst a rich cache of finds. The area had a beaten earth floor, and the excavators comment that some of the finds lay beneath the floor, suggesting that they may have been hidden there. This is a therefore a reliable context for the pottery. Other Finds The finds associated with the BoR juglet attributed to Locus 2307 in Stratum VII are not dissimilar to finds from other BoR contexts. The juglet is published alone from Locus 2307, but the pottery elsewhere in this stratum comprises red-slipped and hand burnished bowls, cooking pots and one-handled cooking jugs, a tripod-footed bowl (no perforation) and storage jars. A bronze bracelet was found in Building 2060, but also an iron blade and an iron hoe in Building 2358. In buildings outside the 'fortified' settlement area, an iron toggle pin and an iron ring were found. A clay pillar figurine was also found in these buildings. Alongside the BoR juglet in Locus 2757, Stratum VI, several red-slipped and hand burnished bowls were found, three kraters, one of which was red-slipped and hand burnished and one simply hand burnished, one cooking pot and one cooking jug, a jug

and a lamp. In Locus 2072, two black burnished juglets were found in context with the BoR (or White Painted) juglet, as well as two iron sickles, an iron knife blade and a bronze toggle pin. Discussion of

Chronology

Examination of the BoR pottery at Beersheba has produced three contexts only in which the pottery appears, but all are stratified and fully published. It is possible that BoR appears in Stratum VII at the site, and fairly certain that it is present in Stratum VI. The dates offered by the excavators for these strata are notably high. Stratum VII is dated to "the late 11th - early 10th centuries BC" and Stratum VI from c. 1000 BC until c. 975 BC (Herzog 1984, 51, 67). No BoR appears beyond Stratum VI at Beersheba (Aharoni 1973, PI. 54). Study of the pottery from these levels and the parallels cited by the excavators for their ceramic assemblages suggests that the dating of these strata is perhaps too high. Although some early pottery types are no doubt present in Stratum VII, some of the parallels cited are from the earliest levels at which they appear at other sites, while similar vessels appear at these sites in later levels. For example, the one-handled cooking jug type (Herzog 1984, 49, Fig 22: 12) has parallels at Tel 'Amal Niv. Ill, the Tel Halif tomb, and Megiddo VA-IVB (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 9:6,8; Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:3; Lamon & Shipton 1939; PI. 5: 119; PI. 7: 167) all of which are not dated earlier than the late 10th century. 33 The 'stepped foot' chalice (Herzog 1984, 47, Fig. 21:11), which the excavators comment is an Iron I type found at Beth-Shan VI and Beth-Shemesh III, appears also at Tel 'Amal Niv. Ill and Ta'anach Period IIB (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 16: 1,3,5; Rast 1978, Fig. 53:5). The minimal number of juglets preserved from Stratum VII at Beersheba is unfortunate in that these vessels are often usefully diagnostic. The presence of iron tools in this stratum also suggests a date later than the 11th century. Beersheba Stratum VI has many parallels from other ' 10th century' levels. The black-burnished juglets with handles drawn from the neck as opposed to the rim (Herzog 1984, 6, 7) are noted by Rast in his study of the pottery from Ta'anach as an early type, with "numerous parallels from late tenth-century contexts" (Rast 1978, 30, 33

S e e also the concluding c o m m e n t s of this Section.

Fig. 40: 4-6). The large multi-handled krater from Stratum VI also has a parallel at Ta'anach IIB (Herzog 1984, Fig. 29: 5; Rast 1978, Fig. 41). An almost exact parallel to the spouted jar of Beersheba VI, of which the upper part only remains, is a decorated jar from Tel 'Amal IV (Herzog 1984, Fig. 30:4; Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:2). The absence of BoR pottery from Stratum V at Beersheba, which is dated by the excavators to the 10th century, is notable. The pottery assemblage assigned to this stratum is limited (Aharoni 1973, PI. 54), and includes a probable late variety of the one-handled cooking pot, with large rounded body (Aharoni 1973, PI. 54:13). In addition, the flat open krater assigned to the subsequent Stratum IV (Aharoni 1973, PI. 55:8), which terminated, according to the excavators, "not much later than that of Stratum V" (Aharoni 1973, 5), does not appear at Tell el-Farah (N) until Niv. Vile (Chambon 1984, PI. 54:8). The chronology of the early Iron Age levels at Beersheba is problematic. The excavators assign Stratum V to the 10th century and the United Monarchy (Aharoni 1973, 106), Stratum VI to the beginning of the 10th century, Stratum VII to the late 11th to 10th centuries and Stratum VIII to the 2nd half of the 11th century (Herzog 1984, 46, 51, 67). This chronological scheme appears too compressed for the levels under consideration. In addition, the excavators assert that Yadin had dated Stratum VI to Solomon's reign but that this has been proven incorrect and the destruction of Stratum V should rather be attributed to Shishak in c. 925 BC while "the remains of Stratum VII must be dated to the time of Saul" (Herzog 1984, 85 η. 14). This emphasis on Biblical history in the interpretation of the archaeological strata at the site may be responsible for the chronological problems incurred. 34 The presence of BoR pottery in Stratum VI, and possibly, though unlikely, Stratum VII, suggests that Yadin's lower chronology for the site should probably be preferred. Even if the BoR juglet noted above has not been erroneously attributed to Stratum VII, this stratum should probably be dated towards the middle of the 10th century. Stratum VI seems to have good parallels at the other sites examined in this investigation, and it is unlikely that it existed prior to the middle of the 10th century BC. In this writer's opinion, Strata V - IV most likely belong to the 9th century. Further research is, however, required to clarify fully the chronology of this site.

34

S e e especially Herzog 1984, 7 8 - 8 5 .

Beth-Shan The large mound of Beth-Shan is located at a major junction in northern Israel, between the route leading west-east from the Jezreel Valley and that running north-south through the Jordan. Occupation of the site was virtually continuous from the late Neolithic through to the early Arab period. The site was excavated by the University of Pennsylvania between 1921 and 1933 and the first publications of the excavation appeared as two volumes in 1930 and 1940 as The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, by G.M. Fitzgerald and A. Rowe. These, however, focused on the more spectacular finds from these structures and provided only a brief discussion of the complex stratigraphy. The Iron Age strata of the tell (which in fact included two of these "Canaanite" temples) were only fully addressed many years after the excavations and appeared in 1966 as The Iron Age at Beth-Shan by F. James. The delayed date of this publication, however, the limited records available to the author and the complexities of reassessment of the stratigraphy greatly hindered the analysis, and many confusions remain. Recent (as yet unpublished) excavations at the site by Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem have attempted to clarify some of these problems, although predominantly for the later levels. These excavations did not produce any BoR pottery (Mazar, pers. comm.). In 1986, Shulamit Geva published the results of a single excavation season at the site conducted by Yigael Yadin, with Geva, in 1983 (Yadin & Geva 1986). Although the excavators identified four Iron Age strata at the site, strata 1-4, which corresponded with Lower V- VI of the original excavations, the results were inconclusive. In particular, the remains from Stratum 1, which corresponded with Upper and Lower Level V, were "much too scanty to enable any clear conclusions or serious suggestions as to the character or the life of that stratum" (Yadin & Geva 1986, 20). This study does not therefore contribute to the investigation of BoR chronology and will not be included here. Despite the problematic stratigraphy at the site, its importance in geographical, historical and archaeological terms, as well as the claims of an early appearance of BoR, requires its investigation here. This analysis will make use of James' publication of 1966, supplemented where possible by the earlier 1940 study of A. Rowe.

The

Stratigraphy

The Iron Age levels at the site comprised Levels VI to IV. Both Levels VI and V were divided into two substrata, Lower and Upper levels. Levels IV and V were exposed in their entirety on the tell, and Level VI to a great extent. Finds published from Lower Level V have been dated to a broad span of the 11th to 10th centuries, and Upper Level V to the 9th to 8th centuries. The main features of Level V are the two 'twin' temples, the Northern and Southern Temples, aligned west to east, and groups of small rooms in the north and east of the tell which are designated the 'Northern Storerooms' and the 'Southeast Quadrant.' The exact function of these complexes remains obscure, but for ease of reference the terminology used by James (1966) will be retained here. Block A is the eastern part of the Northern Storerooms, Block B-l the part of the Southeast Quadrant nearest the Southern Temple, and Block B6 the eastern group of these rooms, near the edge of the tell. The gateway area, never properly excavated, is located in the northwest of the tell. The earliest BoR pottery at the site is published from Lower Level V and it is designated a "type fossil" of Upper Level V. Its location in the former of these is particularly important in the establishment of the initial period in which BoR appears on the mainland. The Iron Age at Beth-Shan:

(James 1966)

The BoR • BoR Juglet (1966, Fig. 1:4) Possibly imitation, coarse clay. Assigned to Lower Level V. This vessel belongs to Locus 1045, which is part of the 1045-1050 Block in the south of the tell. Locus 1045 is the southeasternmost room of this complex. There is no discussion of the preservation of these rooms in the publication. • BoR Juglet (James 1966. Fig. 6:14) Juglet sherd. Assigned to Lower Level V. This fragment belongs to Locus 1029, from the floor of the central hall of the Southern Temple. The state of preservation of this floor is not discussed. • BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 8:3) Two-handled juglet. Assigned to Lower Level V. This BoR juglet comes from Locus 1211 in Block A of the Northern

Storerooms. This locus is regarded as the foundation level for Rooms 4, 5, 6 and 20 (James 1966, 52). Information on Locus 1211 is limited to diary records and a photograph, but it seems to be composed partly of collapse from Rooms 4, 5, 6, and 20, and partly, possibly of a fill (James 1966, 52). There are also indications that the locus could have been sealed by preserved floors in the rooms above. • BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 9:2) Sack-shaped juglet. Assigned to Level VI. This juglet belongs to Locus 1212 which is "the horizontal area" beneath the 'foundation' Locus 1211 of the Northern Storerooms. This is assigned by the excavators to Level VI (James 1966, 52, 58). • BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 13:8) Handle-ridge juglet. 3 examples, assigned to Upper Level V. This juglet belongs to 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513' of Block A. Fragments of two other BoR juglets were found in this locus. Locus 1513 was an eastern room in the Northern Storerooms; the excavators noted that the BoR pottery came from "somewhat below the assumed floor level at 95.61" of this room (James 1966, 54). • BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 13:8b - not illus.) No further details of vessel. Assigned to Upper Level V. This jug also belongs to 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513,' Block A. • BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 13:9) Fragment only. Assigned to Upper Level V. This fragment, most probably belonging to a juglet, comes from 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513,' as the vessels above. • BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 18:19) Fragment, most probably of jugAssigned to Lower Level V. This jug fragment was found in Locus 1082, in Block B-l of the Southeast Quadrant. This area is interpreted as storerooms, located immediately to the east of the Southern Temple. Locus 1082 was a small room which contained stairs and was probably a stairwell (James 1966, 60). The BoR fragment was found 1 metre above the floor level, presumably on the stairs. • BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 18:21) Handle-ridge juglet. Assigned to Lower Level V. This juglet forms part of the type series. It was found in Locus 1083, a room in the same Block, B - l , as the vessel above. No details of this room are recorded (James 1966, 60).

• BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 22:1) Trefoil-lipped jug. Assigned to Lower Level V. This jug belongs to Locus 1163, a room in Block B-6, the eastern storerooms of the Southeast Quadrant, near the edge of the tell. Although rooms in this Block were well-built, the walls of Room 1163 were minimally preserved. • BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 22:9) Barrel-juglet. Assigned to Lower Level V. This barrel-juglet was found in the same locus, 1163, as above. • BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 29:9) Fragment, probably of jug. Assigned to Upper Level V. This fragment was found in Locus 1350-b, which belongs to Block D5, the rooms just within the gate structure in the northwest of the tell. Locus 1350-b comprises an area of steps of limestone or basalt blocks laid on radim (packing). The BoR jug fragment was found in the radim below the steps, and further fragments (possibly of the same vessel) were found nearby (James 1966, 87). • BoR Bowl (James 1966, Fig. 39:1) Small simple-rimmed bowl. Assigned to Level IV. This bowl belongs to Locus 1147, Block B-5, which lies above Block B-6 in the east of the tell. Locus 1147 is one of three rooms that lie above Loci 1167 and 1163, the latter of which also contained BoR (see above). No details are provided of the exact context in which the pottery appears. The

Contexts

Part of the problem of analysis of the stratigraphy of Beth-Shan is the minimal information available on the loci in each stratum. While the loci are fitted into the general architectural plan, discussion is for the most part limited to a locus number and elevation, seldom a reliable means of deciphering stratigraphy. The contexts are rarely discussed in terms of floor preservation or the exact location of the pottery within them. This analysis will, however, attempt to reconstruct the contexts of BoR as far as possible. This section will be discussed in greater detail than in the case of previous sites because of its complexity. Loci 1045-1050, the rooms south of the Southern Temple, were originally placed in Level VI but reassigned to Lower Level V on the basis of pottery type and structural location. No further details are

provided on the preservation of the rooms. While this group of rooms does appear to fit together as a single unit, dating of the pottery within them is in danger of circularity, and given that the juglet found in Locus 1045 may not be true BoR, it would be unwise to base too much on this context. The BoR juglet fragment from Locus 1029 belongs to an important context. This was a floor of the central hall area of the Southern Temple (called the "Southern Temple of Rameses III" in the 1940 publication). While it is possible that the Southern Temple extended back into Upper Level VI, the BoR vessel is dated to Lower Level V. The state of preservation of the floor is unclear, but the basalt column bases that divided the interior walls of the temple were found in situ and foundation deposits "inserted to the east of them." The author comments, in addition, that " the bases rested on a level of 95.25, and this is as near to a figure for the floor of the central portion of the southern temple as the level books give us" (James 1966, 38). It may be that a floor was indeed distinguishable. The other finds found alongside the BoR in this context, however, seem to indicate a prolonged period of use. Rowe lists an abundance of finds from the floor of 1029 - including several "cylindrical cult objects" one of which was decorated with a serpent and doves, a "shrine-house," foundation deposits of gold and silver, and stone weights (Rowe 1940, 26). The presence of a fragment only of BoR is unsatisfactory and the chronological range of many of the objects from the temple renders this context less than secure. The BoR juglet found in Locus 1211 is dated to Lower Level V. This locus comprises "hardened clay", probably collapse, as well as a "softer, darker-coloured debris" and is regarded as the foundation for the rooms constructed above, Loci 4, 5, 6 and 20. These rooms appear to have had floors of differing materials - plaster and brick (James 1966, 52). Beneath Locus 1211 lay Locus 1212, assigned to Level VI and apparently beneath the "hardened clay" of Locus 1211, which might have prevented any intrusive material. (The possibility that Locus 1212 included the material beneath the soft debris area of Locus 1211 does not seem to be considered.) The two BoR vessels in these loci may, therefore, belong to a period antedating the construction of the Northern Storerooms, at least in Block A, although the attribution of one of these vessels to Level VI should be regarded as very uncertain. The dating of Rooms 4, 5, 6 and 20 most probably

to Upper Level V suggests that Loci 1211 and 1212 could possibly be dated to Lower Level V. The five fragments of BoR found below the threshold of Locus 1513 may belong to the foundation level of the construction of Room 1513. The BoR pottery is specifically noted as coming from below the "assumed" floor level (James 1966, 54). However, the excavators also noted that "work in 1513 continued down in hard reddish brick debris without reaching the bottom of the walls" which seems to belie the claim that excavation continued under the floor (James 1966, 54). The position of the BoR possibly in context with some interesting pottery here (see below) should be noted. This locus cannot, however, be assigned reliably to any earlier than Upper Level V. The BoR jug found in Locus 1082 may belong to Lower Level V. These rooms of the Southeast Quadrant, Block B - l , were built parallel to the east wall of the Southern Temple and were bounded on the north by a line continued from the north wall of the Southern Temple. Room 1082 seems to have been a stairwell, but little further information is provided. A fragment of a cult cylinder is noted from this room, though not illustrated in the plates. It is suggested that Block Β went out of use after the destruction of Lower Level V (James 1966, 60-61). Locus 1083, in which a handle-ridge juglet was found, is a small room in Block B-l which appears to be built up against the eastern wall of the Southern Temple. No further details are provided but this room is included in the area possibly going out of use at the end of Lower Level V. Locus 1163, in which a BoR jug and a BoR barrel-juglet are found, belongs to Block B-6, located east of B-l near the edge of the tell. This has resulted in some disturbance of the stratigraphy in this area. The rooms are generally sturdily built with "heavy stone foundations and thick, solid plastered mud-brick walls" (James 1966, 68), although in the case of Locus 1163 the walls are minimally preserved. While a quantity of pottery was found in this locus, the author comments that "since so little of the walls survived, it is of rather doubtful diagnostic value" (James 1966, 69). Few details are given of the floor preservation. The author comments that "1163 produced good Lower V material and a certain amount of later pottery which may belong to either Upper V or Level IV" (James 1966, 70). This context may be regarded as possibly Lower Level V.

One BoR jug fragment was found in the gateway area and dated to Upper Level V. Locus 1350-b is regarded as "occupational material from the gateway phase" (James 1966, 87). The quality of preservation of the steps of Locus 1350-b, their construction and the floors associated with them is not discussed, other than that "the surface associated with the steps in 1350 was sufficiently hard to be traced" (James 1966, 43). The attribution of this jug fragment to Upper Level V, however, is reasonable. The only BoR bowl recorded as found at the site is attributed to Level IV, Locus 1147 which is a room above the Level V rooms of Block B-6. The loci of this Block are noted as "fragmentary," and the pottery mixed (James 1966, 106). Other Finds A wide range of finds are published alongside the BoR pottery of Level V at Beth-Shan. The BoR juglet (possibly not true BoR) was the only vessel recorded from Locus 1045, but two red-slipped and burnished bowls, an alabaster pyxis and perforated vessel were found from Locus 1046, the adjoining room. Locus 1029, the floor of the Southern Temple, has been discussed above in the context of its rich finds. This included cult stands and red-slipped bowls. From the floor of the northern bay of the Southern Temple, however, (Loci 1021 and 1021-a) the excavators found what appears to be a base-ring juglet (Fig. 6:10), several alabaster vessels and red-cross bowls and cult objects. Locus 1211, in the Northern Storerooms, produced, alongside a BoR juglet, jugs and a faience vessel. Locus 1212 contained a strainer spout. Alongside the juglets and jugs from 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513,' the excavators found only a strainer nozzle. From Locus 1513, however, came a large perforated jar, similar to that from Megiddo Locus 2081, a cup-and-saucer vessel, a long narrow bottle, and a red-slipped burnished bowl (possibly goblet). This seems to be a collection of cultic-related objects and the presence of several BoR vessels in association with them should be noted. The BoR juglet found in the 'stairwell' Locus 1082, in the Southeast Quadrant, appeared alongside a red burnished bowl, an incised jar handle, a jar, a cup-and-saucer vessel, possibly a blackburnished juglet, and a spouted jar. Locus 1083 produced, alongside the BoR juglet, two large jars with plastic decoration (Fig. 18: 9 &

10), an incised jar handle, and a wide-mouthed red-slipped jug, similar to that found in the Cultic Structure at Ta'anach (Rast 1978, Fig. 39:6). In context with the BoR jug and barrel-juglet in Locus 1163, near the edge of the tell, a cup-and saucer vessel, several bowls, including one red-slipped and burnished, a 'zir' (large pithos), a cooking jug and a spouted jug were found. The radim below the steps of Locus 1350-b, from Block D near the gateway, produced only two jars and a cooking pot in addition to the BoR jug fragment, while Locus 1350-b itself produced several jars and possibly one BoR jug (not discussed here as the evidence is minimal). The only BoR bowl found at Beth-Shan, attributed to Level IV, appeared in Locus 1147 alongside a spouted jug, a 'zir', several bowls and a storage jar. The appearance of BoR juglets in association with certain vessels should perhaps be noted here. In particular, BoR seems often to appear in context with pouring and straining vessels, such as the spouted jar. Cup-and-saucer vessels also appear frequently in association with BoR and in two instances perforated vessels, a bowl and a jar, are found in associated loci. The over-riding interest of the original excavators in the temples no doubt influenced the predominance of 'cultic' objects published from Beth-Shan, but the evidence from the site nevertheless provides some support for the use of BoR juglets in ritual activity (see below, 170-173). Discussion

of

Chronology

It is clear from the above survey that, despite its geographical and archaeological importance, Beth-Shan cannot be used as a key site for determining BoR chronology. None of the contexts are entirely satisfactory. Loci 1211 and 1212 were believed to have preceded the construction of Block A of the Northern Storerooms above, which are attributed to Upper Level V. It is possible, therefore, that the BoR pottery from these contexts may be dated to Lower Level V, although interpretation of the stratigraphy in this area is questionable. There seems little evidence to date the BoR from 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513' to any earlier than Upper Level V. While James stated in 1966 "we have now reached the delightful moment when Blocks B1, B-2, B-3-a and B-6 can be added without further discussion to the Lower V layout" (James 1966, 143), we should note the possible contamination of loci in the Southeast Quadrant, and that the above statement is based chiefly on the small proportion of 'Upper Level V

forms' in this area. Of the contexts in this area, a Lower Level V date for the BoR in Locus 1163 is plausible. The appearance of BoR pottery in contexts assigned to Lower Level V is not, therefore, confirmed by this analysis, but the possibility remains open for one or two vessels. Mazar's recent excavations at the site uncovered only three fragmentary buildings which he dates to the 10th century, beyond minor probes in Area P, None of these areas produced BoR pottery, although they confirmed the presence of a heavy destruction in the 10th century BC (Mazar, pers. comm.). The absolute dating of Lower and Upper Level V is, unsurprisingly, uncertain. Lower Level V seems to have been destroyed by fire, and recent excavations at the site by A. Mazar found traces of burning in the area east of the temples (Mazar 1993, 221). Upper Level V was also destroyed by fire. Mazar suggests that this latter conflagration should be dated to the Assyrian conquest of Tiglathpileser III in the late 8th century BC (Mazar 1993, 222). James' analysis of the pottery of Lower and Upper Level V proposed that Beth-Shan Lower Level V "is in time very close to Megiddo VA, though in all probability somewhat earlier" (James 1966, 118). The Egyptian stelae in Lower Level V predating the ceramic assemblage of this stratum by one to two hundred years are problematic and best explained as heirlooms (Mazar 1993, 221). James' proposal that Shishak's campaign of c. 925 BC marks the destruction of Lower Level V is plausible (James 1966, 153). The broad chronological range of ceramic types attributed to Lower Level V is testament to the confusions of the early excavations at the site; the assemblages assigned to this stratum are therefore of little use in clarifying its chronology. The likely presence of BoR pottery in Lower Level V at Beth-Shan suggests that the appearance of the pottery at the site by the end of the 10th century is reasonable, and its continuation into the 9th century fairly certain.

Tell el-Far'ah

(N)

The site of Tell el-Far'ah (N) is located in Wadi Far'ah, between the Jordan Valley and the western mountain district. The site was excavated by the Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem between 1946 and 1960. The main publication of the Iron Age strata at the site by

A. Chambon appeared in 1984 and it is well-produced and thorough. Despite the small quantity of BoR pottery at the site, therefore, Tell elFar'ah (N) will be examined here in order to investigate the initial appearance of this pottery type. The

Stratigraphy

The site was occupied from the Neolithic period until the Iron Age. The excavators divided the Iron Age period, Niveau VII, into sub-strata: Vila being the earliest, followed by Vllb, VIIc and Vlld. Excavation took place in four areas ("chantiers") of the mound, Areas I-IV, of which Areas II and III in the west of the tell were the most extensive. BoR pottery appeared almost exclusively in the excavations of Area Π. Tell el-Far'ah

I (Chambon 1984)

The BoR • BoR Bowl (1984, PI. 62:1) Small bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vllb This bowl was found in Locus 442A, 35 Area II. This was the room to the east of the courtyard of House 442, located near the gateway area. The room was open to the courtyard, separated by pillars, and the floor was composed of beaten earth. Two ovens were found in the southeast corner. • BoR Bowl (1984. PI. 62:2) Large bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vllb This bowl was found in Locus 431, Area II. This was a room of House 442 west of the entrance to the house and divided from the central courtyard by pillars. It was paved with cobbles. • BoR Bowl (1984, PI. 62:3) Medium deep bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vllb This bowl belongs to Locus 307, Area II. This was the gravel platform to the east of the rampart, south of the gateway. It is not located on the plans of the level. • BoR Bowl (1984. PI. 62:4) Deep bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vlld This bowl was found in Locus 405, Area II. This was an area east of the northeast - southwest wall of Locus 404A (Ref. J6c). This wall was constructed on top of the destruction material of Niv. Vllb. Locus 405, like Locus 404, the destruction material,

35 N o t e a discrepancy: B o w l 62:1 is assigned to L o c u s 4 4 2 in the plates but 4 4 2 A in the loci descriptions. We shall take 4 4 2 A as the correct attribution. L o c u s 4 4 2 is the courtyard adjoining R o o m 4 4 2 A .

comprised chiefly mud-brick and stone debris. • BoR Bowl (1984. PL 62:5) Shallow bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vlld This bowl was found in Locus 350, Area II. This was the part of the courtyard of House 327 nearest the entrance. This seems to have had a beaten earth floor (PL 42 a, d). • BoR Bowl (1984. PL 62:6) Wide shallow bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vllb(d) 36 This bowl belongs to Locus 430, Area II. This was a continuation of Road 438. • BoR Bowl (1984. PL 62:7) Krater. Assigned to Niv. Vllb This krater belongs to Locus 430, Area II, as the vessel above. • BoR Juglet (1984. PL 62:8) Two-handled juglet (?) (handles missing). Assigned to Niv. Vllb This was found in Alley 217, Area II, which lay in front of House 176. The floor of this alley was constructed of beaten earth. • BoR Juglet (1984. PL 62:9) Handle-ridge iuglet. Assigned to Niv. Vllb This juglet was found in Locus 149(B), Area II. This belongs to a house adjoining the gate area which was badly damaged by the destruction of Niv. Vllb. It is difficult to determine its internal structure, but there is evidence of revisions to the house during this period. This house lay below Palace 148 of Vlld, and Locus 149 of Niv. Vllb lay beneath the cobbled Courtyard 149A of this later stratum. Two ovens are found against the northern wall of House 149B. • BoR Juglet (1984. PL 62:10) Handle-ridge juglet. Assigned to Niv. Vllb This juglet (possibly a trefoil-lipped juglet, only the base remaining) was found in the same locus, 149(B), as the juglet above. The

Contexts

The contexts of the BoR pottery at Tell el-Far'ah are good, predominantly because of the well-defined structures excavated at the site. In Niv. Vllb, most of the structures are houses, while Niv. Vlld comprises more public buildings. No BoR pottery was found in Niv. VIIc, which seems to have been a short-lived period of building after 36

Note a discrepancy: B o w l s PI. 6 2 : 6 and 62:7 are both assigned to L o c u s 4 3 0 , yet the former vessel is attributed to Niv. V l l d and the latter to Niv. V l l b . L o c u s 4 3 0 is a small area continuing west from Rue 4 3 8 , outside House 4 4 2 , and is marked only on the plans of Niv. V l l b .

the destruction of Niv. Vllb. The typically tripartite houses in Niv. Vllb are composed of an open courtyard with two rooms on either side separated from the courtyard by pillars. These were usually paved and may have been workshops or kitchens. The rear of the house comprised closed rooms and a second storey. Of the loci in Niv. Vllb containing BoR pottery, Rooms 442A and 431 in House 442, Alley 217 and Locus 149 of House 149 are all reliable contexts in that the pottery was found on either cobbled or beaten earth surfaces within a delineated and apparently uncontaminated area. The destruction material that overlay Niv. Vllb, and often the cobbled floors of the succeeding Niv. Vlld, would in most cases have sealed these contexts. Locus 307 is not marked on the plans and may have belonged to the indeterminate area in the south part of Area II. Locus 430, in which a BoR bowl and krater were found, was a western extension of Road 438, and adjoined Locus 429 in which two ovens were found. The excavators refer to the "sol de chaux" (lime floor) which suggests that part at least of this area may have been a well-defined surface. Of the Niv. Vlld contexts, Locus 350 was part of the courtyard of House 327 and provides a good context for the BoR bowl found here. This house was well preserved. The exact nature of Locus 405 is not clear, as the wall it adjoins is free-standing. It lay above House 442 of Niv. Vllb and may have contained destruction material from the previous stratum. Other Finds A red-slipped jug (PI. 48: 7) was found alongside the BoR bowl in Room 442A in House 442, which also contained two ovens. The BoR bowl found in Room 431 of the same house was the only item found in this room, but an iron arrow head, an iron hook and a stone spindlewhorl were found in the adjoining courtyard. An iron scale of armour and a cup-and-saucer vessel were found in the corner Room 462 of the same house, and two chalices in the rear Room 443A. Locus 307, the gravel platform, produced a storage jar, a large red-slipped jug and a plain bowl alongside the BoR bowl. In Locus 405, a dipper juglet, a lamp and a bronze needle were found. Locus 350, in House 327 (Niv. Vlld) produced a ceramic female figurine, a fragmentary pair of iron scissors, a ceramic spindle whorl, and a tripod basalt mortar. Locus 430 produced weights, an iron awl, a pestle, an (ovoid) storage jar,

cooking pots, a bowl and two shallow, wide, red-slipped and burnished bowls. 37 Alley 217 contained a dipper juglet as well as the BoR juglet. House 149 of Niv. Vllb, in which a BoR juglet was found, also contained bronze and cornelian beads, a basalt grindstone and mortar, and a red slip jug (PI. 49:11). The finds associated with BoR pottery are therefore predominantly domestic or belonging to small-scale industry. Only a small amount of diagnostic pottery is present in these BoR contexts to provide any chronological indication, but elsewhere in Niv. Vllb, the pottery bears similarities to that at the sites investigated here. For example, the redslipped jugs in Niv. Vllb (Pis. 48 and 49) are similar in appearance to many at Megiddo VA-IVB, the Tel Halif tomb, Tel 'Amal IV and Ta'anach IIB. A red-slip jug (PI. 49:15) with handle ridge also belonging to Niv. Vllb is similar to Cypriot Red Slip I (III) ware (cf. Gjerstad 1948, Pl. XXVII: 1). A globular jug painted with concentric circles present in Niv. Vllb is of early Phoenician type (Chambon 1984, PI. 50:5). A number of black burnished juglets with handles to the middle of the neck are found in Niv. Vllb, and are of early type (PI. 50: 17-27; cf. Rast 1978, 30). The red-slipped burnished bowls of Niv. Vllb with flat base and gently rounded sides (PI. 58: 2-5) are also of types parallel at, for example, Ta'anach IIB (Rast 1978, Fig. 48:2). A fragmentary terracotta temple model was found in Locus 437 of Niv. Vllb, (PI. 66:2), the adjacent house (and correlating room) to that which produced BoR pottery. A number of bronze needles and bracelets were also found in Niv. Vllb (PI. 72). Discussion of

Chronology

The stratification at Tell el-Far'ah (N) is relatively clear and wellpresented in the publication. Niv. Vllb, in which the majority of the BoR was found, was destroyed by conflagration, and it was covered in Area II by the later construction of Niv. Vlld (and in places buildings of Niv. VIIc). The excavators identified the site with Biblical Tirzah and proposed that the destruction of Niv. Vllb (=Stratum III) should be correlated with the conquest of the town by Omri in c. 885 BC. Other scholars have suggested that the destruction of Stratum III at Tell elFar'ah (N) should be attributed to Shishak's campaign (Rast 1978, 26). 37 These last three b o w l s are attributed to Niv. V l l d , which should probably be corrected to Niv. V l l b . S e e note above.

The short-lived occupation of Niv. VIIc is explained as the result of Omri's transfer of power to Samaria after only two years of construction at the site (Chambon 1993, 439). Niv. Vlld (=Stratum II) is regarded as representing the re-establishment of a flourishing city at Far'ah, which was used by the Biblical leader Menahem to launch an attack on Samaria. The destruction of Niv. Vlld can be dated to the Assyrian conquest of c. 732 BC (Chambon 1993, 433). Parallels drawn between ceramic types from Niv. Vllb and those from Megiddo VA-IVB and Hazor IX (-VIII) are reasonable (Chambon 1984, 12). The presence of BoR pottery in good contexts in this level should be noted. The site of Tell el-Far'ah provides, therefore, good evidence for the appearance of BoR pottery in contexts dated not later than the beginning of the 9th century. The longevity of Niv. Vllb occupation (Chambon 1993, 439) and its probably extension well back into the 10th century suggests that BoR pottery could be dated also to the 10th century BC. Tel Mevorakh The site of Tel Mevorakh is located on the bank of Nahal Tanninim, which separates the Carmel coast area from the Sharon Plain. It was excavated from 1973-1976 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Volume One, the Iron Age to Roman period, was published in 1978 by E. Stern. The site is of particular importance to this study on account of the prominence the publication gave to BoR pottery discovered at the site. The detailed discussion of this pottery from Tel Mevorakh and extensive ceramic parallels listed from other sites have given especial credibility to the chronology proposed by the authors. Since the 1970s, Stratum VII at Tel Mevorakh, to which the BoR pottery was assigned, has been regarded by scholars as an exemplary 10th century level. 38 It is clear, however, from examination of the contexts of this pottery that considerable errors have been made in the publication of the site, and that the evidence, as presented, indicates that BoR pottery appeared in levels beyond Stratum VII.

38 References to Stratum VII at Tel Mevorakh appear in virtually every study o f Iron IIA pottery from the region. See, for example, Briend & Humbert 1980, 194195; Singer-Avitz 1989, 76; Tappy 1992, 130; M c N i c o l l 1992, 100.

The

Stratigraphy

The Iron Age strata of Tel Mevorakh range from Strata IV-VI, "The Persian Period" to Stratum VII, "The 10th Century" and Stratum VIII, "The late 11th century." The lack of intervening strata between Stratum VI and VII led the excavator to propose "if this conclusion is correct and stratum VI began only in the fifth century..., the approximately four-hundred year gap between these two strata creates a unique situation that can contribute greatly to the longstanding debate concerning the initial appearance of these pottery groups in Israel" (Stern 1978, 52). Investigation of the contexts of BoR at the site indicate that this "four-hundred year gap" may be illusory (cf. James 1991, 159-160). While parts of Stratum VII may be assigned to the 10th century, it is either necessary to date the subsequent strata to the chronological periods immediately following the 10th century, or accept that the stratigraphy of the site is confused. (Note that BoR pottery assigned to 'surface' loci or given merely a grid reference will not be examined below.) (Stern 1978): The BoR • BoR Bowls (1978. Fig. 17:1.3. 4). 3 bowls: one large, two smallAssigned to Stratum VII. These bowls belong to Locus 117. While this is assigned to Stratum VII in the plates, the locus is marked on the plans of Stratum VIII. This locus is described as "a large courtyard, partly paved with stone slabs" (Stern 1978, 66). The courtyard lay to the east of a large rectangular podium, which was surrounded by thick walls and is presumed to have supported a superstructure. Building 130 of Stratum VII overlay the podium structure (Stern 1978, 66). An area of beaten earth (Loci 309, 249, 238) lay just to the south of Locus 117, on which a quantity of pottery was found. Stern comments that although "not a single sherd of imported Cypriot ware was present," in Stratum VIII, "the vessels were quite similar to the stratum VII local pottery and there can be no doubt that a gap of short duration only separated these two strata" (Stern 1978, 67). • BoR Bowl (1978. Fig. 17:2). 1 large bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl belongs to Locus 118. This locus appears in the plans of Strata V-VI, and belongs to a room in Building 120 in Stratum V. The excavators note the absence of floors in Building 120 and that the dating of Stratum V is dependent on the pottery found in the pits (Stern 1978, 29).

• BoR Bowl (1978, Fig. 17:6). 1 small bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl belongs to Locus 134, part of a pit belonging to Stratum VI. Because the pit reached down to Middle Bronze IIB occupation, the excavators state that "Stratum VI does not represent a level of occupation but merely an isolated stratigraphical element." They comment "it is not certain that the mound was actually settled at this time" (Stern 1978, 30). • BoR (1978. Fig. 17: 7.18. PI. 33:8). 1 large bowl, 2 jugs. Assigned to Stratum VII. These three, possibly two vessels (the two jug fragments may belong to the same vessel) belong to Locus 122, which is a room in Building 120 of Stratum V. As noted above, no floors were preserved from this building. • BoR Bowl (1978. Fig. 17:11). 1 deep bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl is assigned to Locus 150, a room in a " large building complex" assigned to Stratum IV. The excavators note that Room 150 was one of those in the south-west section of the building in which floors were preserved "with intact pottery vessels lying on them" (Stern 1978, 26). • BoR (1978, Fig. 17:12, 15). 1 very large bowl, 1 juglet. Assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl and juglet belong to Locus 155. This locus could not be located on any of the plans, nor is it described in the text. • BoR Bowl (1978. Fig. 17:13). 1 large bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl belongs to Locus 130. This is one of only two loci that seem to be correctly placed in Stratum VII. Locus 130 was the northern room of Building 130, the only structure of Stratum VII. The room was stone-paved. Two phases of this building were exposed "the originally carefully-paved stone floor and a few centimetres above it an upper floor of white limestone" (Stern 1978, 47). • BoR Juglet (1978. Fig. 17:16). 1 juglet (neck only). Assigned to Stratum VII. This juglet belongs to Locus 192. This locus could not be located on plans or text. • BoR Bowl (Stern 1978. P1.33:l). 1 possibly late bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl fragment belongs to Locus 308. This locus could not be located on plans or text. No other pottery is attributed to it. • BoR Jug (Stern 1978. PI. 33:6). 1 jug. Assigned to Stratum VII.

This jug fragment belongs to Locus 132, the southern room in Building 130 of Stratum VII. The room was stone paved. The

Contexts

It is clear from the above survey that there are serious errors in the attributions of the BoR pottery at Tel Mevorakh. In only two cases is a BoR vessel assigned to the plan of the stratum in which it is published. Of the usable loci, it seems that three BoR bowls may have been found in what is designated Stratum VIII, on a paved courtyard surface. A BoR bowl and jug were assigned to stone-paved rooms in Building 130 of Stratum VII, a BoR bowl to 'Stratum VI' and two BoR bowls and two jugs to a building assigned to Stratum V, in which no floors were preserved. A BoR bowl was found in a building assigned to Stratum IV, possibly on a floor. The very limited area of exposure in these strata, only one building in Stratum VII, none in Stratum VI, only part of a building complex in Stratum V and solely in Stratum IV more extensive occupational remains does not in the first instance provide a good basis for determining chronology. The prominence that Stratum VII has received in publication of Iron Age strata at other sites must therefore be reassessed. Other Finds Alongside the BoR bowls in Locus 117, the paved courtyard area appearing on the plans of Stratum VIII, a painted jug fragment (of 'East Greek ware') (Fig. 10:18), a red-slipped and hand burnished dipper juglet (Fig. 16:5) and a White Painted bowl (Fig. 18:3) were found. In Locus 118, the room in Building 120, which was assigned to Stratum V, two plain bowls (Fig. 4:1,9), an amphora neck (?) (Fig. 8:2), a krater (Fig. 13:5), a cup-and-saucer vessel (Fig. 13:12) and a pithos (Fig. 15:4) were found alongside the BoR bowl. Stratum VI, which is represented by Pit 134 (a non-stratigraphic locus) produced alongside the BoR bowl, an amphora base (Fig. 8:11), an East Greek bowl (Fig. 10: 9), a krater (Fig. 13:10), a lamp (Fig. 13:11) and jar handles with pot marks (Fig. 16: 12, 15, 17). Locus 122, belonging to Stratum V, Building 120, produced alongside the two BoR vessels, a large bowl (Fig. 4:21), a jug (Fig. 9:3) and a red-slipped and hand burnished bowl (Fig. 12:1). Locus 150, belonging to Stratum IV, produced only a 'Megarian bowl' (Fig. 3:9) with the BoR bowl. Locus 155 which was not located on the plans or in the text descriptions, contained, alongside the two BoR vessels, two red-

slipped and hand burnished bowls (Fig. 12:3,14) and one red-slipped burnished bowl (Fig. 18:16). Locus 130, belonging legitimately to Stratum VII, produced, alongside the BoR bowl, a plain shallow bowl (Fig. 12:4), a cooking jug (Fig. 13:14), two cooking pots (Fig. 14:6, 10), a storage jar (Fig. 15:2) and a White Painted bowl (Fig. 18:5). Locus 132 contained a cooking pot (Fig. 14:13) and a fragment of Attic ware (PI. 29:10). Locus 192 to which a BoR juglet was assigned could not be found on the plans, nor is any other pottery attributed to this locus. Discussion of

Chronology

The 'other finds' have been listed in detail above in order to show the extent of apparent contamination of each context in which BoR appears. To construct out of such diverse ceramic assemblages a "Stratum VII" attribution for BoR pottery at Tel Mevorakh seems to be misleading. 39 Locus 130, the building assigned to Stratum VII, may be an uncontaminated context and the pottery appearing in this locus would uphold this. Aside from this context and Locus 132 (which contains also Attic ware), no BoR pottery appears in loci attributed to the stratum in which it is published. It is possible to suggest, however, that the presence of BoR pottery in loci attributed to Strata VII, (VI), V and IV indicates that the structures associated with these strata may have been occupied consecutively. Perhaps on this evidence we should reassess the concept of a "four-hundred year gap" between Stratum VII and VI, as proposed by the excavators. BoR pottery may well have appeared at the site later than the 10th century. Parts of the buildings belonging to Strata V-IV must also have been in use earlier than the "Persian period" to which they are attributed. The extent to which buildings assigned to Strata VII-IV at the site may have in fact been contemporary with one another, however, requires further investigation. Tel 'Amal The site of Tel 'Amal is located approximately 3 km from Beth-Shan, in the Harod Valley. The site was excavated by the Israel Department 39 N o t e also the results of contamination of the later periods. Tappy notes "a nice parallel" for a 10th - 9th century bowl type in "levels assigned to the Persian Period at Tel Mevorakh" (Tappy 1992, 174).

of Antiquities in a salvage operation between 1962-1966, and again in 1983 and 1985. The results of the early excavations were published in Revue Biblique 1972 (Volume 79) by G. Edelstein and S. Levy. Although this publication is brief, the results of the excavations are important for the investigation here. The site was well-preserved and the published pottery assemblages provide a good indication of the overall ceramic contexts of BoR. The

Stratigraphy

Aside from evidence of tombs of the Early Bronze Age, five strata of occupation at Tel 'Amal were uncovered from the Iron II, Persian, Byzantine and Early Arab periods. Strata IV and III represented the Iron II occupation of the tell. These two strata were believed to have been close in period, and the excavators claim each was destroyed by conflagration. Stratum Ill's destruction has been assigned to Shishak's military campaign (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 343). (Edelstein & Levy 1972): The BoR • BoR Juglet (1972. Fig. 13:18) Juglet neck (possibly White Painted). Assigned to Niv. IV. This fragmentary juglet was found in Locus 34. This was the central room in a large building of Niv. IV. Much pottery is noted from a "petit trou" (hole) in the floor in the northeast of the room, although the location of the juglet not specified. This room also contained a brick basin, a clay oven and many stone loom weights. • BoR Juglet (1972. Fig. 13:19) Handle-ridge juglet. Assigned to Niv. IIL This juglet came from Locus 12. This was a room in a building complex in the southwest of the excavation area. Room 12 contained two clay basins, only one of which was well preserved and full of ashes. The excavators note that the area near the two basins was thick with pottery. • BoR Bowl (1972, Fig. 15:10) Small bowl. Assigned to Niv. III. This bowl was found in Locus 11. This was from the room adjacent to Room 12 in the same building complex as the juglet above. The excavators note that few finds came from this room. • BoR Bowl (1972. Fig. 15:11) Large bowl. Assigned to Niv. III. This bowl was found in Locus 9, which belonged to a building complex with notably large rooms. Room 9 was the best-preserved room, and seemed to have been pillared, as "typique du début de

l'époque du Premier Temple" (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 329). The

Contexts

The publication of the excavations at Tel 'Amal, contained within a journal article, is necessarily brief. Few details are provided on the contexts of the BoR pottery at the site. The rooms in Niv. Ill in which the pottery appears, however, are reasonably well-preserved, with floors of beaten earth covered with a thin layer of white plaster. In Locus 34 of Niv. IV, the presence of the installations still in place and the loom weights found fallen against the wall, suggest that this floor was also well-preserved. The excavators comment that Niv. IV was founded on bedrock (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 330). The juglet found in Room 34 may be White Painted, but the distinctive neck-ridge on the vessel suggests that it is likely to be BoR. The exact context of the vessel is unknown and it is not discussed in the textual description. Niv. IV and III were both destroyed by fire and buried beneath an accumulation of destruction debris. Other Finds Much of the value of the excavations of Tel 'Amal to this study lies in the ceramic assemblage found with the BoR pottery, which share many parallels with the other sites examined above. Alongside the BoR juglet of Locus 34, Niv. IV, were found storage jars, including one of ' H i p p o ' type, double-handled cooking jugs, an ovoid amphoriskos with ridged neck, a jug with red painted bands, a large red-slipped krater and a loom weight. In Locus 12 of Niv. Ill, in which a BoR juglet was found, two dipper juglets were found, one red-slipped, a globular juglet, a lamp, a large red-slipped hand burnished bowl, four smaller red-slipped bowls, one of which was hand-burnished, a plain bowl, the head of a zoomorphic vessel (a horse), and a cult stand. In Locus 11, Niv. Ill, alongside the BoR juglet the excavators found a 'Hippo' storage jar, a large red-slipped bowl, a red-slipped krater, a plain bowl, an iron tool, a red-slipped chalice and a plain chalice. Locus 9 produced a large ridged-neck jug, a double-handled cooking jug, a four-handled cooking pot, a wide-mouthed burnished jug, and a ridged-neck jug with red painted bands (Fig. 12:13) as well as the BoR bowl.

Discussion

of

Chronology

The excavation and publication of Tel 'Amal is relatively clear and the pottery assemblages retrieved from Iron Age Niv. IV-III seem to be uncontaminated. The excavators distinguish between Niveaux IV and III in stratigraphie and ceramic terms. They suggest that although Niv. III followed on soon after Niv. IV, the first period was a self-contained phase of occupation of c. 20 years, and was then destroyed (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 342). The excavators also suggest that the pottery from Niv. Ill differs from that in Niv. IV in its more uniform quality and probable central production, as well as its move away from 'Canaanite' influences. In concurrence with W. Rast, however, a preferable view is that the distinction between the two strata is untenable, that there was a single stratum of two phases and that this was destroyed in, possibly, the Shishak campaign of 925 BC (Rast 1978, 25-26). 40 Niv. IV and its later phase, Niv. Ill, therefore, represent a well-stratified mid-late 10th century assemblage. The presence of some early pottery types in Niv. IV suggest that this first phase probably represents the earliest stage of BoR circulation on the mainland. Mt. Carme I In 1923, a group of tombs were excavated on the slopes of Mt. Carmel by the Inspector of Antiquities in Palestine, PL.O. Guy. These were published by Guy in 1924 in the Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, Volume 5. Seven tombs were excavated in total. Their excavator noted the proximity of the cemetery to Tell Abu Hawam and proposed that the tombs should be connected to this site. The relatively large quantity of BoR pottery found in the tombs, as well as their apparently short-lived period of use, is of value to this study. Although all the tombs were disturbed in antiquity, much of the pottery remained in situ and is mostly illustrated. (Guy 1924): The BoR • Tomb I: Pots 8-10: 3 BoR juglets (1924. 51: PI. 11:8) 40

Rast points out that the pottery types are similar in both Niveaux IV and III, that it is unlikely that both strata were destroyed by fire, and that "the fact that the walls of Stratum III followed the lines of walls of Stratum IV is suspicious" (Rast 1978, 25-26). (Note that Rast dates Shishak's campaign to 9 1 8 B C - Rast 1978, 26-27).

These vessels are handle-ridge juglets. Pot 8 only is illustrated, Pot 9 is noted as larger but of "more porous" clay. Pot 10 larger still but of similar fine fabric to Pot 8. • Tomb II: Pots 17-18: 2 BoR juglets Π924. 51) These are handle-ridge juglets. • Tomb VII: Pots 32-33. 37-42: 7 BoR juglets. 1 BoR bowl (1924. 52. 55: PI. Ill: 32. 33. 37. 38) This tomb produced four handle-ridge juglets, two trefoil-lipped squat juglets, one conical juglet and one medium bowl with Maltese Cross decoration. The excavator comments that four of the juglets may be 'imitation' Cypriot ware, the clay "more porous and without polish" (Guy 1924, 55). Other Finds The value of the cemetery to this study lies predominantly in the pottery found alongside the BoR in the tombs. Tomb I produced, with three BoR juglets, a plain one-handled cooking jug, a cooking jug decorated with black bands, two lamps, a fine small bowl with a red wash inside, one red-slipped two-handled dipper juglet, an unslipped dipper juglet and two blue glaze beads. The tomb contained two burials but was disturbed and few bones were found. The juglets are noted as found near the heads of the occupants. Tomb II contained, alongside the BoR pottery, two Bichrome painted jugs (decorated in metope style), possibly of Phoenician ware, two amphorae with elongated base and sharply carinated shoulders (of later date) 41 which contained fragments of bones, a large redslipped and burnished bowl of poor quality, a small fine bowl with red wash inside, four lamps, a bowl with sharply-profiled thick rim, and a globular jug with black and red concentric circles on the body. Also found in this tomb were a number of bronze objects - three rings, two bangles, a fibula, an arrow-head and a fish-hook. The tomb contained a single burial, of which little was preserved. The pottery was found throughout the tomb. Tombs III - VI produced very few finds as they were either badly destroyed or too dangerous to excavate fully. Tomb VII produced, alongside the eight BoR vessels, two red-slipped burnished jugs (neck and rim missing on the vessel illustrated), two kraters, three plain 41

Cf. Tell Keisan N i v e a u x 4 and 5 (Briend & Humbert 1980, P1.25: 5, 4 7 : 2 )

bowls with rounded sides, a lamp, two globular jugs with bichrome neck decoration (probably Phoenician), a pinched-rim jug with black bands around body, a trefoil-lipped red-slipped Phoenician jug and a fragment of a Cypriot Base Ring juglet. The tomb contained few bones, only part of a skull and tibia. The excavator suggests that there may have been two burials, one belonging to the Late Bronze Age, as indicated by the Base Ring juglet. Discussion

of

Chronology

The publication provides little discussion of the chronology of the tombs. Despite the presence of a few items in these tombs that do not belong to the early-middle Iron Age, however, they seem to have had a relatively short period of use. Tombs I and VII, especially, preserve a homogenous assemblage of pottery and can contribute to assessment of the 'ceramic horizon' of the BoR pottery within them. The bulk of the pottery in the tombs at Mt. Carmel is of types similar to that found at the sites examined above. Particularly diagnostic of this period are the one-handled cooking jug, the bichrome painted pottery and the trefoil-lipped 'Achziv ware' jug which are of early types, and the kraters. The pottery found in the Carmel tombs may therefore be dated with reasonable certainty to the mid-late 10th century. The quantity of BoR pottery is remarkable. BoR comprises c.40% of all pottery found in the three tombs examined, including that which may be intrusive from a later period. The excavator's belief that some of the BoR vessels in this tomb are 'imitations' of Cypriot BoR may not have much basis. The squat-shaped juglet with simple decoration is well-known in the Cypriot repertoire of BoR and is not always finished to the high standard achieved on the handle-ridge juglets. The conical juglet (Pot 38) is well paralleled by an example from Ta'anach (Rast 1978, Fig. 93:6). The location of the site of Mt. Carmel near the Acco Bay area which produced the largest concentration of BoR pottery (see Chapter Two) at a point of convenient access to ships from Cyprus should be noted, as should the examples of Phoenician pottery found alongside the tombs. This points more to contemporary taste in fine wares, however, than the ethnicity of the tomb's occupants. The proximity of the site to Tell Abu Hawam is noted by the excavator. The relatively rich finds in the Mt. Carmel tombs, especially given the

robbing of the cemetery, suggests that its occupants may well have been associated with this flourishing settlement located nearby. 42 Tell Keisan The site of Tell Keisan is located between the Acco Coastal Plain and the hilly region of Lower Galilee. The shoreline lies 8 km away beyond sand and marshland, but the site was linked to the coastal region by its proximity to the site of Acco. The preliminary season of excavation conducted in 1935-1936 by G. Garstang was interrupted by World War II. Re-excavation only began in 1971 under R. de Vaux of the Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem. After the first season, the directorship of the site was taken over by J. Prignaud, J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert until 1980. The main publication of the site by Briend and Humbert (1980) covers the first part of the excavation period, 19711976. This publication is thorough in terms of stratigraphical detail, but selective in the pottery assemblages published. Two BoR vessels only are included. Many more examples of BoR were uncovered at the site but were never published. A thesis written on BoR pottery in 1982 by a student of the excavators recorded the remaining quantity of BoR at the site, which numbered 161 sherds in total (de Montlivault 1982, 178-180, 183-185; Pl. XIV-XVII). Almost all this number, however, belong to the later Iron Age levels at the site and are investigated in the following sections of this Chapter. The

Stratigraphy

The site flourished during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages and was occupied throughout the Iron Age. The excavators proposed a relative decline in the Iron II period and a renascence in the 8th - 7th centuries, possibly as a result of independence and commercial prosperity during the Neo-Assyrian period (Humbert 1993, 862-863). Niveau 9, representing a well-planned late Iron I city, was destroyed by conflagration. The site was reoccupied soon afterwards, and Niv. 8 was built directly on the destruction material of Niv. 9. Niveaux 8 - 6 were meagre by comparison with Niv. 9, but continued without major

42

Note that there are approximately double the amount o f BoR b o w l s to juglets at Tell Abu Hawam. B o R juglets were a l w a y s more popular than b o w l s in tombs, however. S e e Chapter T w o for distribution patterns.

disruption for approximately 250 years. In Area A, on the Eastern Summit, Niv. 8 represented only "de couches minces qui ne sont pas à proprement parler des sols d'occupation" (Briend & Humbert 1980, 18). In Area B, however, nearby, Niv. 8 was better represented and comprised three phases of occupation: Niv. 8c was the earliest, followed by Niv. 8b and 8a. (Briend & Humbert

1980)

The BoR • BoR Bowl (1980. Fig. 56:1) Medium bowl. Assigned to Niv. 8b-c. This bowl was found in Locus 659b, a room in a modestly-sized structure on the eastern side of the tell, which overlay a Niv. 9 building. The floors of the room were badly preserved and lay directly upon the destruction level of Niv. 9. This room contained an oven (6070). • BoR Bowl (1980. Fig.56:2) Medium, slightly carinated bowlAssigned to Niv. 8b-c This bowl was found in Locus 636b. This was a fairly large room with a drainage basin placed towards the slope. The room is interpreted as a courtyard, and had a floor 17cm thick. The room lay directly above the destruction level of Niv. 9. The

Contexts

The information provided on the contexts in which the BoR pottery appears is minimal. The excavation of well-defined rooms in three phases of Niv. 8 in Area Β at Tell Keisan, however, suggests that these contexts are reliable. Both Rooms 659 and 636 lay directly upon the destruction debris of Niv. 9. The floor of Locus 636 was thick, suggesting that this room was in existence in both Niv. 8c and 8b. The plans of Niv. 8c and 8b are shown together, and the excavators note that these phases differed little architecturally. Other Finds Few finds are published from the same loci in which BoR pottery appears. No other finds appear in Locus 659b, other than Oven 6070. A cooking-pot and bowl with several looped handles was found in Locus 636c, the earlier phase of Room 636. In Locus 506, the next-door room to Locus 636, a large number of storage jars were found, cooking pots and a plain bowl with rounded sides. Two

dipper juglets were also found in this room. Locus 656c, the room next to 659b, produced a cult stand. Discussion

of

Chronology

The excavators date Tell Keisan Niv. 8 to c. 980-900 BC (Briend & Humbert 1980, 27). The destruction of Niv. 9 is dated approximately to 1000 BC, and assigned to "local events," such as internecine strife over the fertile coastal plain, rather than military conquest (Humbert 1993, 866). The pottery retrieved from the buildings in Area B, Niv. 8, is minimal, but the rounded bowls and the cooking pots are similar to those examined at other sites in this study. The excavators propose a reasonable degree of continuity between Niv. 9 and Niv. 8 and suggest that the population was not radically changed between the two strata (Briend & Humbert 1980, 195). The presence of BoR pottery in phases c and b of Niv. 8 places it, on the excavator's chronology, in the first half of the 10th century (Briend & Humbert 1980, 26). Bikai in her assessment of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus places Tell Keisan Strata 9 a-b, 8 and 7 in her "Kouklia" horizon, which she dates approximately 1050 - 850 BC (Bikai 1987,66-68). Reassessment of the chronology of Niv. 8 is hindered by the limited quantity of pottery published from the stratum. The pottery published from the succeeding Niv. 7 is similar, although includes many more Phoenician forms. While perhaps a date in the first decades of the 10th century is too early, the BoR pottery at Tell Keisan, may, nevertheless, be amongst the earliest found on the mainland. The presence of BoR in the later levels of Tell Keisan also, in quantities in Niv. 4 (see Section Two of this chapter) which far exceed the quantity of BoR at other late Iron Age sites on the mainland, as well as changes in the fabric of this ware (Chapter Four, 242), suggests that this site may have had particularly strong links with Cyprus.

Tell

el-Hammeh

The site of Tell el-Hammeh is located 16 km south of Beth-Shan and 2 km north of the junction between the Jordan Valley and Wadi Malikh. The site is almost equidistant from Tel 'Amal, Beth-Shan and Tell el-Far'ah (N). Tell el-Hammeh was surveyed in 1925-26, 196768 and 1977, and excavation seasons were conducted in 1985, 1987 and 1988 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the direction

of J. Cahill, G. Lipton and D. Tarier. No full publication of the site has appeared, but preliminary publications are relatively thorough and enable an assessment of the site's stratigraphy and chronology. No pottery plates have, however, been produced, and the reports make reference only to "'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red juglets, all of one type" (Cahill, Lipton & Tarier 1987, 282). Two BoR juglets are illustrated in a photograph of the pottery assemblage of Loci 117 and 119 in a paper in Qadmoniot (Hebrew), Volume 22 (Cahill, Tarier & Lipowitz 1989, 36). At least two further BoR juglets are mentioned. The

Stratigraphy

The site was occupied from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian and later Byzantine periods. Only the south-eastern corner of the tell was excavated, Area A. The steep slope of the tell necessitated division of the area into terraces, of which the M-Terrace (Squares M6, M7) and L-Terrace (Squares L5-L7) produced Iron II remains. Below, Iron I occupation was excavated in Terraces Κ and J, and below still, Middle Bronze Age occupation appeared in Squares I6-F6. The BoR • BoR Juglets (Cahill. Lipton & Tarier 1989. 36). Two handle-ridge juglets. These juglets are illustrated in a photograph of a pottery assemblage from Loci 117 and 119. These loci represent two mud-brick rooms in the eastern part of the L-Terrace. The rooms are adjacent to one another, almost identical in size and well-preserved by the thick layer of destruction debris which overlay them. A great quantity of finds were discovered. Two large, poorly-fired, ceramic containers with carbonized grain were found in Room 117, as well as a polygonal installation containing carbonized grain built into the floor. • BoR Juglets (Cahill & Tarier 1993. 562). A number of handle-ridge juglets. These juglets were found in Locus 406, a limestone-cobbled rectangular room in the western part of the L-Terrace. Parts of three other architectural units were preserved in this western part. Like the eastern area, these rooms were sealed by the destruction debris which overlaid it. Room 406 produced a large number of finds. The eastern and western parts of the L-Terrace were connected by a large open courtyard of beaten-earth, Locus 379.

The

Contexts

Details on the exact contexts of the BoR pottery are limited. However, Rooms 117, 119 and 406 excavated in the L-Terrace are well-defined with preserved walls and floors. The destruction debris that overlay them sealed their contents. These are, therefore, reliable contexts. Other Finds As noted above, the finds from Tell el-Hammeh are not illustrated in plates, but listed and some photographed. The wealth of finds is notable. Rooms 117 and 119 contained store jars filled with carbonized grain, one sealed with an unbaked loom weight. Cloth impressions on pieces of unbaked clay suggest that cloth was laid over jar mouths which were then sealed with clay. Of the non-ceramic finds, several gypsum pyxides, a basalt bowl on top of a decorated tripod base, a variety of iron tools, including a trident, over a hundred beads of carnelian, rock crystal, faience, glass and silver, stone weights, two scaraboids, one stone conoid seal, three clay bullae with stamped impressions, and an ivory box containing traces of fabric were found. Rooms 117 and 119 also produced remains of wooden spindles and thread. Some of the ceramic finds are illustrated (Cahill, Lipton & Tarier 1989,36). These include storage jars of 'Hippo' type, a decorated high-necked store-jar, possibly a large Cypriot White Painted barreljug, black-burnished juglets with handle to the neck, holemouth jars, a jug with ridged rim and pinched mouth and dipper juglets. 43 Room 406 contained over forty restorable ceramic vessels, including a complete kernos with five projectiles, a zoomorphic vessel, a multi-handled krater with horned animal appliqués, and part of a female plaque figurine. Two only of these vessels are, however, illustrated (Cahill et al. 1989, 37). Also in this room were gypsum pyxides, a collection of astragali, a faience cat amulet, and a stamp seal. Discussion

of

Chronology

Tell el-Hammeh, while still not fully published, nevertheless provides evidence of BoR pottery in well-sealed contexts amongst numerous finds paralleled by other sites examined in this survey. The 43

The similarity o f much of this pottery to that at Tel 'Amal is particularly striking. S e e , for e x a m p l e , Edelstein & L e v y 1972, Fig. 8:2; Fig. 11:3 & 7.

destruction debris that overlies both western and eastern parts of the L-Terrace structures is dated by the excavators, provisionally, to Shishak's campaign of 925 BC (Cahill & Tarier 1993, 562). They also propose an alternative, that the stratum in which these finds appear was destroyed "earlier in the tenth century" (Cahill & Terler 1993, 562). On the basis of the parallels noted between Tel 'Amal IV-III, in particular, and other sites investigated here, it seems that the former proposition is best supported by the evidence and that a date in the mid-late 10th century is most likely. Tel Halif An Iron Age tomb was excavated near Tel Halif in the Judean hills in 1965 and published in 1970 in the Israel Exploration Journal, Volume 20 (Biran & Gophna 1970). The tomb had not been robbed and its intact preservation and the possibility of stratification within it provide a significant contribution to assessment of the ceramic horizon of this period of BoR. The

Stratigraphy

Three internal areas were identified by the excavators - a repository, a main burial chamber and a bench. The pottery from the two main phases, the repository and burial chamber, was found to have typological differences. The excavators suggest that the earliest burials in the tomb, originally placed on the bench, were removed to the repository as new burials were added to the burial chamber. The process continued until the repository was filled. Later burials were piled on top of the repository until this area was filled and burials ceased. A second phase of use, perhaps involving a second family, moved the final occupants of the bench to the heap over the repository and continued to use the burial chamber for a few generations until it was completely filled, sealed and abandoned (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167-168). The BoR and its Context Five BoR handle-ridge juglets were found in the repository of the tomb. The excavators note: "An attempt was made to examine the stratigraphical formation of the finds in the repository. Four layers were found, but with no clear typological differentiation. However, the red juglets and the Cypro-Phoenician vessels found in the lower

layers of the repository are indeed the earliest of the vessels discovered" (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167). Other Finds The finds from the repository include red-slipped and burnished bowls, a bowl with knob-handles, a chalice, one-handled jugs (some red-slipped), similar to cooking jugs, two 'Achziv'jugs, black juglets and red juglets with handles drawn from neck, and dipper juglets, including a red-slipped dipper juglet with thickened rim. Also from the repository were lamps, including a bronze lamp, and 34 bronze anklets. The burial chamber produced red-slipped wheel-burnished bowls, often carinated with a thickened rim, one-handled jugs, some similar to cooking jugs, others with ridged or thickened rim and globular bodies. Black juglets with handles drawn from rim and "squat" bodies were also found in the burial chamber, as well as dipper juglets, a two-handled cooking jug, lamps, two iron doublepronged forks and a limestone roller. The finds on the bench "resemble the finds in the burial chamber" rather than the repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, 166), and include carinated bowls, jugs, juglets with handle drawn from rim, lamps and a bronze anklet. Discussion

of

Chronology

The tomb at Tel Halif is invaluable in providing a pottery assemblage in the same chronological horizon as BoR. The absence of later intrusions to the tomb and identification of the earliest deposits within it, which include the BoR pottery, distinguish this tomb as one of the most reliable contexts available for this study. All the vessel types found in the repository are paralleled at other sites examined here. In particular, the trefoil-lipped 'Achziv' jugs of early type, the redslipped jug with ridged neck and thickened rim, the black (and red) juglets with handle to neck and the red-slipped bowls with gently rounded or carinated sides are indicative of the period under examination (Biran & Gophna 1970, Figs. 6: 8-9; 6: 7; 8: 1-9; 4: 1-6). The pottery from the burial chamber is more indeterminate but the black juglets with handles drawn from the rim and the wheelburnished red-slip bowls indicate a later stage of ceramic development. The dates proposed by the excavators, therefore earliest use of the tomb from the end of the 10th or beginning of the 9th century onwards, continuing for "several generations," and a final

phase of use from until the mid-8th acceptable. Given tomb, however, it 10th century.

the end of the 9th or beginning of the 8th century, century (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167-168) - are some of the relatively early pottery types in the is possible that it dates back to the middle of the

Tel Rehov The site of Tel Rehov is located in the Jordan valley, about 6 km west of the Jordan river and 5 km south of the site of Beth-Shan. The site is currently in the process of excavation under the direction of Amihai Mazar with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has been published only as a preliminary report (Mazar 1999). The appearance of the name of the site in Shishak's inscription at Karnak (see above), the well preserved Iron Age remains and the use of Carbon-14 sampling at the site render it important for the investigation here. The BoR pottery from Tel Rehov was examined by this author after its initial two seasons (1997 and 1998). The

Stratigraphy

The stratigraphy of the site is at present only local to the areas of excavation of the tell. Area Β was excavated on the Upper Mound, while Area C is located in the west of the Lower Mound, and Area Ε in the east of the Lower Mound. Strata la and lb in Area C are parallel chronologically with Strata la and lb in Area Ε and date to the 10th/9th centuries BC. Area Β is predominantly assigned to the 8th-7th centuries, but probes within this area also uncovered "at least two Iron Age IIA strata," which could be dated earlier (Mazar 1999, 33). The BoR • BoR Jug & Juglets (unpublished). Fragments of 1 jug and possibly 2 juglets. These fragments were found in Locus 2305 of Area B, the Upper Mound, in Stratum 5. This was a plaster floor in a destruction level, found with burnt timber material. Stratum 5 is dated provisionally to the late 9th - early 8th centuries. • BoR Juglet (unpublished). Fragments of juglet. This fragment was found in Locus 2605 of Area E, the Lower Mound

(Stratum 1). This area had some cultic associations. • BoR Bowl (unpublished). Fragments of possible bowl. This fragment was found in Locus 2611 of Area E, the Lower Mound, in Stratum la. This locus was street make-up, dated provisionally to the 10th/9th centuries. • BoR Juglet (unpublished). Fragments of possibly 2 juglets. These fragments were found in Locus 2617 of Area E, the Lower Mound, in Stratum 1. This was fallen and decayed mudbrick material of the destruction level, dated provisionally to the 10th/9th centuries. A few fragments of White Painted and Bichrome pottery were also found at Tel Rehov. One White Painted fragment was found in Locus 2311, Area B, Stratum 6, the earliest level reached in this area, dated provisionally to the 10th century BC. A second fragment of a fine White Painted juglet was found in Locus 2312, also of the same area and dated similarly. A fragment of a very fine White Painted juglet was found in Locus 2268 in Area B, Stratum 4. This is floor build-up and is dated provisionally to the 8th century. One fragment of a White Painted jug was found in topsoil in Area Β (Locus 2306). A fragment of a Bichrome bowl was found in Locus 1675 of Area E, Stratum lb, dated to the 10th/9th centuries. An almost intact Bichrome jug was found in Area C, Stratum 1, dated to the 10th/9th centuries BC. In the absence so far of full excavation and publication of the site, chronological conclusions can only be tentative. Given the wealth of material already uncovered at the site, the relative rarity of BoR pottery is surprising. Its presence however in the destruction level, Stratum 1 of Area E, as well as White Painted and Bichrome pottery in the destruction level of Area C, suggests that this pottery was occurring at least at the beginning of the 9th century, and possibly in the late 10th century (see also 182). Tell Abu

Hawam

The site of Tell Abu Hawam is located 1.5km from the coast, in the southern part of the Bay of Acco. Now at a distance from the coast because of progressive silting of the bay, it was originally sited on the shoreline at the head of the Kishon River estuary and at the junction of the road leading inland from Shiqmona via Megiddo and Beth-Shan to the Jordan Valley. This commanding position and the site's natural port, sheltered from winds by Mt. Carmel, was largely responsible for its

significant role in overseas trade throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. Preliminary excavations were conducted by the Department of Antiquities at the site in 1929 and 1930. In 1932-1933 a larger-scale excavation was carried out by R.W. Hamilton and L. Sorial. Preliminary results were published by Hamilton in the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Volume 3 in 1934 (Hamilton 1934, 74-80) and a full report appeared in the same journal in 1935, Volume 4 (Hamilton 1935, 1-69). In 1963 further excavation was conducted on the tell by E. Anati and M. Prausnitz. The stratigraphy of the site was revised by J. Balensi and M. Herrera in studies in the 1980s, in conjunction with further excavations in 1985-1986. A 'rapport préliminaire' was published by Balensi and Herrera in Revue Biblique Volume 92 in 1985 (Balensi & Herrera 1985, 82-128). Herrera conducted further study of the stratigraphy of Stratum III at Tell Abu Hawam, the Iron Age level, for a PhD thesis (unpublished) (Herrera 1989). In addition, an unpublished MA thesis investigating the Phoenician expansion to the west includes an analysis of the date of Tell Abu Hawam Stratum III (Aznar Sánchez 1996). The

Stratigraphy

The site of Tell Abu Hawam produced a large amount of BoR pottery. Herrera's PhD thesis gives a BoR count of over 40 vessels, 13 of which were juglets and 27 bowls. Little of this has, however, been published. 44 The problems of analysis of the site for this study lie chiefly in its stratigraphy. Hamilton's Stratum III at Tell Abu Hawam, in which the BoR pottery appears, was of long duration. The stratum lay above the destruction of Stratum IV and beneath its own destruction debris, after which there was a period of abandonment before reoccupation, represented by Stratum II. Hamilton noted, however, "although the foundations lying between the two burnt layers embody more than a single phase of building I refer to them collectively as Stratum III" (Hamilton 1934, 77). Revision of the stratigraphy at the site has defined two sub-phases of Stratum III: IIIA followed by IIIB (Balensi & Herrera 1993, 10). The dating of Stratum III, however, is also problematic. Hamilton's original dating of the stratum, c. 1100 - 925 BC, proposed tentatively 44

A selection of the unpublished B o R pottery from Tell Abu H a w a m is presented in de Montlivault's thesis, although without full context (de Montlivault 1982, PI. VIII-IX).

that the stratum ended with Shishak's military conquest at the end of the 10th century (Hamilton 1935, 68). He recognised, however, that some pottery types in Stratum III appeared in the 9th century at other sites, such as the red and yellow 'Samaria ware' (Hamilton 1935, 8, 67). The revised stratigraphy places Stratum III A in the 10th century and Stratum IIIB in the 9th - 8th centuries; BoR pottery is located in Stratum IIIA (Balensi & Herrera 1993, 10). The value of the site for the present study is limited especially by the small quantity of BoR pottery published by Hamilton, and the consequent minimal information available on its exact find spots. Of the three BoR vessels published by Hamilton, only one (Pl. XIII: 87) is located in a good context, in Room 18. This belongs to Complex 13-21 which is dated by Herrera to Stratum IIIB (Balensi & Herrera 1993, 10). Hamilton believed that BoR pottery belonged to a phase just prior to the destruction of the stratum, in its "higher levels" (Hamilton 1934, 77). "Most of the fragments were found in the upper burning or hardly below it - a fact suggesting that the occupation did not much outlive the currency of the ware" (Hamilton 1934, 77). Taking account, therefore, of these difficulties, the BoR pottery from the site of Tell Abu Hawam will not be discussed in detail, as with other sites. The one BoR vessel published by Hamilton which is in a reasonable context, however, indicates that the chronology of BoR from the site is in accordance with the chronology for the ware suggested by the other sites examined here. • BoR Juglet (Hamilton 1935. 22. No. 87. PI. XIII:87). Conical juglet. Assigned to Stratum III. This juglet belongs to Room 18, a central room in Complex 13-21. Balensi and Herrera (1985, 98) suggest that the use of Rooms 1820 of this group ceased before the end of Stratum III. The other finds with this juglet, a red-slipped pinched-mouth jug, a cooking pot and a plain red-slipped bowl (possibly of 'Samaria ware') are of types common to other BoR contexts examined in Section I of this chapter. Tyre See discussion in Section II.

Sarepta The site of Sarepta lies on the Phoenician coast approximately 13 km south of Sidon, occupying a promontory and extending along the shore with access to three small bays (Anderson 1988, 34). The site was excavated by the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, under J. B. Pritchard from 1969 - 1974. A preliminary report was published by Pritchard in 1975, and full publications later appeared as Sarepta I - The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II,Y (Anderson 1988), Sarepta II - The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X (Khalifeh 1988), Sarepta III - The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X (Koehl 1985) and Sarepta IV - The Objects from Area II, X (Pritchard 1988). A small quantity of BoR pottery was published, although unsatisfactorily, in the first three of these volumes. The section below describes the overall stratigraphy of the site, and follow with a description of the BoR in each publication. The imported wares from Area II-X are published separately from the main report (Koehl 1985). The

Stratigraphy

Two main areas were excavated by the Pennsylvania expedition at Sarepta: Area II-X, an area c. 800 sq. m. near the sheltered port, and Area II-Y, a smaller area of c.100 sq. m. further inland in the highest point of the mound. Within Area II-Y, the strata were numbered from A (the latest) to L (the earliest). Minimal indications of destruction in this area suggested that occupation was more or less continuous (Anderson 1988, 58). Pottery kilns were located in Strata F + Ε (Kiln A A), and Stratum D (Kiln BB). In Sarepta II-X, the strata were numbered Period I (the earliest) to X (the latest). The presentation of these strata, however, (Khalifeh 1988), does not incorporate with any clarity the levels of the previously published imported wares, which are presented by locus and type only (Koehl 1985). The overall stratification of the imported wares of Area II-X is, as a result, indecipherable and the fragments of BoR shall be listed only. Sarepta I (Area II-Y) (Anderson 1988) The BoR • BoR Juglet (1988, pi. 34:14). Two-handled juglet. 1 example

assigned to Substratum Dl. 4 5 This rim and neck fragment was found in Area II-K-21, level 7 "sealed." This is a secure deposit from Substratum Dl (Anderson 1988, 104-6). • BoR Bowl (1988. pi. 34:15). Shallow bowl. 1 example assigned to Substratum D l . This bowl fragment comes from Area II-K-20, locus 18. This is also a secure deposit from Substratum D-l (Anderson 1988, 104). • BoR Juglet (1988. pi. 36:11). Conical juglet. 1 example assigned to Substratum C2. This fragment comes from Area II-K/L-20, "possibly Substratum C2" (based on its absolute level rather than stratification). • BoR Bowl (1988. pi. 38:11). Bowl fragment. 1 example assigned to Substratum C I . This fragment is noted by the excavators as a possible mainland imitation BoR, on the basis of its fairly coarse slip, although the type is a typical BoR form. It comes from Area II-L-20, locus 19, from the "Substratum 1 "fill" laid as a base for the construction of Stratum B" (Anderson 1988, 278). The

Contexts

The contexts for the earliest BoR pottery at Sarepta are relatively secure. 46 The BoR juglet fragment (pi. 34:14), in particular, comes from a sealed locus within Substratum D l . Other Finds Alongside the BoR pottery from Substratum D l , the excavators found a White Painted barrel-jug and a White Painted amphora, a Bichrome barrel-juglet, and two other Bichrome examples. White Painted pottery appears first in Substratum D2, the first phase of Stratum D. The excavators comment that "red-slipped, burnished vessels are especially characteristic of Substratum D l " (Anderson 1988, 404). A few specific pottery examples from this stratum appear to have 45

Anderson notes that a fifth BoR fragment w a s recorded from Area II-K/L-21, level 8, but that it w a s not located and therefore not confirmed (Anderson 1988, 2 7 8 (note 759)). The fragment would belong to Substratum D l . 46 The inconsistent use o f locus numbers for the pottery fragments found in Area II-Y at Sarepta makes assessment o f their exact architectural location difficult. The stratification o f this area is otherwise well-presented and is accepted in this survey.

parallels in sites further south, despite the considerable distance between these sites and Sarepta, for example the straight-sided, redslipped and burnished bowl type (Anderson 1988, PI. 33:22). In Substratum C2, the other pottery is represented by an increase in solely wheel-burnished wares (Anderson 1988,411). A late, probably White Painted, fragment with concentric circle decoration occurs alongside the BoR juglet from this stratum. Substratum CI produced a number of "torpedo" storage jars which belong to a later Iron Age phase than the more bulbous earlier versions. Sarepta III (Area II-X) (Koehl 1985) The BoR • BoR Bowl (1985. 129. Fig. 11:224). Bowl fragment. 1 example assigned to Locus II-B-7, level 10. • BoR Bowl? (1985. 130. Fig. 11:225). Body sherd. 1 example assigned to Locus II-B-9. level 1. • BoR Juglet (1985. 130. Fig. 11:226). Juglet fragment. 1 example assigned to Locus II-A-5, 484 clean up. • BoR Jug (1985. 130. Fig. 11:227). Handle fragment, probably from jug. 1 example assigned to Locus II-B-4. level 7-1. • BoR fragment (1985. 131. No. 228). Body sherd. 1 example assigned to Locus II-B-6. level 10. • BoR fragment (1985. 131. No. 229). Body sherd. 1 example assigned to Locus II-B-6/7, level 13-2. • BoR fragment (1985, 131. No. 230). Body sherd. 1 example assigned to Locus II-C-8, Rm 76. • BoR Juglet (1985, 131. Fig. 11: 231). Two non-joining juglet fragments. 1/2 examples assigned to Locus II-C-8. level 5, Rm 76. • BoR Jug (1985. 131-132. No. 232). Six non-joining jug body sherds. 1/6 examples assigned to Locus II-B-5. level 4-2. kiln. 47 • BoR Jug (1985. 132. Fig. 11: 233). Seven non-joining jug (?) fragments. 1/7 examples assigned to Locus II-D-6. level 8, Rm 3. As noted above, the contexts of the BoR pottery at Sarepta in Area IIX are impossible to decipher from the published report. One BoR bowl alone is mentioned in the stratigraphical report of this area, from Period VII (Khalifeh 1988, 137). 47 The location and description o f this kiln could not be found in the text v o l u m e o f this area at Sarepta (Khalifeh 1988).

Discussion

of

Chronology

According to the excavators, Stratum D in Area II-Y represented "the beginning of a new era in the history of Sarepta," with the introduction of distinctive 'Phoenician' ceramics and the use of ashlar masonry (Anderson 1988, 396-7). Anderson dates Stratum D from the second half of the 11th century to the third quarter of the 9th century; Substratum Dl is believed to begin c.950 BC (Anderson 1988, 407). These dates fit well within the chronology for BoR emerging from the survey of sites above. Substratum C2 is dated from c.850 - 750 BC, and Substratum CI from c.750 - 650 BC (Anderson 1988, 419). The excavators of Area II-X believe Period VII to be contemporary with Substratum D in Area II-Y, and note similar trends in II-X to the latter area - an increase in red-slipped burnish and in the frequency of imports (Khalifeh 1988, 137). This level, Period VII, is dated c. 1025 - 8 0 0 BC (Khalifeh 1988, 139). The publications of the site of Sarepta are, however, inconsistent and despite the importance of the site, the chronology of BoR on the Phoenician coast is not greatly enhanced by the excavations at Sarepta. Nevertheless, a reasonable number of BoR sherds were found at the site. The presence of the pottery in Substratum Dl of Area II-Y, contemporary with red-slipped and burnished wares noted in the early levels of BoR at stratified sites in the south, suggests that its appearance on the Phoenician coast within the 10th century BC is probable. Other 10th Century

Sites

Several other sites warrant inclusion in Section I of this chapter, but have unstratified or inadequately stratified examples of BoR pottery, and therefore do not contribute substantially to assessment of the chronology of BoR, which is the purpose here. One of these is Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985). The stratigraphy at this site is good but the two examples of BoR juglets found in Area C of the excavations are not in reliable contexts. One was found on a wall of Temple 131 "in a level matching a Strata IX-VIII floor north of the building" (Mazar 1985, 82). The second was found in "an unstratified wash, close to the surface" (Mazar 1985, 82). The excavator comments that the absence of BoR pottery from Stratum X at Tell Qasile, which is rich in pottery, supports a date for the appearance of this ware later than Stratum X, which is dated to the late 11th - early 10th century (Mazar 1985, 82;

1993, 1212). A large fine BoR bowl was found in the early 1950s excavations at Tell Qasile and has not yet been published. This vessel was found in Stratum IX at the site, in a well-stratified context, alongside a fine White Painted "dish" and a White Painted barrel-jug (Mazar, pers. comm.). 48 The presence of BoR pottery at the site in the 10th century is therefore most likely. The site of Pella in Jordan has a few examples of BoR pottery probably datable from the 10th century, but they are from badly stratified areas and not of significant chronological value (McNicholl 1992, 93-95; PI. 68: 8, 9). Another site with BoR pottery dated to the 10th century is 'Ein Gev. Two jug sherds and one juglet sherd were found at the site, one of which (possibly all) is assigned to Stratum V, the earliest occupation, dated by the excavators to c.990 - 950 BC (Mazar, Biran & Dunayevsky 1964, 22, 32). One jug sherd only is drawn in the figures, however, and it is not given a locus number. The other two are illustrated only in the plates. The small quantity of pottery published from Stratum V includes irregularly burnished redslip bowls and may be dated early in the 10th century. A 'cultic' group from Stratum III at the site (Mazar, Biran & Dunayevsky 1964, PI. 10) contains a 'Hippo' storage jar and is dated to the 9th century. Other sites, although containing apparently early BoR pottery, were excavated too early in the century to provide adequate information for our purposes. Such are the sites of Beth-Shemesh and Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell el-Ajjul and Tel Fara (S). The southern and eastern cemeteries at Achziv, which contain BoR pottery that are in probability dated to the period under examination here, are not yet fully published. 49 Another possibly early context containing BoR juglets is Tomb 32 at Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler 1947). Despite the thoroughness of publication, however, the tomb was disturbed and 48

BoR b o w l Ref. 3 2 0 2 , White Painted bowl (with flat broad base: possibly o f White Painted II type, cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XV: 9) Ref. 6 6 1 4 , White Painted jug Ref. 6 6 1 3 . 49 For an analysis of the A c h z i v tombs see E. Mazar 1996 (unpublished PhD) and Schreiber, forthcoming. BoR pottery appears at the site in tombs dating from the 10th - 9th century (eg. T o m b 6 1 0 (T.C.4) - Mazar 1996, PI. 3: 5 2 , 53; T o m b Z . X X Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 13-14, 3 7 - 4 1 ) , along with early-type ' A c h z i v ' trefoil-lipped jugs (Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 9 - 1 2 ) rounded b o w l s (Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 2-5), neck-decorated globular j u g s (Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 16-20) and small two-handled flasks (Mazar 1996, PI. 8 : 2 7 - 3 3 ) . The pottery d o e s not occur in the earlier cist tombs at the site, b e l o n g i n g to the late 11th - early 10th centuries, nor in the later cut shaft tombs, dated to the 8th century (Mazar 1996, 1 3 , 2 1 ) .

contained a large amount of artefacts which spanned a broad period in the Early to Middle Iron Age. No stratigraphy was discernible within the tomb and although it doubtless covered the period under examination, it cannot be used to pinpoint the chronology of BoR (Wampler 1947, 78, 80, 82). A tomb at Megiddo (Tomb 76A) also contained BoR pottery with other contemporary artefacts, but was disturbed and spanned a broad period (Guy 1938, PI. 74:20). Likewise Tomb 1002 at Lachish (Tufnell 1953, 229-236).*> The site of Tel Batash, interestingly, although well-stratified with a complete sequence of levels dated from the 10th century onwards and large pottery assemblages, is composed of predominantly local wares and has no BoR pottery (Mazar, pers. comm.) Few of the sites examined in this Section of Chapter Three are further north than the southern reaches of Phoenicia. This is due in large part to scant excavation in the region of modern Syria and Lebanon, most of which took place in the early decades of last century, as well as limited or inadequate publication of sites that have been excavated. In addition, many major sites in this region have been continuously settled up until the modern era and their Iron Age strata are presently archaeologically inaccessible (Koehl 1985, 23). The potentially useful sites in the 'Amuq region of Syria, Chatal Hiiyiik, Tell Tayinat and Tell el-Judeidah, were excavated early in the century and although Swift's 1958 study of these sites is valuable, it does not examine contexts of the pottery in detail. Full publication of the sites in this region has never appeared. Al Mina, at the mouth of the Orontes, was excavated very early in the century. Later publication of the Cypriot pottery from Al Mina relied heavily on the Cypriot chronology for the wares and placed the earliest BoR pottery in 9th 8th centuries (du Plat Taylor 1959, 78). The BoR ware from Tyre and Tell Sukas is also dated to the 9th century at the earliest (Bikai 1978, 67; Lund 1986, 7). The pottery from these sites is further examined in Section II of this chapter. Note that it is suggested there that the earliest BoR pottery from Tyre may date to the late 10th century. Pottery likely to be BoR was found in the shaft of the Tomb of Ahiram at Byblos (Tomb V), which is dated around the 11th century (Montet 1928, 219; Baramki 1961, 25; Teixidor 1997, 31-32). 50

It should be noted that the excavators o f Lachish T o m b 1002 divided it into three stratigraphie layers, and c o m m e n t that "Cypriote wares" were "no longer found at the top of the tomb" (Tufnell 1953, 2 3 4 ) .

However, the BoR is likely to be intrusive into the tomb. 51 Several more fragments of BoR have been found at Byblos, but none in stratigraphie contexts. One BoR juglet was published as a surface find on the tell (Dunand 1954, 98, Fig. 86). Further examples were found in Necropolis " K " at Byblos, published in 1980 (Salles 1980, 20, Pl. 9: 1-5; Pl. VIII: 1, 2). Of these latter examples only one handle-ridge juglet may be Cypriot BoR; the other jug fragments are of coarse fabric and probably related to the "Red Ware" discussed in Chapter One (14-15). Few finds from the Iron Age (0.8 % of the total) appeared in Necropolis "K", suggesting that it was only intermittently used during this period (Salles 1980, 21, 66). In general, BoR pottery is seldom dated before the 9th century in the region of Phoenicia and Syria. This is primarily because of use of Gjerstad's chronology for the Cypriot pottery, which is often the main source of dating Iron Age sites in Syria and Phoenicia. 52 Gjerstad's chronology is examined in detail in the following Chapter Four. Section I:

Conclusions

These concluding remarks deal with three aspects of the above study. First, a comment on the nature of the contexts of BoR pottery, in terms of its possibly 'cultic' affiliation. Second, assessment of which pottery types appear to be particularly diagnostic of the period in which BoR is first appearing, which may comprise a recognisable ' 10th century' assemblage. Third, suggestion of a chronology for the initial period of the appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland. 51

The BoR pottery w a s found at the top of the shaft of this tomb (Montet 1928, 2 1 9 ) . Other finds from the shaft included Late Bronze A g e Cypriot White Slip ware and an alabaster vase inscribed with a cartouche o f R a m s e s II (Montet 1928, 225; Baramki 1961, 25). T h e sarcophagus itself w a s carved with a Phoenician inscription c o m m i s s i o n e d by Ahiram's son, Itthobaal, and has been dated on epigraphic grounds to the end of the 11th century (Teixidor 1997, 3 1 - 3 2 ) . The original excavators' suggestion that an early date for the B o R in the tomb is perhaps indicated by B o R or White Painted pottery found in the Late Bronze A g e palace at Tell el-Amarna must be rejected, as the pottery specified w a s found in the rubbish heaps outside the palace (Montet 1928, 220; Petrie 1894, 15-16). T h e appearance of BoR in this tomb at B y b l o s is clearly not a reliable m e a n s with which to date the ware. The excavators' claim that the Iron A g e Cypriot pottery could have been deposited in the tomb during later Iron A g e intrusions is the strongest likelihood (Montet 1928, 219). 52

For e x a m p l e , s e e the initial dating of the BoR pottery at Sarepta (Pritchard

1975,94-95).

'Cultic'

Contexts

The appearance of BoR pottery in contexts which may be associated with some cultic activity has been noted in passing above. While the identification of cult places in the archaeological record is difficult (Gilmour 1995, 13-15), two features of archaeological contexts in which BoR pottery appears are striking. One is the quantity of perforated vessels that appear with BoR pottery. Two types of this vessel should be distinguished here, as they are both commonly called 'perforated bowls' in the literature. One, the 'strainer bowl' is perforated on its base, and functioned as a strainer or sieve. The other is not a bowl at all, but is shaped either as a pyxis or cup with handle, and is often set on three feet. This is referred to here as a 'perforated vessel.' The perforations in the latter vessel are around the body or shoulder, and the type is best interpreted as a censer (Rast 1978, 3334; cf. Tappy 1992, 202-203). A third type, the large jar with many holes punched in the body, two handles on the shoulder and flat base, is rare. 53 In this survey, only the second and third types appear in direct association with BoR pottery. The contexts in which BoR appears with perforated vessels are: 1) Megiddo VA-IVB. Locus 6 in Building 10 - perforated vessel alongside BoR juglet. 2) Megiddo VA-IVB. Locus 2081 - large perforated jar with BoR juglet found inside the jar. 3) Hazor XB. Locus 203d in Building 200-202 - perforated vessel alongside BoR juglet. 4) Beth-Shan Upper Level V, 54 Locus 1513 - large perforated jar in locus immediately above and probably associated with BoR juglet. The probable use of BoR juglets to contain perfumed oil has been assessed in Chapter Two. It is possible that the juxtaposition of these vessels in the contexts noted above may indicate the scenting of body 53

For an e x a m p l e of the 'strainer' type, s e e Chambon 1984, Fig. 5 4 : 1 4 (Tell elFar'ah V l l b ) ; Loud 1948, PI. 8 7 : 2 2 ( M e g i d d o V B ) ; James 1966, Fig. 2 2 : 2 4 (Beth-Shan L o w e r Level V); for the second, 'censer' type, see Chambon 1984, Fig. 54: 12, 13 (Tell el-Far'ah VIIc,b) and Rast 1978, Fig. 51:3 (Ta'anach IIB); and for the large perforated jar, s e e Loud 1948, PI. 89:4 ( M e g i d d o V A - I V B ) ; James 1966, Fig. 13:5 (Beth-Shan Upper Level V). A clear e x a m p l e o f shoulder perforation which would obviate use o f these v e s s e l s as strainers is found in Tell en-Nasbeh T o m b 5 (Wampler 1947, PI. 7 9 : 1 8 1 4 ) . 54

N o t e that the attributions of pottery to 'Upper' and ' L o w e r ' Level V at BethShan must remain uncertain.

or hair while aromatic herbs or woods were burnt. The evidence for such activity is minimal, particularly since the function of the perforated vessels remains uncertain. Not all these vessels, for example, show traces of burning (Tappy 1992, 202). However, the presence of similar perforated vessels in a clearly 'cultic' group from Mt. Nebo in Jordan alongside small 'Ammonite' juglets similar to BoR juglets, suggests that cultic use is a reasonable conjecture (Culican 1976, 53, Taf. 4A). Tappy suggests that the relative abundance of these perforated vessels in Iron Age Transjordan "would fit well their portrait as utilitarian spin-offs from the lucrative spice and incense trade developing in South Arabia during this time" (Tappy 1992, 203). The discovery of the BoR juglet inside the perforated jar from Megiddo Locus 2081 supports at least an association of the two vessel types and the possibility of use of BoR juglets in cultic activity should therefore be considered. The second feature of BoR contexts illuminated by this study is the quantity of 'cup-and-saucer' vessels found in association with BoR. These contexts are: 1) Megiddo VA-IVB: Locus 1710 - cup-and-saucer alongside BoR juglet. 2) Hazor IXB: Locus 216b - cup-and-saucer alongside BoR bowl. 3) Hazor IX-X: Gate Tower 239a - three cup-and-saucers alongside BoR juglet. 4) Beth-Shan Upper Level V: Locus 1513 - cup-and-saucer in locus immediately above and probably associated with BoR juglet. 5) Beth-Shan Lower Level V: Locus 1082 - cup-and-saucer alongside BoR juglet. 6) Beth-Shan Lower Level V: Locus 1163 - cup-and-saucer alongside BoR jug and barrel-juglet. While the function of these fairly rare cup-and-saucer vessels is still not satisfactorily established, they have been noted to appear in contexts associated with cultic activity with relative frequency. Although a domestic use for this type of vessel can be reconstructed, it has been suggested that they were used to offer libations. 55 In this context, their appearance with BoR pottery (especially juglets) is of particular interest, and suggests that the two vessel types may have been used in a ritual which involved the pouring of oils. The presence 55 S e e May 1935, 22; also Lamon & Shipton 1939, 172, w h o c o m m e n t that this vessel type w a s "certainly used for s o m e religious purpose."

of a hole on occasion pierced at the bottom of the cup part of the vessel suggests that oil or liquids flowed out of this part into the saucer receptacle. Several examples also have a lip on the saucer, which may have aided the pouring out of the oil. 56 The absence of both of these features, however, on many cup-and-saucer vessels should also be noted. 57 Gilmour's study of cult objects from the Iron Age makes the additional suggestion that that the cup-and-saucer vessel served as a lamp, perhaps using a lump of bitumen rather than oil, which would have created a torch-like effect (Gilmour 1995, 239-240). An Egyptian temple painting shows priests carrying vessels similar to these, with a high flame coming out of the cup part of the vessel (Gilmour 1995, 240). It is possible that the BoR juglet could have been used to pour perfumed oil onto the burning material to scent it. While the 'cultic' associations of these two vessel types are not by any means beyond question, 58 there is some evidence that BoR pottery appears in contexts that would concur with the function of the juglets as perfumed oil vessels. The BoR bowls, in particular the large ones such as in Locus 2081 at Megiddo, may possibly have functioned as grand mixing or serving bowls. The site of Pella, in Jordan, may also support a cultic interpretation of some BoR pottery. BoR pottery is rare at this site and appears only in Plot IVE, an area of "very unclear and irregular stratigraphy," cut by pits and later foundation trenches (McNicoll 1992, 93). The structures of this area were indefinable but two 'cultic stands' were found in a pottery deposit in the north-west of Plot IVE. The excavators note that "amongst the pottery associated with the stands are a few sherds of Cypriot Black-on-Red ware, including the neck of a juglet" (McNicoll 1992, 95). Twelve wooden spindle-whorls were found on the earliest surface located in this area, and in probably a later phase, a conflagration preserved a group of storage jars on a stone-paved floor. Gilmour's study suggests that cultic paraphernalia was occasionally associated with industrial activity, including the textile industry, of which this may be an example (Gilmour 1995, 56

A lipped vessel w a s found, for e x a m p l e , in the so-called O i l Maker's H o u s e ' at Yoqneam (Ben-Tor 1993, 8 0 9 ) . 57 On the diverse forms of the cup-and-saucer vessel, s e e also Tappy 1992, 132136. 58 S e e eg. Tappy 1992, 132-136, 2 0 3 .

217). For our purposes, the association of the BoR pottery with cultic stands should be noted and may provide additional evidence of the use of BoR vessels - or their contents - in cultic ritual. 59 An additional site which may provide evidence, albeit weak, for use of BoR pottery in cultic ritual is Tell Sukas in Phoenicia. The excavators note a fragment of BoR ware amongst "a small number of objects" alongside the platform (bama) of the 'Greek' sanctuary of Period G3 which include a foot-shaped limestone fragment, a Bichrome bowl fragment, a basalt bowl, and a carnelian bead (Riis 1970, 41-42). Beyond the possible affiliation of BoR juglets with 'cultic' contexts, on occasion, there are few other indications that the ware type had any especial value. BoR pottery is found generally throughout the excavated areas of a site. Several examples of the pottery are found in streets and outside courtyards, such as Alley 2744 at Beersheba VI (1 example), Courtyard 1710 at Megiddo VA-IVB (1 example), Street 174b at Hazor X and IX (2 examples) and Alley 217 at Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb (1 example). The possibility that these vessels were out of their original context, washed by rain into the street, for example, should be considered, but is not a significant factor. Most frequently, perhaps, BoR pottery appears in domestic contexts. Often it is found in rooms with ovens, although these juxtapositions may well be due to chance. Such contexts are Room 203d at Hazor XB (BoR juglet with several ovens); Room 221c of Hazor XA (BoR juglet with one oven); Room 1522 of the High Tell at Tel Michal XIV (BoR bowl with one oven); Room 442A at Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb (BoR bowl with two ovens); Room 34 at Tel 'Amal Niv. IV (BoR juglet with one oven); and Room 659b of Tell Keisan Niv. 8b (BoR bowl with one oven). Grinding stones and cooking pots also appear in some quantity in the same contexts as BoR vessels, but these are relatively common types. These contexts indicate that BoR bowls and juglets were frequently used in domestic contexts, or at least stored alongside general household goods. Associated

Pottery (Figure 14)

In most cases, the contexts of the BoR pottery examined in the survey above are stratigraphically reliable. The presence of floors and often 59

B y contrast, the cultic group from L o c u s 4 9 at Lachish, Stratum V, dates to the s a m e period as the sites above, and contains many similar finds, including chalices, one-handled c o o k i n g jugs, and red-slipped dipper juglets with thickened rim. It d o e s not, however, contain BoR pottery (Aharoni 1975, PI. 27:1; PI. 4 2 ) .

destruction debris sealing a pottery assemblage enables the archaeologist to trace a pattern of certain pottery types occurring in context with BoR. These vessels are important in providing a chronological horizon within which BoR pottery is occurring. 60 This can then be tested at sites which have a limited chronological range, such as single-period tombs, and those with external indicators of date, such as a destruction that can plausibly be correlated with historical events. Recent increase in the use of carbon dating techniques to produce absolute dates has already made an important contribution and will continue to clarify the dating of the period under discussion. Preliminary results of scientific dating methods are discussed below. References to vessels that either share contexts with BoR pottery (indicated by an asterisk*), or belong to the same stratum as BoR pottery are listed below, followed by brief comments. Two sites which do not contain BoR pottery but have many types paralleled at sites examined here are Tel Masos Stratum II and Lachish Stratum V (Fritz & Kempinski 1983; Aharoni 1975). Reference are made to these levels where relevant. The survey below is not exhaustive and represents only a selection of the more distinctive vessels that occur in context with BoR. 61 • One-Handled

Cooking Pots: (Figure

14:1-4)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Locus 6 in Building 10, *Locus 52 in Building 51, *Locus 398 near Building 51 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5:119; PI. 7:167) Hazor IX-X: Locus 3104, Area Β (Yadin et al. 1961, Pl. CCX:25) Tel 'Amal IV: Locus 27 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 9: 3,6,8) Tel Halif tomb: ^Repository, burial chamber & bench. (Biran &

60 Bikai's definition o f a ceramic horizon is useful: meaning "a shift in the pottery repertoire such that it s e e m s clear that certain forms have disappeared and been replaced by others, such that taken together these forms present a recognizably different c o m p l e x from the earlier or later horizons. It is, of course, unlikely that each class o f pottery e v o l v e d lock-step with the o t h e r s . . . " (Bikai 1987, 62). N o t e also Mazar's caution concerning the isolation o f pottery a s s e m b l a g e s in the Levant: "a period o f 5 0 - 1 0 0 years is the shortest w e can expect to d e f i n e on the basis o f pottery a s s e m b l a g e s in our region" (Mazar 1998, 373). 61 A detailed study o f pottery types assigned to the period under discussion here is provided e l s e w h e r e (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 2 5 8 - 2 8 8 ) . S e e also Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998, 13-29.

Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:1 -4; Fig. 7: 10,11 ; Fig. 11:11) Tell Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 50:1-3) Tell el-Far'ah Vllb: Various loci (Chambon 1984, PI. 50:1, 53: 11-12) Mt. Carmel tombs: *Tomb I (Guy 1924, Pl. II: I) Tell Abu Hawam III: *Room 18 (Hamilton 1935, No. 80) Tell Michal XIV-XIII: Locus 88, High Tell (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.2.8) Beersheba VII: Various loci (Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:11-16) Beersheba VI: *Loci 2757 inter alia (Herzog 1984, Fig. 28:7-12) This vessel occurs with some regularity in contexts with BoR pottery and the wares were clearly in contemporary use. Most of the jugs noted above generally have a rounded body and base and short, slightly flared neck. 62 Similar-shaped vessels with longer necks or covered with a red slip may possibly have served different functions but belong to the same period. 63 Those that can be termed specifically 'cooking' jugs often have calcite or quartz inclusions which would have diffused the heat of the fire, and some examples show traces of burning on their base (Rast 1978, 33; Chambon 1984, Fig. 53:11-12; Hamilton 1935, 22, No. 80). The first examples of this vessel type appeared in levels which may be attributed to the late 11th century or the early 10th century, such as Megiddo Stratum VI and Tel Masos III (Loud 1948, PI. 81:7; Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 140:11) and two examples of the type occur in Megiddo Stratum III-II (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5:118). The vessel type seems to be most common, however, in the levels noted above. • Black Juglets with Handle to Middle of Neck: (Figure

14:5-7)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Loci 6, 7 in Building 10; *Loci 50, 52, 53 in Building 51; *Locus 398 near Building 51; Building 1482; (Building 1576 in Stratum IVA); *Locus 2081 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5:124-128; Loud 1948, PI. 88:11) Tel Halif tomb: ^Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 8: 1-10) Tel 'Amal IV: *Locus 12 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 13:16) Tell el-Hammeh: *Loci 117 & 119 (Cahill et al. 1989, 36) Tell Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 40:4-6)

62

S e e also Tappy 1992, 195. Eg. Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:1-2; 7:11; Chambon 1984, PI. 50:1; Loud 1948, PI. 88:1. 63

Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb: Various loci (Chambon 1984, PI. 50: 10, 12, 13,20-25,32) Tell Abu Hawam III: (Hamilton 1935, Pl. XIII: 91) Beersheba VI: Locus 2500, *Locus 2072 (Herzog 1984, Fig. 30:5-7) Black juglets appear for the first time in the same levels, or possibly slightly earlier, than those in which BoR first appears. A black juglet from Tel Masos Stratum II may predate the levels noted above (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 140^). 6 4 Although the type continues throughout the Iron II period, the shape develops from the earliest period when the handle reaches from the middle of the neck to the shoulder, with often a button-base, to a later stage in which handle reaches to the rim (Rast 1978, 29-30). There may be an intermediary stage in which the handle reaches to just below the rim (Singer-Avitz 1989, 82). • Plain red-slipped jugs with ridged rim: (Figure

14:8)

Tell Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 37:2) Tel 'Amal IV: Locus 29 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:7) Tell el-Hammeh: *Loci 117 & 119 (Cahill et al. 1989, 36) Tel Michal XIV-III: Locus 128 (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.5.12) This jug type is relatively rare but the ridged rim and long, straight or slightly conical neck are distinctive and seem to be confined to this period. 65 The handles are thick and rather inelegant. The vessel is typically red-slipped and burnished (the examples at Tel 'Amal and Tell el-Hammeh are possibly only slipped). Future finds of this jug may help establish its contribution to BoR chronology. Similar red-slipped jugs with ridged rims, but sometimes shorter necks, are also found at sites in southern Phoenicia (Chapman 1972, Fig. 9:13,14). The relation of this pottery type to Phoenician jugs with conical necks must be established. • Red-slipped jugs with neck-ridge and thickened rim: (Figure

14:9)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Locus 6 in Building 10 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 7:174) Tel Halif tomb: *Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:7) 64

Note, however, that Stratum II at Tel Masos, while it did not produce any BoR pottery, s h o w s many ceramic similarities to the levels which have been e x a m i n e d in this chapter. It is unlikely to have preceded these levels by a great margin, if at all. 65 Rast's useful d i s c u s s i o n of j u g t y p e s o m i t s to include this v e s s e l (Rast 1978, 28-29).

Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 37:1) Lachish tomb 1002: *Lower levels (11-13) 66 (Tufnell 1953: PI. 87: 254) Tell en-Nasbeh tomb 32: (Wampler 1947, PI. 36: 636) This vessel is also relatively rare in the ceramic repertoire of this period - for example only one jug of this type was found at Megiddo. Rast suggests that this vessel type is largely confined to the northern region but the vessels at Tel Halif and Lachish indicate that the jug type was also present in the south (Rast 1978, 28-29). The jug at Tell en-Nasbeh may not have been slipped. Similar jugs with neck-ridge but without red slip or thickened rim, for example at Tel Masos Stratum I (eg Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 159:10), may be a later development, or possibly do not belong to the same tradition. • 'Hippo' storage jars: (Figure 14:10) Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 34:1-3) Yoqneam XIV: (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, Fig. 6:9, 7:9) Tel 'Amal IV-III: Loci 33, 28, *11, *34 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 8: 5-10) Tell el-Hammeh: *Loci 117-119 (Cahill et al. 1989, 36) Hurvat Rosh Zavit: *(Gal 1992, Fig. 3:1; Alexandre 1995, 81-87) This vessel type has recently received especial attention on account of its large quantities at the site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit (Gal 1992, 175; Gal 1995, 89; Alexandre 1995). The jar is characterised by its "coarse metallic ware with a buff greenish hue" (Alexandre 1995, 83). Initial publication of the jars at the site suggested that the type "first appeared in the tenth century BC and reached its peak of popularity during the ninth century BC." (Gal 1992, 175). Subsequently, this was amended to "a short, well-defined life-span from the late 10th to early 9th centuries" (Gal 1995, 89). The present survey suggests that while the 'Hippo'jar may well be characteristic of the late 10th - 9th centuries, there are some difficulties with assigning it so short a period of circulation. For example, Alexandre claims that the 'Hippo' jars at Megiddo belong "probably in Stratum VA-IVB" (Alexandre 1995, 83), despite numerous examples of the jar in loci at the site that cannot be 66

Lachish T o m b 1002 spanned a broad period and w a s much disturbed. H o w e v e r , the excavator c o m m e n t s that this j u g "is distinctly archaic, covered with a thick red slip and vertically hand burnished. Its position in the bottom layers is further e v i d e n c e o f its antiquity" (Tufnell 1953, 2 3 3 ) .

assigned any earlier than Stratum IV. Only one example of those recorded (Locus =1482) may belong to Stratum VA-IVB. 67 Equally, the examples cited from Beth-Shan "Level V" belong to Upper Level V (Alexandre 1995, 84; James 1966, Fig. 3,10). 68 Other examples, not cited, may date to the 9th century, such as Tel Masos Stratum post I (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 140:4).6<} The site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit itself suggests that the 'Hippo' vessels were flourishing in the 9th century, as originally suggested by the excavators. Although the site is not yet fully published, the BoR pottery from the site appears to date to a later period than the BoR found in the levels examined above. The range of the pottery at the site includes fine pieces in an advanced style as well as a number of miniature BoR wares which do not appear elsewhere at this period. Rather than "a rare example of a well-defined historical point in time reflected in the ceramic repertoire" (Alexandre 1995, 86), therefore, the 'Hippo' jar probably spans the late 10th century to at least the mid-9th century and possibly beyond. The presence of the pottery type in the same contexts as BoR at the sites listed above and its relatively short period of use nevertheless make it a useful chronological indicator for the period under consideration. • Spouted jars: (Figure

14:11-12)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Locus 6 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 19:106), Locus 2102 (Loud 1948, PI. 146:30) Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 36:1, 2) Beersheba Stratum VI: Locus 2755 (Herzog 1984, Fig. 30:4) Tel 'Amal Stratum IV: Loci 29, 33, 27 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:1,2, 4) Tell el-Hammeh: *Loci 117 & 119 (Cahill et al. 1989, 36) Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb: Locus 381 (Chambon 1984, PI. 49: 14) The initial appearance of this vessel type, a wide carinated body 67 S o m e jars at M e g i d d o may be in sherd form only and are possibly misassigned, but the type is noted, for e x a m p l e , from the Stable C o m p o u n d 3 6 4 (Locus 378), belonging to Stratum IVA. Other loci containing this jar type include: 5 0 4 , 5 4 8 , 1301, S = 1 5 4 2 , 3 1 5 , 5 6 9 , 6 1 0 , 9 3 4 , 9 3 7 , 1311, 4 4 , 9 3 , 2 7 5 , 4 8 2 , 5 0 4 , 5 2 2 , 5 5 3 , 1484, 1490, S = 1 5 5 3 , 1576, = 1 4 8 2 , 1630, 1541 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 166-167). 68 L o c u s 4 8 , in which Fig. 64:3 w a s found, w a s one o f the more reliably attributed loci in Beth-Shan Upper Level V (James 1966, 4 4 ) . 69 Tel M a s o s Stratum post I is dated later than the 10th century (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 80).

with two handles and spout on the shoulder, is earlier than the levels in which BoR first appears. These early levels include Ta'anach IIA (Rast 1978, Fig. 26:1) Megiddo VIA (Loud 1948, PI. 77:12, 13), Tell Qasile XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:8) and Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vila (Chambon 1984, PI. 49:13). Two types of spouted jar also occur, however, in levels contemporary with BoR. One is the wide-bodied jar with straight, or sometimes slightly flared, neck (eg. Rast 1978, Fig. 36:1). The other is narrower in body and typically has a ridged or thickened rim (eg. Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 19:106).™ The jar at Tell el-Hammeh has, however, a wide body and ridged rim while the jar at Tell el-Far'ah (N) has a short, sharply flaring rim. The vessel is commonly red-slipped and sometimes painted with dark bands. 71 Rast suggests that while the spouted jar of this type appears earlier, "the form becomes particularly prominent in Period IIB" at Ta'anach (Rast 1972, 28). It is, therefore, a useful chronological indicator for BoR. • Red-slipped and burnished bowls: (Figure

14:13-15)

The range of bowl forms from the levels under consideration is too extensive to detail in this study. Three types, however, shall be selected here, which all occur in the repository of the Iron Age tomb at Halif along with BoR juglets and may represent types common to the earliest period of BoR circulation on the mainland. 72 Type 1: Red-slipped burnished bowl with gentle carination, everted rim and flat/disc base Eg. Tel Halif tomb - *Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2; PI. 36:B). A similar vessel occurs in *Locus 6 of Megiddo VA-IVB (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 30:130), but without burnish. This bowl type has a thickened, everted rim and relatively thick walls. (Figure 14:13).

70

Rast distinguishes between the earlier "depressed" body and the later "rounded" body (Rast 1978, 28; cf. Tappy 1992, 223). I would propose a distinction instead between the 'wider' and 'narrower' versions of the vessel, with c o m m o n l y the thickened or ridged neck on the narrower version. While the wide-bodied is certainly a continuation of the earlier type, the t w o types appear to be contemporary (eg. Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:1 versus Fig. 11:2). 71 The vessel is described as a Phoenician type in the publication of Tel Qiri (BenTor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 43:15). The association of this pottery type with Phoenicia requires, however, further investigation. 72 For further discussion o f Iron A g e bowl types, see Mazar 1985, 33-42; Tappy 1992, 110-119.

Type 2: Red-slipped burnished bowl with gentle carination, flaring rim and flat/disc base Eg. Tel Halif tomb - ^Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:1). Similar bowls appear in the Cultic Structure at Ta'anach IIB (Rast 1978, Fig. 48:5, 9,10). (Figure 14:14). Type 3: Red-slipped burnished bowls with gentle carination, simple rim and rounded base Eg. Tel Halif tomb - *Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:6). Almost identical bowls are found in the Cultic Structure at Ta'anach IIB (Rast 1978, Fig. 48:2), at Hazor IX-X, *Locus 92a (missing base) (Yadin 1958, Pl. XIV: 1), in *Locus 378 at Tel Michal XIV (SingerAvitz 1989, Fig. 7.1.2) and in *Locus 12 at Tel 'Amal III (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 15:3). Another possible bowl of this type is found in *Tomb I at Mt. Carmel (Guy 1924, PI. 11:4). The carination is low down on the body of these bowls and they have slightly tapered rims. (Figure 14:15) Other types of pottery that appear frequently in context with BoR and are characteristic of the period under consideration are cylindrical juglets (Loud 1948, PI. 88:12,13), the early type of Phoenician 'Achziv' jug (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6: 8, 9; PI. 36:C) and red-slipped thickened-rim dipper juglets (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6: 11). Establishing

'Phase V of BoR

As seen in the discussions above, BoR pottery appears at many sites for the first time in levels which bear similarities to each other in their ceramic repertoire. The absolute dating of these levels places them generally, in their excavators' opinion, in the latter part of the 10th century. Several of these sites have destruction levels which appear, on the basis of the pottery found within them, to have been contemporary. Such sites are Megiddo VA-IVB, Ta'anach IIB, possibly Beth-Shan (although the stratigraphy at the site is too unreliable to be of use here), Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb, Tel 'Amal IVIII, Tell el-Hammeh 'L-Terrace' and possibly Tell Abu Hawam III. In most cases, the excavators' belief that the sites were destroyed in this period by Shishak is supported by the pharaoh's campaign list inscribed in the Temple of Amon at Karnak (Kitchen 1986, 432-447). In the case of other sites, the destructions may have been due to local events, or natural disaster.

The pottery types occurring with the BoR ware are in many cases distinctive and provide supporting evidence for the contemporaneity of the levels in which BoR first appears. Study of these ware types has enabled us to establish a 'ceramic horizon' within which BoR appears, which can be related to the chronology of the Iron II period. The dangers of circularity are avoided by combining factors that help produce absolute dates for the period in question. These factors are: 1) A ceramic horizon within which BoR appears on the mainland 2) Destruction levels within this ceramic horizon that can be assigned plausibly to an external, datable, destruction 3) Carbon-14 dating of levels which lie within the ceramic horizon The results of this study suggest that BoR pottery begins to appear on the mainland from the middle of the 10th century. The first ceramic horizon, which we can term 'Phase Γ of BoR distribution, continues from this period until the beginning of the 9th century (c.950 c.890/880 BC). The ceramic horizon begins to change in the levels succeeding those examined above in Section I of this chapter. The destruction possibly caused by Shishak at various sites has preserved for us assemblages of wares which were sealed probably in the last decades of the 10th century. At sites not directly affected by this military campaign, the same ceramic types probably continued to be produced and circulate for one or two more decades until a gradual ceramic change becomes perceptible throughout the region, and pottery types previously popular become less so. This survey of the initial phase of BoR circulation on the mainland does not support the presence of BoR pottery in the first few decades of the 10th century. Although Beersheba Stratum VII may have been in existence pre-950 BC, the one BoR fragment in this level is not sufficient to alter the picture. 73 The presence of BoR pottery in phases c & b of Tell Keisan Niv. 8, in Tel 'Amal 73

The presence of BoR pottery in 11th century levels at Shiqmona cannot be verified for this study, as the site remains unpublished (Elgavish 1993, 1374). Although the likelihood that the pottery is correctly dated to the 11th century is very remote, the possibility that this coastal site w a s one of the earliest to receive the imported pottery should be considered (see also Chapter One, 8).

Niv. IV and in Hazor XB, however, suggests that it may have been in circulation by the mid-10th century. 74 Carbon-14 sampling has produced some ambiguous results. The current excavations at Tel Rehov in the Beth-Shan valley have uncovered a destruction level (Stratum 1) containing pottery similar to that at the levels examined here (see 'Tel Rehov,' 159-160 above). The site is among those mentioned as conquered by Shishak in his list at Karnak (Kitchen 1986, 296-299). C-14 samples taken from carbonized grain sealed in this level have been dated to 906-843 BC (calibrated, 65% probability) or 916-832 BC (calibrated, 98% probability) (Mazar 1999, 40-41; Mullins 1999, 9). C-14 samples taken from olive and elm wood beams used in the construction of Stratum 1 are dated to, respectively, 1400-1260 and 1120-990 BC (Mazar 1999, 41). The excavators note that "both beams could somewhat pre-date their use for construction, yet the elm tree date hints that the transition between Strata 2 and 1 in the lower city occurred sometime in the tenth century BCE. Even though we do not have C14 dates from Stratum 2, it appears, on stratigraphie and ceramic grounds, that it was both constructed and destroyed sometime in the tenth century BCE." (Mazar 1999, 41; cf. Mullins 1999, 9; Shanks 1999, 40). On the basis of the present incomplete state of excavation, the excavators suggest that Stratum 1 was either a consequence of a 9th century event such as attack by Ben-Hadad or Hazael, or Jehu's revolt c. 842 BC, or less likely, destroyed by Shishak in 925 BC (Mazar 1999, 41). If the destruction of Stratum 1 is placed in the 9th century, then the end of Stratum 2 would probably correspond with the date of Shishak. In addition, of the BoR pottery appearing in the levels on the mainland examined here, none is of types which are best considered more 'advanced' BoR, such as the range of vessels discovered at the site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit (personal examination, August 1998) (Gal 993, 1291). The range of forms occurring in the early contexts noted above is relatively small and includes handle-ridge juglets, conical, trefoil-lipped and sack-shaped juglets, jugs, and varieties of bowl. 74

The f e w e x a m p l e s of BoR pottery that appear to belong to M e g i d d o V B (see ' M e g i d d o ' above) are best explained, in v i e w of the surmounting evidence, as belonging to the latest phase pre-construction of Palace 1723, rather than an altogether earlier stratum. The evidence from M e g i d d o would fit, in these terms, with a date around the mid-10th century.

There are no miniature BoR vessels and no BoR amphorae. The Cypriot chronology of BoR is fully examined in the following Chapter Four. Finally, Patricia Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus provides a useful comparison for these conclusions. Bikai's study is discussed more fully in Chapter Four. In assessing the absolute chronology of the 'ceramic horizons' that she establishes for Phoenician pottery occurring in Cyprus, she compares them to sites on the mainland (Bikai 1987, 64-69). Of these sites, only one, Tell Keisan, is well-stratified and of relevance here, the others either belonging to later periods or of less reliable tomb contexts in Phoenicia. She notes that the Phoenician pottery from Tell Keisan Strata 9a-b, 8 and 7 bears similarities to the wares of her "Kouklia" or earliest phase (Bikai 1987, 66-67). She dates this horizon to c."1050 - 850?" (Bikai 1987, 69). This date therefore supports a generally early date, within the 10th century, for Tell Keisan Niv. 8c-b, which represents the first appearance of BoR at the site (see discussion of 'Tell Keisan'above, 152-154). The dates provided here for the earliest BoR pottery on the mainland, therefore, fit best with the evidence currently available. An absolute chronology for the pottery is proposed at the end of Chapter Four.

TABLE A: Well-Stratified,

Reliable Loci for 'Phase Γ of BoR Chronology

(Loci in square brackets indicate contexts of marginally less reliability) Stratum

Contexts

Megiddo V B

L o c u s 1 7 1 0 (beneath Courtyard 1693)

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loci 50, 52, 5 3 (Building 51); Loci 6, 7 (Building 10); L o c u s 3 9 8 (Near Building 51); L o c u s 2081 ('Cultic')

Hazor X B Hazor X A

L o c u s 2 0 3 d (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 ) L o c u s 2 1 3 c , [Locus 2 2 1 c : Open Space] (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )

Hazor IXB

[Locus 216b: open space] (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )

Hazor I X A

[Locus 239a: gate tower] (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )

HazorIX-X

L o c u s 92a, [Locus 3 2 8 1 : Casemate R o o m ]

Ta'anach IIB

R o o m s 1 & 2 ('Cultic Structure')

Tel Michal X I V

[Locus 1522: Building on High Tell]

Tel Michal XIII

[Loci 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 : Building 4 2 3 on High Tell]

Tel Qiri VIIC

Loci 6 5 7 , 6 5 9 (Building in Area D )

Beersheba VII/VI

L o c u s 2 3 0 7 (Building 2 3 0 9 )

Beersheba VI

Locus 2 0 7 2 (Building 2 0 7 2 )

Tell el-Far'ah (N) V l l b

Loci 4 4 2 A , 431 (House 442); [Locus 217: Alley in front of House 176; Locus 430: Continuation of Road 438; Locus 149: House 149]

Tel 'Amal IV Tel ' A m a l III

L o c u s 3 4 (Central room of building) Loci 12, 11 ( R o o m s in building c o m p l e x ) ; L o c u s 9 ( R o o m in building c o m p l e x )

Mt. Carmel tombs

Tombs I and VII

Tell Keisan 8b-c

Loci 6 5 9 b , 6 3 6 b ( R o o m s in t w o buildings)

Tell e l - H a m m e h

Loci 117, 119 (L-Terrace)

Tel Halif tomb

Repository; [Burial chamber]

Sarepta D1

[Area II-K-21, level 7]

75

Ussishkin argues that part o f M e g i d d o w a s preserved by Shishak, in order to explain the erection of a victory stela by the Egyptian pharaoh inside the city (Ussishkin 1900, 7 3 - 7 4 ) . A n alternative possibility is that the site w a s destroyed a year or t w o after Shishak's conquest: "if Sheshonq did not destroy Megiddo, s o m e o n e else o b v i o u s l y did." (Wightman 1990, 63).

TABLE B : Summary of Dating Evidence for Sites with 'Phase 1' BoR Stratum Megiddo VA-IVB

Dating Evidence Destroyed by Shishak in c. 9 2 5 . 7 5 Compatible 'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e 7 6

Ta'anach IIB

Destroyed by Shishak in c. 925. Compatible

Hazor X B - I X A

Correlates with Yoqneam XVI-XIII. Stratum

'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e IX possibly destroyed by Arameans in c. 8 9 0 / 8 8 5 . Compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage. Tel Qiri VIIC-A

Inadequate independent evidence. Generally compatible 'Phase l ' a s s e m b l a g e

Tel Michal XIV-XIII

Sealed destruction of compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage

Beersheba VII-VI

S o m e early types in Beersheba VII - stratum ends mid-10th century latest. Beersheba VI compatible 'Phase 1 ' assemblage.

Beth-Shan L o w e r Level

Stratification unclear. L o w e r Level V probably ends

V - Upper Level V

late 10th century. Upper Level V into 9th century.

Tell el-Far'ah (N) V l l b

Far'ah V l l b (=Niv. Ill) destroyed, probably by Shishak c. 9 2 5 (or possibly Omri c. 885). Far'ah V l l d destroyed by Assyrians c. 732. Far'ah V l l b compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage

Tel Mevorakh VII

Problematic stratigraphy

Tel ' A m a l IV-III

Probably = one level with rebuilding, destroyed by Shishak c. 9 2 5 . Niv. IV s o m e early types earliest phase around mid 10th century. Compatible 'Phase 1 ' assemblage

Mt. Carmel tombs

Limited period tombs. Generally compatible 'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e

Tell Keisan Niv. 8

N o destruction between Niv.'s 8-6. Niv. 8 possibly from beginning 10th century, but limited pottery published and no compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage

Tell e l - H a m m e h L-

Possible destruction by Shishak c. 9 2 5 .

Terrace

Compatible 'Phase l ' a s s e m b l a g e

Tell Abu H a w a m III

Stratification unclear, long duration of period. Elements of compatible 'Phase 1 ' assemblage

Tel Halif tomb

Limited period tomb, with stratification. Compatible 'Phase Γ a s s e m b l a g e in repository with B o R .

76

Compatible 'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e ' i s defined here as the group o f pottery types which appear to be characteristic o f this ceramic horizon, a selection of which are outlined in 'Associated Pottery' above.

Section II: The 9th - 8th

Centuries

The continuation of BoR pottery into the 9th and 8th centuries BC is attested at sites throughout the mainland. This section of the chapter examines whether BoR 'peaked' in the 9th century, or whether it began to decrease in quantity during this period. It also assesses the evidence for the latest levels in which the pottery appears. The main phases of the appearance of BoR are plotted on a distribution map in order to determine whether there was any shift in patterning over the period of the ware's circulation. This section therefore examines later levels of the sites investigated in Section I of this chapter, and also includes brief comments on other stratified sites, such as Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tel Kabri and the inland site of Hama, and sites on the Phoenician coast - Tell Sukas, Sarepta, Tyre and Tell Kazel. As the primary aim of this section is to determine the later chronology of the pottery, it does not investigate aspects of the BoR contexts in the same detail as in the preceding Section I. The reader is referred to the preceding section for general discussion of excavation history and stratigraphy of the sites re-examined here. Megiddo Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925-1934:

(Lamon & Shipton 1939)

BoR in Strata 1V-II • BoR Handle-ridge Juglet Type 123 (1939. PI. 5) 1 example assigned to Stratum IV: 4 examples assigned to Stratum III. One juglet was found in Locus 1674, the fill beneath the Southern Stable Courtyard 1576. This fill was composed largely of debris from the disused water-shaft (Locus 925) and although assigned to Stratum IV, also contains pottery from earlier periods. 77 In Stratum III, one juglet was found in Locus 508, a small room in Building 1052. This was an open-court building located in Area D, to the west of Gate 500, erected during Stratum III and enlarged and remodelled in Stratum II (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 70-71). Two further handle-ridge juglets were found in Loci 1422 and 1479, small rooms in residential

77

S e e Section I, 9 5 n. 16.

buildings of Area A, assigned to Stratum III (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 72). A further handle-ridge juglet was found in Locus 1547, a long room in the same area. • BoR Two-handled Juglet ÍJar1 Type 87 (1939. PI. 17) 2 examples assigned to Stratum III. One two-handled juglet was found in Locus S=1553, a (possibly open) area in the east of the mound, Area A. A second juglet of this type was found in Locus 1598, a partially-preserved room also in Area A. Both these loci were assigned to Stratum III. • BoR Bowl Type 95 (1939. PI. 28) Plain bowl with rounded sides. 1 example assigned to Stratum IV. This bowl was found in Cistern 1672, a mud-brick water-tank in the Southern Stable Compound 1576, assigned to Stratum IV. • BoR Bowl Type 107 (1939, PI. 29) Large medium-deep bowl with loop handles. 2 examples assigned to Strata IV & III One bowl of this type was found in Locus - 3 3 8 , the filling beneath Building 338. This building, whose use is uncertain, 78 is assigned to Stratum IV, and the filling is composed of "Stratum V types with a sprinkling of earlier sherds and a few Stratum IV specimens" (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 49). A second bowl of this type was found in Room 1588, Area A, Stratum III, in the east of the mound. • BoR Bowl Type 109 (1939. PI. 29) Fragment of bowl with row of concentric circles (late type). 1 example assigned to Strata II. This bowl sherd was found in Locus 1259, part of a building in Area A, Stratum II. Megiddo 11: Seasons of 1935-1939 (Loud

1948)

• BoR Juglet Type 502 (1948, PI. 91:2) Probably trefoil-rimmed juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum IV. This juglet was found in Locus N=2049, a locus north of Room 2049 in a building complex to the west of Gate 2156 in Area AA. This locus is assigned to Stratum IV. Discussion

and

Chronology

The BoR pottery at Megiddo in strata succeeding Stratum VA-IVB

78 Various functions have been suggested for Building 338. Its identification as a 'palace' or "a private residence of an important personage" is generally accepted (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 59; Shiloh 1993, 1021).

comes from contexts of varying reliability. Only one BoR juglet comes from a reasonably-stratified Stratum IV context (Locus N=2049) - in Area AA of Loud's excavations. The buildings to which this locus belongs, north of a larger building near the entrance to Gate 2156, are "of domestic character" (Loud 1948, 46). Elsewhere, however, the BoR from Stratum IV is confined to 'fill' deposits, possibly of mixed periods. The BoR bowl in Cistern 1672, belonging to the Southern Stable Compound 1576, most probably found its way there once the cistern had fallen into disuse, along with other miscellaneous items. The absence of BoR is notable from buildings that are reliably assigned to Stratum IV, such as the Southern Stable Compound 1576, or Buildings 338 and 364. This is most likely explicable by the probable equestrian nature of these buildings, and the small quantity of pottery retrieved from them in total. 79 The fact that "approximately half of the area of the stratum IVA city was allocated to public buildings of an administrative nature" (Shiloh 1993, 1021), may also have affected the quantity of BoR in circulation in this period. Four BoR juglets and one BoR bowl (from Loci 508, 1422, 1479, 1547 & 1588) were found in contexts reasonably attributed to Stratum III. Two two-handled juglets were also found in Stratum III, in less well-preserved contexts. The BoR bowl found in a Stratum II context is also stratigraphically reliable and of a very late ware type. The attribution of BoR pottery to Strata IV and III at Megiddo is, therefore, supported by examination of the evidence. The number of juglets decreases from 26 in Stratum VA-IVB, to 2 in Stratum IV and 6 in Stratum III. BoR jugs, always the least popular of the three main BoR types, do not appear beyond Stratum VA-IVB. The dating of Strata IV-III, as with that in the earlier strata, is not wholly certain. Stratum IVA is believed to have continued until at least the end of the 9th century (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 61; Shiloh 1993, 1023). While, however, the excavators proposed that Stratum IV ended in c. 780 BC and was followed by a period of non-occupation, the majority of scholars believe the stratum to have continued until the Assyrian conquest of the city by Tiglath-pileser III in c. 732 BC (Lamon & Shipton 79 The identification of the Stratum IVA structures as c o m p o n e n t s of a "Chariot City" has been much discussed. The likelihood that Buildings 3 6 4 and 1576 served as stables is, however, high ( D a v i e s 1986, 82).

1939, 62; Davies 1986, 97-98). The destruction debris overlying Building 338 supports the termination of this stratum by conflagration, and while Megiddo is not explicitly named in the Assyrian records of the campaign, it is likely to have suffered the same fate as its neighbours (Davies 1986, 97-98). The layout and structures of Stratum III show clear Assyrian influence and indicate a period subsequent to the rise of Assyrian rule. Stratum IV can be dated tentatively, therefore, from the beginning of the 9th century until c. 732 BC. Stratum III should probably be dated from c. 732 to the late 7th century. During Stratum III, Megiddo was probably capital of the Assyrian province of Magiddu, which possibly included Upper and Lower Galilee as well as the plain and valley of Jezreel (Yadin 1993, 1004; Davies 1986, 98). The small quantity of BoR pottery present in Stratum II is of very late type and fits with a date sometime in the 7th century.

Hazor Hazor I: Season of 1955 (Yadin et al. 1958) BoR in Strata VIII-III:™ • BoR Juglet (1958. PI. L:14) Handle-ridge juglet. 2 examples assigned to Stratum VII. One neck fragment was found in Locus 94, Area A, part of the central hall of Pillared Building 71. The other body of a juglet came from Locus 71, the southern hall of the building. The upper floor of this building (Stratum VII) was paved with "small stones set far apart" (Yadin 1958, 12). The building was destroyed by fire at the end of Stratum VII (Yadin 1958, 13). A third juglet, possibly of Cypriot type, but without any trace of black decoration came from Locus 94 (Yadin 1958, Pl. L: 15). • BoR Juglet (1958. Pl. LIL16) BoR or White Painted juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VI. The description of this vessel suggests it may be White Painted ware. 80

N o t e , as with the earlier strata at Hazor, that the publications of the site include White Painted and Phoenician ware along with BoR in one category of "CyproPhoenician" pottery. Most of these v e s s e l s are in sherd form, and it is s o m e t i m e s impossible to determine from the drawing and description whether the vessel is BoR. The most doubtful BoR v e s s e l s have not, therefore, been included in this survey.

The fragment came from Locus 26a, a room in Building 49, which belonged to Area A, Stratum VI. • BoR Jug (1958, PI. LVI:21) Jug sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. This fragment comes from Locus 46, a room in a residential complex of Area A, Stratum V. • BoR Juglet (1958, PI. LXI:4) Juglet sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. This fragment (which appears to be BoR ware) comes from Locus 19, a room in Building 1 of Area A, Stratum V. The building was pillared, with a courtyard divided into two parts. Locus 19 was the southern room and may have been partially-roofed. • BoR Bowl (1958. PI. LXVII:26) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum V This fragment (which appears to be BoR) comes from Locus 3014, which although assigned to Stratum V is, in fact, one of the rooms of the Assyrian Citadel III, Area B, Stratum III. Locus 3014 is stone-paved. • BoR Bowl (1958, PI. LXXVII:9) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum III. This fragment comes from Sounding 3038, made in the central courtyard of Citadel III, Area B. • BoR Juglet (1958, Pl. LXXVII: 10) Juglet sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum III. This fragment comes from Sounding 3038, Area B, as above. • BoR Bowl (1958, PI. LXXVII:25) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum III. This fragment (probably of BoR) comes from Locus 3011, just north of Citadel III, Area B. • BoR Bowl (1958. PI. LXXVIII:22) Bowl sherd. 8 ' 1 example assigned to Stratum III-IV. This fragment comes from Locus 3006, the south-eastern entrance hall to Citadel III, Area B. Hazor II: Season of 1956 (Yadin et al. 1960) • BoR Juglet (1960. PI. LVIII:12) Two-handled juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIII. This neck fragment of a juglet (which appears to be BoR ware) comes 81

This fragment is listed, probably incorrectly, as a j u g sherd.

from Locus 95a, Area A, the central hall of Pillared Building 71. • BoR Juglet (1960. PL LXXV:11. 12) One neck and one body sherd. 2 examples assigned to Stratum V. These two fragments come from Locus 16, a room in Building 14, Area A. This room was well preserved, with benches and a shelf on which pottery lay (Yadin 1960, 30). • BoR Bowl (1960. PI. LXXXII:16) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. This fragment comes from Locus 3116a, Area B. This was an Alley to the west of the Israelite Citadel, between the Citadel and the 'Northern Buildings.' • BoR Bowl (1960. Pl. XCIIL16) . Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. This fragment belongs to Locus 3106, Area B. This was a small room inside the Israelite Citadel. Hazor III-IV: Seasons of 1957-1958 (Yadin 1961, Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989) • BoR Bowl (1961. Pl. CLXXXIL18) Fine large bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum VI. This bowl belongs to Locus 83a, Area A, Stratum VI. This is a small room in Building 2a. The excavators comment "this is the largest and best example of a residential building excavated at Hazor" (Ben-Tor 1989, 41). Room 83a, which is only 1.2m wide, was probably "used as a storeroom, probably entered through an opening high up in the wall" (Ben-Tor 1989,41). • BoR Juglet (1961. Pl. C L X X X I V 2 5 ) Juglet body. 1 example assigned to Stratum VI. This juglet belongs to Locus 83a, Area A, as above. • BoR Krater (1961. Pl. C L X X X I V 3 ) Krater. 1 example assigned to Stratum VI. This vessel is most probably BoR, although the description suggests that the shoulder is unslipped. It belongs to Locus 237b, Area A, an area inside the gate and next to the casemate wall. • BoR Amphora (1961. Pl. C L X X X V 8 ) Possibly amphora neck. 1 example assigned to Stratum VI. This vessel comes from the same locus, 237b, Area A, as above, and is of the same ware.

• BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CLXXXIX:16) Probably handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. This juglet rim comes from Locus 87, Area A, Stratum V. The locus could not be located on the plan provided in the publication (Ben-Tor 1989, Plan XIV). • BoR Bowl (1961. Pl. CCXIV: 17) Shallow bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum VII. This bowl belongs to Locus 3038d, Area B. This locus is shown on the plans of Stratum VIII, and continued into Stratum VII. It comprises a courtyard area to the north of the Israelite Citadel 3090. These are designated the 'Northern Buildings' by the excavators. • BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CCXXI:5) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA-VIII. This juglet comes from Locus 3193, Area B. This belonged to a "sort of terrace" supporting the city wall, north of the 'Northern Buildings.' • BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CLXXXVIII:22) Juglet body. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA. This juglet belongs to Locus 3162, Area B. This locus was a narrow open space between Building 3148a and Building 3153, which adjoined the Citadel on the east. • BoR Jug ( 1961. Pl. CCXLVIII: 18) Base of Jug. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIII. This jug base belongs to Locus 10061, Area G, a sounding east of the Forward Bastion of the city's fortifications. The jug and context are discussed briefly in Section I of this chapter. • BoR Juglet (1961, PI. CCLII:14) Juglet neck. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. This juglet belongs to Locus 10034, Area G, a silo which continued in use from Stratum VI. The excavators comment that "its ruin at the end of this stratum is indicative of the final and total destruction of this stratum. The burnt layer in the silo is very thick and extends into the masonry of the walls, next to which it rises almost to their full height. It sinks down towards the silo's centre. The floor level of the silo in Stratum V is the base of the burnt layer, about 0.4 m above the Stratum VI silo floor and the stone debris lying on it." (Ben-Tor 1989, 194). • BoR Juglet ( 1961. Pl. CCLII: 15) Possibly White Painted. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. This juglet fragment, most likely of White Painted ware, was found in Locus 10039b, Area G, the area between House 10037c and the city wall.

• BoR Jug (1961. PI. CCLV15) Jug handle 1 example assigned to Stratum IV. This jug was found in Locus 10007a, Area G, a "large structure... partially paved with densely packed stones" (Ben-Tor 1989, 196). Discussion and

Chronology

Examination of Strata VIII - III at Hazor provide good evidence that BoR pottery continued to circulate at the site until the later Iron Age. After the destruction of Stratum IX at Hazor, the city expanded to include the whole tell in Stratum VIII. This period is assigned to the Omride dynasty. Fortifications were built at its eastern end, Area G. The 'Israelite Citadel' was built in Area Β at the western edge of the tell, and continued unchanged in plan until the destruction of the city at the end of Stratum VA, probably by Tiglathpileser III in c. 732 BC. This citadel was adjoined by the 'Northern Buildings.' In Stratum VIII, the main building in Area A, in the centre of the tell, was Pillared Building 71 (now relocated). This building continued in use in Stratum VII, with raised floors, but was destroyed by fire at the end of Stratum VII and was not reconstructed. In Stratum VI, Area A was rebuilt as residential quarters. These buildings were destroyed at the end of Stratum VI, probably by earthquake, but were reconstructed in Stratum V. With the threat of Assyrian invasion, in Stratum V, the Israelite Citadel in the west was fortified with an additional offsetinset wall and a tower, and four-room houses were constructed to its east. The whole city was destroyed and burnt at the end of Stratum VA. A new citadel was built in Area Β in Stratum III, most probably by the Assyrians. BoR pottery appears in all the areas excavated on the tell, throughout the period under examination. The contexts are generally good on account of the relatively short-lived nature of each stratum which was successively destroyed. In Stratum VIII, one BoR juglet was found in Pillared Building 71 and a jug in the Forward Bastion of Area G. In Stratum VII, two juglets were found in the Pillared Building, and a BoR bowl in an area north of the Israelite Citadel. In Stratum VI, two juglets and a bowl were found in the residential buildings of Area A (two of which in the small Storeroom 83a). A krater and amphora of uncertain BoR type appeared inside the gate area of Area A in Stratum VI. In Stratum V, four BoR juglets and one jug were found in the residential buildings of Area A, one juglet and

one bowl near the Israelite Citadel, and a bowl inside the Israelite Citadel. A juglet was found in the terrace north of the 'Northern Buildings,' assigned to Strata VIII-VA. One juglet was found in the silo of Area G in Stratum V, and one (possibly White Painted) juglet in an open area of Area G. In Stratum IV, a BoR jug appeared in the large structure built in Area G. In Stratum III, one juglet was found in a sounding in the Assyrian citadel of Area B, two bowls near the Assyrian citadel and two bowls inside the citadel. While BoR pottery was present therefore in all strata from Stratum VIII to Stratum III, it should be noted that the vessels were generally preserved in highly fragmentary form, seldom more than a sherd. Only one almost complete vessel was found, in a Stratum VI context (Yadin 1960, PI. CLXXXII:18). Although, therefore, the pottery may simply be well-worn from use, the possibility that BoR sherds were transferred to these later Iron Age contexts via infilling or later construction in these areas is heightened. The fragmentary preservation of the pottery also hinders assessment of whether the types assigned to later strata are of late BoR forms. 82 The Assyrian Citadel of Stratum III, in particular, is problematic. The excavators note: The whole thickness of the filling of the citadel structures (beneath the surface layer) contained great quantities of sherds, the bulk of which belonged to the Israelite period. The rest belonged to earlier periods, while the loci discovered on the floors of the various rooms, the ovens and the rest of the kitchen installations, all belonged to the second phase of settlement of the Citadel, ie. the Persian Period... This filling of the building may perhaps be associated with the builders of Stratum I, w h o had to level off their floors with an eye to the tops of the walls of Building III, which served as foundations for their walls... [In fact] only a very little material definitely belonging to III was found. (Yadin 1958, 49-50).

The possibility that the BoR pottery found in the latest level (Citadel III) was intrusive must, therefore, be considered. BoR appears, however, in good contexts in Strata VIII, VII, VI and Stratum VA, and it is therefore likely to have been in circulation at the site throughout the 9th century up to the Assyrian conquest in c. 732 BC. An extension of BoR into the early 7th century at Hazor may be possible. The fragmentary preservation of the later BoR at the site

82

A s presented in the Plates, in general the B o R from Hazor VIII-III is o f standard B o R ware. T h e well-preserved B o R bowl from Stratum V I , noted above, is of a type k n o w n from the earliest levels in which the pottery appears on the mainland.

should be noted, however, and suggests that some of the pottery in the later levels was intrusive from the earlier period. The distribution of the pottery throughout the Iron Age levels at Hazor which, in contrast to Megiddo, appears to represent a steady importation, may therefore be partly illusory. Ta'anach According to the excavators, the later Iron Age strata at Ta'anach "were found in a very disturbed condition" and the site is consequently "able to make only a minimal contribution to the ceramic sequence of Iron II" (Rast 1978, 41). No BoR pottery was published from these levels. The site is not therefore re-examined here. Tel Michal Subsequent to Stratum XIII at Tel Michal, which is datable to the 10th - 9th centuries BC, there was a period of abandonment of about 150 years (Herzog 1993, 1038). The next level of occupation, Stratum XII, dated to the 8th century, was sparse in finds and architecture and contained no BoR pottery (Singer-Avitz 1989, 87). Tel Qiri BoR pottery was found at Tel Qiri from Strata VII-V. The pottery from Stratum VII and VI/VII was included in Section I of this chapter. The BoR pottery from later levels is presented below. (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987): The BoR • BoR Bowl (1987. Fig 43:10) Wide deep bowl with ledge handles. 1 example assigned to Stratum VB/VI. This bowl was found in Locus 607, Area C. This is an area which has "not yet reached floor level" beneath the major building of Stratum V (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 110). The locus is associated with walls beneath the northern part of the Stratum V building. • BoR Juglet (1987, Fig 43:11) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum V/VIC. This juglet (neck only preserved) was found in Locus 529, Area D.

This locus appears to belong to a room in a residential complex. The area was much disturbed by modern construction, however, such that "meaningful stratigraphie analysis and comparison were not possible" (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 62). • BoR Bowl (1987. Fig 22:18) Simple-rimmed bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum V. This bowl was found in Locus 518, Area C. This is noted as one of the "key loci" of the stratum, although it appears to comprise two areas south of the main building in Stratum V, a courtyard area and an adjacent enclosed space. Discussion and

Chronology

As noted in Section I of this chapter, the stratigraphy and publication details at Tel Qiri are not extensive. The later Iron Age levels were especially vulnerable to modern bulldozing activity at the site and were badly preserved. The BoR bowl found beneath the Stratum V building in Area C, however, must precede this structure, which also contained 'Samaria' ware and an angularshouldered storage jar. A Euboean Subgeometric dinos was found in Stratum V/VI, possibly contemporary with this BoR bowl, and is dated to c. 700 BC (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 110-111). The BoR bowl assigned to Stratum V is possibly of late type (in sherd form only) and is associated with the main Stratum V building. The BoR juglet found in Area D is in a disturbed area but appears to belong to a residential complex that replaced the agricultural industrial area of preceding Stratum VIIA. The evidence from Tel Qiri suggests, therefore, that BoR pottery continued into the later part of the Iron Age at the site. Given the considerable disturbance of the site's upper levels, the three BoR vessels in Strata VI-V may possibly have been intrusive. However, the BoR vessels examined in Section I from Strata VI/VII in Area F probably date to the 9th century and it is possible that BoR continued into the 8th century in Stratum V (Ben-Tor 1993, 1228). Beersheba The later levels at Beersheba were published in the volume Beersheba I (Aharoni 1973). As seen in Section I, no BoR pottery appeared at this site beyond Stratum VI, which most probably belonged to the

second half of the 10th/9th century BC. The absence of BoR pottery in the later levels at the site is somewhat surprising, but is reflected in general by the limited quantity of BoR pottery in the southern region in the later period (see Map 20). The distribution pattern of BoR over these periods is discussed at the end of the Chapter. Beth-Shan BoR pottery from Upper Level V and Level IV at Beth-Shan was examined in Section I of this chapter (see previous section). Three BoR handle-ridge juglets and one indeterminate BoR juglet sherd were noted from 'Below the Threshold of 1513.' One probable BoR jug fragment is noted from Locus 1350-b, inside the gate area. These loci are assigned in the publication to Upper Level V. James notes that "at least seven" examples of BoR in Upper Level V were noted in the excavators' records, but further details were lacking (James 1966, 123). One BoR bowl was found in Locus 1147 in Block B-5, which is assigned to Level IV. The serious stratigraphical problems at Beth-Shan have been demonstrated in the survey of the site in Section I. Close analysis of the loci in which the pottery appears does not, therefore, greatly illuminate its chronology. Upper Level V has been shown to continue (most probably) into the 9th century. James suggests that this stratum was destroyed around c. 800 BC (James 1966, 124). Mazar, however, dates Upper Level V to the 9th - 8th centuries and attributes its destruction to the Assyrian conquest of c. 732 BC (Mazar 1993, 222). There is evidence that part, at least, of this level was destroyed in a violent fire (Mazar 1993, 222). James notes that Level IV at Beth-Shan represents "an untidy village sprawl," and dates its end to "near the end of the 8th century" (James 1966, 153154). In particular, she notes that Level IV "is conspicuous for the almost complete lack of Cypriote imports or imitations" (James 1966, 128). Mazar's view that this latter level should be assigned to the "partial renovation of the settlement during the years following the conquest" by the Assyrians may be preferable, although there is little evidence to support the dating on either account (Mazar 1993, 222). The presence of BoR pottery at the site at least in the 9th century can be proposed, therefore, with a possible extension into the 8th century.

Tell el-Far'ah

(N)

The BoR pottery from Niveau Vlld at Tell el-Far'ah (N), the latest level in which it appears at the site, is included in Section I of this chapter. Three BoR bowls in total are attributed to Niv. Vlld, of which two only are correctly placed in this level (see Section I, 'Tell elFar'ah (N),' 137-142). One vessel alone, however, is found in a good context - Locus 350, part of the courtyard of House 327. The destruction of Niv. Vllb is assigned by the original excavators to conquest by Omri in the early 9th century, and by other scholars to Shishak's campaign of c. 925 BC (see Section I). Niv. VIIc was a shortlived period with fairly sparse remains, and did not contain BoR pottery. Niv. Vlld is assigned to the late 9th - 8th centuries, and culminated in a violent destruction, attributed to the Assyrian conquest of nearby Samaria by Sargon II in 721 BC (Chambon 1993, 440). The excavators draw comparison between the architecture of houses of Niv. Vlld at Tell el-Far'ah (N) and those at Hazor Strata VI-V in Areas A and Β (Chambon 1984, 43). Despite its scarcity at the later levels at the site, therefore, the presence of BoR pottery in Niv. Vlld indicates that it was probably in circulation at the site in the 8th century BC. Tel Mevorakh As seen in Section I of this chapter, the stratigraphy of Tel Mevorakh is confused and unreliable for the purposes of this study. It should be noted, however, that while the excavators assign all BoR pottery at the site to 'Stratum VII,' all but two of the BoR sherds come from loci assigned to levels later than Stratum VII. While these levels are similarly confused and some of their structures possibly misplaced stratigraphically, it is possible that BoR pottery continued at this site, as at others investigated here, into the later Iron Age levels. Tel 'Amal Strata II-I at Tel 'Amal, which succeeded Strata IV-III, were sparse in architectural and ceramic finds. No BoR pottery was found in these strata, which are dated by the excavators to the 8th and 7th centuries.

Tell Keisan Although the site of Tell Keisan produced a large quantity of BoR pottery, as noted in Section I, only two vessels have been fully published (Briend & Humbert 1980, Fig. 56:1-2). These both belong to Niv. 8. A further 159 examples were presented in a subsequent thesis (de Montlivault 1982, 178-180). For the purposes here, however, the usefulness of this latter study is limited by minimal information on the contexts of the pottery. No locus numbers are included and the reliability of the contexts cannot therefore be assessed. Of the total numbers of BoR vessels recorded, a selection are illustrated. Of these, two further BoR bowls are assigned to Niv. 8b, and the base of possibly a BoR stand is assigned to the level defined as 'Niv. 7/8.' 8 3 Three juglets and 1 BoR bowl are assigned to 'Niv. 4/5/6.' One juglet and 7 bowl fragments are assigned to Niv. 5, and 2 juglets and 5 bowls to 'Niv. 4/5.'Three juglets and 16 bowls are assigned to Niv. 4. Five juglets and 7 bowls are illustrated but unstratified. The total quantities recorded from Tell Keisan, including those not illustrated, are summarised below:

Tell Keisan strata

Total BoR at Tell Keisan incl. unpublished (de Montlivault 1982)

Niv. 8

4 bowls

'Niv. 7/8'

1 stand (BoR?)

Niv. 6

1 sherd BoR (indeterminate)

'Niv. 4/5/6'

3 juglets, 1 bowl

Niv. 5

1 juglet, 9 bowls (37 BoR sherds total)

'Niv. 4/5'

2 juglets, 5 bowls (21 BoR sherds total)

Niv. 4

3 juglets, 15 bowls (42 BoR sherds total)

Unstratified

5 juglets, 7 bowls (51 BoR sherds total)

TOTAL:

161 BoR sherds

83

The author d o e s not indicate whether these c o m b i n e d strata at Tell Keisan represent an area of indeterminate stratification at the site, or whether the sherds were simply imprecisely recorded.

The quantities of BoR pottery in the later levels at Tell Keisan are significant, suggesting that "les niveaux 4 et 5 correspondent à Tell Keisan à la période d'utilisation la plus intense du BoR" (de Montlivault 1982, 184). These strata are dated by the excavators from the end of the 8th to the end of the 7th century BC (Briend & Humbert 1980, 27; de Montlivault 1982, 184). These dates correlate with the date of the 'ceramic horizon' which Bikai proposes best represents the Phoenician pottery in these levels. Bikai places Niv. 5 at Tell Keisan into her "Kition" horizon (dated c. 750 - c. 700) and Niv. 4 at Tell Keisan into her "Amathus" horizon (dated "after 700 to after 600") (Bikai 1987, 66-69). The high proportion of BoR in the later levels at Keisan may be partly explained by the coastal location of the site, inland from the Acco Bay area. It also, however, suggests that the site was especially connected with Cyprus, both in the early period when the site may have been an early recipient of BoR (see Section I) and in the later period when the pottery occurs in greater abundance than at most contemporary mainland sites. In addition, some possible anomalies in the BoR pottery at Tell Keisan should be noted. Juglets are far superseded in number by bowls, and show a greater consistency of ware types. The juglets at the site are generally composed of the very fine pinkish-orange clay most characteristic of BoR. Bowls are generally of pale buff and occasionally pink clay and many have a grey core, although virtually all are wellfired, burnished and finished. One or two fragments are coarsely burnished. 84 Slips on the bowls vary considerably in colour from pale to bright, pinkish-orange. The bowls are predominantly of simplerimmed type and a number have a substantial footed base. These features of the BoR pottery at Tell Keisan suggest that the site was either recipient of BoR from different locations on Cyprus, or that it possibly reflects small shiploads of pottery imported over a long period. Alternatively, the possibility that these anomalies point to some local manufacturing centre at or near the site, especially for BoR bowls, should be considered. See Chapter Four for further discussion.

Tell

el-Hammeh

The site of Tell el-Hammeh remains unpublished. Excavation of the

84

Eg. vessel no. K . 7 4 . 5 3 1 / 4 - 0 5 - 8 0

M-Terrace, just below the summit of the site, uncovered levels which are dated by the excavators to the 8th - 7 t h centuries (Cahill & Tarier 1993, 561). No BoR pottery is mentioned, but future publication of the M-Terrace and the upper layers of the L-Terrace will clarify the later Iron Age history of the site. Lachish As seen in Section I, BoR pottery from Lachish appears only in tombs at the site (eg. Tombs 218, 224 and 1002). These tombs extended over a broad period, and cannot therefore be used to pinpoint the date of BoR pottery. The excavator proposes that the "ware in Palestine appears to centre in the ninth century, with a possible extension into the eighth century B.C," although this conclusion is based largely on Gjerstad's Cypriot chronology for the ware (Tufnell 1953, 299-300). Hurvat Rosh Zayit The site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit is located in the mountains of the Lower Galilee, on the slopes facing the Acco Plain. The site is not yet fully published, but preliminary reports have appeared in article form (Gal 1992, Gal 1995, Alexandre 1995). The main area of Hurvat Rosh Zayit comprises a fortress, in which two phases were exposed. The pottery from these phases is presented altogether in the reports, with no locus or context data, and the relation of the BoR pottery to the corpus of other wares is therefore not clear. The excavators propose, however, that the "locally-produced pottery assemblage is very homogeneous throughout both phases of the H. Rosh Zayit fortress" indicating that "the occupation of the fortress was of short duration" (Gal 1992, 184). The BoR pottery assemblage from the site comprises eleven juglets, of which four are miniatures, one BoR 'container', one jug and four bowls. The assemblage is notable for the fine quality of the wares, and the particularly delicate shapes of the miniature BoR vessels (Nos. 96-2552, 96-2437, 96-2507, 96-2455). The juglets 85

Note that the excavators' reference to a 'mushroom' rim is incorrect (Gal 1992, 175) - the true 'mushroom' rim which is flattened on top appears only in Phoenicianstyle pottery. T h e s e juglets from Hurvat Rosh Zayit have flaring rims typical of BoR handle-ridge juglets.

comprise three handle-ridge juglets, 85 one basket-handled spouted juglet, and two trefoil-lipped juglets. One of these latter is of exceptional quality - a long, thin and fine neck and flared high ring base (No. 96-2485). Also interesting is the BoR conical 'container,' which has an inverted flat base and conical body as if a conical juglet has been sawn off mid-way, with two holes on either side of the plain mouth (probably for suspension) (No. 96-2454). 86 The miniature juglets are carefully executed and finished to a high standard. The large jug (No. 96-2431) is of fine quality and of characteristic BoR trefoil-lipped jug design. 87 Of the bowls (Nos. 96-2440, 96-2441, 962443, 96-2446), one is exceptionally large (approximately 45-50 cms in diameter) (No. 96-2440). The jug and two of the bowls in particular (Nos. 96-2431, 96-2440, 96-2443) show evidence of having been burnt. In the absence, as yet, of full stratigraphie detail of these vessels, their chronological contribution is limited. However, the exceptionally fine assemblage of BoR at this site, which includes 'advanced' types of BoR pottery (such as juglet No. 96-2485), suggests that the levels in which they appear belong perhaps to a later period than those examined in Section I of this chapter and should not be dated earlier than the beginning of the 9th century BC. The excavators suggest that both phases of the fortress at Hurvat Rosh Zayit were destroyed, the first in the middle of the 10th century BC, and the second in the middle of the 9th century BC (Gal 1992, 184). The carbonization of the contents of some of the store jars indicates that the site was destroyed by fire, most probably at the end of both phases of occupation (Gal 1992, 175). Traces of burning are also visible on some of the BoR pottery. The dates proposed by the excavators for the second destruction, the mid-9th century BC, therefore seems a satisfactory date for the BoR at the site. Tel Kabri The site of Tel Kabri is located north of the Acco Bay, a few km inland 86

A similar conical base without the punctured holes appears in the Cyprus M u s e u m collection in N i c o s i a (unprovenanced) - N o . B . 1 5 7 3 . 1 9 3 5 (personal examination). This is a broken conical juglet, but is a g o o d indication that the vessel at Hurvat Rosh Zayit may have been a reused juglet with filed-off break. 87 Clay samples have been taken from this jug for scientific testing. The results have h o w e v e r been mislaid (Alexandre, pers. c o m m . ) .

from the modern town of Nahariya, and along the river route of Nahal G'aton. The site was excavated during the 1980s by A. Kempinski of Tel Aviv University and W-D. Niemeier of Freiberg University. While the Middle Bronze Age settlement has been extensively excavated and published, however, the Iron Age town has been partially published only in preliminary reports (Kempinski & Niemeier 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994). The current, albeit limited, evidence for BoR pottery from the site of Tel Kabri is presented below. Some further unpublished material is also included. 88 In Area D at Tel Kabri, 4 BoR bowls were found alongside a small number of cooking pots and bowls dated by the excavators provisionally to the 10th - 9th century (Kempinski & Niemeier 1992, 3, Fig. 14:5-8). 89 Also in the preliminary reports, BoR pottery is mentioned (not illustrated) from Room 873 of Area Ε at the site and is dated by its excavators to the 9th century (Kempinski & Niemeier 1991, 17, 20). 90 Further information on Area Ε at the site indicates that 7 BoR bowls were found in Stratum 3b (dated by the excavators c. 750-650 BC), 2 BoR bowls in Stratum 2a (dated c. 644-604 BC) and 3 BoR bowls from later periods, including disturbed tombs. Five further BoR body sherds (indeterminate) were found in later/disturbed levels. Two BoR juglets only were found - one from Stratum 3b and one from Stratum 2b. The absence of BoR pottery from Stratum 5 (dated c. 1050-850 BC) and Stratum 4 (dated c. 850-750 BC) may be partly explicable by the small areas of these levels exposed in Area Ε at the site (Lehmann, pers. comm.). Nineteen BoR fragments were found altogether from Area Ε (Lehmann forthcoming). A number of White Painted sherds were also

88 Area Ε at the site, excavated in the s e a s o n s o f 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1993 is in the process of publication (Lehmann, forthcoming). 89 Note that the dating of the B o R in this area o f Kabri is based entirely on Stern's dating o f B o R pottery at Tel Mevorakh which as noted in Section I of this chapter appears to be unreliable. 90 The non-Cypriot origin postulated by the excavators for the BoR pottery from Area Ε at the site, examined by Y. Goren by pétrographie analysis in 1990, is not convincing (Kempinski & Niemeier 1990, XXXIII, XLVI-XLVII, L). Only t w o 'Cypro-Phoenician' vessels are tested, neither illustrated, one of which (Juglet No. 8 2 1 5 ) is viewed as of typical Cypriot clays and the other ("body sherd" N o . 3 0 3 7 ) of possible local clay. In the absence of illustration of these vessels, the results d o not indicate that "the often suggested Cypriote provenance of this ware can be definitively discarded" in favour of a "south Phoenician origin" (Kempinski & Niemeier 1990, XXXIII). Further analysis, however, on the pottery from these sites would be valuable.

found at the site. One White Painted fragment was found in Stratum E4, the others, belonging mostly to closed vessels, were found mainly in Stratum E2 (dated c. 650-600 BC). Thirteen White Painted fragments were found altogether in Area Ε (Lehmann forthcoming). In the absence of full publication of the Iron Age levels at the site, the contribution of BoR at Tel Kabri to the overall chronology of the pottery is minimal. The predominance of BoR bowls found at the site is paralleled by other sites of this northern coastal region, particularly Tell Keisan. Preliminary indications that BoR was most popular at the site in the later Iron Age strata is also well paralleled at Tell Keisan. Taking account of the range of similar local forms also found at the two sites, it is likely that these sites may have been closely linked in this period (Kempinski & Niemeier 1994, 26). Although the late dates assigned to the levels in which this pottery occurs are perhaps to be treated with caution until the full publication can be assessed, it is possible that Tell Keisan and Tel Kabri in particular were strongly linked with Cyprus in the later Iron Age. Tell Kazel The site of Tell Kazel lies inland of Tabbat al-Hammam on the Phoenician coast, approximately 3.5 km from the shoreline. It occupies a "unique break point between the two long chains of Mount Lebanon and Jabal al-Ansariyeh" (the northern mountain range), and thus a strategic trade route through to inland Syria (Badre et al. 1990, 13). Originally excavated in 1960-1962 by M. Dunand, the site was re-excavated in 1985 -1987 under the direction of Leila Badre with the Museum of the American University of Beirut. Preliminary results of these excavation seasons has been published in Berytus Volume 38 (Badre et al. 1990, 10-124). Although the rarity of a stratified site in Phoenicia renders Tell Kazel especially valuable, the exposure of only small areas at the site as well as the preliminary stage of publication severely limits its use for this study. Three areas were excavated from the Iron Age: Area I in the west of the mound, Area II in the east, and Area III in the north-east. The levels exposed in each have not yet been correlated with the overall stratigraphy of the site and commonly contain material of mixed periods. Most problematically, the dating of the levels containing Cypriot pottery is reliant on Gjerstad's

1948 chronology which places them in the 8th - 7th centuries BC (Badre et al. 1990, 104). Too few diagnostic finds are presented alongside the BoR to enable a reassessment of its chronology. In Area II, BoR pottery appears in Level 4 but not in the preceding Level 5 which contains early Iron Age I pottery (Badre et al 1990, 78). The dating of Level 4 should possibly therefore be raised in date to the post-Iron I period, and dated approximately in the late 10th century. Full publication of the site will it is hoped clarify this chronology. The Cypriot pottery at Tell Kazel is presented in an appendix without full details of its levels (Badre et al. 1990, 110-113). The list of wares includes: 10 BoR closed vessels (predominantly juglets), 13 BoR bowls, 10 White Painted amphorae fragments, 12 White Painted closed vessels, 8 White Painted open vessels (bowls), 2 Bichrome amphorae, 6 Bichrome closed vessels and 6 Bichrome open vessels. The description of the BoR vessels suggests that they are of typical BoR ware type. Sarepta As seen in Section I, the publications of the site of Sarepta are unsatisfactory. One BoR conical juglet is published from Substratum C2 at Sarepta (Area II-X), and a BoR bowl from Substratum CI (See Section I above). Neither of these, however, are in fully reliable contexts. Substrata C2 and CI date from a subsequent period to Stratum D in which BoR pottery first appears, and possibly therefore indicate the presence of the ware in the 9th century. The limited sample available, however, is not sufficient basis from which to draw conclusions. Tyre The pre-classical settlement of Tyre, originally an island off the Phoenician coast and connected to the mainland in 332 BC by Alexander the Great with the construction of a causeway, was excavated in 1973 by Patricia Bikai. Extensive disturbances in the 4th century BC, and later Roman occupation had obliterated many of the earlier strata at the site. Bikai conducted, therefore, only "a small controlled excavation" to establish the pottery sequence, c. 150 sq. m. (Bikai 1978, 1). Political circumstances in Lebanon subsequently

prevented full publication of the Iron Age settlement at the site; the pottery from the excavation was, however, published by Bikai as The Pottery of Tyre in 1978.91 A total of 29 BoR sherds were found at the site, only 4 of which were illustrated (Bikai 1978, 53). Sixteen (Cypriot) Bichrome sherds were found in total, and 24 fragments of Sub-Protogeometric skyphoi. White Painted pottery is included in the calculations of all White Painted wares, including those of the Late Bronze Age (producing a total of 336 fragments). Since details of shapes and locus numbers are available only for the illustrated vessels, these only were examined here. (Bikai 1978): The BoR • BoR Juglet (1978. Pl. XXIIA: 10) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIII. This juglet comes from Square 1C-6D, Area 19. This area could not be traced precisely in the plans. • BoR Juglet (1978. PI. XXIIA:9) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VIII. This juglet comes from Square 1C-6A, Area 10. This is an open (not fully excavated) area. • BoR Jug? (1978, PI. XVIIIA:17) Fragment probably of jug. 1 example assigned to Stratum VI. This fragment comes from Square 1C-6A, Area 9. This area is not specified on the plans. • BoR Bowl (1978, PI. XIA:21) Late type bowl. 1 example assigned to Stratum II. This bowl comes from Square 1C-6C, Area 8. This is an indeterminate area of the late, upper, levels. The

Contexts

As is apparent from this assessment, no architectural contexts could be retrieved from the published report. Other Finds Little information is also provided on the other finds from the areas in which the BoR was found. The sequence of White Painted wares 91

S e e Coldstream 1988, 3 6 - 3 7 for a brief discussion of this publication by Patricia Bikai.

at the site, however, is interesting. The earliest fragments of White Painted are assigned to Stratum XIII-I (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXIV: 4,9,12). A fragment of a White Painted jug appears in Stratum XII (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXII: 10), and a White Painted amphora neck in Stratum XI (Bikai 1978, PI. XXX:2). In Stratum X-2, 2 White Painted barrel-juglets, 6 White Painted bowls, and 1 White Painted amphora are found (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXVIII: 1,2, 4-9). In Stratum ΧΙ, 1 White Painted jug and 1 bowl are found (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXII: 9,19) and in Stratum IX, 2 White Painted bowls (Bikai 1978, PI. XXIIA:15, 16). Three White Painted fragments are found in Stratum VI (Bikai 1978, PI. XVIIIA:20-22). Discussion of

Chronology

Table 13A in the published report demonstrates that BoR pottery is first found in Stratum X-l at Tyre, as 0.02% of total diagnostics in the stratum, in Stratum IX as 0.21%, increasing to 0.59% in Stratum VI, 0.43% in Stratum V, and decreasing to 0.13% in Stratum II (Bikai 1978, 54). White Painted pottery begins in earlier strata than BoR and is generally more popular, reaching an initial peak in Stratum X-2 of 4.48%, a decrease in Strata X-l - VII, followed by an increase in Stratum VI to 4.55%. Bikai's absolute dating of the levels at Tyre follows a low chronology, assigning Stratum XII to ?1000 - ?925 BC, Stratum XI to ?925 - 850 BC, Stratum X to c. 850 BC,92 Strata VIII - VI from 800 - ?760 BC, Strata V - IV from ?760 - 740 BC, and Strata III - II from 740 - 700 BC (Bikai 1978, 68). The presence, however, of early White Painted wares in Stratum XII and a considerable quantity of these wares in Stratum X-2 suggests that Strata XIII - X-2 should be dated to c. 11th - 10th century BC, rather than 11th - mid-9th century. The dating of these early strata is based predominantly on Gjerstad's dating of the Cypriot wares rather than the internal Phoenician pottery sequence (in large account because of the preliminary state of research on Phoenician wares in 1978). Early type Phoenician Bichrome jugs appear in Stratum XII at Tyre, paralleled by a jug found at Tel Qasile Stratum X (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXIII: 15; Mazar

92 The peculiarly short chronological period assigned to Stratum X at Tyre suggests, perhaps, an overly-tight Iron A g e chronology.

1985, 67-68, Photo 71). 93 This is an indication that Stratum XII at Tyre dates no later than the beginning of the 10th century, Stratum X-2 and X-l date from early/mid-10th century to end 10th century, Stratum IX-VIII from the end 10th century to mid-9th century. The sequence of White Painted wares preceding BoR wares is paralleled at numerous sites investigated in Section I of this chapter. See also Chapter Two (34-46). Strata at Tyre

Bikai chronology (1978)

XIII-1 XII XI X-2 X-l IX VIII VII VI

c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.

1 1 0 0 - 1000 1000-925 925 - 850 850 850 850 - 800 800 800 - c. 760 800 - c. 760

Revised chronology? c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.

1 1 0 0 - 1050 1050-990 990 - 960 960 - 940 940-910 910-880 8 8 0 - 850 8 5 0 - 820 820 - 780

The above revised chronology for the strata at Tyre is naturally tentative. The excavated area at Tyre was so small as to make any attempt to base an absolute or even relative chronology on it, very uncertain. Nevertheless, the raising of the dates of the Tyre strata appears to fit the pottery evidence more satisfactorily than as originally proposed by the excavators. 94 The presence of BoR pottery in the 9th and early 8th centuries BC at Tyre is probable. The increase in imported wares (both White Painted and BoR) in Stratum VI suggests that the late 9th - early 8th century may have seen a strengthening of the links between Tyre and Cyprus. Tell Sukas The site of Tell Sukas is located on the Phoenician coast, north of Tabbat al-Hammam and south of Ras Shamra, at a distance of c. 185 93

Note that Mazar 1 9 8 5 , 6 8 , has incorrectly attributed this jug to Tyre Stratum XIV. Note also that the revised dates presented here for the later levels VII-VI at Tyre correspond with revisions to the dating of these levels presented independently by the excavator in a subsequent study (Bikai n.d., 30). 94

km from Salamis in Cyprus. This is one of the shortest routes from the mainland to island (Riis 1970, 125). The site was excavated by a Danish expedition (the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia) from 1958 - 1963, and published in a series of volumes, Sukas I-VIII, by P.J. Riis, M-L. Buhl and J. Lund (separately). The emphasis given to the Greek pottery and finds from the site, which led the excavators to believe they had a period of "Greek Domination" during the 7th - 6th centuries, may have discouraged interest in the Cypriot Iron Age wares which are mentioned only briefly. The absolute dating of the Cypriot pottery is based upon Gjerstad's chronological scheme for this ware. BoR pottery appeared in limited quantities in Periods H1 and G3 at Tell Sukas. In Period H I , a BoR juglet sherd appeared alongside Bichrome and White Painted pottery (Lund 1986, 51). A quantity of "imported Greek and Cypriot pottery" from Period H at Sukas was noted in a recent summary article on the site, but with no detail (Assaf 1992, 91). This pottery could not be traced in the report. In the following Period G3, however, the excavators note "a relatively large amount of Cypriote sherds" on a floor in layer 9 of square PI 1NW (not fully illustrated) (Lund 1986, 74). Another BoR sherd is noted from the surrounding area to the platform (bama) of the 'Greek Sanctuary' also of Period G3 (Riis 1970, 42). These chronological periods are dated by the excavators from the 9th century through the 7th century: Period HI from c. 850 - 675 BC, and Period G3 from c. 675 BC - 588 BC (Lund 1986, 7). In the absence of full presentation of the pottery in plates it is difficult to assess the chronological scheme proposed by the excavators. The minimal quantities of BoR pottery at the site are also surprising. The date of the 9th - 7th centuries for the BoR pottery at Tell Sukas must therefore be accepted only with caution. Hama The site of Hama is located on the Orontes river in inland Syria, near the modern city of the same name. The site was excavated by M. Ingholt between 1932-1938. The excavations were published in a series of volumes. Of relevance here are the preliminary report published by Ingholt in 1940 covering the 1932-1938 seasons, the publication of the cremated burials (Riis 1948), and the publication of

the pre-Hellenistic architecture on the mound (Fugmann 1958). In 1990 a publication of objects from the Iron Age levels appeared as Hama 11:2 (Riis & Buhl 1990). The early date of the excavations and publications hinders full assessment of the contexts of the BoR pottery found at the site. Four BoR vessels (at least) were found from Niveau Ε on the tell. Two of those published were trefoil-lipped juglets, and the third was a handleridge juglet (Ingholt 1940, 97-98; Pl. XXX:2). A further BoR handle-ridge juglet is published in a later report from the destruction level of Bâtiment V in Niveau Ε (Fugmann 1958, 252-253, Fig. 325). The juglet was found in Room F, a small and enclosed central room within the building. Bâtiment V was destroyed by the fierce conflagration that swept over the tell at the end of Niveau E. More than 550 arrow heads were found in this building, most of which probably belonged to its final inhabitants in their defence of the city (Fugmann 1958, 258). BoR pottery occurred also in the cemetery, south of the tell, in similar types to the vessels in Niveau Ε on the mound itself (Riis 1948, 112-113). This pottery was assigned to Period IV and "I or II." White Painted and Bichrome pottery was also present. Niveau E, which represents a wealthy and powerful city with monumental architecture, was clearly destroyed by fire (Ingholt 1940, 118). The excavators date this destruction, which included desecration of statuary at the site and the vitrification of the bricks with the intense heat, to the campaign by Sargon in 720 BC (Ingholt 1940, 118; Fugmann 1958, 258). The destruction of the city is mentioned in textual sources as resulting from the uprising by a usurper, Iaubidi (Buhl 1992, 34-35). The basis for the dating of BoR pottery at the site is reliant on the excavators' attribution of the destruction of Niveau Ε at Hama to Sargon in 720 BC. Although BoR pottery is not found in large quantities, the context of the juglet in Bâtiment V is reliable. The presence of BoR pottery in the 8th century can therefore be attested at Hama. Other Sites The cemetery sites of Khirbet Silm, Joya and Qrayé, in Phoenicia, have produced BoR pottery that has been dated approximately to the 9th - 8th centuries (Chapman 1972, 144-145, 171, Fig. 31:161, 162,

266, 163, 308). The site of Tabbat al-Hammam on the northern Phoenician coast was published only in preliminary form in ajournai article and no information is available on the BoR pottery found at the site (Braidwood 1940, Fig. 4). BoR pottery was found at the site of Al Mina in Woolley's excavations of 1936-1937 and was published independently some years later (du Plat Taylor 1959). Despite several reassessments of these early excavations, however, the stratigraphy at the site and attribution of the pottery within it remain uncertain (Lehmann 1997, Boardman 1990, Boardman 1999). Cypriot pottery, amongst which BoR may comprise c. 15%, occurs first and with most frequency in Level 8 at the site (du Plat Taylor 1959, 74-75; Boardman 1999, 149). This level is dated to the mid 8th century, primarily on the basis of the Greek pottery occurring in it, but also in accordance with recent studies of the unpublished local wares at the site (Lehmann 1997; Boardman 1999, 138).95 Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery in Cyprus, which she compares to sites on the mainland, leads her to conclude that Level 8 at Al Mina belongs to the same chronological phase as her "Kition" horizon (Bikai 1987, 67). This she dates to "750? to after 700" (Bikai 1987, 69). A date somewhere in the 8th century for Al Mina Level 8 is therefore most probable. One BoR trefoil-lipped juglet has been published in the preliminary report of the excavations at Tel Jezreel (Zimhoni 1997, 100, Fig. 12:5). While the juglet is in a stratified context, Area F in which it appears is not discussed in the report. The juglet comes from Locus 484, a room in the casemate wall, alongside a krater, a redslipped bowl and two cooking pots (Zimhoni 1997, 100). The excavators date the destruction of Tel Jezreel provisionally to the Aramaean conquest of the mid - 9th century, or to Jehu's revolt c. 842 BC (Ussishkin & Woodhead 1997, 70; cf. Na'aman 1997, 126-127). The controversies surrounding the Iron Age chronology of this site notwithstanding (see Section I, 89-91), a date in the 9th century for BoR pottery at Tel Jezreel is plausible. 95

Examination of a sample of BoR pottery from Al Mina, presently located in the Institute of Archaeology in London, suggests that s o m e of these wares may be nonCypriot and produced either in the Al Mina region or possibly in the area of Tarsus. The bulk of the BoR pottery from the site - both coarse, possibly imitation BoR and finer, certainly Cypriot ware - is labelled as Level 8. However, the labelling system employed on acquisition of the pottery in the 1950s by the Institute of Archaeology prevents identification of individual sherds and thereby assessment of their contexts.

Four BoR juglets were published from the cemetery site of Tell erReqeish on the southern Levantine coast, excavated in 1940 (Culican 1973). These vessels are interred with cremated remains inside storage jars (Culican 1973, 108, Figs. l : R l b , 2:R1 lb, 3:R13a, R16b). Although Culican dates some pottery at the site to the 10th - 9th centuries on the basis of parallels with the site of Tel Halif, the cemetery is dated generally to c. 850 BC (Culican 1973, 99-100). The finds from the site are "slightly confused" due to its early excavation and the subsequent storage of the material during major political upheaval in the region, but assessment of the range of wares interred supports a date around this period (Culican 1973, 68, 81-95). Conclusions The survey of sites in Section II of this chapter suggests that there is good evidence that BoR pottery is present on the mainland during the 9th century BC. There is also evidence that this ware occurs in the 8th century, but its proportions in this later period are not easy to establish. For example, it is noted in relatively large quantities in levels dated to the 8th century which have not been fully published (such as at Tell Keisan, Tel Kabri and Tell Kazel), in small quantities in the late Megiddo strata, and in fragmentary form in late strata at Hazor. It is notably absent from the tombs at Achziv which are dated by the excavator from the 8th century onwards and it is also absent from the 8th century cemetery at 'Atlit (Mazar 1996, 21; Mazar, pers. comm; Johns 1938, 133). BoR appears, however, inland at Hama in the destruction level dated to 720 BC and in other strata which can be dated to the second half of the 8th century, such as Tell el-Farah (N) Niv. Vlld. Aside from the 7th century dates accorded BoR at Tell Keisan and Tel Kabri, which may perhaps be too late, and small quantities of the ware in Stratum III at Megiddo, BoR pottery does not appear to have been present on the mainland during the 7th century BC. The appearance of BoR pottery in the periods subsequent to those established in this Chapter as Phase 1 can be defined here as Phase 2 and Phase 3, which can be taken as representing the 9th and 8th century respectively. The results of the assessment of the chronology of BoR at sites on the mainland were plotted on distribution maps in order to determine whether there were any spatial differences between them over time. Due to the generally less reliable stratigraphy of these

later levels, the less easily definable ceramic horizon of the latter period of the pottery and in order to avoid artificial chronological distinctions, Phases 2 and 3 of the pottery are plotted on the maps together. (See Maps 19-24). The evidence presented by these distribution maps suggests that BoR had a more restricted geographical and quantitative distribution in the later 9th and 8th centuries than in the period dated to the 10th/9th centuries. For example, little BoR pottery seems to be present in the southern region of the Levant in Phases 2 and 3. An exception is the pattern of a greater number of sites along the Phoenician and Syrian coast showing BoR pottery in Phases 2 and 3 than in Phase 1. This may, however, be in part a reflection of the general reliance of the excavators of Phoenician and Syrian sites on Gjerstad's chronology of BoR ware, which restricts the initial date for its appearance from the mid-9th century onwards. The accuracy of Gjerstad's chronology is fully assessed in the following chapter. Conversely, the especial interest taken by many excavators further south in Israel in the late 10th - 9th century period, to which the destruction of many possibly "Solomonic" structures are assigned, may have encouraged particularly thorough excavation and presentation of Phase 1 levels and a consequently greater quantity of pottery published from this period. 96 In general, however, it seems that the quantity of BoR pottery on the mainland appears to gradually decrease after its first introduction in Phase 1. On present evidence, therefore, the 'peak' period of BoR importation and circulation should be placed within this initial phase, probably c. 925-880 BC. There may have been subsequent 'spurts' of importation of the pottery in the later period, as indicated by the late appearances of BoR at Tell Keisan and Tel Kabri. The following Chapter Four examines the origin of BoR pottery and the possibility that this ware was manufactured and exported from Cyprus. An absolute chronology for the ware is suggested at the end of Chapter Four.

96

For discussion of the issues surrounding S o l o m o n and the Iron A g e in Israel, see eg. Ben-Tor 1999; Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998; Dever 1990, 1997; Handy 1997; Holladay 1990; Mazar 1997, 1998; Na'aman 1997; Ussishkin 1990 and Wightman 1990.

Phase 1 BoR Pottery Rivers Ukes Land Ocean 200 Kilometers

Map 19: Distribution

of 'Phase V BoR Pottery in the

Levant

• V • • J —I

Phases 2 & 3 BoK pottery Rivers lakes Land Ocea η 200

Kilometers

Map 20: Distribution

of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Pottery in the

Levant

Phase 1 BoR Juglets Rivers Lakes Land Ocean 200

Kilometers

Map 21: Distribution

of 'Phase /' BoR Juglets in the

Levant

Map 22: Distribution

of 'Phase Ρ BoR Bowls in the

Levant

Phases 2 & 3 BoR J uglets Rivers I^akes Land Ocean 100

200

Kilometers

Map 23: Distribution

of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Juglets

in the

Levant

Phases 2 & 3 BoR Bowls Rivers I>akes Land Ocean 100

200

Kilometers

Map 24: Distribution

of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Bowls in the

Levant

CHAPTER

FOUR

THE ORIGIN OF BoR POTTERY This chapter investigates the issue of the origin of BoR pottery, in terms both of its inspiration and its main place of manufacture. Chapter Two concluded that the pattern of distribution of BoR pottery corresponded well with a hypothetical Cypriot origin for the ware, which would have entered the mainland Levantine coast probably at several key points. The quantity of the pottery on the mainland and its density of distribution in the coastal regions, as well as its dissimilarity to local wares, suggested that the pottery was not a local product. Chapter Three, however, established that there is substantial evidence that BoR pottery was already occurring in the second half of the 10th century at sites on the mainland Levant, most probably c. 950/925 BC onwards. This is at odds with the current chronology of BoR pottery on Cyprus, which at present is dated only from the mid9th century onwards, c. 850 BC (Gjerstad 1948, 191, 427). This chapter therefore investigates the origin of the pottery in the light of these problems, reassesses the currently available evidence from Cyprus and suggests a reconciliation of the two chronological trends. While scientific testing of the pottery was not attempted in this project due to financial and time constraints, results of previous scientific tests on the wares are presented and discussed. It is, of course, hoped that future scientific analysis will contribute to and ultimately confirm the views proposed here. Gjerstad and the Problem of the Origin of BoR Einar Gjerstad's work on behalf of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, in the first half of this century, remains to this day at the core of any discussion of Cypriot Iron Age pottery. In 1948, Gjerstad published Volume IV:2 of his Expedition report, which comprised a study of the 'Cypro-Geometric' to the 'Cypro-Classical' periods in Cyprus. This involved the establishment of a full typology and chronology of Cypriot Iron Age pottery types, including those types found on the

mainland Levant with which we are here concerned - BoR, White Painted and Bichrome pottery. The magnitude of Gjerstad's task was such that no serious attempts have been undertaken since 1948 to wholly revise his chronological and typological scheme for the Cypriot Iron Age. Gjerstad's study proposed a relative and an absolute chronology for the Cypriot wares. The relative chronology was based largely on a seriation of tomb groups from different sites in Cyprus (predominantly Amathus and Lapithos, in conjunction with the stratified excavations at Kition) which were believed to correspond with chronological horizons (Gjerstad 1948, 186). Gjerstad named these Iron Age horizons Cypro-Geometric I-III, followed by CyproArchaic I-II, with a sub-division of these groups into A and B. His typology of the Iron Age pottery established a relational sequence of appearance for these forms, so that BoR pottery which appeared in some quantity in the third stage of White Painted and Bichrome pottery development was termed BoR I (III), and was followed by BoR II (IV) and BoR III (V). The sequential pottery types generally corresponded with the chronological sequence for this period: Type I forms dominating the horizons of Cypro-Geometric I Α-B, Type II forms beginning to appear in Cypro-Geometric IIA, and continuing until Cypro-Geometric IIIA, and Type III forms predominating in Cypro-Geometric IIIB (Gjerstad 1948, 186-192). Gjerstad's views on the origin of BoR pottery are at the root of the controversies not only over this issue but also the broader aspect of Iron Age chronology in the Eastern Mediterranean. Claiming that BoR pottery first occurred as an imported 'foreign ware' to Cyprus (Gjerstad 1948, 287), Gjerstad effectively laid the way open for the establishment of different chronologies for the ware in Cyprus and the mainland Levant. 1 This exclusivity has in turn affected the internal chronologies of the two regions and, in its broadest context, hindered the understanding of the nature of trade between Cyprus and its eastern neighbours in the Iron Age. Persistent use by 'non-Cypriot' 1

This c o n s e q u e n c e w a s of course unintentional: as Tappy notes, "Gjerstad was careful not to impose his chronology for native Cypriot ware on the picture in Palestine" (Tappy 1992, 127). H o w e v e r , Gjerstad's insistence on an early nonCypriot B o R pottery defined by fabric alone (a flaking slip and a grey core) which w a s never w h o l l y clear and consistently proved indistinguishable to other scholars, inevitably encouraged a divergence o f scholarship on the subject. Gjerstad's claims are discussed in detail later in the chapter.

scholars of Gjerstad's chronological scheme for Cypriot pottery found at sites on the mainland Levant (and the application of these dates to the sites as a whole) has simply ensured the longevity of the chronological discrepancies of this region. 2 For these reasons, Gjerstad's views regarding the origin of BoR pottery are worth quoting here in full: D u r i n g C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c I - II t h e S y r i a n p o t t e r y o f t h e

Black-on-Red,

B i c h r o m e R e d , a n d R e d S l i p w a r e s is i m p o r t e d to C y p r u s , as w e h a v e s e e n . It a p p e a r s in c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s w i t h o n l y o n e o r t w o s p e c i m e n s o c c a s i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d in e a c h t o m b . It is a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m the contemporary

C y p r i o t e p o t t e r y ; there is n o c o n n e c t i o n

between

them,

n e i t h e r in s h a p e , n o r in d e c o r a t i o n . In C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c I-II this i m p o r t e d S y r i a n p o t t e r y f o r m s l e s s than 2 % o f t h e total s u m o f pottery. In C y p r o G e o m e t r i c III the B l a c k - o n - R e d a n d R e d S l i p w a r e s a m o u n t to 2 1 . 5 % o f t h e total s u m o f C y p r i o t e p o t t e r y ; in C y p r o - A r c h a i c I t h e s e w a r e s a n d t h e B i c h r o m e R e d v a r i e t y i n c r e a s e in q u a n t i t y to 3 4 % a n d in C y p r o - A r c h a i c II t o 3 6 % . It c a n n o t b e d o u b t e d that t h e s e w a r e s , f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f C y p r o G e o m e t r i c III, are C y p r i o t e . T h e i r c l a y a n d t e c h n i q u e are C y p r i o t e , a n d differ from

those

of

the

corresponding

Syrian

wares.

In

shape

and

d e c o r a t i o n there is a c o m b i n a t i o n o f C y p r i o t e a n d f o r e i g n e l e m e n t s , in the s h a p e s w i t h a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f C y p r i o t e e l e m e n t s a n d in t h e d e c o r a t i o n a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f foreign ornaments. T h e typical decoration, the concentric c i r c l e s t y l e , i n t r u d e s e v e n u p o n t h e o r n a m e n t a l f i e l d o f the e a r l i e r C y p r i o t e w a r e s , W h i t e P a i n t e d a n d B i c h r o m e , s o that an e n t i r e l y n e w C y p r i o t e s t y l e o f p o t t e r y is c r e a t e d , m a r k e d b y an artistic s y n t h e s i s o f the C y p r i o t e a n d f o r e i g n e l e m e n t s . T h e c e r a m i c c o n d i t i o n s are t h u s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f L a t e C y p r i o t e III a n d the b e g i n n i n g o f C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c : w e h a v e r e a c h e d t h e s t a g e in the r e l a t i o n s o f t w o c u l t u r e s w h e n their p r o d u c t s n o l o n g e r run p a r a l l e l , but f o r m an o r g a n i c unit, a n d this s t a g e s e e m s t o arise w h e n a f o r e i g n p e o p l e i m m i g r a t e s a n d c o a l e s c e s w i t h the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n .

In

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the s u p p o s e d o r i g i n a l h o m e o f t h e earlier i m p o r t e d pottery, it

is

indicated

that

the

immigrating

people

came

from

Syria.

The

i m m i g r a t i o n t o o k p l a c e at t h e v e r y e n d o f C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c III. W e shall s e e h o w this a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e c a n b e c o m b i n e d w i t h , a n d e x p l a i n e d by, historical events. (Gjerstad 1948, 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 ) .

Gjerstad therefore proposed that "a few specimens" of 'foreign' BoR pottery first appeared in Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I A (Gjerstad 1948, 186). 'Foreign' BoR pottery next occurs, again in tiny quantities, in the Cypro-Geometric II Β horizon, but this time alongside small quantities of BoR pottery Gjerstad believed to be local to Cyprus (Gjerstad 1944, 99; 1948, 188, 189). By Cypro2

See Tappy 1992, 131-132.

Geometric III A, BoR pottery was well-established in the Cypriot repertoire and occurs as 13.2% of the total pottery corpus of this period. It continues to increase throughout Cypro-Geometric III Β and Cypro-Archaic I A, and begins to decrease from Cypro-Archaic II Β (11.3%) (Gjerstad 1948, 190-191, 196, 204). Gjerstad's absolute dating for his Cypro-Geometric and CyproArchaic periods is reliant largely on cross-parallels between Cypriot wares in Cyprus and those found in sites elsewhere which are dated by means, allegedly, independent from Cyprus. This system involved the establishment of a relative chronology of his Cypriot pottery styles, assessment of the stratified location of these 'identified' styles in sites outside Cyprus (chiefly the mainland Levant) and then attribution of the horizon into which the style falls in Cyprus to the date of the strata in which they appear at these sites (Gjerstad 1948, 421-427). The accuracy of Gjerstad's scheme was therefore dependent on three main factors: 1) Correct identification of pottery development within Cyprus, such that the scheme of BoR I (III), BoR II (IV) and BoR III (V) comprised a true chronological sequence. 2) Correct attribution of the miscellaneous sherds found at sites outside Cyprus to the horizons created in (and for) Cyprus. 3) Reliable stratigraphy at the sites outside Cyprus with which this pottery was investigated. Gjerstad's typological scheme for the development of BoR pottery is examined later in this chapter in order to assess the first factor - the extent to which the sequence holds true for wellstratified sites on the mainland. With regard to the second factor, while Gjerstad's attribution of BoR pottery on the mainland to the typological categories for Cyprus may have been conducted with an expert eye, subsequent scholars lacking Gjerstad's extensive knowledge of Cypriot wares were likely to make errors in their assessment, and over-reliance on this method was bound to lead to erroneous dating. The third factor, however, Gjerstad's use of evidence from sites in the mainland Levant to provide dates for the chronological horizons he proposes for Cyprus, is clearly problematic. As seen in Chapter Three, assessment of the chronology of stratified sites on the mainland is still uncertain

today, but in 1948 it was especially so, due to the scarcity of wellexcavated (and published) sites available to scholars. Gjerstad was also forced to rely to a large extent on evidence from tombs at sites such as Tell Fara (S) and Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish) (Gjerstad 1948, 422-423). As these tombs were commonly re-used over several generations, they are not closed contexts. Gjerstad's use of scarabs to date several of these tombs was also problematic (Gjerstad 1948, 421-427). Gjerstad's absolute chronology dated Cypro-Geometric I from c. 1050 BC to c. 950 BC, Cypro-Geometric II from c. 950 BC to 850 BC, Cypro-Geometric III from c. 850 BC to c. 700 BC, Cypro-Archaic I from c. 700 BC to c. 600 BC, and Cypro-Archaic II from c. 600 to c. 475 BC (Gjerstad 1948, 427). Gjerstad's conclusion that BoR pottery proper appeared in Cyprus only after about c. 850 BC conflicts with the date which we have established with a reasonable degree of certainty for the earliest BoR on the mainland - the second half of the 10th century BC onwards (see Chapter Three). An assessment of the extent to which Gjerstad's dates have undergone revision in recent years and the possibility of reassessing the accuracy of his chronological scheme today is therefore not only crucial to resolution of the problem of BoR pottery's origin; but also has important implications for the general history of the Eastern Mediterranean at this time. This chapter therefore examines: 1 ) The present state of research on the chronology of Cyprus. 2) The extent to which Gjerstad's views on the chronological development of BoR pottery can be supported by evidence from sites on the mainland. 3) Alternative possibilities to Gjerstad's view on the origin of BoR. Within this last section the evidence for the appearance of BoR pottery within Cyprus is examined and, independent of Gjerstad's views, the earliest possible date that the pottery might have been in production in Cyprus is established. A hypothesis for the process of development of BoR pottery on the island is then put forward. Finally, a means of reconciliation between the different chronologies of BoR pottery in the mainland Levant and on Cyprus is suggested.

Post-Gjerstad

-

Reassessments

As noted above, Gjerstad's typology and his chronology of Cypriot pottery are still, to a large extent, in current use. The massive task of undertaking a wholly new typological study of Cypriot Iron Age pottery is not likely to be attempted until new discoveries from stratified sites in Cyprus can aid such a reclassification. 3 Gjerstad's chronological and typological scheme has, however, attracted considerable attention in the intervening years. In 1951, a scholar based in Palestine, Gus Van Beek, published a short article discussing Gjerstad's chronological scheme. Here he observed that Gjerstad's dates for Cypriot pottery did not agree with those proposed for the levels in which it occurs on the mainland Levant, specifically at Palestinian sites, and he suggested an overall raising of Gjerstad's chronology. Thus he raised the beginning of Cypro-Geometric I to 1100 BC, suggested that Cypro-Geometric II was merely a "transitional phase" belonging to the late 11th century, and dated Cypro-Geometric III from the end of the 11th century throughout the 10th century, and Cypro-Archaic I from the late 10th century throughout the 9th century (Van Beek 1951, 27). Most importantly, Van Beek observed that Gjerstad's 'Cypriot' and 'nonCypriot' categories of BoR pottery were one and the same, and that in dating his Cypriot category so low, Gjerstad had been "forced to deny the Cypriot origin of the juglets which are found in almost every 11th - 10th century site in Palestine, although most of these are identical in form and decoration with those found in Cyprus" (Van Beek 1951, 27). Examination of evidence from sites on the mainland (in Chapters One and Three) established that placing BoR pottery in the 11th century is unsustainable, and consequently that Van Beek's chronology is too high. However, his observation that Gjerstad's view on the origin of BoR had little supporting evidence is still valid today: "After scores of excavations in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and the remaining Mediterranean areas, although Black-on-Red is frequently encountered, in no area has it been so numerous as to suggest that it was native to that area. It is still far more abundant in Cyprus than in any other area of the Near East" (Van Beek 1951, 27-28). In 1953, a correspondence between Gjerstad

and Albright

was

3 This is itself hindered by the fact that many settlement sites from this period in Cyprus have been continuously occupied until modern times, making excavation difficult.

published in ajournai article, in which Albright encouraged Gjerstad to raise his dates for native BoR pottery in Cyprus to c. 925 BC (Gjerstad 1953, 22). In reply, Gjerstad reiterated his belief that non-Cypriot BoR pottery was appearing in small quantities in Cyprus from CyproGeometric I (which he dated c. 1050-950 BC) and still as a tiny percentage in Cypro-Geometric II (c. 950-850 BC). He restates that the "ceramic phenomenon" of native Cypriot BoR pottery began only in the period of Cypro-Geometric III (c. 850-700) (Gjerstad 1953, 22-23, 25). He even continues that in its first stage "it seems unlikely that this pottery should have been imported from Cyprus, where it is extremely rare, to Palestine, where it was much more common" (Gjerstad 1953, 24). In support of his view, Gjerstad points out that the concentric circle ornamentation characteristic of BoR pottery does not appear on Cypriot White Painted and Bichrome wares until the stage he believes BoR pottery becomes locally made, when similar motifs appear on all three pottery types. Thus the 'artistic isolation' of this BoR motif is indicative that the pottery was originally a foreign introduction (Gjerstad 1953, 24). Gjerstad briefly discusses the problem of BoR pottery found in levels dated earlier than those he assigns the 'Cypriot' version of the ware in Cyprus and recognises that this could affect his chronology. He states: "//the [BoR vases found at Megiddo in Stratum VA-IVB] can be proved to be of Cypriote provenance and if Megiddo IVB-VA cannot be dated later than 950-918 BC, we shall have to revise the chronology of Cypro-Geometric II" (Gjerstad 1953, 26). In 1958, Gustavus Swift published the pottery of the 'Amuq region in Syria and included some comments on Gjerstad's view that BoR pottery originated on the mainland Levant. He notes "there is no doubt that Gjerstad's theory is logically a possible one, but I would go so far as to say that it does not seem inherently probable. It would require, first, that the centre of manufacture of Black-on-Red ware should shift, suddenly and without apparent explanation, from the mainland to Cyprus, and second, that certain pottery types, such as the small handle-ridge jar with round body and concentric-circle decoration, should have a life-span of at least three centuries. Both of these points seem to place a strain upon credulity." 4 (Swift 1958, 160). Like Van 4

S w i f t ' s suggestion that the BoR juglet type could not have survived three centuries m a y not be correct. There is considerable e v i d e n c e that this shape continued in popularity in the later Iron A g e beyond Cyprus, in the D o d e c a n e s e islands and Crete. The latter stages of B o R pottery are fully assessed in Chapter Five.

Beek before him, Swift apparently recognised that there was no significant difference between the BoR pottery found on the mainland and that in Cyprus. He also noted the problems of Van Beek's high chronology. He states that "early sporadic occurrences of Black-onRed ware in Cyprus are matched only by equally sporadic early occurrences of it in Palestine, 5 and while a slight upward adjustment of Gjerstad's dates may be in order, such a large change as Van Beek proposes seems, in the face of the substantial evidence of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, to raise more difficulties than it removes. In fact, some of the evidence cited by Van Beek in trying to raise Cypriote dates seems in need of correction. Correspondingly, a reasonable reduction of Palestinian chronology in the neighbourhood of the eleventh and tenth centuries, such as I have implied by placing the beginning of phase Ο at ca. 950 B.C. is not out of the question." (Swift 1958, 161). Swift noted that BoR pottery did not appear in his first phase, Oa, however, and suggested that Gjerstad's dating of the ware in Cyprus to the 9th century may have been correct (Swift 1958, 161). In 1963, Judy Birmingham presented a revision of the chronology of Cyprus in an important article, which came to represent the main challenge to Gjerstad's views for the latter part of the century (Birmingham 1963). Birmingham argued that Gjerstad and the Swedish Cyprus Expedition's chronology for the Cypriot Iron Age was too low and that it had consequently obscured the cultural homogeneity between the mainland Levant and Cyprus in the Iron Age (Birmingham 1963, 15). She observed, as had Van Beek, that Gjerstad's dates for some pottery types were later than the dates proposed for the same pottery on the mainland Levant, but also that Gjerstad's typological sequence for Cypriot pottery was in some cases incorrect. On the basis, therefore, of Cypriot pottery, combined with the evidence of artefacts and tomb architecture found at stratified sites on the mainland, Birmingham presented a revised chronology for Iron Age Cyprus, which she divided into Early Iron (1050-900), Middle Iron (900-600), and Late Iron (600-HelIenistic) (Birmingham 1963, 15). This new synchronised scheme emphasised the strong cultural connections she believed had existed between the mainland and Cyprus from the late 10th century onwards. She concluded: "Whether 5

N o t e h o w e v e r that the initial appearance o f B o R pottery on the mainland, as seen in Chapter Three, w a s not "sporadic:" rather its most consistent appearance w a s within 'Phase Γ (Maps 19-24).

there was actual immigration or merely very strong trade contact between the two regions, Cyprus must be considered part of a homogeneous Cypro-Levantine cultural province from ca. 925 to ca. 600, as shown by fibulae and other metal types, sculpture, architecture as well as pottery, and there can be no further question of a chronological discrepancy between the two" (Birmingham 1963, 42). Birmingham's conclusions are, in the opinion of this writer, essentially correct. However, in 1963 the stratified evidence from the mainland available to her, although increased since 1948, was still minimal. She also relied on the dating of the stratified sites on the mainland put forward by her contemporaries. Although not subscribing to Van Beek's ultra-high chronology, she nevertheless accepted contemporary opinion that BoR pottery was present on the mainland "early in the tenth century" (Birmingham 1963, 32). She suggested, however, that this ware joined the Cypriot repertoire in Cyprus only in c. 925 BC, where it then "increased in volume during the ninth century" (Birmingham 1963, 40). Due to this chronological discrepancy, she was seemingly forced to assume, as had Gjerstad, that the origins of BoR lay in the mainland Levant. She states: "it is quite clear that all the types selected, with the probable exception of the early Red Slip wares and the later BoR shapes, were first manufactured on the Levantine coast and then widely copied in a variety of Cypriot fabrics" (Birmingham 1963, 24-25). Birmingham's work was generally perspicacious. First, she was alone in noting that Gjerstad's typological sequence of Cypriot pottery types was inaccurate when tested against sites on the mainland. Some of Gjerstad's Type II pottery forms appeared in fact to be contemporary with Type I pottery forms (Birmingham 1963, 40). Birmingham therefore advocated an adjustment of the dates of Gjerstad's typological categories, "essential if the typology is to remain in use," as well as a reassessment of the sequence of types (Birmingham 1963, 40). She proposed a general scheme of development of BoR pottery, with certain types appearing throughout the period of BoR production, other types, seldom found on the mainland, appearing in Cyprus only in the later end of the BoR sequence (eg. the miniature BoR amphora shape). The implications of this particular observation are crucial for our investigation of the nature of trade between island and mainland: the appearance on the mainland of only the earlier BoR pottery types suggests that trade

between Cyprus and the mainland may have terminated (or lessened) in the latter stages of BoR production, rather than constituting a selective trade in BoR pottery throughout its currency on Cyprus. The apparent transference of Cypriot trading interests from east to west is discussed in Chapter Five. The BoR pottery types Birmingham investigated are incorporated into the discussion of these wares later in this chapter. Second, Birmingham noted that BoR pottery seems to have appeared in the Cypriot repertoire on Cyprus after the introduction and development of early Red Slip pottery types (Birmingham 1963, 28). This has important implications for the development of BoR pottery itself and is discussed later in the chapter. Third, she notes that barreljuglets in White Painted and Bichrome precede the introduction of BoR pottery on the mainland, a conclusion which is supported by the present research (Birmingham 1963, 40; see Chapter Two). Birmingham's research was therefore crucial in illuminating some of the more vexing problems arising from Gjerstad's study, and pointing a way forward for future study on the chronology of Iron Age Cyprus. However, her important article was not developed into a major published study, and therefore never broke the back of Gjerstad's scholarly and tidily-arranged typological research. The chief result of her article was, unfortunately, simply to allow scholars based in the mainland Levant to support their dating of BoR pottery at mainland sites in the 10th century, in certain cases in the first half of the 10th century, with "new" and "revised" evidence from Cyprus (eg. Stern 1978, 56; Hunt 1987, 202). Post Birmingham

- Origin of BoR

Research on BoR pottery since Birmingham's work in 1963 has been limited. The origin of the ware has generally been investigated from two angles - educated hypotheses on the pottery's evolution and scientific testing of the material. In 1968, Frieda Vandenaheele published an article discussing the "civilisation d'Amathonte" at the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric period (Vandenabeele 1968). Defining three different stylistic groups of BoR at Amathus, she proposed that the burnished type of BoR pottery was of Phoenician origin, while the other non-burnished pottery was manufactured in Cyprus (Vandenabeele 1968, 107-112). She believed that the dominance of the juglet form in this ware set it

apart and that it was part of a Phoenician commercial enterprise in distributing perfumed oil (Vandenabeele 1968, 108). In 1983, Patricia Bikai published the eastern imports at the site of Palaepaphos-Skales in Cyprus. She noted a "previously unrecognized family of pottery" which she designated "Red Ware," and suggested that the type, which she dates approximately to the late 11th - 10th centuries (Bikai 1983, 405), was possibly the inspiration for BoR: "The heavy red slip on these pieces, as well as their shapes, point to mainland manufacture but there is something about the thin black-line décor on these particular pieces that points to the later development of Cypriote Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 402). Vassos Karageorghis, in the same publication, remarks on the BoR (and Bichrome Red) pottery found at Palaepaphos-Skales: "the Skales material helps to trace the development of these two wares from their inception, which should be placed earlier than hitherto believed, and to ascertain their derivation from Near-Eastern prototypes" (Karageorghis 1983, 374). Aside from this possible general Phoenician influence on BoR, Bikai observes that the excavation of quantities of Phoenician pottery at Tyre indicates that "Cypriote Black-on-Red was clearly an alien element in this group, i.e. clearly an import." She states that "this writer has always been mystified by the suggestion that Black-on-Red is Phoenician" (Bikai in Coldstream 1988, 37). Robert Koehl in the publication of the site of Sarepta in 1985, also subscribed to the theory of a Phoenician inspiration for BoR pottery, although within a low chronological framework: "Opinions differ on the origin of this ware, its date of inception and diffusion, and provenience of the numerous examples found in Cyprus and the Levant. The style seems to have emerged first on the Phoenician coast in a fairly coarse fabric, related in its clay, slip, and forms, to the local and more common Red Slip Ware. At the time of the Phoenician expansion on Cyprus, sometime in the 9th century, it was adopted by Cypriote potters and emerged finally as a hybrid ware, fusing Phoenician forms and decorative elements with indigenous Cypriote forms, motifs, and technology" (Koehl 1985, 48). Current opinion remains uncommitted to the theory of a Cypriot origin for BoR pottery, and the belief persists that the ware had several contemporary places of manufacture or that it originated in the Carmel region of the Israeli coast (Stern 1978, 62; Mazar 1985, 82 n.220; Tappy 1992, 129). The most recent detailed study of BoR pottery is

represented by the work of Brodie and Steel, who published an archaeometric study of the ware in 1996 (discussed fully below). Here the authors suggest that "BoR juglets were first made in imitation of the Phoenician heavy walled juglet which they ultimately supplanted, with the black-on-red decoration passing over to other Cypriot pot forms" (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). They conclude that "although the initial stimulus for manufacture of Black-on-Red ware was probably provided by imported Phoenician pottery, it was a Cypriot product... there are important chronological implications of these findings but they lie beyond the scope of the present study" (Brodie & Steel 1996, 276). Post Birmingham

- Chronology

of Cyprus

Little attempt has been made to tackle the chronological problems inherent in the question of the origin of BoR. Two studies of the pottery of Amathus have, however, reiterated Birmingham's concerns over Gjerstad's chronological scheme. Vandenabeele's study of the pottery of Amathus observes briefly the problems of Gjerstad's chronology of BoR (Vandenabeele 1968, 111 n.2). More recently, Christiane Tytgat drew attention to these discrepancies in her 1989 publication of the tombs at Amathus. She observes that the dates provided by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition are "aujourd'hui unanimement considérée comme trop basse" and comments: "En fait, nous préférons voir dans la discordance entre la date avancée pour la céramique chypriote et celle proposée pour les vases importés, un élément de plus en faveur d'une révision du système de classement et de chronologie établi par la SCE" (Tytgat 1979, 749; cf. 1989, 21; 1995, 181). The preliminary report of the first seasons of the American Expedition to Idalion (1971-1972) also commented upon Gjerstad's chronological scheme. The excavators address the problem of the apparently drastic reduction in settlements on the island from the 11th century to the 9th century. They suggest that if "it can be shown that Cypro-Geometric I-II occupied merely a short span in the 11th - 10th century and was immediately followed by the greater prosperity of the Cypro-Geometric III, then the so-called Dark Age is largely eliminated" (Stager, Walker & Wright 1974, 5). However, subsequent excavations at Idalion, restricted by the location of the site in the post1974 military zone, did not uncover early Iron Age phases with which to test this hypothesis (see 269).

In 1987, Patricia Bikai published a study of the Phoenician pottery found on Cyprus. Here she defined four chronological 'horizons' for this pottery (Bikai 1987, 62). Like Gjerstad, these horizons were based on tomb groups in Cyprus, with the exception of Phoenician material from the newly-excavated site of Kition (Bikai 1987, 50). A relative chronology was established by assessment of the dominant Phoenician wares in a series of tombs and horizons labelled according to the site that "best represented" them: the earliest was the 'Kouklia' horizon, followed by the 'Salamis' horizon, the 'Kition' horizon and the 'Amathus' horizon (Bikai 1987, 62). Bikai then compared this relative chronology for Cyprus with evidence from sites on the mainland (as well as Gjerstad's chronological scheme) and proposed a - fairly speculative - absolute chronology, in which she dated the 'Kouklia' horizon c. 1050 - 850, the 'Salamis' horizon c. 850 - 750, the 'Kition' horizon c. 750 - 'after 700', and the 'Amathus' horizon from 'after 700 to 'after 600' (Bikai 1987, 68-69). Despite the erudition of Bikai's study, the nomenclature of her horizons, which is confusingly non-chronological (and hence not selfexplanatory), 6 and her complex presentation of data has hindered its usefulness. Bikai's partial reliance on Gjerstad's dating for her absolute chronology (eg. Bikai 1987, 69) also perpetuates the problems of the absolute dating of this period, despite her recognition that "no attempt to relate Phoenician ceramic chronology to Palestinian, Cypriote, or Greek chronologies is called for at this time" (Bikai 1987,48). In terms of absolute chronology, therefore, Bikai's scheme is ultimately no more satisfactory than that of Gjerstad - nor is it intended to be a replacement. However, her contribution to the relative chronology of the Iron Age pottery of Cyprus is substantial. Her observations on the broad periods covered by Phoenician pottery in Cyprus, particularly the correlations between early levels at mainland sites and tomb groups in Cyprus, is important for consideration of the earliest appearance of BoR pottery in Cyprus. Bikai's observations are therefore incorporated into the discussion of this issue later in the chapter. Within Cyprus, the standard current chronology for the Iron Age still closely follows Gjerstad. The dates provided by Vassos 6

N o t e also Merrillees' c o m m e n t s on c o n f u s i o n s caused by the introduction of geographical terms into aspects o f pottery studies: "ware titles should be based on visible features and, as a corollary, not incorporate nonintrinsic aspects, such as geographic or topographical terms" (Merrillees 1991, 238).

Karageorghis in his work on the Iron Age figurines of Cyprus raise Gjerstad's division of the Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic periods by fifty years: Karageorghis places Cypro-Geometric II c. 950 - 850 BC, Cypro-Geometric III c. 850 - 750 BC, Cypro-Archaic I c. 750 - 600 BC, and Cypro-Archaic II c. 600-475 BC (Karageorghis 1993, x). This chronology is generally in current use. The Scientific

Contribution

The application of scientific methods to the problem of BoR pottery, as various techniques were developed over the last fifty years, offered the possibility of resolution of this issue. As a consequence of several factors, however, the scientific contribution to the debate has not proved conclusive. The chief problems with the studies discussed below for the purposes of answering the question of BoR, have been the extreme paucity of samples investigated and the presentation of the results. In all cases, the pottery samples tested are not illustrated and are seldom described. 7 Even in the most detailed studies the sherds chosen for analysis are not recorded by original site number (Matthers et al. 1983; Brodie & Steel 1996). This prevents the archaeologist with experience of the range of different BoR ware types from re-assessing the significance of each sherd - such as, for example, when an obviously non-Cypriot 'locally-made' sherd is included in the sample and tested as true Cypriot BoR. 8 In addition, the sherds chosen for testing are seldom from well-stratified levels and therefore provide no chronological framework within which the results can be interpreted. This is, in general, a reflection of lack of co-ordination between analyst and archaeologist. The main scientific techniques used in these analyses, NAA and AAS (neutron activation analysis and atomic absorption 7 T h e e x c e p t i o n s are the B o R sherds tested from Tyre which are illustrated in a (very hazy) photograph; one B o R b o w l fragment is illustrated by line-drawing (Bieber 1978, 90, N o . T C I 3 ) . 8 This is especially the case with a site such as AL Mina, included in t w o o f the B o R studies, which has t w o visually distinctive B o R ware types and is likely to have been linked with an 'imitation' B o R source s o m e w h e r e in the region of south-east modern Turkey (including probably Tarsus) (see end of chapter, 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 ) . A clear e x a m p l e of so-called B o R pottery tested as B o R and not surprisingly found to be of mainland origin is from T o m b 2 0 2 at Tel Fara (S) (Ε.VII.85/12), which is distinctly of n o n - B o R appearance; see b e l o w 2 3 8 ) . Boardman also observes the " c o m m o n fault" of inaccurate selections and inadequate descriptions in scientific analyses (Boardman 1999, 149).

spectrometry) could also usefully be supplemented by studies of the paint pigments on BoR and White Painted wares (eg. with scanning electron microscopy, X-ray florescence and X-ray diffraction) which could help elucidate the provenance of the materials, and gas chromatography with which to analyse trace elements of the original contents of the closed vessels. Although there are numerous problems involved in the testing of organic materials, in particular the effects of microbiological action on the chemical composition of buried fats (Jones 1986, 843), this technique has been successfully applied to Corinthian aryballoi (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994; see Chapter Two, 68). The relatively frequent presence of whole BoR vessels in tombs lends itself to these studies. In 1978, BoR (and White Painted) pottery from the site of Tel Mevorakh was analysed by neutron activation analysis at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 86-94). The unreliability of the stratigraphy of this site has been demonstrated in Chapter Three, largely obviating the possibility of obtaining chronological data on the site's connection with Cyprus. Of the four White Painted sherds analysed, none is illustrated in the site report. As the White Painted pottery tested similar to other wares from Cyprus, however, the authors reasonably suggested "an eastern Cypriot origin" (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 88). None of the sherds of the BoR pottery are illustrated. The database of Cypriot wares with which the Mevorakh pottery was compared comprised only pottery from the later Iron Age in Cyprus, from Amathus, Marion and Idalion. 9 The results of the NAA were not tested by the clustering method 1 0 but by straightforward comparison, element for element, between the tested materials. The authors concluded that while "many were of the same compositional pattern as that of the Mevorakh material," a better match could be found by testing the BoR against a combination of Cypriot clays, and they proposed that the Mevorakh BoR pottery originated probably also in Eastern Cyprus (Yellin & Perlman 9

The B o R pottery from the site Tel Mevorakh has not been proven to belong to the 10th century B C ( s e e Chapter Three), and it may therefore have been contemporary with the samples o f 'later' Cypriot pottery with which it is compared (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 86). It is indeed likely, however, to have been earlier than the 7th century BC. 10 S e e Matthers et al ( 1 9 8 3 , 3 7 1 - 3 7 2 ) for a brief description of this method.

1978, 89-90)." These NAA results are not, therefore, by any means conclusive, but they do not militate against the possibility of a Cypriot origin for BoR pottery. In 1977, Alan Bieber submitted a PhD dissertation based on neutron activation analyses on Cypriot ceramics (Bieber 1989; Jones 1986,531533). His analysis of pottery from Tyre was published in 1978 as part of Bikai's excavation report (Bieber 1978). Bieber's PhD study focused on assessment of the Iron Age trade between Idalion and the rest of Cyprus, with samples taken from a range of sites on the island including Amathus, Kition, Salamis and Lapithos (Jones 1986, 531; Bieber 1989). This study attempted to test four chief hypotheses, including the question of the origin of BoR (Jones 1986, 612-613). Bieber's results suggested that of six BoR sherds from Tyre, five were compositionally similar to BoR from Cyprus, and one was similar to groups from Palestine (Bieber 1978, 88; 1989, 369). He concluded that BoR could have been made simultaneously on the mainland and in Cyprus in the Cypro-Archaic period, which had possible "implications for the reconstruction of Cypriot Iron Age cultural history" (Bieber 1989, 369). Bieber's methodology was heavily criticised (Jones 1986, 612613). Matthers (see below) subsequently ran a clustering programme on Bieber's results and concluded that Bieber's samples clustered with his 'Syria' group, and that there was "no evidence at all to support Bieber's tentative suggestion that the Tyre samples originated from Cyprus" (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). Jones also reassessed Bieber's results and suggested that they indicated an origin in Palestine (Jones 1986, 533).' 2 In 1983, another programme of NAA was enlisted to determine the origin of BoR (Matthers et al 1983). This was more comprehensive than its predecessors and analysed the neutron activation results with two different clustering methods in order to determine whether there were several places of manufacture of the ware. Eleven samples of BoR were taken from unknown sites in Cyprus (from the Cesnola collection), 21 from sites in Palestine, and 26 from sites in Syria. Most of the vessels tested were juglets. The cluster analysis 11 N o t e that the authors also found that neither the BoR ware from Cyprus itself nor that from Tel Mevorakh "had any compositional resemblance to the large numbers of Cypriot pottery o f other styles which had been analysed" (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 89). 12 The pottery included in the 'control' Palestine group is not specified, but was tested by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, N e w York and could not be verified here.

conducted on the element concentrations of the wares produced six clusters, which the authors named Palestine A and B, Syria, and Cyprus A, Β and C (Matthers et al. 1983, 372). Grouping 1 (Palestine A) included BoR from Tel Fara (S), Tell Jemmeh, Hazorea, Samaria, and Lachish; Grouping 2 (Palestine B) included Lachish, Tell elAjjul, and Tell el-Hesi; Grouping 3 (Syria) included Tabbat al-Hammam, Chatal Hüyiik, Judeidah, Tell Tayinat, Rifa'at, and Al Mina; Grouping 4 (Cyprus A) included Tabbat-al-Hammam, Chatal Hüyiik, Cyprus, Tell Tayinat, and Rifa'at; Grouping 5 (Cyprus B) included Tabbat al-Hammam, Chatal Hüyiik and Cyprus; and Grouping 6 (Cyprus C) included only Al Mina. The authors conclude from their results, first, that there was more than one place of manufacture of BoR (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). This is not surprising and not incompatible also with several places of manufacture in Cyprus. Second, they conclude that approximately half of the BoR samples from sites in Syria were directly compatible with samples from Cyprus, and that all the BoR juglets tested from Syria were in this group, indicating a trade in BoR juglets from Cyprus to Syria (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). The authors suggest that BoR bowls were not part of this trade, but it should be noted that only five open forms were tested altogether from Cyprus. Third, cluster analysis defined a group of BoR juglets from Al Mina which was "distinctively different to the rest of the Cyprus samples" but yet, on the basis of the element analysis, were of "Cypriot rather than Syrian origin" (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). Fourth, a 'Syrian' group was defined, including the pottery from the 'Amuq sites, which contained open forms only and did not match any of the other groups. The 'Palestine' groups were separate from the 'Syrian,' suggesting different places of manufacture for the BoR pottery at sites in the southern Levant (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). 13 The authors suggest that the Palestine groups were made at different times to one another - this is a reasonable suggestion, although not especially indicated by the analysis results. In general, therefore, Matthers' study provided a useful indicator of a Cypriot connection with BoR trade in juglets, and the likelihood of different places of manufacture for BoR pottery. A mainland manufacturing centre remains a possibility. The authors note, however, that the Syrian group "is distinguished from the Palestine 13

Note the error: the samples from Tel Fara (S) fit all into the group Palestine A, not Β as stated (Matthers et al. 1983, 3 7 3 , 378).

and Cyprus groups not so much by large differences in any individual element, but by small differences in practically all of them" (Matthers et al. 1983, 377). It is possible that this group, rather than representing 'local imitations' of Cypriot BoR on the mainland, was instead simply from a Cypriot source not represented in Matthers' small sample group of unknown provenance (cf. Brodie & Steel 1996, 271). 'Locally-made' BoR from the mainland Levant is likely to have been of significantly different elemental composition to the main groups of BoR, as local red-slipped wares were shown to be in Brodie & Steel's study (see below). Unfortunately the BoR pottery in Matthers' analysis was not tested against known local wares. An analysis of BoR pottery from the Knossos North Cemetery using atomic absorption spectrometry was conducted in Athens by D.J. Liddy and published in 1996 in the Knossos excavation report (Liddy 1996, 481-489). Liddy's results showed evidence of one composition group of BoR which included pottery found at Knossos, at Palaepaphos-Skales and at Al Mina, suggesting that PalaepaphosSkales was likely to be a source for all these samples (Liddy 1996, 488). Two examples of so-called BoR pottery from Tel Fara (S) which Liddy's analysis suggested were manufactured at Tell el-Ajjul were examined by this author and found to be clearly local imitations, of similar ware to local vessels from Ajjul and not to be confused with true BoR (Liddy 1996, 495 (Group Y)). 14 Brodie and Steel's AAS analysis (1996) was the completion of Liddy's project, and was specifically aimed at determining the origin of BoR pottery. This study attempted to correct the omissions of previous studies by selecting a large sample size from Cyprus (158 BoR and 109 White Painted sherds), and include mainland 'control' pottery. However, as the authors note, the sample size from the mainland Levant both of BoR pottery and of local wares was small (29 BoR sherds from three sites, and 10 local red-slipped pottery sherds) (Brodie & Steel 1996, 264). In addition, none of the Levantine sites chosen (Tel Fara (S), Tell el-Ajjul and Al Mina) are well-stratified. The results of this study were, first, that all the BoR pottery tested appeared chemically dissimilar to the local red slip pottery tested as a control group but of "similar geochemistry" to one another, indicating 14

Vessel numbers: E.VII.33/5 from Tel Fara (S) Tomb 241 (barrel-juglet), Ε.VII.85/12 from Tel Fara (S) Tomb 2 0 2 (handle-ridge juglet). (Vessel location: Institute of Archaeology, London).

a similar origin (Brodie & Steel 1996, 267). 15 Second, the authors suggested that the BoR pottery found on the mainland clustered most closely with BoR pottery tested from the sites of Amathus and Kourion on the south coast of Cyprus, and with Sia, a small site inland. A sub-cluster identified an association between the BoR pottery from Kouklia (Palaepaphos-Skales) and Kition (sites at some distance from each other, indicating the possibility of internal Cypriot trade) (Brodie & Steel 1996, 269). The authors attempt to associate the BoR pottery from the Levantine sites with the clusters appearing around BoR from Cypriot sites (BoR from Al Mina with Kouklia/Kition and BoR from Ajjul and Fara with Amathus/Kourion), but the Levantine sample is too small and the Cypriot clusters too general to be wholly convincing (Brodie & Steel 1996, 269-271). Lastly, as noted in Chapter Two, Brodie and Steel identified two 'fabric groups' within the BoR samples from sites on the mainland and on Cyprus, a calcareous and a non-calcareous fabric (Brodie & Steel 1996, 268). BoR in both fabric types is present in both Cyprus and in the Levant, but some distinction could be drawn: 16 out of 19 of the Ajjul/Fara BoR samples were non-calcareous; 8 out of 9 of the Al Mina BoR samples were calcareous (Brodie & Steel 1996, 268). All White Painted and Bichrome pottery, with one exception, was composed of calcareous clay (Brodie & Steel 1996, 272). As noted in Chapter Two, the authors suggest that the use of non-calcareous clay for BoR juglets, which was anomalous to the preceding tradition of fineware ceramic production, enabled greater vitrification of the fabric in the kiln and therefore the creation of a less porous vessel. 16 In the absence of a broad-scale scientific programme dedicated to the resolution of this issue, Brodie & Steel's study represents the most convincing of the scientific contributions to the problem of BoR. 'Deconstructing'

Gjerstad

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, Gjerstad's views on the origin of BoR pottery hinged on his belief that the earliest BoR was foreign - and markedly different - to BoR in the Cypriot repertoire 15

Cf. Matthers' results ( 1 9 8 3 , 377). S e e e g . Jones 1986, 7 5 1 - 7 5 7 for discussion of the firing process. Briefly, iron oxide is more abundant in a non-calcareous clay than a calcareous: this oxide acts as a 'flux' during firing, lowering the temperature range for vitrification of the clay. The presence of calcium in a clay inhibits the vitrification process. 16

(Gjerstad 1948, 287). It is highly likely that Gjerstad was partly forced into his conclusions by his contemporaries' extremely high dating of BoR on the mainland. A footnote comments: "The vexed problem as regards the origin of BoR ware is discussed below, p. 270, n. 1, where it is shown that there are two groups of BoR, one of which is of non-Cypriote origin. This is proved by chronological evidence, and to some extent by technical and typological evidence..."(my italics) (1948, 240). His belief has nevertheless persisted, with troubled results. This section of the chapter will first, therefore, attempts to show that there was no basis in Gjerstad's claim of a significant (and substantial) group of "non-Cypriot" pottery, and, second, that Gjerstad's typological sequence for BoR was not quite correct, which affected his chronology of the ware. A): BoR on the Mainland versus BoR in Cyprus A few specimens of BoR pottery found at mainland sites are of different quality to true 'Cypriot' BoR. These 'coarse' vessels, both bowls and juglets, do not show the delicacy of form of the classic BoR ware. They generally have a darkish pink slip, often simple decoration of thick black painted lines, clearly visible burnishing striations and quite coarse and unrefined fabric with many visible, usually black, inclusions. It should be noted, however, that examples of 'coarse' BoR appear on Cyprus as well as the mainland. These vessels are relatively rare and do not appear in earlier contexts than 'true' BoR, either on the mainland or on Cyprus. They cannot therefore be considered a BoR 'prototype.' The specimens are simply part of the natural range of a ware type and were probably on occasion exported from Cyprus alongside finer quality BoR. Other variations, such as BoR vessels of refined shape and decoration but inferior (thin) slip and paint quality appear amongst the assemblage of BoR at the site of Palaepaphos-Skales in Cyprus, and were clearly locally manufactured (Figure 2:2).17 These vessels were not, however, the focus of Gjerstad's concern. Nor, apparently, was the clearly mainland manufactured 'Cilician' 17

Examples o f 'coarser' BoR v e s s e l s on the mainland include (unpublished) b o w l no. 8 9 / 6 2 : 1 1 0 1 2 6 : L . 1 1 0 2 2 (Area B) and c l o s e d v e s s e l no. 7 4 / 9 3 : 9 9 2 8 4 / 3 : L . 9 9 2 5 (Area G) from Tel Dor. Relatively coarse BoR vessels from Cyprus include sack-shaped juglet T.54:13 and bowl T.62:128 from Palaepaphos-Skales, and (unpublished) jug no. 2 2 7 5 and bowl no. 2 2 9 4 from Kition.

'Black-on-Red' pottery found in the north-east region of the Mediterranean (see below, 277). Gjerstad defined instead a less obviously distinct but substantial category of 'non-Cypriot' BoR (Gjerstad 1948, 270, n.l). His identification of this latter group was based on three criteria: Gjerstad's 'Non-Cypriot'

BoR

Characteristics

1 ) "often a grey core" 2) "a bright orange, burnished surface, with the decoration applied after the burnish." Note that the application of paint to the burnished surface "occurs also in Cyprus, parallel with the opposite technique of burnishing after the decoration has been painted." 3) "the surface flakes off very often ("smallpox" surface)." (Gjerstad 1948, 270, n.l) Gjerstad's criteria are themselves problematic. First, the grey core Gjerstad believed was indicative of BoR pottery manufactured outside Cyprus is not restricted to BoR pottery found on the mainland, but appears also in some BoR found in Cyprus. The presence of a grey core is a factor of firing technique and control - the result of residual uncombusted carbon in the vessel due to a reducing phase in the firing, or the prevention of oxidation of iron in the clay (Shepard 1956, 216-222; Jones 1986, 754). Although Gjerstad was correct in believing that 'true' Cypriot BoR was of remarkably high quality and usually fired evenly so that no core was present in the fabric, firing was not always consistent and could vary even within the same vessel. 18 Several BoR vessels of high quality found in Cyprus have a darker pink core, suggesting possibly the use of clays with slightly different properties which required different firing conditions (Shepard 1956, 221-222). Furthermore, it should be noted that the presence of a grey core in BoR fabrics can only be determined by examination of a fresh or cleaned break in the pottery, a test seldom possible to perform on vessels in a museum collection. Most of the

18

For example, a BoR vessel from Hurvat Rosh Zayit (Ref. No. 9 6 - 2 4 4 3 ) s h o w s a different coloured core at different points o f the same vessel; cf. also sherd Ref. N o . 81-31 2 0 3 5 4 - 2 from Tel Dor. The presence of a grey core in the base of a vessel due to the greater thickness of this area is not uncommon.

examples of BoR pottery examined in Cyprus were of museum quality, and the proportion of BoR vessels in Cyprus with grey cores may therefore be marginally higher than they appeared. Note also that dirt adhering to a break often gives the impression of a lighter core. At some sites, eg. Tell Keisan, a large quantity of BoR sherds had grey cores. These fragments were generally bowl sherds. Only two BoR vessels out of the large number excavated at this site have been fully published but the great majority of the BoR pottery at the site belongs, according to the excavators, in the later strata (see Chapter Three, 152-154). Consequently, this pottery is later than the period in which Gjerstad placed his phase of early 'non-Cypriot' BoR, and the site should be excluded from consideration in this respect. In view, however, of the large quantity of BoR bowls at Tell Keisan the anomaly is interesting and suggests that some BoR pottery at this site may either have been locally manufactured or recipient of a different Cypriot production centre. The Black-on-Red pottery from the site of Tarsus (Gözlü Kule) in Cilicia also commonly had grey cores (Hanfmann 1963, 27-28). This pottery, however, was not only clearly manufactured locally - specimens were found in kilns - but it is visually distinctive from true BoR, and, most importantly, it also postdates the early stages of BoR (Hanfmann 1963, 118). This latter group we shall consider true 'imitation' BoR, and is discussed at the end of this Chapter (see 277-280). In sum, while a 'grey core' does indeed appear on some examples of non-Cypriot BoR, this is not a satisfactory criterion by which to judge its origin. The presence of a grey core is generally very rare in BoR found either on Cyprus or the mainland. Most notably, of the particular vessels which Gjerstad assigns to his "foreign ware" category, very few had grey cores. The number of BoR vessels examined by this author (aside from those at Tell Keisan) in which grey cores were recorded, including the pottery from Al Mina, some of which is likely to have been non-Cypriot, represents a tiny proportion of the total vessels examined. See Table C. Second, Gjerstad's acknowledgement that paint was applied after burnishing on some 'Cypriot' vessels as well as the 'non-Cypriot' makes this a not wholly satisfactory criterion for assessing 'nonCypriot' BoR. The black paint used in decoration of BoR pottery was manganese (or a combination of manganese and iron oxide), which

retains its colour during firing and gives the matt effect noticeable on the majority of the vessels (Shepard 1956, 40; Jones 1986, 762, 812). 19 The skill of the potters producing BoR was often such that it difficult to identify whether paint was applied before or after the burnish. On many, the paint seems to have been applied after the surface was burnished. However, the occasional 'bleeding' of the paint into the background colour on juglets in particular may have resulted from burnishing of the surface after the paint is applied, possibly when the vessel was still moist, forcing or compacting the pigment particles into the pores of the clay wall (Shephard 1956, 42; Jones 1986, 761). On BoR vessels found in Cyprus, paint seems to have been commonly applied pre- and post-burnishing. Gjerstad's stylistic criterion is clearly, therefore, not pertinent to the question of the origin of the ware and over-simplified in view of the range of BoR wares produced. Third, the flaked surface of some BoR vessels is not solely due to a different quality of clay and slip used, as Gjerstad (implicitly) suggests. The flaking of the surface of fine wares such as BoR is the product often of different burial and soil conditions. A high soil salinity produces a flaked effect. The only vessels from the mainland observed by this author which have, in particular, the "small-pox" effect noted by Gjerstad, come from the site of Tel Fara (S) (See Table). This form of erosion of the clay's surface is much more likely to be the result of local burial conditions than any intrinsic instability of the slips used, and it seems probable that Gjerstad's observation of this feature on some of the BoR vessels at Tel Fara (S) gave rise to his definition here. Furthermore, clear examples of this pock-marked "small-pox" effect are found on several BoR vessels from the site of Kition in Cyprus. 20 Several of the BoR juglets imported to Cos most probably from Cyprus showed a similar pitted effect (eg. Morricone 1982, Fig. 693). It should lastly be noted that on several occasions Gjerstad cites the chronological evidence provided by the excavators of the mainland specimens of BoR in support of his 'non-Cypriot' origin (Gjerstad 1948, 243, 249). This 'chronological' evidence - that the BoR pottery appears in levels too early to conform with the Cypriot chronology 19

Note that manganese-rich earths are c o m m o n in Cyprus (Jones 1986, 817). Eg. Juglets N o . 1732 and 2 1 4 4 from Bothros 10 Floor 3, and B o w l s no. 1801 and 1803 from Bothros 4, Floor 3 in Area II at Kition. 20

seems, in fact, to form a fourth criterion for Gjerstad's category of 'non-Cypriot' BoR ware. It has not been possible to investigate every example of 'nonCypriot' BoR found on the mainland to which Gjerstad refers (Gjerstad 1948, 242-257), as most are now dispersed into international museum collections and many others are now not possible to locate. However, a number of these specimens has been personally examined, as well as many more BoR sherds from mainland sites which have been published since 1948, others which have been recently excavated and are still unpublished and a large quantity of BoR pottery excavated throughout Cyprus pre- and post-1948. The quantity of BoR ware which has surfaced since 1948 altogether, in both Cyprus and on the mainland, comprises a vastly larger corpus of BoR to that which was available to Gjerstad. This increased corpus of BoR ware sanctions a revision of some of Gjerstad's views on the pottery. Even without personal examination of each specimen of BoR, this increased knowledge of the range of BoR ware types enables the modern specialist to judge even from a photograph or line drawing whether vessels to which Gjerstad refers as "non-Cypriot" are in fact of 'true' Cypriot BoR type. Gjerstad's survey of the BoR pottery found on the mainland states that the majority, if not all, of the BoR pottery from Tell ez-Zuweyid, Tel Fara (S), Tel Jemmeh, Tell el-Ajjul ("Gaza"), Beth-Shemesh, Tell en-Nasbeh, 'Atlit, Megiddo, and Tell Abu Hawam, is non-Cypriot (Gjerstad 1948, 242-250). 21 These sites comprise almost the total of those Gjerstad investigated in the region. Of these sites, the BoR pottery from Tel Fara (S), Tell el-Ajjul and Tell en-Nasbeh has been re-examined and no difference noted between the BoR pottery from these sites and that found in Cyprus. In addition, scientific analysis has provided substantial evidence that the BoR pottery from the site of Tel Fara (S) is of Cypriot origin (Brodie & Steel 1996, 263-278). Examination of published illustrations of the BoR pottery from the other sites to which Gjerstad refers indicates that this pottery is also 'true' Cypriot BoR. Table C below represents a selection of BoR vessels from sites in 21 Gjerstad notes that one BoR two-handled juglet from Tomb 1074 at Tell elAjjul ( 1074.69a/XIV.4/5) is probably Cypriot (Gjerstad 1948, 244). Examination o f this vessel s h o w s it certainly to be so. Unfortunately, however, only a limited number of the BoR v e s s e l s from the original collections o f Tel Fara (S) and Tell el-Ajjul were available for inspection in the Institute of Archaeology (London).

Cyprus and on the mainland which have been personally examined by this author. Those indicated by an asterisk* are currently unpublished. Over 136 BoR vessels from mainland sites and Cyprus (81-mainland; 55-Cyprus) have been examined and recorded in detail by this author; approximately 100 more were examined during the course of research. This Table represents only a selection only of those specimens which are relevant to Gjerstad's criteria, either because they feature a grey core, paint clearly applied after burnish, or a flaked surface, or, in the case of Hurvat Rosh Zayit, are noticeably fine examples of true 'Cypriot' BoR. No scientific analysis has been published regarding these vessels. As the Table makes clear, Gjerstad's criteria for 'non-Cypriot' BoR pottery are not satisfactory. A grey core is rare, paint is applied after and before burnish, most often afterwards, and a flaking "small pox" surface is very rare. These characteristics are in fact meaningless when applied to a corpus of BoR pottery, and should be eliminated from further consideration. The great bulk of the BoR pottery on the mainland is in fact identical with the bulk of BoR pottery on Cyprus.

Key of Present Locations:

(CY)= Cyprus (IS) = Israel (LN) = London (UCL)

Juglet

Not visible

Yes

No

Self-slip?22 Very fine ware.

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-62-97

Juglet

No

No?

No

Bright orange ware & slip. Fine ware.

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-54-13

Dipper juglet Not visible

Yes

No

Pink-red slip. Ware quite coarse, fairly thick walled.

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-62-104

Barrel juglet

Not visible

No?

No

Bright orange- Cyprus red ware, very fine. Self-slip?

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-46-18

Barrel juglet

Not visible

No?

No

Bright orangepink clay & slip, fine.

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-52-79

Barrel juglet

Poss. buff core turning red-pink to exterior

9

No

Dull red slip, ware fine.

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-54-37

Jug

Not visible

Yes?

No

Dark pink-red clay, pink-red slip & paint similar toT54-13

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-54-62

Bowl

Buff core turning pink to exterior

?

No

Fine ware, some small inclusions

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-46-15

Bowl

Grey core turning pink-red to exterior

7

No

Fine ware

Cyprus

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

T-54-58

Bowl

Not visible

Yes

No

Very fine, thin Cyprus walled

Probable origin

T-62-101

Type of vessel

PalaepaphosSkales (CY)

SITE

Flaked surface?

Other characteristics

Gjerstad's

Paint after burnish?

Grey core?

Site reg. no.

Table C: Some Examples of BoR Tested with 'Non-Cypriot' Characteristics

22 Shepard d e f i n e s u s e o f the term " s e l f - s l i p " as "a very fine-textured paste that has been w e l l s m o o t h e d or p o l i s h e d [and] m a y superficially r e s e m b l e a slipped surface" (Shepard 1 9 5 6 , 192). T h e f i n e n e s s o f B o R ware and usually similarity o f c o l o u r b e t w e e n surface and fabric matrix m a k e s it frequently difficult to determine whether v e s s e l s are slipped or s e l f - s l i p p e d .

Not visible

Hurvat Rosh Zayit (IS)

96-2552*

Miniature juglet

No

7

No Very fine pink Cyprus ware

Hurvat Rosh Zayit (IS)

96-2507*

Miniature juglet

Dark pink core turning pale pink to exterior

7

No Very thin and fine ware

Cyprus

Hurvat Rosh Zayit (IS)

96-2485* Trefoil juglet Not visible

7

No Exceptional quality ware and form

Cyprus

Hurvat Rosh Zayit (IS)

96-2452* Juglet

Pink core turning buff to exterior

7

No Minimal burnishing, medium fine vessel

Cyprus

Hurvat Rosh Zayit (IS)

96-2443*

Grey (buff?) core. exterior variable colour-bumt

7

No

Cyprus

Achziv (IS)

ZRXXXX Trefoil-rim juglet VI-70 23

Grey core, turning orange to exterior

7

7

Achziv (IS)

2207, L.410*

No

Tel Dor (IS)

84-20/321 Juglet sherd 25-2*

Tel Dor (IS)

88-(?)9/92 Bowl sherd 603*

Tel Dor (IS)

74-93 99356/1*

Tel Dor (IS)

Juglet sherd 82-25 28217/11*

Tel Dor (IS)

83/ 27569*

23

Barrel-juglet

Bowl rim

Juglet neck

No Well burnished

Probable origin

Other characteristics

B. 1577.19 Conical 35 juglet

Bowl

Yes

Flaked surface?

Paint after burnish?

Grey core?

Type of vessel

Site reg. no.

SITE Cyprus Museum (CY)

Cyprus

"Powdery red slip"

Cyprus

Yes

No Pale buff flaking clay, thick dark red slip

Possibly mainland or early Cypriot

Light grey core, orange slip on exterior

Yes?

No

Cyprus

Poss. buff core turning brick red, orange-red slip

Yes?

No

Cyprus

7

No Medium fine Possibly clay, some dark mainland inclusions

No

No

No Very fine clay Cyprus

No

7

Dark core

7

Very fine clay Cyprus

Vessel published by Culican ( 1 9 8 2 , 7 5 , A b b . 9k), not e x a m i n e d by this author.

Very coarse Mainclay, dark pur- land ple-red slip

No?

No

7

Very coarse buff ware, lots of inclusions in clay

Juglet

No?

?

Yes Very coarse Syria/ modern buff ware, slip dark pink Turkey

55/1085

Krater

No?

?

Yes Very coarse Syria/ modern buff ware, slip dark pink Turkey

Al Mina (LN)

55/1078

Jug

No

7

7

Fine (level 8) Cyprus

Al Mina (LN)

55/1079

Bowl

No

7

7

Fine (level 8) Cyprus

Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 236 Juglet x8/E.VII.Í 0.14

No

No

Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 229 Juglet x26/E.VII 59.10

No core visible

Surf- Yes Classic "small Cyprus ace pox" effect; worn ware buff, some fine inclusions.

Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 227 Juglet x5/dx3/E. VII.82/1

No core, except in base area where light grey

No?

No Very fine orange ware

Cyprus

Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 376.84E

No core visible

7

Yes Fine ware, "small pox" effect

Cyprus

No Very fine ware

Cyprus

89-91 96111*

Jug sherd?

Al Mina (LN)

55/108

Bowl?

AI Mina (LN)

55/1072

Al Mina (LN)

Juglet

Two-handled No Tell el-Ajjul (LN) Tomb 1074.69a/ juglet XIV.4/5 Tell el-Ajjul (LN) Tomb 306 Juglet E.XIV.4/2

24

No

Yes

No Fine orange ware

Surf- Yes Very fine ace pinkishworn orange ware

Probable origin

Flaked surface?

Other characteristics

Paint after burnish?

7

Type of vessel

Grey core?

Site reg. no.

?

SITE

Pale grey core turning buff-orange to exterior

Tel Dor (IS)

Syria/ modern Turkey

Cyprus

Cyprus

N o t e that the reference numbers g i v e n for A l M i n a sherds are o f t e n duplicated - these sherds are not registered individually but by the 'batches' in w h i c h they originally arrived in the Institute o f A r c h a e o l o g y ' s c o l l e c t i o n ( L o n d o n ) .

B): Gjerstad's Typology of BoR: Does it Fit on the

Mainland?

As noted at the beginning of the chapter, Gjerstad's chronology for BoR was based on the accuracy of his typological sequence for the ware's appearance at mainland sites. Birmingham first drew attention to some of the flaws in this typology, and stated that Gjerstad's sequence was, in fact, "compiled mostly from a series of tomb groups without absolute dating evidence, the pottery arranged typologically with unstratified finds inserted where they appeared appropriate" (Birmingham 1963, 23, 40). The accuracy of Gjerstad's typology for BoR is tested here by assessing whether the scheme of BoR I (III), BoR II (IV) and BoR III (V) comprised a true chronological sequence when applied to some well stratified mainland sites.25 Gjerstad's categories BoR IV (VI) and BoR V (VII) are not included - the BoR styles represented in these categories belong to a period later than that under discussion here. Table D represents a selection of the main pottery forms classified by Gjerstad as BoR. According to this scheme, BoR I (III) types are characterized by a lustrous or burnished surface and matt black paint. BoR II (IV) types are "never polished" but the slip is lustrous; the paint is matt black. BoR III (V) types have a "slightly lustrous or nearly mat" surface; no mention is made of the paint quality (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73). Within the limited repertoire of BoR decorative techniques, there is some variation between the categories - BoR I (III) types occasionally show "instances of the usual rectilinear ornaments of the type used in White Painted III and Bichrome III," but are more commonly decorated with intersecting, concentric lines and/or isolated, concentric circles (Gjerstad 1948, 69). BoR II (IV) shows a development of the small group of concentric circles, so that they often form into vertical or horizontal rows (Gjerstad 1948, 71). BoR III (V) shows the same linear and concentric circle decoration as BoR (IV), but no (apparently) intersecting concentric circles. The large proportion of vessel forms assigned to the BoR II (IV) 25

Note also that problems have been encountered with use of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition's typological classification for Late Bronze A g e Red Polished Ware. This ware type was divided typologically into strict sequential chronological periods with little consideration taken of its differing regional developments. Thus the ware (like B o R ) is designated to f o l l o w chronological 'periods' (Red Polished I in Early Cypriot I etc.), while "what has happened in practice is that Red Polished 1 and II are considered north coast regional variants of the sequence, while Red Polished III and IV are encountered islandwide. In sherd form it is often difficult to make these fine distinctions..." (Merrillees 1991, 2 3 9 ) .

Table D: Gjerstad's Division of BoR Types (After Gjerstad 1948, Figs. XXIV-XXVI; XXXVII-XL; LI1) Types in italics are represented in Table E, following. B o R I (III)

B o R III ( V )

B o R II ( I V )

Shallow bowl with horizontal handles at rim

Flat handleless bowls

Handleless bowls

Wide & deep bowls

Carinated

"raised rim"

howls

Pedestalled bowls

Both deep & shallow bowls, none pedestalled Kraters on pedestals

Kraters on pedestals Elaborate double-handled barrel juglets

Barrel-juglets

Handle-ridge

Low, carinated "raised splayed rim" bowls

Handle-ridge juglets (more globular and flare-lipped, wider base)

juglets

Two-handled

handle-ridge

Sharply biconical juglets

juglet

Conical juglets (also with 'eye' and bulging neck) 'Phoenician' style fat-necked juglet 'Phoenician' style flat-rimmed jug 'Sack-shaped'

juglet

'Sack-shaped'

'Misshapen' heavy-look ing 'sack-shaped'juglet

juglet

Small simple 'sack-shaped' juglet Trefoil-lipped

Trefoil-lipped

Trefoil-lipped jug (more refined)

jug

'squat'

juglet

Trefoil-lipped

juglet

Trefoil-lipped

'squat'

juglet

Basket-handled spouted juglet

Basket-handled spouted juglet

Amphorae

Amphorae,

miniature

amphorae

Amphorae

category is immediately evident. Birmingham noted several problems in the attribution of forms to this 'second' BoR category. The following vessels, belonging to Gjerstad's BoR II (IV) category, she believed were mis-assigned (Birmingham 1963, 40): 1. The trefoil-lipped jug with intersecting circles and groups of concentric circles (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2)

2. The trefoil-lipped juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6) 3. The two-handled handle-ridge juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18) 4. The earinated "raised rim" bowl with groups of concentric circles (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24) Birmingham believed that these vessels belonged in the first phase of BoR pottery, Gjerstad's BoR I (III). To determine the accuracy of Gjerstad's typological scheme, the most common BoR types classified by Gjerstad were investigated here as they appeared on the mainland. The results are presented fully in Appendix III and summarized in Table Ε below. The chronological 'Phases' used in this analysis were established in Chapter Three. In investigation of the chronology of BoR on the mainland, Phases 2 and 3 were found to be less obviously distinct from one another than Phase 1 from both these, due to clearer stratification of the earlier levels at many of the sites examined and, in general, the greater proportion of sites that have been well-published from the early Iron II ('Phase Γ ) period. The chart should be read accordingly, and attention drawn in particular to the differentiation between Phase 1 and Phases 2-3. The apparent "tail-off' of BoR pottery in Phases 2-3 may not have been as dramatic as indicated in the Table, although true to the general pattern. The stratigraphie contexts for the BoR vessels included in Table Ε and Appendix III are fully discussed in Chapter Three. To obtain a good sample of material, some vessels from mediocre contexts have been included into the Table/Appendix, but only where these vessels are certainly of the type specified. Contexts with a large proportion of BoR sherds which are of indeterminate vessel type, such as in the later Iron Age levels at Hazor, may therefore be under-represented, and consequently the exact proportions of vessels in these levels may be affected. 26 Only one bowl type (the carinated BoR bowl) has been included in the chart represented by Table E, although other types are listed more fully in the Appendix. This is because bowl types are less 26 Note also that the BoR pottery from the site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit is included in Table Ε and Appendix III as chronological 'Phase 1.' This early dating of the fortress period at the site, which is in accordance with the preliminary publication of the site, may, in the opinion of this writer, need lowering to the early part o f 'Phase 2'. The inclusion of the BoR from this site in Phase 1 does not, however, radically alter the pattern represented in the chart.

easy to identify than closed vessels, as the diagnostic parts of the vessel are often not preserved. According to Gjerstad's typology, the introduction of the carinated bowl in BoR II (IV) is a distinctive change in BoR bowl development. Finally, Gjerstad's classification of BoR types (in Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV:2) does not always include the exact type represented on the mainland, most commonly in terms of decoration of the vessels and also in marginal variations in shape. The typological categories into which they are placed in the table below represent, however, their closest parallel in Gjerstad's system. Table E: Chart showing relative quantities of vessel types and their chronological phases on the mainland. See also Appendix 111. 35 • Chronological Phase 1 ® Chronological Phase 2

30.

• Chronological Phase 3

25.

20-

15-

10.

5-

Έ "ω 3 •"•s Ol 0<j "Β r ό

m cn a

"Si 33 "— •o -c c

a J3 è S H

Ll· O£ 3) Ό S. α 1 'o (S stH

ω SX 3 •a £ .9·

J.

1

1 IX

3 a3 a· Ό

1 a C H

OS

3

BD 3 '"s

SI 3

B C

ε

<

XS

d

ο U

«S.

X!

ία «

-2

U « ΙΛ

μ H

« u

Ο JS CL

it βο

It is clear from Table Ε that Birmingham's misgivings about Gjerstad's typology were correct. The two-handled juglet, the conical juglet and the trefoil-lipped juglet all appear in firm contexts in 'Phase 1 ' sites, and in smaller proportions in subsequent periods. The bowl with a carinated body is, likewise, not confined to a secondary stage of BoR development. In general, Gjerstad's scheme placing the greater proportion of BoR vessel types in his BoR II (IV) category is not reflected in their stratigraphical locations on the mainland. As seen in Chapter Three, the stratigraphy of the bulk of these mainland sites, while not infallible, is generally reliable. The basis of Gjerstad's establishment of a chronology for BoR in Cyprus was the sequencing of tomb groups, which are inherently less reliable than stratified settlement contexts. The results indicated by assessment of Gjerstad's typology on the mainland are therefore of considerable significance. Most importantly, these results demonstrate the serious problems contingent on automatic application of Gjerstad's BoR chronology to sites on the mainland, as has been frequently done in the past - and without alertness to these problems will continue to be done in the future. The release of BoR pottery from the constraints of Gjerstad's chronology for the ware - placing it inexorably in a fixed lower chronological framework than that in which, in reality, it appears on the mainland - enables a reassessment of its origin. In resolving this question, a tentative reassessment of Cypriot chronology is proposed, based on a new 'phasing' of BoR ware. This following part of this chapter therefore, first, examines the chronology of BoR pottery within Cyprus. Independent of Gjerstad's views, the earliest possible date that the pottery might have been in production on the island is established. Second, a hypothesis for the process of development of BoR pottery in Cyprus is put forward, as a predominantly local development. In the final part of this chapter, a means of reconciliation between the different chronologies of BoR pottery in the mainland Levant and on Cyprus is suggested. BoR Within Cyprus (See Map 25) As noted at the beginning of the chapter, despite the large quantity of BoR pottery which has been excavated or retrieved from sites in Cyprus, there is a dearth of stratigraphie evidence for the period of

early BoR on the island. Of the tombs which comprise the bulk of Iron Age sites, the majority were excavated early in the century. Many had been subject to looting and disturbances from the time of the original depositions onwards, or had been reused from one generation to another in antiquity, and were thus a priori of restricted chronological use. It is to be regretted that of the few important settlement sites that have been excavated in Cyprus in the latter part of the century, none have yet been fully published; few also of the cemetery sites have been published in the detail required for satisfactory assessment of the development of the ceramics within them. Gjerstad's typology (and his corresponding chronology), which was based largely upon a seriation of the tomb evidence available to him, forms an integral part of all publications of Iron Age sites in Cyprus. The following study does not, therefore, attempt a wholesale reassessment of the Iron Age sites and their chronology, but instead presents an independent assessment of the appearance of BoR pottery within Cyprus in the light of the conclusions drawn in the first part of this chapter.

Map 25: Sites in Cyprus

Test-Case:

Palaepaphos-Skales

One of the sites most valuable to this study is the Iron Age cemetery at Palaepaphos-Skales, in the far western part of the island. A rescue excavation was undertaken at this site in 1979, and the subsequent publication (Karageorghis 1983) is exemplary in terms of presentation detail. Although some of these tombs had been badly damaged by bulldozing activity, the tomb groups retrieved are presented as far as possible in their original assemblages, which are generally preserved, with fine quality illustration and recorded detail. 27 The large number of tombs at this site (51 in total, of which 26 contain BoR) and the period of the Iron Age they encompass, which shows clearly the pre-BoR, followed by early-BoR stage, render this site of particular importance to the present study. Three features of the sequence of the early tombs at the site are of especial interest: first, the appearance of BoR pottery types in tomb groups which illuminate some of the problems of Gjerstad's typology discussed above; second, the appearance of BoR pottery in tomb assemblages which contain a large proportion of early White Painted types, indicating that BoR pottery appears perhaps earlier in the Cypriot ceramic repertoire than hitherto believed; third, the appearance of early forms of BoR pottery which show clearly the process of development of the ware type within the Cypriot repertoire. Applying Gjerstad's Typology at

Palaepaphos-Skales

Some of the inconsistencies of Gjerstad's typological sequence demonstrated above in the context of mainland settlement sites are also, to a degree, evident in the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales. Re-use of these tombs, as noted above, detracts considerably from their chronological contribution, and most tombs at the site contained at least three or four burials. Few also were discovered intact, and distinction between the burials inside the tombs was virtually impossible. The range of BoR pottery types within two of these tombs, however, provides support for the belief that some aspects of Gjerstad's classification are problematic. Tomb 74 contained three burials. The BoR contained within the lower

27

The quality of presentation of the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales essentially overrides the potential problems caused by the (standard) use of Gjerstad's typology in the publication.

burial layer (representing two burials) comprised BoR bowls on a high foot, wide flat BoR bowls, a two-handled BoR juglet and BoR trefoillipped jugs. Gjerstad's typology classifies the footed BoR bowl as BoR I (III), and the two-handled BoR juglet and the type of BoR jug represented here as BoR II (IV) (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. CXXIII: 12, 16, 24, 25, 47, 48, 17; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1-3; Fig. XXXIX: 2,18). The number of burials in Tomb 54 was not recorded, but it produced a large amount of pottery. The BoR pottery found here was of early types - barrel-juglets, a 'sack-shaped' juglet, and a plain BoR handle-ridge juglet (see discussion below). However, it also included three examples of carinated BoR bowls, which Gjerstad classified as BoR II (IV) types (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. LXXVII: 60, 61, 62; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 23, 24). While only tentative conclusions should be drawn here, these tomb assemblages provide, therefore, additional evidence that the two-handled juglet, the more elegant versions of the BoR trefoillipped jug and the carinated bowl are contemporary with types Gjerstad assigns to his first phase of BoR development. For the purposes of this discussion, Gjerstad's typology is used in general assessment of 'early' White Painted and Bichrome wares. Examination of the general sequence of White Painted development suggests that the typology established by Gjerstad for these wares is satisfactory. Detailed assessment of Gjerstad's typology of White Painted and Bichrome pottery, in the same detail as attempted here for BoR pottery, is limited by the smaller quantity of this pottery excavated at sites on the mainland, and also simply by the restricted scope of this book. The absolute chronology of these other Cypriot wares is considered at the end of this chapter, along with the chronology of BoR. The Earliest BoR at

Palaepaphos-Skales

The contribution of the Skales cemetery to our knowledge of the earliest stages of BoR pottery is particularly important. First, the number of tombs which contain no BoR pottery but a large quantity of early White Painted and Bichrome pottery confirms the wellestablished view that these pottery types preceded the introduction of BoR pottery (cf. S0rensen 1987, 130; Gilboa 1989, 205-214; and Chapter Two). The early tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales, in which BoR pottery does not appear, are Tombs 43-45, 48-51, 53, 58, 61, 67, 68, 78, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92. These tombs contained predominantly

Table F: The Early Tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales: Relative Proportions of Early BoR Pottery Types cf. White Painted (TOMBS 46, 52, 54, 63, 69, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80, 90)

White Painted pottery and a few examples of 'imported' wares (discussed below). Second, the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales provide important indications of the earliest forms to appear in the BoR repertoire. This early BoR stage is most clearly evident in Tombs 46, 52, 54, 63, 69, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80, 90. These tombs contained, again, predominantly White Painted pottery. The number of White Painted bowls (of all

types, but not including 'cups'), White Painted jugs and juglets and amphorae (not including hydriae or amphoriskoi) is plotted in Table F against the BoR types appearing alongside them: barrel juglets, 'squat' type juglets, handle-ridge juglets, amphorae, plain open bowls and footed bowls. The quantity of White Painted pottery (not Bichrome, Red Slip and Black Slip, which also appears in these tombs) has been included here in order to indicate the early date of these tombs and the relatively small proportions of BoR at this early stage. All BoR vessels present in these early tombs have been included in the table, except for one 'sack'-shaped juglet, a BoR jug and four BoR carinated bowls which appear in Tomb 54. 28 This tomb may have spanned a slightly later period than the others listed. A deep BoR bowl (not included) was also found in Tomb 71 (Karageorghis 1983, 189, No. 57). Table F (and see also Appendix IV) indicates clearly that BoR barrel-juglets are the most popular BoR vessel at its initial stage. Contemporary with this type is the 'squat' BoR juglet with globular, squat body, no neck-ridge and handle from neck to shoulder (eg. Karageorghis 1983, Pl. CXVII: 28; PI. CXXI:13; PI. CXLV:6) - these BoR juglets are very similar to forms appearing in Gjerstad's early White Painted and Bichrome categories (Gjerstad Fig. XVI:4; Fig. XIX:3), and are probably contemporary or a development from these types (Figures 10:17, 11:5). The rarity of the 'classic' handle-ridge juglet in these tombs is noteworthy and indicates that this vessel type, later to become the most popular BoR form, was not the earliest BoR type to develop. The appearance of BoR bowls in these early tombs accords with evidence from sites on the mainland that BoR bowls appear in the earliest BoR levels there (see Chapter Two, 46-48). Despite the problems of assessing the chronology of tomb groups, the appearance of BoR pottery in tombs containing 'early' White Painted and Bichrome forms is important in consideration of the absolute date of BoR - this is further discussed below. Finally, the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales provide good evidence that BoR pottery developed from other 'indigenous' Cypriot shapes, and was not a development from imported wares. The imported wares 28

For these other e x a m p l e s of B o R ware from T o m b 5 4 which have not been included in the table, see Karageorghis 1983, Pl. L X X V I i 1 3 , 37; Pl. L X X V I I : 60, 61, 62, 64. A 'cup' o f B o R ware is also noted from T o m b 5 4 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. L X X V I I : 2 5 ) , but this is unlikely to be true B o R .

occurring in the early tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales, in which BoR also appears, comprise small pilgrim flasks, 29 a plain jug, 30 a globular jug with handle-ridge, 31 Bichrome jugs - one with strainer spout, one 'polychrome' globular jug, 32 and two 'Canaanite' amphorae, one of 'Hippo' type. 33 None of these vessels have any affiliation with BoR in shape or fabric type. The Phoenician 'heavy-walled juglet' which has been claimed as a prototype for BoR handle-ridge juglets (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274-275), is rare. This vessel type appears only in Tomb 75 (with an example of Phoenician Bichrome) along with BoR pottery of medium phase, and in Tomb 81 (with a red-slipped globular jug), again with BoR of medium to late phase. 34 The proposed association of this vessel with BoR development is not, therefore, supported by the Skales tombs. Interesting, however, in terms of BoR development is the hypothesis originally proposed by Bikai in the publication of the imports at Palaepaphos-Skales, concerning "Red Ware," which does precede the introduction of BoR (Bikai 1983, 400-402; see Chapter One). This is further discussed at the end of the chapter. Other Iron Age Sites in Cyprus Few other Iron Age sites of this period in Cyprus have been published with the quality of the excavation report of Palaepaphos-Skales. Gjerstad's excavations in Cyprus during the early part of the last century (1927-1931), which provided the backbone of Cypriot archaeology, uncovered a number of important Iron Age sites Lapithos, Amathus, Stylli, Marion, Idalion and Ayia Irini - and were published with careful and thorough descriptive detail (Gjerstad 1934, 1935). Reassessment of the chronology of these sites is, however, hindered by presentation of the accompanying plates as unlabelled (black-and-white) photo-shots of the tomb groups, which makes identification of the vessels in the text difficult and sometimes 29

T o m b 54:21, 2 2 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. L X X I L 2 0 ) , T o m b 55:26, 27 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. L X X I X : 2 6 ) ; also Tomb 90:3 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CXCII:3). 30 Tomb 69:1 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. C X V I : 1) 31 Tomb 77:19 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CXLV:19) 32 T o m b 80:87, 88, 89 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CLVII:87-89) 33 Tomb 80:1, 16 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. CLVL1, 16). One more amphora with angular shoulder and triangular shape is described but incorrectly referenced. 34 Tomb 75:2, 2 0 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CXXVIII:2, 20); T o m b 8 1 : 1 3 0 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. C L X L 1 3 0 ) .

impossible. Of these sites, only the tombs at Lapithos and Amathus properly span the period in question. The following survey will investigate all Iron Age sites in Cyprus, however, which cover the early period of BoR circulation and in doing so, help assess the chronology of BoR on the island. Despite the early date of its excavation, the necropolis at Kastros, Lapithos (Gjerstad 1934, 172-265) on the north coast of Cyprus is of especial value for this discussion in that it presents clear evidence for BoR pottery occurring in early Iron Age contexts. The tombs in which BoR occurs are generally well-preserved, mostly unrobbed, and where the tombs were re-used, stratified 'burial periods' can in most cases be identified. An illustration of the results of this examination is presented in chart form in Table G. Tomb 402 (single burial period) produced a BoR pedestalled bowl and a BoR jug grooved in the style of Black Slip ware (Gjerstad 1934, Pl. XLII: (36)5/5; (3)4/3?). 35 The other pottery found alongside these vessels included White Painted, Bichrome and Black Slip wares, all classified as Types I and II, and one Red Slip bowl with grooved rim, classified as Type III. Tomb 403 (first burial period) contained four BoR vessels - three barrel-juglets and a BoR deep bowl (Gjerstad 1934, PI. XLIII:(60, 101, 134)4/7,(102)7/?). The other pottery of this burial period in Tomb 403 comprised White Painted and Black Slip wares of Types I and II, two Bichrome pilgrim bottles and two Bichrome pilgrim flasks of Type III and a Red Slip amphoriskos, Type III. Tomb 407 was robbed and contained a very little pottery. The dromos comprised only a BoR jug, along with a White Painted jug classified as Type II, and the chamber two White Painted vessels, classified as Type I (Gjerstad 1934, Pl.XLV:2(l-2, 4-5)). Tomb 413 contained no BoR, but White Painted, Bichrome and Black Slip pottery predominantly of Type I, a few examples of Type II, and a Red Slip amphoriskos which Gjerstad describes as "probably foreign ware" (Gjerstad 1934, Pl. XLIX: 1 (20)4/11). The shape is wholly Cypriot however, and there is no reason to believe that this vessel is an import. 35

N o original figure numbers can be provided here as the pottery is simply photographed en masse. Where the BoR vessel can be clearly identified, it is indicated as [(number in text)row from top/vessel number from left]. Thus P l . X L I I : ( 3 6 ) 5 / 5 . W h e r e the v e s s e l is uncertain, it is indicated as here Pl.XLII:(3)4/3? Where only one or t w o v e s s e l s are illustrated, only the plate number is indicated.

Table G : Four Early Iron Age Tombs at Lapithos (Kastros Necropolis): BoR Pottery cf. White Painted "I-II" Wares (after Gjerstad 1934) 80 , •

"White Painted I"

• "White Painted II" • BoR Juglets • BoR Bowls

40 30

20

10 .

JUL

ο -Ο

8 ο Η

§ •Q

ε ο Η

rτ XI

ε ο Η

Tomb 417 was unrobbed, although part of the chamber roof had collapsed, and contained two skeletons inside the chamber and a third at the door of the dromos. The tomb contained a large quantity of White Painted pottery "exclusively of early Type I," and two BoR vessels: one a jug and one juglet (Gjerstad 1934, PI. L:(65, 82)10/2,1). Gjerstad refers to these vessels as "Red Slip Painted," but examination of the vessels in the plates indicates that they are BoR. The BoR juglet (Figure 2.7) 36 was found inside a White Painted I amphora (No. 81), and the BoR jug was found on top of this and another White Painted I amphora (No. 87). The early date of the other pottery in this tomb is notable, and the presence of BoR pottery in this, apparently secure, context is therefore particularly significant.

Juglet No. T.417:82 is currently in the Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm.

Tomb 422 was partially collapsed. The chamber of this tomb contained White Painted and Black Slip pottery of Type I, as well as "numerous potsherds of White Painted II, White Painted III, Bichrome II-III, and Black-on-Red I (III)," which are assigned to the second burial period (Gjerstad 1934, 246). A BoR juglet and a BoR krater (only) were found in the dromos of this tomb, and assigned to the second burial period (Gjerstad 1934, PL. LIV:2). Tomb 424 (an unfinished tomb) contained only one intact White Painted I jug, but additionally "fragments of White Painted I-II and a stray specimen of Black-on-Red I (III) were found" (Gjerstad 1934, 248). Tomb 426 had been robbed. It contained "numerous sherds... of the same types as those of Tomb 424: White Painted I-II, and two specimens of Blackon-Red I (III) Ware, belonging to the same pot, viz. a deep bowl with base-ring and three horizontal, grooved lines around the rim" (cf. Red Slip ware) (Gjerstad 1934, 254). Table G is an illustration of the distribution of BoR pottery in four tombs at Lapithos in which BoR pottery is found intact. The vessels are presented here according to Gjerstad's classification system, in order to show the persistent presence of this ware type amongst finds that are dated by Gjerstad's typology considerably earlier than BoR. Other pottery types (such as Bichrome and Black Slip ware) are also present in these tombs, usually in smaller amounts, also chiefly of Types I and II. The presence of this 'early' BoR is in most cases explained by Gjerstad as 'foreign ware,' but examination of these vessels confirms that the pottery is of canonical BoR type (Figure 2:1). The appearance of several 'overlapping' forms of BoR, such as the BoR jug decorated in the style of Black Slip ware, and the bowl with incised rim, similar to deep Red Slip ware bowls, (Gjerstad 1934, Pl. XLII: (3)4/3?, Pl. XLIII: (102)7/? - this latter style is also found at Kaloriziki, possibly in a later context (Benson 1973, PI. 35: K687, K670, K671), is further evidence of the development of BoR within the Cypriot ceramic milieu. The tombs at Amathus, on the southern coast of Cyprus, were excavated successively by the British Museum, the Swedish Cyprus Expedition and in the 1970s by the École française d'Athènes and the Cypriot Department of Antiquities and produced a large and important corpus of Cypriot Iron Age pottery. Gjerstad published the Swedish excavations at the site in 1935. Most of the tombs found by this expedition had been used for multiple burials, and had been

subsequently robbed. Tomb 7 is of particular interest, however, as it was dense in finds and parts of it were well-stratified; the presence of BoR pottery in early contexts here should be noted. Gjerstad comments: The pottery found on the first burial floor dates from the CyproGeometric II and III periods, the bulk, (cf. Wh. R Ware) however, being of Type II. The comparatively large number of vases of the Black-on-Red I (III) Ware found in this layer is worth notice. Possibly some of these pots, all small bottles, are imported and the suggestion may be made that this class is partly to be dated to the true transition between the CyproGeometric II-III periods, or even to the Cypro-Geometric II period and contemporary with some of the White Painted II ware; especially as most of the pots were found among the earlier deposits of the layer in the W. part of the tomb. (Gjerstad 1935: 45, Pl. IX) Tomb 18 is of interest in that the dromos of this tomb contained pottery entirely assigned to 'Type II,' with the exception of three examples of 'Type III:' two Bichrome jugs and a BoR barrel-juglet (Gjerstad 1935, 108, T.18:3). The tomb had been re-used and the context is therefore not wholly reliable, but it may provide further evidence of the early presence of the BoR barrel-juglet. Two Iron Age tombs found in the north cemetery at Amathus by the French expedition were published in a journal article in 1984 (Aupert & Tytgat 1984). These tombs contain predominantly White Painted wares, some imported mainland pilgrim flasks, 37 but no BoR. The excavators date the first tomb to "CGIIB (900-850 av. J.-C.)" and the second tomb to "CGIIA (950-900 av. J.-C.)" (Aupert & Tytgat 1984, 627, 641). The presence, however, in both tombs of a high proportion of types in Gjerstad's White Painted I category, 38 as well as the possibly early flasks interred with them, suggest that this absolute dating is too late. It is likely that these tombs belong to a pre-BoR phase. The most recent publication of Iron Age tombs at Amathus is a textual catalogue of the material only, with no accompanying volume of plates (Tytgat 1989). These tombs, while including a limited number from the early Iron Age pre-BoR stage (such as Tomb 117) (Tytgat 1989, 17-18), predominantly represent the 'mid-late' Iron Age and subsequent periods. In assessing the Phoenician pottery in the

37 Eg. Aupert & Tytgat 1984, PI. 3: 9, 10. T h e s e are published as Cypriot Bichrome II flasks but appear from the photograph more likely to be imports. 38 Eg. Aupert & Tytgat 1984, PI. 1:4 cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 10.

tombs, Bikai places a large group of Amathus tombs in her 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850 - c. 750 BC (Bikai 1987, 52, 69). Detailed analysis of the BoR pottery from these more recent excavations at Amathus is, however, impossible in the absence of plates. The tombs at Salamis, in the far eastern part of the island (now inaccessible from southern Cyprus), were excavated by the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus from 1957-1967. Salamis Tomb 1 dates to the early Iron Age period and was published independently (Yon 1971). This tomb does not contain BoR, but predominantly Proto-White Painted and White Painted I pottery, with a few specimens of imported Phoenician pottery (Yon 1971, PI. 20:60, PI. 27:93, 94, PI. 29:104-106). 39 One vessel from this tomb, however, of particular interest is a Proto-White Painted amphora published separately by Desborough, which is decorated with a small group of concentric circles (Desborough 1980, Fig. 1). Desborough comments that this motif, which he believes is of Greek origin, is an anomaly for the early period: "Compass-drawn circles are introduced into the Cypriot potter's repertory only during CGIII, that is to say the period in the Aegean world of Middle Geometric. Why so late an acceptance?" (Desborough 1980, 112-113). It is clear that placing BoR pottery - on which this motif was common - earlier in the Cypriot ceramic repertoire than it hitherto lies would lessen the gap between its sporadic early appearance and its subsequent popularity. The other magnificent 'Royal Tombs' of Salamis, published by Dikaios (1963) and Karageorghis (1967, 1970, 1974, 1978) date to the later Iron Age. The BoR pottery within these tombs is of a corresponding late type. 40 39

Note the c o n f u s i o n over terminology. In her discussion o f Phoenician pottery in Cyprus, Bikai refers to t w o different tombs at Salamis as "Tomb 1" and "Tomb I," distinguishing b e t w e e n Dikaios's excavation ("Tomb 1"), published in 1963 (not 1965) and the French "Tomb I" published by Yon in 1971 (Bikai 1987, 5 0 - 5 1 , 59). It is perhaps more helpful to refer to Dikaios's tomb as the "Royal" T o m b 1 at Salamis and s p e c i f y the much earlier date o f Yon's T o m b 1. N o t e also that t w o red-slipped mushroom-lipped j u g s found in Yon's T o m b 1 (PI. 26:82, 8 3 ) are intrusive into the tomb which is otherwise dated to the early 11th century (Yon 1971, 95). 40

Bikai bases her 'Salamis' horizon on the types of Phoenician pottery occurring in these tombs (Bikai 1987, 5 0 - 5 3 ) , and dates this horizon to c . 8 5 0 - c . 7 5 0 B C (Bikai 1987, 69). Phoenician ware occurs in ' R o y a l ' T o m b 1 at Salamis (eg. Dikaios 1963, no. 2 0 9 ) , in T o m b 2 (Karageorghis 1967, Pl. XIII); T o m b 4 7 (Karageorghis 1967, PL. C X X X V I I I ) ; T o m b 105 (Karageorghis 1970, Pl. C L X X X I - I I ) ; and T o m b 7 9 (Karageorghis 1974, Pl. C C X X V I - V I I ) . A late type of amphora occurs, for example, in T o m b 2 3 (Karageorghis 1970, PI. CI:38).

The Iron Age site of Kaloriziki, on the south coast of Cyprus, was excavated by the Cyprus Museum and the University of Pennsylvania in the early part of this century, in conjunction with excavation of the (later) settlement of Kourion to its north. Although many of the tombs in the necropolis at Kaloriziki were fairly well-preserved, they are not illustrated in their original tomb groups but by division into Gjerstad's categories, which considerably hinders reassessment here (Benson 1973, Pis. 35, 36, 50, 51). A recent attempt at reanalysis of the early Kaloriziki tombs (Steel 1996) accepts the conventional Cypriot chronological periods uncritically and does not therefore throw light on the issue of BoR. 41 A number of tombs at Kaloriziki predate the appearance of BoR and predominantly contain early White Painted types. BoR pottery appears in Tombs 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38 and 44, where it is assigned in all cases to the 'Cypro-Geometric III' or 'Cypro-Archaic I' periods. One tomb, Tomb 27, may possibly have included an earlier period of BoR than that to which it is assigned, CyproArchaic I (Benson 1973, 36-37). The BoR in this tomb included two barrel-juglets, 42 a two-handled juglet, 43 and a trefoil-lipped jug, 44 as well as BoR bowls; three of these bowls belong to the Red Slip grooved rim tradition, with the addition of black painted lines around the body. 45 Gjerstad places this bowl type in the Red Slip I (III) category (Gjerstad 1948, Pl. XXVI: 16). Extraction of the pottery from the chronology assigned to it by the excavators is, however, hindered by the frequently uncertain internal stratigraphy of the tombs, and in most cases the burial 'periods' cannot be independently assessed. It appears that, in general, the tombs at Kaloriziki may have covered the medium phases of BoR pottery, rather than the period of its initial introduction. 41

Only one tomb containing BoR pottery (Tomb 24) is included in Steel's reassessment. On the basis of a reorganisation of their predominant ware types (according to Gjerstad's s c h e m e ) , Steel redates s o m e of the tombs at Kaloriziki which B e n s o n had assigned to Cypro-Geometric I, to Cypro-Geometric II, suggesting that "there was a more gradual development in the use of the cemetery than was apparent from B e n s o n ' s dating of the t o m b s . . . " (Steel 1996, 300). While this conclusion may be correct, in v i e w of the methodology e m p l o y e d it does not elucidate the problem of the chronology of BoR. 42 43 44 45

K673, K675 (Benson 1973, PI. 35, PI. 20) K751 ( B e n s o n 1973, PI. 35) K 7 3 3 ( B e n s o n 1973, PI. 35) K 6 8 7 , K670, K671 ( B e n s o n 1973, PI. 35)

The cult site of Ayia Irini, in the north of Cyprus, west of Lapithos, was excavated by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1929 (Gjerstad 1935, 642-824). Only meagre occupation remains are preserved at this site from a period earlier than the later Iron Age (Gjerstad 1935, 812, 822-823). Between 1960-1985, the necropolis at Ayia Irini was excavated by the Italian Mission and the Iron Age tombs were published in 1978 (Rocchetti 1978). A large number of these tombs contain BoR pottery, but also represent only the 'mid-late' phase of the Iron Age and the BoR within them is of advanced type. A substantial proportion of the pottery in these tombs shows Phoenician influence. Red-slip Phoenician trefoil-lipped jugs, for example, occur in Tombs 28, 33, 46, 47 (Rocchetti 1978, 101, Figs. 28:9; 33:10; 46:3), and a Phoenician inscription was found in Tomb 43 (presumed to have a Phoenician occupant) (Rochetti 1978:112, 114-16). A Greek Geometric skyphos was also found in Tomb 46, dated to c. 750-700 BC (Rocchetti 1978, 109, Fig. 46:4). The relatively late date of this necropolis does not, however, contribute to the assessment of BoR chronology here. A number of Iron Age tombs containing BoR pottery have been excavated in the vicinity of Nicosia but most represent also only the 'mid-late' period of the Iron Age. 46 In 1951, however, four tombs were excavated in the centre of Nicosia which produced finds from the earlier part of the Iron Age (Flourentzos 1981). Analysis of the BoR pottery from these tombs is not inconsistent with the findings at the cemetery at Palaepaphos-Skales (above), although aspects of these tombs require reassessment. Tomb 1 produced predominantly White Painted and Bichrome wares, but also a shallow BoR bowl, a BoR barrel-juglet and a fragmentary BoR juglet (ex situ, not illustrated). 47 The pottery in this tomb is dated to the "later stage of the Cypro-Geometric III period" (Flourentzos 1981, 118). Several examples in this tomb may, however, belong to an earlier phase: a White Painted jug is better paralleled by an example in Gjerstad's 'White Painted II' category than by 'White Painted III' to which it is assigned (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVI: 17 (No. 15), 117; Gjerstad 1948: Fig. XIII: 14). Similarly, a Bichrome amphora is also best paralleled by an example in 'White 46 47

Eg. Flourentzos 1986. Flourentzos 1981, 117-118

Painted II' (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVI: 2 (No. 10), 117; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIV:6). These vessels, along with two Black Slip jugs that are classified as 'Type II,' (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVI: 20-21 (Nos. 12, 8), 118) suggest that the tomb may represent an earlier phase of the Iron Age than that presented, and may be contemporary with the earliest phase of BoR production. 48 The presence of the barrel-juglet in this tomb corresponds with the establishment of this ware type at Palaepaphos-Skales as one of the earliest BoR forms to develop. Tomb 3 in this group is divided stratigraphically into dromos and chamber; no BoR was found in the dromos, but amongst the White Painted and Bichrome wares in the chamber appeared two BoR handleridge juglets, a BoR barrel-juglet, a BoR basket-handled juglet, a two-handled BoR juglet, a BoR carinated bowl, a BoR shallow bowl, and a BoR amphoriskos. 49 The presence of a Bichrome jug with mushroom-lip 50 in Tomb 3 suggests a later date for this tomb group than Tomb 1, despite the apparent link between this tomb and Tomb 1 in aspects of its construction (Flourentzos 1981, 126). It should probably be dated to the 'middle' phase of BoR circulation. Tomb 4 produced two plain BoR bowls (one fragmentary) alongside White Painted and Bichrome pottery. An example of a similar, possibly more advanced form of the White Painted jug (classified as 'White Painted II' by Gjerstad) found in Tomb 1 (see above) is also present in Tomb 4 (and in Tomb 2), in Bichrome decoration. This may indicate that Tomb 4 is not substantially later than Tomb 1 (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVII: 15 (No. 2), 125; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 14). However, only a small number of vessels are preserved from this tomb and it should be discounted from chronological consideration. The tombs from this necropolis at Nicosia do not contribute substantially to discussion of the chronology of BoR pottery in Cyprus, and the circumstances of their excavation and publication caution against their reliability. However, there is some indication from 48

Note that no vessels in this tomb are decorated with the small concentric circle motif, which also argues for an early date in the ceramic sequence. It is a strong possibility that the presence of BoR pottery in this tomb encouraged the author of the publication to s w e e p the w h o l e assemblage of wares into the 'Type III' category, in accordance with Gjerstad's typology. 49 Flourentzos 1981, 1 2 2 - 1 2 4 50 Flourentzos 1981, 122, No. 21. It is also possible, especially g i v e n the circumstances of excavation (and delayed publication) of these tombs, that this vessel was intrusive.

reassessment of the pottery assemblage from Tomb 1 that BoR pottery was appearing during an earlier phase of White Painted and Bichrome pottery circulation than Gjerstad's typological arrangement suggests. In 1973, a necropolis was excavated by the Cypriot Department of Antiquities at the site of Kato Dheftera, 8 miles SW of Nicosia, and produced finds from the earlier part of the Iron Age. The publication of this site without essential illustrations is, however, unsatisfactory (Christou 1974; 1984).51 Tomb 1, which was intact, contained (amongst White Painted, Bichrome and Black Slip pottery), a BoR amphoriskos, a shallow bowl, a barrel-juglet and two handle-ridge juglets.52 The excavator suggests that two burial periods are represented, but there is no indication of disturbance of the first burial and it is therefore more likely to be a single-period tomb (Christou 1984, 174-178). Tomb 4 contained one burial and was intact. The small number of finds in this tomb include White Painted and Black Slip pottery, one Red Slip bowl and a BoR barrel-juglet. The presence of the BoR barrel-juglet here may support the early occurrence of this vessel type in the BoR sequence; the excavator dates the tomb to the "beginning of the Cypro-Geometric III period" (Christou 1984, 184). Tomb 5 is likewise dated by the excavator to the beginning of the CG III period, and contained two BoR juglets, one a plain juglet with no handle-ridge, the other a ovoid-bodied juglet (with possibly trefoil-lip, missing). Assessment of the chronology of the Kato Dheftera cemetery, however, is greatly hindered by the lack of plates provided in the publication and any alteration of the chronology of BoR pottery within the Cypriot sequence on the basis of this evidence would be unwise. Other Iron Age tombs from different regions on the island produced BoR pottery but were also of the later Iron Age period and therefore not of especial contribution here. 53 The settlement site of Kition is 51

The original publication o f the cemetery does not present the finds by tomb but merely as a selection of notable vessels, whereas the supplementary publication a decade later includes a full catalogue but no accompanying plates (Christou 1974; 1984). With no cross-references it is impossible to combine the t w o and the exact pottery types are therefore unclear. 52 Christou 1984, 174 -178. 53 Eg. Hadjisavvas 1989; Flourentzos 1985; Christodoulou 1972. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition's excavations at Sty Hi and Marion were published in Gjerstad 1935: 142-180, 181-459. Although a small number of tombs at Marion represent an early Iron A g e phase, these do not contain BoR (eg. Gjerstad 1935, 373, T.63) - the excavator postulates a "gap in the habitation of the site between Cypro-Geometric II and Cypro-Archaic I" (Gjerstad 1935, 4 5 5 ) . B o R appears in tombs at both Stylli and Marion in later contexts.

potentially one of the most valuable to this discussion, but the 'Phoenician' levels at this site are not yet published. The BoR pottery from this site has, however, been examined by this author, and is generally of the mid-late Iron Age period. The levels to which this pottery is assigned are dated to the late Iron Age period (Karageorghis, pers. comm.; Bikai n.d.).54 The Swedish excavations at the settlement of Idalion early in the century, and the more recent American excavations at the site (Stager & Walker 1989) produced BoR pottery, but meagre architectural remains were found prior to the later Iron Age cult site here, and the BoR from this site was generally of late types (Gjerstad 1935, 572, 624, 627; Stager & Walker 1989, 461)," 'Non-Ceramic'

Dating

Evidence

It is clear from the above survey that, despite the problematic nature of tomb evidence, the sites of Palaepaphos-Skales and Lapithos, and to an extent the Iron Age cemetery at Amathus and that excavated at Nicosia in 1951, make a substantial contribution to assessment of BoR chronology. Analysis of the non-ceramic material in the tombs can provide supplementary evidence to the conclusions drawn here. The intrinsically valuable nature of most non-ceramic evidence found in tomb contexts - seals, metal items such as weapons, and jewellery - and therefore its 'heirloom value,' renders it problematic for the purposes of clarifying chronology. Other factors, such as reuse of the tombs, later intrusions and the possibility of mis-assigning small items during their original excavation, all contribute to the hazards of including these items in assessment of the dating of their contexts. 'Datable' objects such as scarabs can sometimes provide a terminus post quern for the contexts in which they are found, but the reliability of this evidence tends to decrease in proportion to the age of the excavation itself, as control over excavation conditions has improved with time. For this reason, only the tombs at PalaepaphosSkales which represent the earliest phase of BoR pottery (Tombs 46,

54

The BoR from Kition will be discussed separately in an appendix of the Kition VI publication (Schreiber, forthcoming). 55 N o BoR was uncovered in the first seasons of American excavation at Idalion (Stager, Walker and Wright 1974). Subsequently, the initial project directives of investigating the early Iron A g e period at the site had to be altered in v i e w of the military situation on the island in the 1970s (Stager, Walker and Wright 1974, 5; Stager & Walker 1989, 1).

52, 54, 63, 69, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80 and 90 - discussed above) and Tomb 1 at Nicosia will be discussed here. Many of the early tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales contain iron weapons (Tombs 52, 54, 63, 69, 77, 79 and 80). Of these, the excavator notes that three iron knives and one iron dagger from Tombs 52 and 54 (Karageorghis 1983, 95, 107, T.52:la-c, T.54:l,8) are of types similar to those found in earlier (pre-BoR) tombs. 56 A bronze bowl found in Tomb 80 is similar to one in Tomb 49, which belongs to an earlier, pre-BoR phase (Karageorghis 1983: 256, T.80:27, T.49:10). Bronze tweezers of the type found in Tomb 72 "have a long tradition in the Late Bronze Age and continue in the early Iron Age" (Karageorghis 1983, 192). The two gold and silver pins found in Tomb 79 are of similar type to an example from Tomb 417 at Lapithos (see above) (Karageorghis 1983, 249 n.255, Gjerstad 1934, Pl. LI:5). A gold needle also from Tomb 79 is comparable to a specimen in Tomb 1 at Salamis, which belongs to the earliest phase of the Iron Age (Karageorghis 1983, 249, T.79:54). The two cylinder seals found in Tomb 71 at Palaepaphos-Skales tombs are regarded as likely to have been heirlooms, as is the stone gaming board found in Tomb 69 (Karageorghis 1983: 1A, 46, 189, 182, T. 69:A; Porada 1983, 407-410). One item from Tomb 69 may, however, be important here: a Plain White jug inscribed with Phoenician letters (Karageorghis 1983, T.69:66; Sznycer 1983, 416-417). Not all the letters on this jug have been identified as known Phoenician, and Sznycer notes that "on ne peut même pas être assuré qu'il s'agit d'une inscription proprement phénicienne" (Sznycer 1983, 416). The inscription may possibly have been copied onto the jug from an older Phoenician text. However, the very archaic forms of the lettering, some of which is paralleled by the Phoenician text found at the site of Izbet Sartah on the mainland in an early Iron Age context ( c . l l t h century BC) (Sznycer 1983, 416), may equally indicate that this vessel, and by (possible) implication the context in which it was found, should be dated to an early stage of Phoenician writing. Tomb 1 in the necropolis at Nicosia may also support an early dating. An impressive iron sword was found in this tomb, published 56

The bronze rather than iron rivets in the iron knife from Tomb 5 4 (Karageorghis 1983, Fig: 54:1) is especially noted as an indicator of an early date (Karageorghis 1 9 8 3 , 9 5 )

by Snodgrass (Flourentzos 1981, 127; Snodgrass 1981, 129-134). While he accepts a 'Cypro-Geometric III' date for the sword on the basis of the date proposed for the tomb by Flourentzos (Snodgrass 1981, 131), Snodgrass comments that in points of detail "remarkably little has changed" from the form of earlier sword found at Palaepaphos-Skales (Tomb 76), and that in fact the Nicosia sword "resumes... the line of descent of a type long previously established in Cyprus" (Snodgrass 1981, 131). The possibility should therefore be considered that the sword and the tomb in which it was found could be dated earlier than c. 850 BC, as originally proposed. In sum, although not providing any absolute dates, the 'nonceramic' finds from tombs in which BoR pottery appears would support an earlier date for these contexts than that to which they are assigned. None of these items are firmly associated with a period later than that specified, and several appear to be linked closely with the early Iron Age. Absolute Chronology and (Towards) a Reconciliation Chronologies of Cyprus and the Mainland

of the

Chapter Three established, on the best interpretation of the current evidence, that BoR pottery was present on the mainland in the second half of the 10th century, and 'Phase 1 ' of the pottery should be dated there from c. 940-890 BC, from the late 10th - beginning of the 9th century BC. The current chapter has shown that aspects of Gjerstad's typology are flawed, and consequently that the chronological scheme which Gjerstad proposed for his typology is open to reassessment. This chapter has also shown: 1. That the earliest BoR pottery is contemporary with relatively White Painted and Bichrome pottery.

early

2. That BoR pottery developed from Cypriot types of pottery, and that an early 'foreign' class of BoR pottery in Cyprus is not convincing (see also below). 3. That there are some indications from non-ceramic evidence within Cypriot tombs that BoR pottery appears in a phase closely linked with the early part of the Iron Age.

In consequence of these finds, it is possible to propose a raising of the dates of the first appearance of BoR pottery in Cyprus. Gjerstad's Absolute

Dates

Cypro-Geometric I 1050 - 9 5 0 BC Cypro-Geometric II 950 - 850 BC Cypro-Geometric III 850 - 700 BC Cypro-Archaic I Cypro-Archaic II

700 - 600 BC 600 - 475 BC

Gjerstad's typology placed small quantities of 'foreign' BoR pottery in Cypro-Geometric II, and Cypriot manufacture of the ware from Cypro-Geometric III onwards. The White Painted and Bichrome Ί Γ types, with which BoR is often associated in its earliest appearance, are dated generally to Cypro-Geometric II, c. 950 - 850 BC. It is here suggested that this early BoR pottery is of Cypriot manufacture. The accuracy of Gjerstad's dating sequence for the Cypro-Geometric period is placed in doubt by the inconsistencies demonstrated in his typology. It is possible that BoR pottery should be dated from c. 950 BC, alongside White Painted and Bichrome pottery of 'Type II.' It is also a possibility that this White Painted and Bichrome 'Type II' period (ie. CyproGeometric II) should be shifted earlier and dated from the beginning of the 10th century BC. This is a subject for further consideration but beyond the scope of this book. The dating of the earliest Cypriot BoR ware from at least c. 950 BC in Cyprus places it in line with the earliest BoR ware to be found on the mainland, according to analysis of the chronology of the ware in that region (Chapter Three). One important consideration is the relative quantities of this pottery - was BoR pottery being produced in adequate quantities in Cyprus by c. 950 BC to warrant its export abroad? It is very possible that the archaeological record in Cyprus is somewhat distorted by strict application of Gjerstad's dates, and thus the proportion of 'Cypro-Geometric II' contexts which produced BoR pottery appears smaller than it was in reality. On the mainland, the final years of the strata in which BoR first occurs are provisionally dated to the end of the 10th century - c. 925 BC onwards; the ware appears in these strata in fair quantity. It is possible that its initial

appearance, prior to the destruction of these levels, was in smaller quantities. On the mainland, BoR's first appearance is in fair quantities, not a trickle, although it is probably significant that the strata in which it first appears often follow rather insubstantial levels. The extent to which production of BoR pottery developed uniformly over the whole of Cyprus, or whether some regions of the island developed and exported the pottery earlier than others is a further question, which it is difficult to address in the state of current evidence of this early BoR period. This survey has shown, however, that resolution of the problem of the chronology of BoR pottery lies in reassessing Gjerstad's typology and chronology and disengaging BoR from its strictures. It is proposed here that the ware should be dated from c. 950 BC on Cyprus and that it was exported to the mainland from the early stages of its production, correlating exactly with 'Phase Γ of BoR in that region. The Origin and Development

of BoR

Resolution of the chronology for BoR pottery in Cyprus allows us to address the question of its origin: what was the process of its development? This chapter has established that probably the first BoR form to appear in Cyprus was the BoR barrel-juglet. This form was more or less contemporary with bowl types such as the 'pedestalled' bowl and the plain bowl, possibly a simple form of the BoR jug and also the plain 'squat'juglet, without handle-ridge. Soon after this initial period of BoR, other BoR types developed the 'classic' handle-ridge juglet, trefoil-lipped jugs, amphorae, two-handled juglets, and the (rarer) basket-handled juglet. The question of inspiration for these wares has been discussed briefly above, and the possibility of direct 'Phoenician' prototypes overruled; the extent of the Phoenician contribution is further discussed below. The early BoR wares are clearly direct descendants of their cousins in White Painted and Bichrome wares. The White Painted barrel-juglet (Figure 11:6) is an especially popular and distinctively Cypriot type found consistently in periods preceding those in which BoR first appears, and continuing until a relatively late stage of BoR production. This pottery type soon inspired production of the BoR barrel-juglet. Note that Bichrome barrel-juglets probably also

preceded the introduction of the BoR barrel-juglet; an early Bichrome example is found in Tomb 19 at Amathus (Gjerstad 1935, T.19:6, 2 8 ) . " The barrel-juglet soon developed an off-shoot, the juglet with flared rim, globular body, rounded base and single handle reaching from the neck to the shoulder, usually decorated with one or two large groups of concentric circles. This type appears in White Painted and Bichrome ware in Gjerstad's 'Type II' category, and certainly preceded the introduction of BoR (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:9; Fig. XVI:4) (Figure 11:7,17). It is possible that this shape could have developed directly to the globular juglet with flat base, and then the 'classic' handle-ridge juglet. However, another early juglet form is perhaps more directly linked with BoR. This is a smaller juglet with flared rim, either 'squat' with a gently rounded base, or more globular with a flat base, and single handle from neck to shoulder. These forms are found in Gjerstad's White Painted II category but are known also in Bichrome ware and are decorated with thin horizontal lines (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:8, 11,12) (Figure 11:9-11). A good example in Bichrome is found in Tomb 50A at Salamis (Karageorghis 1978, PI. 111:2). This tomb, which does not contain BoR, may belong to a period contemporary (rather than earlier) to BoR, but it is likely that the type represented here was a prototype for the 'classic' BoR juglet. Once the BoR barrel-juglet had developed, it is reasonable to assume that a similar style of decoration was simply adopted onto a range of other Cypriot shapes. Early BoR bowls are identical in form to those in the White Painted and Bichrome repertoire. However, two particular features of BoR pottery warrant discussion here, as they are frequently cited as evidence of BoR's 'foreign' origins: the handleridge and the red-slipped and black painted decoration. 1. The

Handle-Ridge

The popularity of the small BoR globular juglet with handle attached to a sharply-defined ridge around its neck has given rise to the synonymous term 'handle-ridge juglet.' It has often been suggested that this was a 'Phoenician' feature, as it occurs commonly on

57

S e e also Birmingham for discussion of the sequence of barrel-juglets in Cyprus "beginning just before the bulk of Black-on-Red w a r e . . . consistent with an early-mid tenth century date" (Birmingham 1963, 38).

Phoenician jugs (eg. Vandenabeele 1968, 111). However, as noted above, the Phoenician 'heavy-walled juglets' with small neck-ridge, which have been proposed as a BoR prototype, are chronologically later than the first appearance of the BoR juglet (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). While variants on this feature are common on other Phoenician jug types, such as the Bichrome jugs (eg. Bikai 1987, Pis. IV-VI), the most common early Phoenician vessels found in pre-BoR contexts on Cyprus do not have neck-ridges (see Chapter Two, 48-51). On balance, there is little firm evidence that the appearance of this feature on BoR vessels is due to influence from Phoenician pottery. It should instead be noted that the 'handle-ridge' is found on early Cypriot pottery, preceding the appearance of BoR, but in a less pronounced form: for example, on White Painted and Bichrome barrel-juglets of Gjerstad's Type I and II (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:15, Fig. XIII:7; Fig. XVI:3) and Bichrome globular jugs (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14). It is possible that the function of the handle-ridge was a 'ceramic imitation' of the metal strip fixing the handle of a jug or juglet to its neck, or genuine reinforcement for the narrow neck of a juglet at the point of its greatest weakness (Coldstream 1977, 67). Both of these propositions are logical, but in the absence as yet of metal prototypes for the BoR handle-ridge juglet, the possibility of such a prototype remains conjectural. 5 8 Reinforcement of the juglet neck is a convincing explanation. 2. The

Decoration

As noted in Chapter One, while the characteristic decoration of BoR pottery - black painted lines and concentric circles - has been shown to have plausible origins in earlier types of Cypriot pottery, there is some evidence that the combination of black paint on a red slipped background may owe its inspiration to mainland pottery. Red-slipped black-painted ware found at the site of Palaepaphos-Skales, of probable mainland origin, has been defined by Bikai as "Red Ware" (Bikai 1983, 400-402; see Chapter One, 13-15, Figure 9:8-1 J). This pottery type appears generally in earlier tombs at the site of Palaepaphos-Skales than those in which BoR appears: Tombs 43, 49,

58

Note that a bronze jug from Sidon s h o w s the handle attached to the neck with a metal strip around the rim; a similar attachment could be considered for the neck (Culican 1968, Pl. XIX: 1).

50, 58, 78, although one example also appears in Tomb 93, alongside BoR vessels (Bikai 1983, 401). Bikai notes: "It is perhaps not a coincidence that true Cypriot Black-on-Red is made from a fine red clay. That may well be a refinement of the early type we are seeing here. The heavy red slip on these pieces, as well as their shapes, point to mainland manufacture but there is something about the thin blackline décor on these particular pieces that points to the later development of Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 402). The similarity of Bikai's 'Red Ware' to other red-slipped and black-painted pottery on the mainland was noted in Chapter One (Bikai 1983, 400, n.32). It was suggested there that this decorative technique developed independently, or semi-independently, within the ceramic repertoires of 'Philistine' and 'Phoenician' pottery, both of which had earlier black painted pottery traditions (see Chapter One, 10-19). Bikai's 'Red Ware' correlates most closely with the redslipped and black-painted pottery found in the region of Phoenicia. In view of the presence of 'Red Ware' in contexts on Cyprus which precede the appearance of BoR pottery, it is very possible that these vessels encouraged Cypriot potters to experiment with a red-slipped background alongside their own traditions of simple geometric black painted motifs. 59 In addition, there is some evidence, frustratingly incomplete, of vessels undoubtedly manufactured on the mainland which show stylistic associations to BoR. One red-slipped trefoillipped jug in particular from the site of Rachidiyeh on the Phoenician coast, 4 kms from Tyre, has a double handle and shows a band of finely drawn black painted horizontal lines edged with a thicker line on each side, and a 'tree' motif. The fabric is identical to other Phoenician wares from the site, and the red slip is thin and flaking. The fineness and arrangement of the painted lines, however, show a clear affiliation with BoR decoration. The tomb in which the vessel was found is dated approximately from 10th - 8th centuries BC; the jug may possibly belong early in the sequence (Doumet, pers. comm.). This vessel provides a useful caution against the study of BoR pottery in isolation from other ceramic influences of the period and suggests that a degree of cross-transference of motifs and decoration was likely. 59 It should in this context be noted that the earliest BoR barrel-juglets in Cyprus often have a thick dark red slip, which may only subsequently have developed into the fine orange-red slips characteristic of B o R vessels.

It is also interesting to consider whether to some extent early 'Red Ware' on the mainland was itself influenced by early imported White Painted pottery. The excavator of the site of Achziv, for example, points out similarities between an early jug type found in tombs at the site with slight neck-ridge, decorated with red slip and black paint, and an identical jug type in the Cypriot White Painted I repertoire (Prausnitz 1972, 152-154: Fig. 3; Gjerstad 1948, PI. IV:5). Also probably of mainland manufacture, but clearly imitating Cypriot vessels, are two examples of red-slipped and black-painted barreljuglets found at Achziv and in the south at Tel Fara (S). 60 The tomb contexts in which these vessels appear, however, (and the state of publication) prevent fully satisfactory dating. 61 "Imitation"

BoR

This chapter has shown that Gjerstad was incorrect in assigning much of the BoR pottery found in Cyprus to an early type of "foreign ware," manufactured on the mainland. However, there is indeed evidence of local production of BoR pottery on the mainland. The excavations at Tarsus (Gözlii Kule) in the first part of the century uncovered pottery kilns located outside the Late Bronze Age walls, in which some specimens of BoR pottery were found, along with local White Painted and ' b u f f wares (Hanfmann 1963, 24, 26, 50). This pottery the excavators termed 'Cilician black-on-red.' (Hanfmann 1963, 50). Examples of 'imported Cypriot' BoR were also found at the site (Hanfmann 1963, 57-58). The locally-made wares closely resemble BoR in forms and decoration style, but are distinguishable from true Cypriot BoR by its ware as well as the quality of decoration. The slip 60

See Prausnitz 1972, 154; one e x a m p l e is juglet N o . 2 2 0 7 from Locus 4 1 0 , Tomb T.C.4 at Achziv and N o . E.VIII.33/5 from Tomb 241 at Tel Fara (S). N o tomb number is given for the red-slipped jug (Fig. 3) in Prausnitz 1972. 61 The barrel juglet from Achziv was found in Tomb T.C.4, Locus 6 1 0 , which the excavator dates to c. 10th - 9th century BC, and also contained e x a m p l e s of clearly imported Cypriot BoR (Mazar pers. c o m m . ) . The possibility that initial production of these mainland barrel-juglets could have been the impetus for the development of BoR barrel-juglets on Cyprus is not likely in v i e w of the longstanding Cypriot tradition of barrel-jugs and juglets from the early Iron A g e period, as well as the absence of this style in local mainland repertoires. However, the details of the transference of decorative technique remain obscure to us. It is possible that there w a s a degree of cross-transference, with Cypriot pottery techniques imitated by potters on the mainland and the heterogeneous products (or awareness o f them) exported to Cyprus where they influenced the development of BoR pottery.

is generally thinner and the paint of lesser quality than on Cypriot BoR. The motifs, such as the concentric circle design, are frequently 'over-applied' (See Figure 15:1-4). The excavators note also the frequent presence of a grey core in the ware (Hanfmann 1963, 27-28; Gjerstad 1948, 259). Hanfmann comments: If we compare Tarsian black-on-red with that of Cyprus, we must take into account that Cypriote black-on-red is not completely homogenous. It may be said that the Cypriote red slip is always different from the Cilician in tone, but in some Cypriote groups it is more orange, in others a clearer red. The Cilician red tends to look crimson. The Cypriote black paint is a more marked matt black and does not have the faint sheen of the Cilician paint. Polishing is very pronounced in Cypriote black-on-red especially in the small flasks and jugs; burnishing seems to occur less frequently than in Tarsus. (Hanfmann 1963, 50).

Two other recently excavated (and unpublished) sites in Cilicia have produced BoR pottery which resembles the ware from Tarsus - Kilise Tepe to the west of Tarsus and Kinet Hüyük to the east (Postgate 1997, Hodos 1999, Knappe» 1999). This pottery is also distinct from the Cypriot wares in quality and decoration, while clearly a variant on the Cypriot style. Like Tarsus, these local imitation wares are dated to the later Iron Age. Kilns have been found at the site of Kinet Hüyük containing examples of these imitation wares, dated to Period 9, c. 750-720 BC (Hodos 1999). Recent chemical analysis conducted on the Cypriot pottery from the site of Kilise Tepe have confirmed the presence there of a locallyproduced group of 'Cypriot-style' wares, which contains a high proportion of serpentine, alongside a separate group which are viewed as imports from Cyprus (Knappett 1999). Significantly, this analysis indicated a range of fabrics within the imported group, suggesting a number of different production centres on Cyprus (Knappett 1999). The site of Al Mina also provides evidence of BoR pottery possibly locally made in the Antioch region, similar to the ware from Kilise Tepe, Kinet Hüyük and Tarsus. A proportion of BoR pottery at Al Mina has a dark pink, often flaking slip, and coarse fabric (see Table C). Gjerstad notes that "a considerable quantity [of BoR pottery at Al Mina] is apparently of local origin, ie. made by Cypriotes in Syria. This is shown by the structure of the clay and also by the somewhat uncanonic and peculiar type of ornamentation" (Gjerstad 1948, 255). While unusual, some features of the decoration on specimens from Al

Mina are paralleled by pottery from Cyprus, 62 but the coarse fabric of other examples suggests that their origin is most likely to be local. Liddy's scientific analysis which showed compositional similarities between BoR pottery from Knossos, Palaepaphos-Skales and Al Mina also indicates, however, that at least a proportion of the BoR at this site was Cypriot (Liddy 1996, 488; see above, 234-239). A proportion of the BoR pottery from the site of Tell Keisan may possibly be categorized as 'imitation' BoR, although the ware differs from the examples discussed above in being of fine quality and in all respects similar to BoR from Cyprus except for the frequent occurrence of a grey core. It seems likely to this author that, as Knappett's study indicated (above) these examples of BoR pottery from Tell Keisan may simply have been produced at a centre on Cyprus from which we have, as yet, few other examples. However, the anomaly should be noted and a local place of manufacture remains a possibility. Other sporadic examples of locally-manufactured pottery which imitates the BoR style have been found at the sites of Tel Fara (S), Achziv and Tel Dor (as noted above). 63 The BoR pottery from these sites has been personally examined by this author, and it is likely that a small number of similar examples occurred at many other sites in the region and are simply not published. These examples should be regarded as the occasional by-products of an importation process of BoR pottery. Other examples of White Painted and Bichrome pottery may have been locally manufactured on the Phoenician coast (Riis 1982, 259; Culican in Riis 1982, 259). Culican notes that these examples were collected as surface sherds and he dates them generally to the later Iron Age (Culican in Riis 1982, 259). In contrast to these wares, the proliferation of imitation Cypriot pottery found in the region of Cilicia represents "something of a koine" in the later Iron Age (Boardman 1999, 149). These wares, which are distinct from the sporadic examples noted above, should be considered the true category of 'imitation BoR.' In order to avoid 62 For example, the 'curled tongue' motif on a BoR jug fragment from Al Mina (vessel no. 5 5 / 1 0 7 8 ) is similar to that on a White Painted IV-V jug from Idalion (Stager & Walker 1989, 91, PI. 5a). 63 Eg. juglet nos. E.VII.33/5 from Tomb 2 4 1 , Ε. VII.85/12 from Tomb 2 0 2 , E.VII 39/1 from Tomb 212, E.VII.59/16 and E.VII.59/15 from Tomb 2 2 9 at Tel Fara (S); juglet nos. 2 2 0 7 . L . 4 1 0 . Tomb T.C.4, 1390. L.212.Tomb T.C.2 from Achziv; sherd nos. 8 7 - 3 5 . 7 1 5 6 4 - 8 0 . L . 7 1 8 9 , 7 4 - 9 3 . 9 9 3 5 6 / 1 . L . 9 9 1 0 from Tel Dor.

confusion over terminology, however, Boardman's suggestion of the term "Cypro-Levantine" for the ware is perhaps most satisfactory (Boardman 1999, 149). Conclusions This chapter has therefore examined the origin of BoR from the perspective of Cyprus and the problems arising from previous scholarship on the pottery. Assessment of the chronology of the ware on the mainland in Chapter Three, comparison with its chronology in Cyprus, and clarification of errors in Gjerstad's scheme allows us to present a plausible absolute chronology for the ware and a single place of origin - Cyprus. It is hoped that future scientific analysis will confirm these findings. The implications of this assessment are further considered in the Conclusion.

C H A P T E R FIVE

THE LATER HISTORY OF BoR AND THE QUESTION OF PHOENICIAN INVOLVEMENT IN ITS DISPERSAL TO THE WEST The preceding chapters have focused on the early stages of BoR pottery in the eastern Mediterranean: its origin, and the establishment of a satisfactory chronology of the ware in Cyprus and on the Levantine mainland. This chapter will conclude the history of this pottery type by examining the evidence for the later stages of trade in BoR pottery and its appearance further west on the Dodecanese islands of Rhodes and Cos, and on Crete. The role of the Phoenicians in the dissemination of BoR pottery to the west as part of a Phoenician involvement in an "eastern unguent trade," originally proposed and still advocated by Coldstream (1969, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1996, 1998) has been generally accepted (Rupp 1987, 149, 159; Shaw 1989, 181; Markoe 1985, 127; 2000, 171). This chapter therefore, first, assesses the approximate date of the latest BoR production in Cyprus and the influence of BoR on other pottery styles within Cyprus. Second, it examines the date for the appearance of BoR pottery on the islands of Rhodes, Cos and Crete and the extent to which this pottery was imitated locally on these islands. Third, this chapter assesses the question of Phoenician involvement in this process. To what extent is there evidence of Phoenician-run "perfume-factories" on these islands (Coldstream 1969, 4; 1998, 258, 260)? Are there in fact more convincing reasons to associate the Phoenicians with this trade of BoR to the west than there are for Cypriots? Finally, does the evidence of the later trade in BoR throw any light upon the earliest stage of trade in BoR between Cyprus and the Levant? The Latest Stage of BoR in Cyprus The later history of BoR pottery in Cyprus sees two chief stylistic developments. First, an evolution in BoR forms and decoration, and

second, aspects of its distinctive design incorporated onto other contemporary Cypriot Iron Age wares. Later BoR pottery develops a wider and more imaginative range of forms. Some BoR forms appear to continue from the early to the latest period of BoR production, such as the ubiquitous handle-ridge juglet and some of the bowl shapes, the simple-rimmed handleless bowl and the carinated bowl. The later stage of BoR, however, sees an elaboration of shapes, such as a tendency to produce anthropomorphic and animal-headed vases (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 13-15, 21). In general, by c. 800 BC BoR has reached the apex of its artistic form. In the latest period, a few types, such as the 'sack-shaped' juglets, develop a 'heavy' appearance with a low centre of gravity (eg. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII: 9) (jFigure 6:7). Miniature BoR vessels, approximately 5-6 cms tall, begin to appear relatively early - a selection of miniature BoR juglets and bowls are found at Hurvat Rosh Zayit on the mainland, dated probably to the early 9th century. 1 These vessels may increase in the middle period of BoR production. A large number of miniature BoR juglets were found in Bothros 10 at Kition, from the Temple area, suggesting that these vessels had perhaps had a special significance in a ritual context. 2 The miniatures are often exquisitely executed and formed and decorated in identical fashion to the larger BoR vessels; only their size limits their functionality. Later BoR often also shows the influence of Phoenician pottery. BoR juglets appear with a mushroom-lipped rim and heavy body, closely resembling their Phoenician prototypes, or simply with a flattened mushroom-lip (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:4, Fig. XXXIII:7 (in Bichrome Red and Bichrome); cf. Bikai 1987, Pl. XIII: 298). 3 Rarer than these are the BoR jugs with conical necks, resembling the Phoenician red-slipped trefoil-lipped jugs (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII: 11; cf. Bikai 1987, PI. XVI: 388) (Figure 6:3). 1

Vessel nos. 9 6 - 2 5 5 2 , 9 6 - 2 4 3 7 , 9 6 - 2 5 0 7 , 9 6 - 2 4 5 5 . See discussion of the dating of this site in Chapter Three: although the site is dated by the excavators around the late 10th century, in this writer's opinion it should be placed slightly later, in the early 9th century. 2 Eg. Nos. 2 1 4 5 , 1928, 2 1 3 5 , 2 1 6 3 , 2 1 1 7 from Bothros 10, Area II, Floor 3 (unpublished, see Schreiber forthcoming). 3 Examples o f 'mushroom-lipped'jugs decorated in Bichrome Red or BoR and of Cypriot manufacture are found throughout Cyprus (eg. at the Cyprus M u s e u m nos. Β. 1563.1935, Β. 1567.1935); also on display in the Paphos and Kouklia museums.

In decoration, the later stage of BoR also shows a greater complexity of design - most characteristically an increase in the number of groups of concentric circles on bowls and juglets, which often occur in vertical 'bands.'The intersecting circle designs on BoR jugs become more elaborate. The slip on these later BoR vessels is often a brighter, more crimson, red than previously, and vessels are frequently left unburnished. Alongside the later BoR, a related style of pottery develops Bichrome Red. This is similar in technique and decoration to BoR ware - red slip with black painted decoration - but with additional painted white lines, or sometimes dots, alongside the black paint (Gjerstad 1948, 73). Bichrome Red vessels are also frequently decorated with pictorial motifs, similar to those on Bichrome pottery, and appear in anthropomorphic form. Otherwise the shapes and decoration of Bichrome Red are generally similar to that of contemporary BoR. The imaginative combination of stylistic features on this pottery type reflects an increased inventiveness of Cypriot potters in the later Iron Age period {Figure 16:5-8, 10-11). Gjerstad states that BoR pottery continues on the island throughout his 'Cypro-Archaic' period, falling off by the 'Cypro-Classical' period, when Bichrome Red becomes the most common decorated type in Cyprus (Gjerstad 1948, 204-206). On Gjerstad's chronology, therefore, BoR begins to decline by c. 600 BC, the beginning of his Cypro-Archaic II period, although he suggests it continues throughout the 6th century (Gjerstad 1948, 204, 427). The decline in the export of BoR pottery beyond the 7th century, however, (see discussion below) and the slight raising of Gjerstad's chronology advocated in Chapter Four, suggests that the latter stages of this pottery's production should not be extended far beyond the end of the 7th century. There is, however, good evidence that very fine examples of BoR ware continue to be produced in Cyprus well into the 8th century. The inclusion of numerous BoR vessels in the 'Royal' Tomb 1 at Salamis is indicative of the high value placed upon BoR pottery in this period (Dikaios 1963, 175-176). The introduction of Bichrome Red pottery is put at the second stage of BoR pottery - Gjerstad terms it Bichrome Red I (IV), and dates it from the late 7th century (Cypro-Archaic IB) increasing to reach a peak at the end of the 6th / beginning of the 5th century (Cypro-Archaic IIB - Cypro-Classical IA) and a decline by c. 400 BC

(Gjerstad 1948, 204, 427). Again, these dates are probably too late. However, of the decorated wares, this pottery type persists longest into the late Iron Age and early Classical period, where its increasingly elaborate decoration attempts to compete with the fine imported Attic wares. Bichrome Red pottery is, however, almost never found on the Levantine mainland, supporting the later chronology assigned to it and the shift in trade of Cypriot pottery away from the mainland in the later period (see Chapter Three and the Conclusion). Another pottery type related to BoR is Red Slip, which according to Gjerstad's chronology begins to develop in Cyprus at the same time as the first stage of BoR (BoR I (III) (Gjerstad 1948, 80-82). Karageorghis differentiates between early Red Slip in Cyprus, which he dates from Cypro-Geometric II onwards, and Gjerstad's later, often Phoenician-influenced Red Slip (Karageorghis 1983, 369). Deep Red Slip bowls, very similar to deep BoR bowls, are especially common in the early type, and are often decorated with incised horizontal lines along and underneath the outer rim (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVI: 16) (Figure 15:9). Identical bowls are sometimes decorated additionally with black painted lines, in the BoR style (Karageorghis 1983, 369). This further supports an early development of BoR pottery in Cyprus. The later Red Slip jug types show many similarities to Phoenician pottery, and, as seen above, are also occasionally decorated in Bichrome Red, or more rarely BoR. A few examples are known in either Red Slip or Bichrome decoration on classic Phoenician red slip shapes (Gjerstad 1948, PI. XXXV:4) (Figure 15:12-14). Comparison between the chronology of the Phoenician prototypes and the Cypriot imitations can help provide a date for the latter. Bikai dates the Phoenician prototypes of two jug forms Gjerstad places in his Red Slip I (III) category, to her 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850 - 750 BC (Gjerstad 1948: Fig. XXVII:3, 5; Bikai 1987, P1.X:177, 178; PI. XIV:356, 360). She dates the 'classic' mushroom-lipped jug, a shape which Gjerstad places in his Red Slip II (IV) category, to her 'Kition' horizon, c. 750 - 700 BC (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLIII:6; Bikai 1987, PI. XIII:298) (Figure 15:12). The strongly-biconical Phoenician trefoillipped jug, which Gjerstad places in Red Slip I (III), she dates, however, to her latest 'Amathus' horizon, "after 700 - after 600 BC" (Bikai 1987, 69, PI. XVI:373; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVIL6) (Figure

15:13). Although this indicates some confusion of the sequence of these vessels appearing in Cyprus, it is probable that the Cypriot imitation versions of the Phoenician wares probably began around the mid-9th century, and occurred well into the 7th century on the island. Cypriot Pottery West of Cyprus The appearance of Cypriot pottery in various locations west of Cyprus is well attested. Perhaps the earliest known Cypriot vessel to reach a western location is the globular Bichrome juglet found in a Late Protogeometric context (mid-late 10th century) 4 at Lefkandi, in Tomb 22 of the Palaia Perivolia necropolis (Popham and Sackett 1979, PI. 270:a; 1980,149). The juglet is of early, probably Bichrome II type. 5 Fragmentary remains of a BoR juglet and a White Painted juglet also appear in Sub-Protogeometric II contexts at Lefkandi (early - mid 9th century BC) (Popham and Lemos 1996, PI. 125:f, d). 6 A 'Phoenician' Bichrome juglet is also found in a Sub-Protogeometric context at Lefkandi (Popham and Lemos 1996, PI. 125:e).7 Other sporadic examples of Cypriot pottery were noted by Gjerstad from the Aegean islands of Thera (Santorini), Delos and at a few locations on the Greek mainland, but only four of the examples noted are BoR (Gjerstad 1948, 267-269). The date of these latter finds is, however, considerably later than that of the Lefkandi finds. The presence of BoR pottery in significantly greater quantity on the islands of Rhodes, Cos and Crete, and especially the role of these islands in recent discussion of Phoenician activity in the Mediterranean (Coldstream 1998), warrant their individual examination here. The imported Cypriot wares on these islands are important in indicating contact between the islands. Especially interesting, however, is the clear evidence of selectiveness in both the importation and imitation of this pottery, which is not paralleled at other regions at which imitation Cypriot wares are produced, such as Cilicia (see Chapter Four). Chapter Two has investigated the 4 The chronology established by the excavators for Lefkandi is used here (Popham and Sackett 1980, frontispiece). 5 The juglet is illustrated by photograph only; it is possible that it is a barrel-juglet. 6 Both vessels are too fragmentary to ascertain their types. A likely parallel for the White Painted juglet is a White Painted III juglet in Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:3. 7 The fabric of this juglet looks Phoenician but exact parallels to the shape in the Phoenician repertoire are unknown to this author.

possibility that BoR juglets contained perfumed oil, and this is firmly supported by the evidence from these islands. The following part of this chapter investigates the nature of the importation of Cypriot pottery to Rhodes, Cos and Crete and follows with a discussion of Coldstream's views of the Phoenician involvement in this trade. BoR in Rhodes Cypriot pottery was found at several sites excavated on the island of Rhodes. The cemeteries at Ialysos and Camiros were excavated by the Italian Mission in the 1920s and 1930s and published in the annals of the Italian excavations (Maiuri 1926) and successive volumes of Clara Rhodos (Maiuri 1928, Jacopi 1929, 1931, 1933, Laurenzi 1936). Excavations at the sites of Lindos and Vroulia on Rhodes also uncovered examples of Cypriot or Cypriot-influenced pottery (Blinkenberg 1931: 270-271, PI. 43; Kinch 1914: 73, PI. 40). Gjerstad discusses the Cypriot pottery retrieved from these excavations (Gjerstad 1948, 262-269) and Coldstream reviews them in his article "The Phoenicians of Ialysos" and subsequently in a lecture (Coldstream 1969, 1998). Examples of both true Cypriot imports and imitation wares were found on Rhodes. The quantities of these Cypriot and Cypriot imitation wares are not large and the forms in both categories are entirely restricted to closed vessels - predominantly juglets of the handle-ridge form, but a few examples of barrel-juglets and jugs. The examples of Cypriot pottery in Rhodes, either imported from Cyprus or imitating versions, include White Painted and Bichrome pottery as well as BoR. True Cypriot examples are in several cases difficult to discern from the imitation wares in the photographs provided. Most likely however to be true Cypriot imports in the necropolis at Ialysos are two BoR jugs and a two-handled BoR juglet from Tomb LI (Jacopi 1929, 85, Figs. 75, 78; Gjerstad 1948, 263), a White Painted basket-handled spouted juglet from Tomb LII (Jacopi 1929, 89, Fig. 79; Gjerstad 1948, 263), a BoR jug« from Tomb LVII (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 92; Gjerstad 1948, 263), and a Cypriot Bichrome juglet 9 from Tomb 8

Coldstream c o m m e n t s that the applied slip on this vessel indicates that it is a Rhodian imitation of a Cypriot jug, but this is a feature perfectly within the Cypriot repertoire (Coldstream 1969, 3, Pl. I:j; cf. Gjerstad 1948, 69). 9 This does not appear to be a Phoenician or 'Syrian' juglet, contra Coldstream 1969, 4, n. 35, but may be a local Rhodian imitation of Cypriot Bichrome ware.

LXIV (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 101). The Danish excavations on the acropolis at Lindos produced a few further examples of Cypriot-type wares, a possible Bichrome handle-ridge juglet and several sherds, but it is difficult to determine if these are imports or imitations (Blinkenberg 1931, PI. 43). A White Painted jug of late type, most likely an import from Cyprus, was found in Tomb 12 at Vroulia, and several other unstratified examples appear at this site (Kinch 1914, PI. 40:12/2, PI. 20:3; Gjerstad 1948, 266-267). The tomb contexts of the imported wares make assessment of their date difficult, especially as several of the tombs have little or no additional diagnostic pottery, but those datable all fall within the Late Geometric period, c. 745-680 BC (such as Ialysos Tombs LI, LU, LVII, Vroulia Tomb 12).10 Also found at Rhodes are examples of imitation Cypriot pottery, or pottery clearly influenced by its Cypriot prototypes. Perhaps an early example of imitation Cypriot ware on Rhodes is a spherical juglet found in Tomb XLV at Camiros, with pink clay and black painted decoration (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 151; Coldstream 1969, 2, PI. la) (Figure 16:1). The globular shape is likely to have been influenced by the Cypriot barrel or pilgrim flask. Coldstream dates this vessel to the Protogeometric period (ending c. 900 BC) (Coldstream 1969, 2).11 Three possible imitation barrel-juglets with trefoil-lips were found in a tomb at Mallona, between the sites of Ialysos and Lindos, in a context which Coldstream dates to the early Middle Geometric (c. 850 - 745 BC) (Coldstream 1969, 2, n.9, CVA'2, 2 PI. 65:3, 6, 7). Other, more clearly Cypriot-influenced vessels include two barreljuglets, possibly White Painted or Bichrome, found by Laurenzi in Marmaro Tomb 43 at Ialysos and noted as imitations by their excavator (Laurenzi 1936, 163, Fig. 149).13 Coldstream dates the Marmaro tomb group to the Early Geometric, c. 900 - 850 BC

10

For absolute dating of the D o d e c a n e s e islands, Coldstream's chronology is used, which differs little from that o f Snodgrass (Coldstream 1977, 385; Snodgrass 1971, 134-135). Note that the three early Iron A g e examples of imports referred to in N e g b i 1992, 6 0 6 are all imitation wares, nor probably as early as she dates them. 11 Note, however, that a Late Geometric Corinthian-style juglet appears in the same tomb (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 148). 12 13

Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Copenhagen 2.

Note, however, that these are not the juglets illustrated by Coldstream 1969, 2, PI. Ib-c, which are t w o photographs of a single White Painted juglet (possibly one of the juglets in the original plate?).

(Coldstream 1969, 2). Other imitation wares include a poorlypreserved juglet decorated with crude concentric circles found in a bothros near the temple of Athena at Ialysos (Maiuri 1928, 76, Fig. 58), two examples of handle-ridge juglets (decoration unclear) found in Tomb IX at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929, 39, Fig. 24), a handle-ridge juglet with reddish-black paint from Tomb LVI at Ialysos (similar to juglets from Cos with fugitive paint and slip - see below) (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 90; Coldstream 1969, PI. Ig-h), as well as several examples of Cypriot-type handle-ridge juglets in Tombs LVIII and LXIV (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 93, 101). These imitation wares, therefore, can perhaps be dated earlier than the actual imports so far found in Rhodes, although none of the earlier contexts are wholly reliable. The imitations do at least indicate association between Cyprus and Rhodes by the beginning of the 9th century. The majority of the imitations should, however, be dated on the basis of their tomb contexts to the Late Geometric period, 8th early 7th centuries. It is notable that these imitations of Cypriot pottery encompass all Cypriot pottery types, not just BoR, but all are closed shapes. There is also evidence of an adaption of Cypriot motifs and shapes in the development of uniquely Rhodian vessels. In some cases this is represented by the 'hellenization' of Cypriot forms, especially the handle-ridge shape, to create the elegant handle-ridge jug with geometric design found, for example, along with BoR in Tomb LI at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 75, 76) (Figure 16:2). Similar jugs, including a two-handled jug, were found in Tombs VIII and LXXX at Camiros, (and also in quantity on the island of Cos - see below) (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 38; Fig. 223; see also Gjerstad 1948, 296). In other cases the Cypriot jug shape was borrowed but the traditional Cypriot decoration of concentric groups of thin lines was simplified into broad concentric bands of paint. Examples of this form are found in Tomb LIV at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 84, 85; Gjerstad 1948, 299 n. 12). Another characteristic Rhodian motif is the "spaghetti" design - compass-drawn concentric circles "tailing off into wavy lines" (Coldstream 1998, 256) (Figure 16:4). This decoration occurs on numerous juglets at Ialysos and Camiros (eg. Jacopi 1929, Fig. 84; Jacopi 1933, Fig. 148). Examples combining the typically Cypriot concentric circle design and the "spaghetti" motif occur on juglets in Tombs VIII and XLV at Camiros (Jacopi

1933, Figs. 39, 148).14 These adaptations of Cypriot features in the local ceramic repertoire date approximately to the Late Geometric period, 8th - 7th centuries BC. It is noteworthy that Phoenician pottery is very rare in the tombs on Rhodes and where it occurs it is exclusively represented by redslipped mushroom-lipped jugs of late type. Single examples of these mushroom-lipped jugs occur at Ialysos in Tomb I (Maiuri 1928, Fig. 162:7), Tomb LVIII and Tomb CXXXII (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 93, 139) {Figure 16:3). Two examples of mushroom-lipped jugs appear at Lindos (Blinkenberg 1931. PI. 48), one example in Tomb 2 at Vroulia and one in Tomb 6 (Kinch 1914, PI. 36:2/26, PI. 38:6/5). It is significant that Gjerstad views these "sack-shaped handle-ridge juglets" as belonging within the late Iron Age Cypriot category of Red Slip II (IV), and he states that it is the Cypriot variety of mushroomlipped jug that is exported to Rhodes (Gjerstad 1948, 263, 265, 295). He notes Blinkenberg's observation that the clay of two jugs in particular is "identical with that of the painted Cypriote specimens mentioned above, and we are therefore justified in considering these vases as Cypriote imports" (Gjerstad 1948, 265). While it is impossible to assess the fabric of the so-called Phoenician vessels from the illustrations provided, a Cypriot origin should be considered a possibility. One example of this mushroom-lipped jug type which may possibly be an export from Phoenicia itself is the crude-looking vessel from Tomb CXXXII at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929 Fig. 139; Coldstream 1969, 2, PI. I:e). Coldstream's theories regarding a Phoenician involvement with Rhodes and Cos are examined fully below. Excavations on Rhodes have not so far uncovered large quantities of imported Cypriot pottery, but there is evidence that this ware strongly influenced local styles, and that Cypriot forms and decoration were incorporated into the local ceramic repertoire. The evidence for this process on Rhodes places it predominantly in the Late Geometric period, but it possibly began "unobtrusively" earlier in the Protogeometric period (Coldstream 1969,2). The exclusively closed shapes of the Cypriot imports have been noted above. In the later period this ware is exceeded by the large numbers of Corinthian aryballoi, which were both imported and locally imitated. Regardless of the small quantities 14 For a general discussion of the extent o f Cypriot influence on Rhodian and other A e g e a n pottery, see Gjerstad 1948, 2 9 2 - 3 1 1 .

of Cypriot pottery found in Rhodes, (and perhaps because of the very limited amount yet found elsewhere), Gjerstad wrote of the role of Rhodes as a possible trading post between Cyprus and the Aegean in the later Iron Age: No remains of such a Cypriote trading factory have been discovered hitherto on Rhodes, but the considerable number of imported vases, on the one hand, and the quantity of locally made pottery, on the other, indicate that the commercial connections were fairly intimate, and that the Cypriotes were stationed on Rhodes for some time. It is therefore probable that the Cypriote trade with Rhodes was organized in a similar way as in Syria and Cilicia... The numerous Cypriote vases found on Rhodes and their infrequency W. of that island seem to indicate that Rhodes served as a commercial and cultural clearing centre between Cyprus and Greece during Cypro-Geometric III and perhaps CyproArchaic I... (Gjerstad 1948, 316).

In view of a later literary tradition of a Phoenician occupation on Rhodes, as well as the likelihood that "Cypriote and Phoenician trade sometimes collaborated" Gjerstad further suggests that it would "be natural if Cypriote traders established themselves on Rhodes in connection with a Phoenician occupation of a part of the island" (Gjerstad 1948, 464-465). BoR in Cos The publication of the Italian excavations on the island of Cos provides a valuable further insight into the extent of Cypriot trade with these Dodecanesian islands in the earlier part of the Iron Age. Several burial grounds were excavated by Luigi Morricone on Cos during the 1930s and 1940s and published posthumously in 1982 (Morricone 1978). The 'Serraglio' cemetery produced the majority of finds, while other tombs were discovered in the 'Pizzoli,' 'Fadil' and 'Sabriè' cemeteries (Morricone 1978, 9-11). Cypriot pottery occurs here in some quantity in tombs covering the whole Geometric period, making it more numerous and earlier than the finds from Rhodes (Morricone 1978, 405). The published excavations provide an important indication of the strength of the Cypriot ceramic influence on the island. BoR pottery, in contrast to Rhodes, appears to be the exclusive Cypriot pottery type imported to Cos. Morricone divides the Cypriot material in the tombs on the island into three groups - the first, true Cypriot imports, and the second and third also imported but different

versions of the BoR juglet. However, Coldstream's observation that Morricone's second group in fact represented local Coan imitations of Cypriot pottery is correct, and this applies equally to Morricone's third group (Coldstream 1998, 255-256). True Cypriot imports, Morricone's first group of pottery, are found in tombs dated to each successive period, from the Early Geometric (c. 900-850 BC), to the Middle Geometric (c. 850-745 BC) and Late Geometric (c. 745-680 BC).15 All these imported vessels are BoR handle-ridge juglets, with the exception of one BoR conical juglet. The earliest vessels found are the four handle-ridge juglets in Sabriè Tomb A(l) and Pizzoli Tomb V(l-3) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 797, 653-655). Morricone dates these tombs to the first part of the Geometric period (Morricone 1978, 405). A BoR handle-ridge juglet and the BoR conical juglet with swollen neck and eye ornament were found in Serraglio Tomb 1(1-2), dated by Morricone to the Middle Geometric (Morricone 1978, Figs. 4, 5). Eight other imported BoR handle-ridge juglets are found in contexts dated to the Late Geometric: five in Serraglio Tomb 23(38-42) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 350-354), one in Serraglio Tomb 64(7) (Morricone 1978, Fig. 573), one in Fadil Tomb 111(21) (Morricone 1978, Fig. 742) and one in Pizzoli Tomb VII(l) (Morricone 1978, 321). The handle-ridge juglets in Serraglio Tombs 54(2) and 68(1) may also be true imports, belonging to the Late Geometric period (Morricone 1978: 406-407, Figs. 515, 610). Cypriot imports in Cos, therefore, date from the beginning of the 9th century to perhaps beyond the end of the 8th century. The second and third group of vessels all date from the latest Geometric phase (c. 745-680 BC), and are local imitations of Cypriot BoR (Morricone 1978, 405; Coldstream 1982, 2). A two-handled juglet, two handle-ridge juglets and a trefoil-lipped juglet were found in Serraglio Tomb 43(1-4) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 463-466), a handle-ridge juglet in Serraglio Tomb 54(4) (Morricone 1978, Fig. 517), a trefoil-lipped jug in Serraglio Tomb 64(1) and three handleridge juglets in Tomb 64(3-5) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 566, 568-571). These vessels are characterised by a lustrous metallic-looking red slip and painted decoration in the style of BoR. Possibly due to a low firing temperature, the black paint has in several cases flaked off, taking the underlying red slip and leaving the paler clay beneath in an

15

S e e note 10 on dating used.

impression of incised decoration (Morricone 1978, 406; Coldstream 1998, 256) (Figure 16:5). Morricone's third group of vessels is distinguished from these by its slip, but is otherwise identical. The slip on this latter group is a more intense "wine-red" than the second group but generally not lustrous, and in some cases has also flaked off with the black paint (Morricone 1978, 406). Examples of the latter type, all but one handle-ridge juglets, are found in Fadil Tomb 111(1820) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 739-741), and Serraglio Tombs 43(5), 54(3) and 64(2, 6) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 467, 516, 567, 572). Morricone's distinction between groups two and three is perhaps an illusion created by firing conditions, but without personal examination this is impossible to verify. The local origin of both these latter groups of pottery is supported by the presence of two carinated cups in the local Geometric form found alongside the juglets in Tomb 43, made in the same fabric as the juglets and decorated with concentric circles in the style of BoR (Morricone 1978, Figs. 468471, cf. Fig. 493; Coldstream 1998, 256) (Figure 16:7). In addition, the "freer" placing of the concentric circles on the juglets, which often occur on the lower part of the juglet body in a style alien to their Cypriot prototypes, indicates their non-Cypriot origin (Coldstream 1998, 256). Note that an example of a juglet with similar 'fugitive' slip to these vessels has also been found on Rhodes (see above) (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 90; Coldstream 1969, Pl. I g-h). As also on Rhodes, the cemeteries on Cos show clearly the extent to which Cypriot pottery, and in particular the handle-ridge juglet form, influenced local ceramic production. The quantity of Geometric-decorated handle-ridge juglets is noteworthy, and this form of imitation begins soon after the first imports appear (Figure 16:6). While the true BoR juglet in Sabriè Tomb A, which Morricone dates to the Early Geometric period, appears alongside only localstyle (non-handle-ridge) juglets, Pizzoli Tomb V, which contains imported juglets and also dates to the Early Geometric, already contains a Geometric-decorated juglet with a handle-ridge (Morricone 1978, Fig. 660). This suggests that this style of 'hellenizing' imitation began by the 9th century. The Middle Geometric Serraglio Tomb 1 contains local juglets but also a variety of large and standard-sized versions of the handle-ridge juglet, decorated in Geometric style (Morricone 1978, Figs. 20-23, 27-30). In the Late Geometric period, these Geometric imitations are

numerous, and appear in several of the same tombs as the imitations decorated in BoR style (eg. Morricone 1982, Figs. 575-577). A few examples of imitation barrel-juglets and miniature handle-ridge juglets decorated in Geometric style are also known (Morricone 1978, Figs. 358, 359, 476-482). The Coan tombs provide, therefore, an interesting complement to the evidence from Rhodes. Unlike perhaps Rhodes - although our evidence there is sparser - Cos shows evidence of an especial interest in BoR juglets. There are no examples of Cypriot jug imports to Cos. Other differences between the islands are the absence on Cos of the 'Rhodian' version of the jug with broad concentric bands and vessels with the "spaghetti" motif. It is also notable that no Phoenician pottery is published from the Coan tombs. BoR juglets were apparently imported to the island as early as the beginning of the 9th century, and the Cypriot shapes were soon incorporated into the local style. In view of this, similar developments should perhaps be considered for Rhodes in the early Geometric period - the island lies en route from Cyprus to Cos - but it is also possible that the differences (noted above) between the islands indicate a degree of independent development. Our evidence is at present insufficient. In any case, the cemeteries on Cos and Rhodes provide important evidence of an extended sequence of Cypriot contact with the Dodecanese islands from the beginning of the 9th - early 7th centuries. Most importantly, the predominance of the Cypriot BoR juglet in the Coan tombs suggests that early trade between Cyprus and Cos (and perhaps Rhodes), was focused on these vessels, in which the Dodecanesian potters had a special interest. This interest in the original imports and in the manufacture of local versions is likely to have been the result of local manufacture of perfumed oil, for which these vessels were ideally suited. See Chapter Two for a discussion of perfumed oil in context of BoR pottery. BoR in Crete Three cemeteries excavated by the British School of Archaeology in the vicinity of Knossos in Crete have provided important evidence for Cypriot relations with this island in the Iron Age. The Fortetsa cemetery was excavated by J. K. Brock in 1933-1935 and published in 1957 (Brock 1957). In 1975-1976, the Teke cemetery just to the north of it was excavated by L.H. Sackett, M.R. Popham and R.

Howell and published in preliminary form in 1977 (Catling 1977, 1117). The North Cemetery at Knossos, which was an extension of the Teke cemetery, was excavated in a rescue mission by the British School in 1978. The Early Iron Age finds in the Teke cemetery and the Knossos North Cemetery were published in full by Coldstream in 1996 (Coldstream & Catling 1996). A preliminary study by Coldstream of the "Cypriaca and Cretocypriaca from the North Cemetery of Knossos" was published in 1984. Recent excavations at the site of Eleutherna in Crete have uncovered two BoR jugs in context dating to the 8th century, as well as Cretan imitation juglets (Stampolidis 1998, 177-178, Figs. 3-4). A few examples of BoR imported pottery occur in the Fortetsa cemetery, most probably in 8th century contexts. 16 One BoR imported handle-ridge juglet was found in Tomb TFT (Brock 1957, PI. 45:669) in the same tomb as a possible imitation BoR juglet (Brock 1957, PI. 45:694). The tomb is dated from the Protogeometric Β period to the Early Orientalizing period, c. 850-680 BC (Brock 1957, 60). A twohandled BoR juglet and three BoR handle-ridge juglets - of which one (No. 1432) is noted as imitation BoR - occur in Tomb P, where Brock dates them to the Middle to Late Geometric periods (8th century) (Brock 1957, 101, PI. 97:1432; PI 109:1411, 1448, 1262).' 7 Coldstream's discussion of the Cypriot pottery in the North Cemetery at Knossos (1984; 1996, 406-409) divides the material into true Cypriot imports and their imitations and the "freer" Cretan imitations that show only Cypriot influence. The true Cypriot imported vessels found in the Teke group and Knossos North Cemetery include a few examples of Bichrome ware as well as BoR, but like the Dodecanesian sites comprise only closed vessels, mainly handle-ridge juglets. The only exception so far found is a small BoR amphoriskos from Tomb 219(22) in the North Cemetery (Coldstream 1984, 127, Fig. 1:7). These Cypriot imports comprise two Bichrome juglets from Teke Tomb A(7) and North Cemetery Tomb 106(39) (Coldstream 1984, PI. 16

For absolute dating of the Cretan chronological periods I use Brock's sequence (Brock 1957, 2 1 4 ) (as does Coldstream in his publication of 1984 (n.2), rather than the slightly lower chronology set out for Crete in Coldstream 1977, 385). The recent reappraisal of Brock's dating concludes that it remains a satisfactory "working hypothesis" (Coldstream & Catling 1996, 4 1 0 - 1 2 ; Coldstream, lecture March 1999). 17 It is possible that all these juglets are Cretan imitations of B o R but this is difficult to verify from the photographs provided.

XXIV:8-9), three BoR globular jugs from North Cemetery Tombs 292(94), 175(52) and 107(199) (Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXIV: 12-14), four two-handled BoR juglets from Teke Tomb H(15) and North Cemetery Tombs 104(8) and 292(244, 245) (Coldstream 1984, PI. XXIV: 16, 18) and seventeen BoR handle-ridge juglets all from Knossos North Cemetery. Six of these last come from Tomb 285(45, 49, 52, 80, 85, 8818), five from Tomb 292(97, 48, 132, 51, 62), two from Tomb 219(40, 98), and one each from Tombs 104(123), 134(33) and 107(201) (Coldstream 1984, 129-131, Fig. 2:20, 21, 26, 28, 30, Pl. XXV:20, 21, 23-30). In addition, one fragmentary trefoil-lipped 'sack-shaped' juglet was found in Tomb 292(96) (Coldstream 1996, 265). All these vessels, as well as the BoR amphoriskos (above), Coldstream regards as true Cypriot imports. Amongst these, however, he notes that three juglets found in Tomb 292(48, 132, 51 ) are "maladroit pieces with a lumpy and uneven surface, made of clay which turns to a yellow-grey tone inside" (Coldstream 1984, 131, Pl. XXV26-28). It is possible, but difficult to determine from the photographs, that these may not be of Cypriot origin. These imported wares are best dated to the 8th century, with possible extensions into the 9th and 7th centuries (see below). It was seldom possible to determine a stratified location for the pottery within the tombs and dating the pottery must rely on the chronological range of each tomb. The tombs have generally a long span of use. Coldstream additionally uses Gjerstad's stylistic criteria to suggest dates for the wares which, as seen in Chapter Four, are not wholly satisfactory. A few vessels are found directly in context with other local pottery. For example, three BoR handle-ridge juglets were found in a Middle Geometric urn in Tomb 285(39), dated c. 800-770 BC, another inside a Late Protogeometric pyxis in the same tomb, dated c. 870-850 BC, and a two-handled BoR juglet inside a LG pithos in Tomb 104, dated c. 770-735 BC (Coldstream & Catling 1996, 241, 242, 139; Coldstream 1984, 129, 131). This evidence provides perhaps some indication of date, although the small vessels could have been placed in the large jars at a late stage to make way for new burials (Coldstream 1984, 131). 19 The Bichrome juglets, BoR 18

This vessel is mistakenly noted by Coldstream as Tomb 292:88, which is a nonCypriot juglet. 19 Coldstream's distinction between the "firm chronological context" o f the M G urn and the "less secure" context o f the LPG pyxis in Tomb 2 8 5 is presumably on account o f s o m e disturbance around the pyxis, but this is not entirely clear (Coldstream 1984, 131; Coldstream & Catling 1996, 242).

amphoriskos and BoR jugs all belong to unassociated contexts within tombs which generally date from the Middle Geometric to the Orientalizing period (c. 800 - 630 BC). Of the close Cretan imitations of Cypriot wares, one imitation BoR jug, two imitation Bichrome juglets and fourteen imitation BoR juglets were found in Knossos North Cemetery. These vessels are found in Tombs 283(24, 83, 88), 292(202), 60(22), 218(41, 84, 6, 118, 19, 2), 219(56), 61(1), 306(1, 19), 175(60), 125(16) and one near the Fortetsa site (F67.4.12) (Coldstream 1984:127- 133).2° These vessels are close imitations of the originals, produced in a paler and harder clay but replicating almost exactly the BoR or Bichrome decoration. Some of the BoR imitation juglets, however, have larger bodies, and in several cases are more biconical. Three tombs produced examples of BoR imports and imitations together (Tombs 219, 175, 292). Coldstream notes one imitation BoR juglet found in a deposit excavated earlier at Knossos containing "mainly local EG" pottery and dated c. 800 BC, and suggests that imitation Cypriot juglets had begun by the end of the 9th century (Coldstream 1972, 77; 1984, 132). The imitation BoR jug (Tomb 60(22)) is dated to the Late Geometric period, c. 770-735 (Coldstream 1996, 102). In general, the imitation wares date to the 8th century and probably continue into the 7th (Coldstream 1984, 132-133). The "freer" Cretan imitations comprise four types of locally-made juglet that owe aspects of their form and decoration to Cypriot BoR juglets (Coldstream 1984, 133 - 136). Three handle-ridge juglets found in Tomb 218 form one group (Coldstream 1984, 133, PI. XXVI:53-55). These vessels have ovoid bodies, are made in the same fabric as the close imitations above, and are decorated with black painted lines but no concentric circle motif. The second group, comprising six handle-ridge juglets, are larger and more elaborate versions of these, decorated with large intersecting concentric circles (Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXVL56-61) (Figure 16:8). A few examples show anomalous features, such as a small group of concentric circles on the neck, or freehand concentric circles (Coldstream 1984, 134, PI. XXVI: 58). Examples of this type are found over several tombs. A group of seven juglets form a third group. Each vessel shows a 20

S e e Coldstream's excellent and comprehensive discussion of these imitation wares. Note that one BoR juglet ( 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 ) ) is included twice, as an import and an imitation (Coldstream 1984, N o s . 36 & 48).

peculiar mixture of typically Cypriot features which are never combined within a single vessel in the Cypriot repertoire, such as the trefoil-lip and handle-ridge. These vessels are all found in one tomb, 292, suggesting they may have been an aberrant experiment (Coldstream 1984: 134-135, PI. XXVI:62-65) {Figure 16:9). The final group of seven juglets are adaptations rather than imitations of Cypriot ware, retaining the Cypriot handle-ridge and flared rim, but replacing the usual concentric circle decoration with large sets of circles covering the whole side of the vessel, and smaller sets alongside them (Figure 16:10). These juglets have very fine, usually pale orange or buff clay and their execution shows "a self-assurance sometimes lacking in the closer imitations" (Coldstream 1984: 15, PI. XXVI:69-75). Examples of these juglets were also found in the Fortetsa cemetery (Brock 1957, 158, Type E(iii)). These "freer" Cretan imitation vessels are found in contexts dating from the Middle Geometric to the Early Orientalizing period, 8th - early 7th centuries. Of especial importance in considering the Phoenician involvement in Crete and the Dodecanesian islands, which is discussed fully below, is the quantity and date of Phoenician and other imports found in the Knossian cemeteries. Of seven non-Cypriot imports found in total in these tombs, four may be assigned a probable Phoenician origin. A Bichrome jug, missing its rim, was found in Tomb 107(80). Similar Bichrome jugs appear in the Cypriot repertoire (eg. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14), but the fabric of this vessel, which is described as soft, porous, dark and gritty, and "greyish inside"(Coldstream 1984, 123; 1996, 408), suggests that it was manufactured on the Levantine mainland. Its context inside Tomb 107 is not specified in the report, but the date of the tomb ranges from the Protogeometric Β period to the Late Orientalizing period, c. 850-630 BC. Coldstream dates this vessel, on the basis of parallel examples found at Tyre, to the late 9th century and a similar type is assigned by Bikai to her 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850-750 BC (Coldstream 1984, 125; 1996, 408; Bikai 1987, Pl. IX: 169). It should be noted that a BoR jug (199) and a BoR handle-ridge juglet (201) are also found in the same tomb but their context is also not specified. Four red-slipped jugs were also found in Knossos North Cemetery. One is a small jug with globular body, belonging to Bikai's category of "heavy-walled juglet," from Tomb 283(50) (Coldstream 1984, PI. XXIII:2; Bikai 1987, Pl. X: 150, 160). This tomb also produced Cretan

imitations of Cypriot pottery, but the context of the heavy-walled juglet is not recorded. Bikai's parallel juglets belong to her 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850-750 BC. A fragment of a "coarse and porous" redslipped jug from Tomb 292(211 ) is also probably of mainland origin (Coldstream 1984, PI. XXIII:3). The upper and lower parts of a redslipped trefoil-lipped jug were found in Tomb 292(80) (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 1:4, PI. XXIII:4). This jug was in context with the fragmentary remains of a "sack-shaped" BoR juglet (96) and local MG pottery (Coldstream 1996, 260). Parallels are perhaps found also in Bikai's 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850-750 BC (eg. Bikai 1987, PI. XIV:363). A red-slipped jug (not published in the 1984 report) was found in Tomb 56(10), with wide flaring rim, carinated shoulder and grooves at a faint ridge on the neck and at the shoulder (Coldstream & Catling 1996, Pl. 110:10). The rim is not a true mushroom-lip (cf. Coldstream 1996, 409). This vessel, found in context with Late Orientalizing pottery, is recorded as Cypriot Red Slip II by the excavators (Coldstream & Catling 1996: 95-96, 409). The Bichrome jug, heavy-walled juglet and red-slipped trefoillipped jug - all most likely of Phoenician origin - can possibly be placed in the 9th century BC, although it should also be noted that all the tombs in which the pottery appears, except Tomb 56, range from the Protogeometric Β to Late Orientalizing periods (c. 850-630 BC). The only vessel in a specified context, the trefoil-lipped jug, should perhaps be placed in the Middle Geometric period (800-770 BC). The second group of imports, represented by the two tall ovoid jugs with long necks decorated in Bichrome Red style, are most likely to have a Dodecanesian origin (Coldstream 1984: 126, Pl. XXIIL5, 6). They are similar to vessels found in Rhodes and Cos in their shape, fabric and decoration, even to their fugitive black paint and slip (cf. Morricone 1978, Fig. 566; Jacopi 1929, PI. 90; Coldstream 1984, PI. Ig-h). One jug (43), which was found in parts, may have been associated with a Late Geometric pithos in Tomb 219, and possibly a BoR juglet and imitation BoR juglet. It contained sheet bronze fragments (Coldstream and Catling 1996, 213). The location of jug (97) within Tomb 219 was not recorded. These vessels are most likely to date to the Late Geometric period (c. 770-735 BC). Like the tombs on Cos, therefore, the cemeteries in Crete provide valuable evidence for a particular Cretan interest in BoR pottery. The exclusively closed shapes imported and adapted for locally-produced

wares suggest the involvement of these vessels in a local perfumed oil industry, similar to that on the Dodecanesian islands. Some degree of association between the Dodecanese and Crete is suggested by the presence of the two Bichrome Red jugs at Knossos. The dating of the Cypriot pottery in Crete suggests that the imports and local imitations were most common in the 8th century. The Phoenician wares may possibly have preceded the introduction of BoR pottery to the island, but their total quantity is very limited, and these wares are not imitated locally (Coldstream 1984, 136). The Phoenicians of Ialysos? Assessment of the Phoenician Involvement in BoR Trade to the West Coldstream argues strongly for a Phoenician involvement in the transportation of Cypriot pottery to the Dodecanese and Crete, and in the process of its local imitation on these islands. In 1969, examining the Iron Age cemeteries on Rhodes, he suggested a process of Phoenician perfume-factories set up on the island from the mid-8th century onwards - an "infiltration of Phoenician metoikoi among the rising city-states of Rhodes" who marketed their products "in containers locally manufactured by their own craftsmen" (Coldstream 1969, 4). These views were based partly on the literary traditions alluding to Phoenician settlers on the island, but in large part on the apparently "clear" Phoenician heritage of BoR pottery, which was "introduced from Phoenicia to Cyprus not later than the early ninth century," and which he claims lent its features, notably the neckridge, to Rhodian pottery (Coldstream 1969, 1-5). In Coldstream's view, the Phoenician settlement in Rhodes is supported by evidence of other Phoenician features on the island, such as imported mushroom-lipped jugs, Egyptianizing objects and "the occasional use of Phoenician-type coarse amphorae to contain the inhumations of children" (Coldstream 1969, 2, 4-5). Reassessment of the evidence from Rhodes, however, suggests that Coldstream's views of Phoenician involvement with "perfumefactories" on the island have little substantial basis. The establishment of BoR pottery as a Cypriot pottery type, not contingent on a Phoenician introduction of the ware to Cyprus (see Chapter Four), removes the chief evidence with which to link the Phoenicians with the production of small unguent vessels in imitation of BoR on the

island. The presence of other non-BoR Cypriot pottery on the island, as imports and as imitations, also strengthens the likelihood of a Cypriot involvement in this process. Furthermore, additional evidence of the Phoenicians on Rhodes is meagre. Very few examples of Phoenician pottery have been found on the island, and these, as noted, may possibly be Cypriot imitations of Phoenician ware. As Coldstream observes, there is no attempt to "hellenize" the Phoenician wares (Coldstream 1969,2). The human faces moulded on the neck of the jugs which Coldstream regards as showing Phoenician influence (and the faces a "Semitic look") have good parallels in the Cypriot repertoire (Coldstream 1969, 3; Gjerstad 1948, 297-298). Egyptianizing objects found from the late 8th century on the island are not in themselves indicative of Phoenician residents on Rhodes and they may also represent local Rhodian imitations of Egyptian objects. 21 Lastly, there are very few examples of "Phoenician-type" amphorae containing inhumations on Rhodes and there is some evidence that this funerary custom should not solely be equated with mainland Phoenicians (Calvert 1980, 121). In the case of the amphorae on Rhodes, the only pottery found in context with them is Greek. 22 In general, therefore, although there may have been Phoenician residents on Rhodes who are not now archaeologically visible, it is difficult to identify "the Phoenicians of Ialysos" in the evidence for a perfume-oil industry on the island. In 1982, 1984 and 1998, drawing on new evidence from Cos and Crete, Coldstream restated his views of Phoenician 'perfumefactories' in the Dodecanese and Crete. He suggests that Kition "would have served the Phoenician traders as a forward base" for the 21

Boardman suggests, for example, that e x a m p l e s of Egyptianizing faience found at R h o d e s from the 7th and 6th centuries may have been the product of local Rhodian 'factories,' set up "possibly by Egyptians" on Rhodes and producing items similar to those found at Naucratis in Egypt (Boardman 1980, 126-127). Other associations between Cyprus, Rhodes and Naucratis during the 7th and 6th centuries are demonstrated by Cypriot influences on terracotta and limestone statuary found at Naucratis and on Rhodes (Hermary 1998, 2 6 7 - 2 6 9 ) . 22 Coldstream 1969, 8 n.53 and references there. Note, for example, the quantity of fine Greek and Corinthian pottery in the amphora found in Tomb C C X I in the cemetery of Checraci (Jacopi 1931, Figs. 4 1 2 , 4 1 3 ) . The diversity o f Phoenician funerary practice is notable. For a recent investigation into different Phoenician funerary customs, see the unpublished Phd thesis by E. Mazar ( 1 9 9 6 ) . She notes, however, that the significance of child burials in v e s s e l s within Phoenician funerary ritual still requires further investigation (Mazar 1996, 28).

setting up of these factories, and that evidence from Knossos also indicates "unguents locally bottled in a small factory staffed by resident Phoenicians" in Crete (Coldstream 1982, 268). Even considering the possibility of scientific evidence that BoR juglets were a Cypriot product, Coldstream "would still attribute their export to the energy of Phoenician traders settled at Kition, the most likely place for the genesis of Cypriot Black-on-Red ware, under some influence from the southernmost part of the Phoenician homeland" (Coldstream 1998, 258). There are, however, also some problems with these theories. First, the cemeteries of Cos provide evidence for a specific and prolonged interest in BoR pottery, beginning perhaps at the start of the 9th century and continuing to the end of the 8th, but so far not a trace of Phoenician pottery, or of Phoenician-influenced pottery, has been found in context with this ware. Second, the very limited Phoenician pottery found in the cemeteries at Knossos, again not locally imitated, is not adequate evidence from which to deduce a Phoenician association with local ceramic or perfumed oil manufacture. Third, significantly, scientific tests on ten imported BoR vessels found at Knossos have demonstrated that these examples are more likely to come from Palaepaphos-Skales than Kition (Liddy 1996, 481-488, 492). While BoR samples from Knossos, Palaepaphos-Skales and Al Mina cluster together, BoR samples taken from Kition are "very varied, and probably from different centres" (Liddy 1996, 486). This, therefore, belies Coldstream's attempt to link Phoenician trade in BoR with a Phoenician "forward base" at Kition, and fits well with the evidence of an especially large-scale production of BoR pottery at Palaepaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983, 374; S0rensen 1987, 130).23 The western location of Palaepaphos-Skales is the natural point from which Cyprus might have traded with the Aegean. While it remains possible that Phoenicians at Palaepaphos-Skales may have used this site as a base for trade westwards, as has been argued by Bikai for the earlier Iron Age period, finds from the later Iron Age at PalaepaphosSkales indicate that the Phoenician association with this site declines by c. 850 BC (Bikai 1987, 125-127; Karageorghis 1983, 374). 23 Note also the larger proportion of BoR pottery found at Palaepaphos-Skales; at Kition White Painted pottery remains consistently more popular than BoR at the site (Bikai n.d.). In addition, the handle-ridge juglet does not appear in quantity amongst the range of BoR wares at Kition.

There are several further indications that the importation and imitation of Cypriot ceramics in Crete, alongside a production of perfumed oil, was not under Phoenician auspices. First, Coldstream notes in Crete "a strange but brief prelude" to the later "eastern unguent trade" - the presence of Cretan-made juglets with distinctive ribbed sides which seem to imitate ribbed Cypriot pottery - Late Bronze Age Bucchero ware and Iron Age Black Slip ware (Coldstream & Catling 1996, 346-7; Coldstream 1998, 256). This pottery at Knossos is dated by Coldstream to the mid-9th century, and scientific examination of the clay of these juglets suggests that they originated in eastern Crete (Coldstream 1998, 256). This suggests, therefore, that an interest in and imitation of Cypriot pottery may already have been established on the island by the time of the first BoR imports and that the subsequent process of imitation and adapation of BoR represented a perpetuation of Cretan interest in Cypriot products - both pottery and probably perfumed oil. Second, the complete absence of BoR and other Cypriot pottery from the purportedly Phoenician site of Kommos in Crete, whose later phases are contemporary with the Iron Age tombs at Knossos, and which produced over two hundred fragments of Phoenician pottery, mostly amphorae, contrasts starkly with the evidence from the Knossian cemeteries (Shaw 1989, 181-182). Coldstream proposes that the Phoenician trade route via Kommos was perhaps "the one most favoured by Phoenicians bound further west" (Coldstream 1998, 260). It is notable also that it is on this south coast of Crete that a site with the prefix "Phoinix" is found (Markoe 1996, 60; 1998, 234). It seems that, in fact, Kommos and the pottery industry at Knossos are best perhaps interpreted as entirely different trading enterprises - and probably different traders. Finally, any Phoenician interest in setting up "factories" on these islands must have been in order to dominate and exploit a trade in local products. However, the locally-manufactured handle-ridge juglets on all three islands, decorated in Geometric or the "CretoCypriot" style, have not been found outside the islands themselves, strongly suggesting that the local products were intended for local markets. Possible exceptions are the Rhodian "spaghetti" motif imitations, of which some examples are found further west in Etruria (Coldstream 1998, 257). Otherwise the only evidence we have for association between the local products of these islands are the two

imitation Bichrome Red jugs found at Knossos which most likely come from the Dodecanese, and an imitation BoR juglet from Rhodes which is similar to a group found on Cos (see above). The absence of a wider circulation of the locally-manufactured vessels indicates that the benefits to the Phoenicians of orchestrating and dominating local production would have been negligible. The common denominator between the three islands is, instead, the BoR pottery. This therefore suggests that the arrival of this pottery, and most probably the products it contained, intended in each case simply to satisfy local demand, which was then further stimulated into local production. Re-examination of the evidence, therefore, from the islands of Rhodes, Cos and Crete, suggests that there is, in fact, no stronger basis on which to associate the Phoenicians with trade in BoR pottery to the west than there is for the Cypriots. Our current evidence does not endorse Coldstream's views of a Phoenician involvement in the setting up or staffing perfume-oil industries on these islands. This albeit attractive - theory remains based on circumstantial evidence and reflects, perhaps, a current tendency to assign most facets of early Iron Age trade in the Mediterranean to the "Phoenician expansionist trading strategy in the central and western Mediterranean" (Rupp 1987, 154). In this context, it should be noted that our knowledge of the earliest Phoenician trading activity in the Aegean is based on a sporadic distribution of so-called Phoenician luxury items found in western locations, and 'oriental' influences noted on Greek ceramics and metalwork, predominantly from the Orientalizing period (Boardman 1980, 56-60; Markoe 1996, 54-59). Many scholars have argued on the basis of the 'oriental' metalwork in particular, including the 'Teke' Phoenician bronze bowl of the mid-9th century found at Knossos, for the presence of immigrant Phoenician metalworkers in Crete from this period onwards (Coldstream 1982, 266-268; 1998, 259; Markoe 1996, 59), although recent studies have challenged the scale of this industry. 24 There is, however, no evidence that these immigrant craftsmen were also involved with the ceramic or perfumeoil industry on the island. The 'oriental' influences which have been 24

Sarah Morris, in discussion after Matthäus 1998, 157, with reference to a new P h D dissertation by G. H o f f m a n from the University of Michigan. Boardman also suggests the possibility that, with regard to the metalworkers and their products on Crete, "even Cyprus could prove to be the immediate source" (Boardman 1980, 57). S e e also Markoe 1998 for a discussion of Phoenician metal interests on Crete.

detected on some aspects of Greek ceramics, are solely derived from eastern metalwork and other luxury goods (Markoe 1996, 59). Lastly, two ancient sources provide some evidence in support of the views presented here. At the beginning of the Histories, Herodotus refers to the Phoenicians' "long trading voyages" during which "[1]oaded with Egyptian and Assyrian goods, they called at various places along the coast" (Herodotus, Histories I). He tells the story of the snatch of the Argive women while the Phoenicians were "disp1ay[ing] their wares" and the "women were standing about near the vessel's stern, buying what they fancied." Although this account is no more than a literary tradition, it does not suggest the considerable Phoenician commercial authority over different Mediterranean island communities which is proposed in the hypothesis of Phoenician "factories" of perfumed oil, and which would be likely to have persisted in local memory. Second, Pliny's comments in the Natural History concerning perfumed oil production are of interest here (see Chapter Two). He comments that, amongst other Mediterranean regions, Phoenicia was indeed involved with the production of perfumed oil (Pliny, Natural History XIIL4-6). However, not only did this Phoenician involvement occur apparently at a date later than that with which we are concerned, it is clear that the Phoenicians are not known to have had a monopoly over perfumed oil production. Pliny writes: The perfume most highly praised in the old days was made on the island of Delos, but later that from the Egyptian town of Mendes ranked the highest... The iris perfume of Corinth was extremely popular for a long time, but afterwards that of Cyzicus, and similarly the attar of roses made at Phaselis, but this distinction was later taken from it by Naples, Capua and Palestrina. Oil of saffron from Soli in Cilicia was for a long time praised most highly, but subsequently that of Rhodes; vine-flower scent made in Cyprus was preferred, but afterwards that from Adramytteum, and scent of marjoram made in Cos, but afterwards quince-blossom unguent from the same place, and cyprus-scent made in Cyprus, but subsequently that made in Egypt; at this point scent from Mendes and almond-oil suddenly became more popular, but later on Phoenicia appropriated these two scents and left the credit for cyprus-scent to Egypt.

(Pliny, Natural History XIII:2) Pliny's comments do not, therefore, indicate historical consciousness of Phoenician control over perfumed oil production in the regions under consideration. It should, in addition, be noted that the ingredients recorded by the ancient sources for the production of

the Mendesian perfume - oil of Balanites aegytiaca L., myrrh, cassia ΟCinnamomum iners) and resin - are not believed to be native to the Dodecanese or Crete, but originate in Arabia and Egypt (Manniche 1999, 16-17, 26-28, 65). In contrast, therefore, to a Phoenician involvement with perfumed oil production in the Dodecanese and Crete, it is plausible to reconstruct Cyprus as the key player in this trade, exporting its wares and stimulating local production on the islands. The importation of Cypriot BoR pottery from perhaps as early as the mid-9th century and its continuation alongside local imitations and variations of the ware, suggests that the islands were closely involved with Cyprus from the 9th, throughout the 8th and into the 7th centuries. The subsequent proliferation on Rhodes and Cos of Corinthian aryballoi, and their local imitations, suggests that by the late 7th century however, the perfumed-oil market was dominated by Corinth. In view of the earlier Cypriot association with this part of the Aegean, Gjerstad's comments on Cypriot trade should be observed: C y p r u s f o r m e d a c e n t r e f r o m w h i c h t h e trade r o u t e s e x t e n d e d t o t h e p e r i p h e r y o f a w i d e c i r c l e , t o t h e f a c t o r i e s a n d o t h e r t r a d i n g - p l a c e s in S y r i a a n d P a l e s t i n e , t o t h e E g y p t i a n D e l t a , a n d in t h e W e s t t o R h o d e s , a n d , t h o u g h o f t e n via the A e g e a n .

R h o d e s , t o t h e r e m a i n i n g part o f G r e e c e a r o u n d

N u m e r o u s c r o s s - r o a d s j o i n e d u p in all d i r e c t i o n s w i t h t h e

p r i n c i p a l r o u t e s a n d o n all o f t h e s e m e r c h a n d i s e m o v e d t o a n d f r o m Cyprus, w h i c h thus b e c a m e a principal station for the c o m m e r c i a l and cultural

intercourse b e t w e e n

the Orient and the O c c i d e n t .

(Gjerstad

1948,465) Trade connections between Cyprus and Rhodes are well established during the Late Bronze Age, with Cypriot pottery imported to the island "if not in the MM III period then certainly in the LM I, continuing until the end of LH HIB" (Karantzali 1998, 98). Recent studies have also shown evidence of trade connections between Cyprus and Crete in the period preceding the arrival of BoR pottery. While no Proto-White Painted Cypriot pottery has yet been found on the island, contact during the 11th and early 10th century has been proposed in terms of Cypriot metalwork imported to Crete, in particular the importation of Cypriot bronze bowls with "lotus" handles, and evidence for related burial customs between the islands (Matthäus 1998, 140-141). Questions of the "elite" or "mercantile" nature of these early Iron Age Cypriot relations with Crete require further investigation (Matthäus 1998, 140-141). However, the interest

of Cyprus in the Dodecanese and Crete from the 9th century onwards is clearly demonstrated by Cypriot export of BoR pottery westwards, which, on the basis of the present evidence, does not appear to have lain in Phoenician hands. It seems likely that future investigations into the Iron Age trade networks in this region will find support for the possibility that "there are indeed two streams of export from the east, one Phoenician, one Cypriot" (Matthäus 1998, 158). Finally, the apparently exclusive trade in BoR juglets to the west provides a stark contrast to the export of a much broader range of BoR wares to the Levant in the preceding late 10th - 9th centuries. It appears that there is a shift in the dynamics of Cypriot foreign trade during this period, with a fall-off in exportation of Cypriot wares to the east from c. 800 BC and a new focus on trade westwards. This latter period also coincides with a substantial increase in the quantity of Greek pottery imported to the mainland Levant (eg. Koehl 1985, 148). The extent to which these patterns reflect general historical processes should therefore be considered, but are beyond the scope of this book.

CONCLUSION

This book has sought to investigate the long debated issues of the origin and date of BoR pottery, and in so doing, to resolve confusions over equivocal definition of the ware as "Cypro-Phoenician." More broadly, this book has aimed to throw some light on the interconnections between Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age. The need for satisfactory resolution of the issues of the origin and date of BoR has increased with a general trend towards a more 'global' view of Mediterranean archaeology, as research and excavation continues to illuminate intra-Mediterranean connections during the Bronze and Iron Ages. The ubiquity of this pottery type, which as a decorated fine ware is easily recognisable and generally preserved and published from excavations, renders it almost uniquely useful in reassessment of disparate chronologies in the East Mediterranean, as well as the shifting trade patterns during the progression of the Iron Age. Thus this book has approached study of the ware from four directions: an assessment of the geographical distribution of the ware in the East Mediterranean; a definition of the identifying features of the ware such that other pottery types are no longer arbitrarily placed in the same category; an assessment of the stratigraphical context of the pottery at key excavated sites in the mainland Levant, which currently provides the most secure basis for such an analysis; and an assessment of the internal chronology of the ware in Cyprus, which has dominated study and interpretation of this ware for the last half century. The results of these investigations have provided a workable hypothesis of the origin and chronology of the pottery. In addition, they have thrown some light on other aspects of East Mediterranean trade in the Iron Age, which, while they must remain speculative at this stage of research, are nevertheless potentially useful avenues of research. These will be discussed below. First, this book has shown that there is substantial evidence that this pottery is Cypriot in origin, manufactured in Cyprus and exported from the island to the regions of Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, the southern Levant and Egypt, and westwards to the Dodecanese and

Crete. Where the evidence is sufficient for such an assessment, the BoR juglet appears to dominate the other types of BoR pottery imported to these regions, and it is plausible to reconstruct the juglets as containing perfumed oil. Although we have no evidence of the nature of this oil or any production centre with which we can associate it, it appears on current evidence most likely that this commodity was exported from Cyprus inside or at least alongside the BoR juglets in which it was subsequently distributed. The oil was probably a simple rather than a composite fragrance, with perhaps similar herbal/coniferous components to the product identified in the Corinthian aryballoi of the later Iron Age (see Chapter Two, 68-69). Other BoR vessels distributed on the mainland Levant, such as the BoR bowl and jug, are likely to have been used as attractive 'tableware.' While BoR pottery appears most frequently in domestic contexts at sites on the mainland, indicating an everyday - or at least not strictly 'élite' use - the occasional appearance of BoR juglets in 'cultic' contexts suggests that they contained a commodity that may also have been desirable in purification or anointment ritual. While the origin of the ware appears to be exclusively Cypriot and the weight of scientific analysis appears to support this hypothesis - there is a reasonable possibility that the inspiration for the blackon-red decorative technique which is so characteristic of BoR was drawn from pottery produced on the mainland Levant in the preceding period. Although red-slipped pottery decorated with simple geometric black painted lines is found in both northern and southern coastal regions of the Levant in the early Iron Age, respectively dominated by 'Phoenician' and 'Philistine' material culture, it is especially the Phoenician versions of this style that appear in early tombs in Cyprus. It is therefore plausible that this early Phoenician pottery, provisionally termed 'Red Ware,' originally transmitted the idea of this decorative technique to Cypriot potters. The mode of transmission remains unclear. Were Cypriot potters simply exposed to this pottery through Phoenician wares imported to Cyprus, or were early Iron Age contacts between Cyprus and the mainland more extensive than has been traditionally believed? Could potters on the mainland have experimented with aspects of the decoration - and even shapes - of early Cypriot White Painted and Bichrome pottery which found its way to the Levant, and in turn transmitted their heterogenous products to Cypriot potters, encouraging the development of the more accom-

plished BoR style in Cyprus? These questions are not presently answerable, but should perhaps be considered in terms of early Cypriot-Levantine contact (discussed further below). Satisfactory resolution of the origin of true BoR ware, which can be placed in Cyprus, has also had considerable implications for its chronology. Chapters Three and Four assessed the evidence for the chronology of the ware. The examination of the contexts in which BoR pottery appears on the mainland, in Chapter Three, concluded that the ware first appeared in this region within a definable ceramic horizon, alongside certain pottery types which occur together with unusual regularity. It is reasonable to assume that these wares are diagnostic of a certain, and restricted, chronological period. Absolute dates for this chronological period, which we term 'Phase 1 ' of BoR pottery, are tentative. Nevertheless, examination of the external 'historical' evidence suggests that these pottery types, comprising the 'ceramic horizon,' occur also with some regularity in levels which appear to have been destroyed, sometimes with evidence of conflagration. In addition, a number of these sites are recorded as amongst those visited by the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak in the late years of the 10th century, approximately 925 BC. Given that the chronological 'window' available to date these strata must occur sometime between the 10th century and the late 8th century, before the Assyrian conquests, it is possible to assign the likely date of this Egyptian campaign to the destructions, and consequently to the ceramic horizon within which BoR pottery first occurs. It is suggested here, therefore, that Phase 1 of BoR pottery is dated around c. 925 BC - at the earliest, c. 940 BC - until the early years of the 9th century, approximately c. 880 BC. An alternative possibility, that these levels should be dated from the early-mid 9th century, may, with future excavation, prevail. Radiocarbon dates are still very limited for this period; those so far acquired appear to support both dating schemes, but with a possible preference for the former (Mullins 1999, 9). Phases 2 and 3 of BoR pottery on the mainland are dated in accordance with the chronology established for its initial appearance. Thus Phase 2 is dated here c. 880 - 800, and Phase 3 c. 800 until the Assyrian conquests of c. 730. This distinction is necessarily, however, highly tentative and in order to avoid artificial distinctions these subsequent stages of the circulation of BoR pottery are where possible considered together.

Chapter Four examined the chronology of the pottery within Cyprus. Assessment of Gjerstad's 1948 typology and chronology of the ware in conjunction with the appearance of the ware in stratified sequences on the mainland indicated that aspects of Gjerstad's typology are flawed. Birmingham's suggestion that the first appearance of BoR pottery should be raised within the Cypriot chronological sequence is confirmed through analysis of the initial appearance of BoR pottery in tombs on the island. The ware appears with some consistency alongside earlier White Painted and Bichrome pottery than Gjerstad's sequence proposes. Gjerstad's dating of the CyproGeometric Period II, with which BoR's first appearance can be associated, is c. 950 - 850 BC. The preceding period, Cypro-Geometric I, is dated c. 1050 - 950 BC. Raising the dates of the initial appearance of BoR pottery in Cyprus to within the earlier part of the CyproGeometric period, at least by c. 950 BC, resolves the problem of the late 10th century appearance of the pottery on the mainland, and thus its origin. It is consequently possible for BoR pottery of Cypriot origin to have been exported to the mainland by this period. This book also examined the latter stages of BoR pottery and its appearance on the Aegean islands further west than Cyprus: in particular Rhodes, Cos and Crete. The exportation of BoR pottery to these islands almost exclusively took the form of juglets, suggesting a selective trade in the product contained within them which is presumed to be perfumed oil. This trade appears to date from the early part of the 9th century throughout the 8th and into the 7th century. The role of the Phoenicians in conveying these vessels to the islands was considered. Although the view that the Aegean trade in BoR juglets lay in the hands of Phoenicians based on these islands has long prevailed, examination of the evidence for a Phoenician association with this trade suggests that this is largely circumstantial. The possibility that trade in these vessels should not be subsumed under a dominantly 'Levantine' westward quest for high-value materials in the 9th and 8th centuries, but comprised instead part of the increasingly complex commercial networks in the Aegean in this period of the Iron Age, in which perhaps Cypriots from western sites such as PalaepaphosSkales took part, should be considered. The investigations in this book have illuminated other aspects of the East Mediterranean Iron Age, which might be potentially useful avenues of future research. First, the analysis of stratigraphie contexts

at sites on the mainland can contribute, albeit to a small extent, to current controversies concerning the dating of 10th century levels in the southern Levant. The assessment of the stratigraphical reliability of these contexts at key sites in the region might itself be useful to future research. In addition, the establishment of a ceramic horizon ('Phase 1 ') definable by diagnostic pottery types which is identifiable in a broad range of sites in the region might be potentially useful for the purposes of relative chronology, and with increasing use of radiocarbon testing, an absolute chronology. Second, analysis of the distribution of BoR pottery through time throws up patterns which may have implications for the broader picture of Cypriot trade with other regions of the East Mediterranean. In particular, our current evidence suggests that the earliest Iron Age Cypriot contacts with the Levant were with regions under Phoenician influence, such as Tyre and Tel Dor. This supports the view that after the disruptions at the end of the Late Bronze Age, the first region to revitalize overseas links with Cyprus may have been the Phoenician littoral (Bikai 1992, 133; Sherratt 1994, 74).' The subsequent broadening of Cypriot commercial interests in the Levantine region may be reflected in the widespread distribution of Cypriot pottery, which possibly entered the region at some of the same nodal points used in the Late Bronze Age, such as Tell Abu Hawam and Akko, and perhaps Tell el-Ajjul in the south. The general fall-off in the quantity of this pottery in circulation in the later Iron Age, especially by the 8th century, is likely to reflect a shift in the commercial interests of Cyprus from east to west, where a market for particular Cypriot products was found. This appears to have been eventually overtaken by Greek commercial activity, which began to dominate both the trade in perfumed oil (viz. the Corinthian aryballoi) and the market in fine tableware which appears increasingly at sites in the Levant from the 7th century onwards. Third, analysis of Gjerstad's Cypriot chronology has suggested that there is scope for revision within this. The small revisions here, such as the upwards adjustment of the dating of BoR ware in Cyprus, have concomitant implications for the dating of sites that have, to a large extent, relied upon Gjerstad's chronology for their own absolute 1 A full investigation into these early Cypriot wares and their implications is desirable but not possible within the bounds of this book. See also Caubet 1992 and Koehl 1985, 148.

chronology. In particular, excavators of a number of sites in Phoenicia, often lacking the long stratigraphical sequences which have been traced at sites in the southern Levant, have dated their Iron Age levels to the 9th century onwards in accordance with the Cypriot dates for the pottery found within them. This has resulted in a discordance between the dating of sites on the northern and southern coasts of the Levant which on the basis of other aspects of material culture appear to have been in closer alignment than as currently presented. A revised dating for the Cypriot pottery on which many of these sites rely would bring these regions into greater alignment. Fourth, the likelihood that commercial networks in the Aegean region were not wholly monopolized by the Phoenicians' exploration westwards, but that alternative trade networks also flourished, involving Cypriots, perhaps, but not necessarily associated with Phoenicians at Kition, is suggested by the investigation here. Considerable further research is required, however, if any real determination in this period between different trade networks and different ethnic elements within them is to be possible. It is hoped, in conclusion, that this book has helped clarify some perplexing aspects of the Iron Age East Mediterranean, and pointed a way towards useful paths of future research.

APPENDIX I

COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION TABLE OF BoR POTTERY ON THE MAINLAND LEVANT, BY SITE AND PHASE

—

on

ε - νΜ 00 νο οο οο χι S <

οoc on M Ο

£

Ο

C/1 t—

ω υ ζ tù es ω u. w Ot fs}3j8nf

JÊ rA o r•SO· ri οο C ON

I s 1 SιΞ 3 •ζ: « .i U = CL.

N O N O & & O N O N — C ca cα Γ3 Ξ ε Ξ T3 op — -ο ιΖ 3ο cΟe 3 ο ffl CÛ CÛ ό*' ON' όΓ NC SO NO (N ΝC fN (Ν NO νΟ ON O ον u-ìN ON ON ο b. ε u. _o 3 ο ε^ χ CO Ë οχ CO οχ Η CO re <υ H "3 PO cο Jo cο CO Q c c- •ΛΙ- 0- Í2 eu 3 Ο 3 -J 3 Ο -α cJ •σ α Ό & —

—

•—1

on

00 Ov"

o

>1 CO H — NO 0- on 3 r< N fN Γο ΙΟ (Ν > r> o^ ON 3 C CO — Cω "3 cο Q S

u30ijj

^Λΐ/qav uaoqj * qaig uaoqj s|Mog qaig s8np qaia sjo|3nr qaig S|moq <ΙΛ\ sSnfdM sjajSnp s[Moe »oa sSnp yog sjaiSnpgog •OM ascqj

η M w b H " CΛ S

> CO c s < > <

> CO c n .o

"S I < 2

r-

crt Ο -α cυ G

ûtì iΖ

O (Νn

ΓΝ)

oo m

ON

NO

en

oo ON

IX

οr-

u υ ζ ai ω u.

ΙΛ

00 U,

-rN <

^sjoi8nj· uaoqj

< (N

ΓΛ

ON

H ^ .SP <> «^ fi ON <3 g a o S

ON

JC

£n ^— O «ο — 2 Ë ri co · • >— > On

-cn rn O m — O — »HCl 5 C > N O oo > ON 1> >1 .ĒP CL >K CO U· IN roΙ s3 T α oo' 0> — ' ΓΛ «β ON ON' rf in CL. M ON 2 ON 3
T) S Ξ oo

VC "

ca t *

YAizqov

ON

— —' Ci 00 c ε ^

Ι00 Λ1

ON

Tf"

ω Ο eQ

M m CN CL ri M CN (N

O m ON C υΓ3 c 3 Q

bi> Ε r-' Γ Λ m On

© '

£

uaoqj

* qoig uaoqj s|Moa q3!a sSnf i(.ijj] sjajSnp qDifl siAVOfl JA\ s8nf dM Sí3iānp JM s(Mog «»Η s3iif yog spiSnf tfog

NO

•0M oscqj

Λ -w

CS

W t Η <" WW ^ CΛ ?

ω

co

£>

ω -C

ca —

6

ω 00

S

u

0C3 >J>
J3 «J 0Π1 u S -ÌÖ èΩ D.^ ω o Cû j CQ D

υ υε •c

CO

ω

υε χ: C/3 XI 03 2

>N

en

»ο ·' Ο

Ο NO

S ^ «Μ

„

C U CQ

ε ε ON OC u · _r < Ο so c .ε > HI C On Q Ο — CÛ CQ I « ΓΝΐ u ofio*

— Tf

(N ~0000 S2 Ε Ï-S3 — ·U, ^— on ν D» Ρ « u J — ^ ε Ν „ η ON _J CÛΧ ^ «r .««N ο — ^ ON "Γ 2 Ο r-T 2 (Ν ο— 5 °° § S x " ΖCQ ^τ Os ><*>" Tt Ό 2 > J χ Ξ ON (Ν ON ON c > < — ΓΛ— ON « ^ ο C — •S X, oh H « £ a a _l 2 51 —'ci α! LZ > · < >• U

u υ ζ u as u u. u

1

06

^S)3jSnj' iiaoqj ^Aizqay U9oqd » qaig uaoqj S]Moa qsifl s3nf qaig s}D|3nf qaig

s3nf dAV sja|3nf dM s(Moa «oa s3np «oa S)3|3nr «oa •ojsj 9snqj

« «

b _iUJ—

> CU 00 CL,

ο* Z; 00 u-1 O -n > ÌŠ U IΛ gCJ >· U >· υ

NO

—

-

sj3|Snf a o a

•OM a s c q j

m

m

r<->

m

—

—

CN (Ν ÍN


Kilise Tepe

s j a | 8 n f qaifl

—

Kinet Hüyük


Khirbet Silm

sSnp qaig

Khan Sheikun

—

Khaldé

*Aizq3v u a o q j

Joya

-

Jerusalem

—

1

si^oa
1 Jericho

* qaig u a o q j

Hurvat Rosh Zayit

sj3|Snf

Hebron

s8nf jjoa

Hazor IV

sjMoa « « a

Hazor III

sSnp dA\

1

Hazor V cont.

SITE w/ strata

*sj3|3nf u o o q j —

NO


S|Mog q o i a

— —


—

—


—

(Ν

— —

—.

Gates, pers. comm.; Hodos 1999

Baker et al. 1995, 166; Knappet 1999

Chapman 1972, 142-147; 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 182, Fig. 3 1 ; Culican 1982, Abb.8

Gjerstad 1948, 253

Saidah 1966, 57, 66, 69

Chapman 1972, 142-145, 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 182. Fig. 31

Eshel & Prag 1995, 34, Pl. 7:17, 18

Kenyon 1982 , 5 1 7 , Fig. 213:19-20

Gal 1984, 56-59; 1992, 173-186, Figs. 5-9; 1995, 89-98; personal exam.

Unpublished. 3 located in Bade Museum, California; 1 in École Biblique, Jerusalem

Yadin 1958, PI. LXXVII:9-10, 25, LXXVIII:22

Yadin 1961, PI. CCLV:15

LXXXII.T6; PI. XCII:16; Yadin 1961, PI. CLXXXIX:16, CCXXI:5, CLXXXVIII:22, CCLII:14-15

REFERENCE

NO

L/Ί

NO

« NO O N 00 . . — oc C- OοC Ndd 2 g K OC ~ CO <->* .a fN > CO 1 ^ - •> es — - C ) û ^ Q Ο <Ν r! ^6n* C<λ U.. O— N χ ^ on oo ON ON «« Χ nO - S Ε Cl . . On' 00* ON 3 < J, s ^ C 00* fproNNp Ο On Ο °N —5 Ο Ooo' O O η. ~ Ο. O n ·§-C »rj 71 NO' •JE Um 0s" «Λ Ο&0 ΟΟ χ: ο 2O m oo cy 2 CO rc Γ ~ * C ε3 I S t Ο CRT ο, 1 2 -c O ONεCO >« u ·=• x: On Ο C (Λ (/) (N ON—1 (Νι—ι C α £

c

'

M υ ζ u ec u ω et

o

00 Ε ro ΓOn C οa "Ξ Ο

ON

00* do

bû Ε (Ν οο < Ν Γ-

NO

— I τ ON (N Cl σ^ (O Νn*
ΙΟ m ι Γ"φ

Tf*

(Ν ON ^

ω c5^ Ο

εCL

CO •FI

^sjoi3nf u.ioqj ^Aizqay uaoqj y q3|a uaoqd siMoa qaia s3nf qo;a sja|8nf qaia siMoa cl M s3nf j M sj3|Snf dM sjMoa «ioa s3np yoa sp|3nf uoa

NO

•0f^ osBqf|

M

eá Wb H ^ t

>< ο •Ό •Ό '»ω

ο

Ό Ό

'üΟb

ο

-α

Ή '5ωο

Ο Ό -α

JZ ο.

ο Ε εο

'μ-2

S Ss

CO

U Jß

il

—

U ΓΟ

ω >> CO

σ

•OM

sj3|3nr y o a

3SBqj

* qoja u a o q j

fN

fN

-

fN

fN

fN

1

fN

—

OO

—

ο

—

—

—

—

fN

—

vo

fN

fN

—

1

Tel Dor

τ

Tel Dor Phase 9

s3np « o a

Tt-

Tarsus

m

Tel 'Amal IVIII

si^oa d M

Tabbat alHammam

s 3 n p d/ vV

Shiqmona

—

Ta'anach IIB

sjaiSnf qaja

Sarepta Substr. C

s|Moa a o a

Sanam

qaia

Sarepta Substr. D2

S|Moa

Ras al-Bassit

Λ[ΖΙ|3Υ

Samaria II

Ϋ

SITE w/ strata

»sjai3nf u o o q j fN

U00l)([ fN

fN

s8nf qaig

— — —

C1 —

—

sjaiSnr d M

—

fN

ο

_

Stem 1990, 27-34; 1994, 110; 1995a, 81-93; 1995b, 13, 17, 28, 48; Gilboa 1989; personal exam.

Gilboa 1989, 1998; Stern 1990, 27-34; 1994, 85-104

Edelstein & Levy 1972, 325-367, Figs. 15:10-11, 13:18-19

Hanfmann 1963, 57, 177, 202-205, 246-247

Braidwood 1940, 191-193, Fig. 4; Chapman 1972, 1 7 1

Sellin 1904, Figs. 8b, 44, 97, 94, taf. V:l; Rast 1978, 24-54, Fig. 93,5-6

Elgavish 1993, 1374

Pritchard 1975, Fig.26:l,12; Koehl 1985,49, 129-132; Anderson 1988, 274, PI. 34:14, 36:11,38:11

Anderson 1988, 407, 274 PI. 32:19, 34:17

Gjerstad 1948, 240

Gjerstad 1948, 246; Kenyon 1957, 195-196, Fig. 33; Tappy 1992, 126-132

Courbin 1993,55-64, 1 1 5

REFERENCE

m — Ό ca <Ν C/5 W. ON υ U 00 Ό c52 VO g oo a — CN Ο •e oo •ρ χ C i : TT « ΧΟ O — ON Q. N

M υ ζ Ν es u u. u tt

m•
oo

c g

• uο εο -εt: « .ë ë ο 2

s p J -S j

U, r-Γ r- £ oo ο ^O— I LZ .= r-, N . ε On "c/5 °°N 2;0ΟOC ο vo g O Ζ. ON 2 S N _· oo ^ 1 3 < >
,sj3|Snp uooqj fAIZIJDV

uaoqj

» MDig uaoqj S[AVog qoifl s8nf qaia sj0|3n[· qaig siMoa
•0M aseqd

Λ -M

es Λ CO h Χ) ω b U Η " 55 f j 5 1

j= -sε 2 ο •c 5 S -Ç > C 3 CS c^ ο · S „ S * J> — g _ > U. Ο CΛ ω — çj » — ω — ( ω s- r Η > Η Χ Η Χ

—


sSnf a o a

fN

CI

—

—

«

in
—

—

I

•

f

-

—

Tell Beit Mirsim B2

—

Tell Beit Mirsim Silo 6

sSnp qaja

Tell Abu Hawam III

si^oa d M

Tell Abu Hawam IV

sí3lSnr JAV

Tel Zeror cist tomb

CI

1 Tel Zeror

s|Moa a o a

1 Tel Rehov

fN

Tel Qiri VI-V

•OM ascqd

Tel Qiri VII/VI

sjajSnf a o a

Tel Qiri VIIA

w/ strata

SITE

S)d[3np uooqj

sSnf d M

-

<

t

r

Albright 1943, 9-10, Pis. 91:5, 30:14, 3; Greenberg 1987, 55-80

Albright 1932, 65, PI. 30:3; Gilboa 1989, 2 1 3

1935, 6-8; Maisler 1 9 5 1 , 2 1 -25, Balensi & Herrera 1985; Herrera 1989; Aznar Sanchez 1996

Balensi & Herrera 1985, 101 n.24; Gilboa 1989,212

Ohata 1967, PI. X:3

Ohata 1967, PI. X:l-2

Recent excavations, Mazar pers. comm.

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 43:10-11, 22:18

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Figs. 22: 18, 24:8, 30:7

Hunt 1987, 200-202; Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 14:4

REFERENCE

fN r-

c Γη όσε κ ιίΞ

fN

vizqoy u o o q j

* q a i g uaoMd

S|/wog q a i g •

<

sja|3iif q a i g

*

fN

—

es

—


—

—

ε et C

l·-

Ί-

•OM a s e q d

•7

fN

sSnr y o a

ΓΛ

—<

—

fN

—

fN

ΓΛ

—

—

fN

Tell ezZuweyid

s[Mog g o g —

Tell es-Safi

—

Tell er-Reqeish

—

Tell er-Rachidiyeh

sSnf d/w

Tell en-Nasbeh tombs

s|Aiog d/W

Tell el-Hesi

sjMog q a i g

Tell elHammeh

uaoqj

Tell el-Ful

i/l

Tell el-Farah (N) Vlld

sjajSnf y o a

Tell el-Farah (N) Vllb

s*>|3nf dAV

Tell el-Ajjul

Ϋ

Tell Darouk (early)

¥ A|zqDV

SITE w/ strata

* s ) d | 3 n f uaoqd

—

qaig u a o q j

—

sSnf qoig

sjajSnf q o i g

-

-

fN —

—

-

-

ο

fN

Petrie 1937, 7, Pis. XIII, XXX, XXXVIII

Unpublished, recent excavations (A. Faust pers.comm.)

Culican 1973, 66-105; Figs. 1 : R 1 , 2 : R 2 , 3:R16, 12, 13;Oren 1986, 88

du Plat Taylor 1959, 89; Doumet 1982, 1 9 9 1 , pers. comm.

Wampler 1947, 25, 78, 80, 82, PI. 43:873877; Kaiser pers. comm.

Gjerstad 1948, 244; Blakely pers. comm.

Cahill, Lipton & Tarier 1987; Cahill, Tarier & Lipowitz 1989, 33-38; Cahill 1993

Albright 1924, PI. XXXI:7; Gilboa 1989, 214|

De Vaux 1952; Chambon 1984, 70, Pl. 62

De Vaux 1952; Chambon 1984, 70, Pl. 62

Petrie 1932, Pl. XXXV; de Montlivault 1982; personal exam.

Ehrich 1939, 86; Riis 1960, 1 1 1 ; Chapman 1972, 173

REFERENCE

•0{«j o s n q j s S n f JAV r-

—

sjoiSnf dM.

rr

—

s|Moa y o a

ΓΛ η-

—

—

OO

ο

(Ν

—

—


fN

r<ï

©

r-

—

m

(Ν

1

—

Tell Sukas

f-

m m

Tell Sukas

siMoa , i \ \

Tell Qasile IXVIII

—

Tell Qasile XIX


Tell Keisan 4

S[Mog q a i a

Tell Keisan 4/5/6

m <Ν

Tell Keisan 5

—

Tell Keisan 6

sSnp Moa

Tell Keisan 7

sj3jSnf q a i a

Tell Keisan 8

sSnj· qaig

Tell Kazel

sj3|Snf H » a

Tell Judeidah

SITE w/ strata

*sj3|Snf u a o q j

^Aizqay u a o q j

* qDig u a o q j

—

—

Ό

m

(N

—

I

Lund 1986, 26, 40

du Plat Taylor 1959, 88; Riis 1970,40-129; Lund 1986, 74, 51, Figs. 3 1 , 32, 49, 50

Mazar 1985, 81-82; Mazar pers.comm.

Mazar 1985, Figs. 27:4-6, 45:18

de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished, located in École Biblique, Jerusalem

de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished, located in École Biblique, Jerusalem

de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished, located in École Biblique, Jerusalem de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished, located in École Biblique, Jerusalem

de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished, located in École Biblique, Jerusalem

Briend & Humbert 1980, 194-196, Pl. 56:1-2, 4; de Montlivault 1982, 178-180

Dunand et al. 1964, 1 - 1 4 ; Badre et al. 1990, 103-113

Bliss & Macalister 1902, 84-85, PI. 31

REFERENCE

I

Tyre XII

1 fN

—

fN

fN

—


fN

ci ΓΛ —

(N

fN

Yoqneam XII

fN

Yoqneam XIII

—

Yoqneam XVXIV

—

Tyre II

— —

Tyre III

—

Tyre V

—

Tyre VI

— —

Tyre VIII

t—

Tyre IX

-7

Tyre X-l

m

Tyre X-2

Tyre XI

1

Tyre XIII-1


—


—

—

—

(N

ΓΛ

—

—

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 202-204; Hunt 1985: Zarzeki-Pelep 1997

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 202-204; Hunt 1985; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 202-204; Hunt 1985; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997

Bikai 1978, PL. XIA:21

Bikai 1978, Pl. XIV:17, PI. XIB.22

Bikai 1978, PI. XVIIIA:20; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, Pl. XVIIIA: 16, 17, 18 , 21-22; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, PI. XXIIA:9, 10, 1 1 ; PI. XX:3; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, PI. XXIIA:15, 16; PI. XXI:6; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, PI. XXIII:9, 19, 20; PI. XXIV:3; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, Pl. XXVIII: 1 , 2 , 4-9; Table 13A |

Bikai 1978, PI. XXX:2; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXII:7,10; PI. XXXI:15; Table 13A

Bikai 1978, PI. XXXIV:4, 9, 12; Table 13A

wo

3

-o O.

w υ ζ, w u. w ai fsj0|oin·

2 o 1< Hs4

uaoqj

»Aizqay uaoqd

C

* «P!8 uaoqj

Z.I

S|Mog M3!8

6Z

Sori|· ipia

9Z

sjajSnf qaig

61

si^oa dM

P9

s3nf JM

»'S

sj3[Snf dM

zs

s|Moa Hoa

SIZ

sSnf aoa

se

s}D|Snp aoa

P9£

•ON ascqd

n« U t H ^ ï

.S* "T « ·= Ji 00 ao <2 £ .2, ai '"§ > o g. x: S m .£x: en — Ό n) c í x:ë -s y Uε5 S .y Uω Dû S = C c 2 M o<j ä 'û c c cω Sc g O.2 O O, ë £ S. ä CL II II > ν ω S a -S "5b T> DÛ C ω οCo Coω ooC o J= X X X CIIL. C. û, eu

N

A P P E N D I X II

IRON AGE CYPRIOT POTTERY ON THE MAINLAND: STATISTICS

1) Total Cypriot Pottery on Mainland: 2) Total Cypriot Pottery on Mainland in period of BoR (Phases 1-3):

858 vessels

3) Total BoR of all Cypriot Pottery, including early:

71%

4) Total W P of all Cypriot Pottery, including early: 5) Total Bich of all Cypriot Pottery, including early:

19% 9%

6) Total BoR of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 7) Total W P of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 8) Total Bich of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period:

69% 21%

9) BoR Juglets of Total BoR: 10) BoR Jugs of Total BoR: 11 ) BoR Bowls of Total BoR:

814 vessels

59% 6% 35%

12) W P Juglets of Total WP, including early: 13) W P Jugs of Total WP, including early: 14) W P Bowls of Total WP, including early:

30% 32% 38%

15) W P Juglets of Total WP, during BoR period: 16) W P Jugs of Total WP, during BoR period: 17) W P Bowls of Total WP, during BoR period:

31% 37 % 32%

18) Bich Juglets of Total Bich, including early: 19) Bich Jugs of Total Bich, including early: 20) Bich Bowls of Total Bich, including early:

26% 35% 39%

21) Bich Juglets of Total Bich, during BoR period: 22) Bich Jugs of Total Bich, during BoR period: 23) Bich Bowls of Total Bich, during BoR period:

23% 36% 41%

24) BoR Juglets of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 25) BoR Jugs of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 26) BoR Bowls of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early:

42% 4% 25%

27) BoR Juglets of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 28) BoR Jugs of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 29) BoR Bowls of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period:

45% 4% 26%

APPENDIX (III): BOR VESSEL TYPES: CHRONOLOGICAL 'PHASE' ON MAINLAND VERSUS GJERSTAD'S CLASSIFICATION * * O n l y w h o l e o r c l e a r l y d i a g n o s t i c v e s s e l s in g o o d c o n t e x t s i n c l u d e d .

W h e r e n o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is g i v e n u n d e r G j e r s t a d ' s t y p o l o g y , the v e s s e l is o f r e c o g n i s a b l e t y p e but is e i t h e r t o o f r a g m e n t a r y to a s s i g n a c a t e g o r y or is not a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e t y p o l o g i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s .

* S e e Chapter Three for assessment of chronological 'phase' of B o R p o t t e r y at m a i n l a n d s i t e s .

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological -

'Phase *

Gjerstad's Classification

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 5: 123; Loud 1948, Type 492 (not illus.)

Handle-ridge juglet

12

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II(IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 17:87; Loud 1948, pi. 89:6

Two-handled juglet

6

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. X X X I X : 18

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 8:176; Loud 1948, pi. 88:9

Trefoil-lipped jug

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2 + BoR I (III) Cf. Fig. XXV: 18, 19

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loud I948.pl. 88:6,7

Trefoil-lipped juglet

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIIL23+ Fig. XXXIX:6

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loud 1948, pi. 88:8

Trefoil-lipped squat juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:I8,19

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loud I 9 4 8 . p l . 88:18

Conical juglet

4

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 29:107

Wide medium-deep bowl with low foot, flat looped handles

3

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 30:140

Wide medium-shallow bowl with low foot, horizontal bar handles at rim

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948. Fig. XXXVII: 14

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 32:169

Medium bowl with carinated body, flat looped handles

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL23

Comments

2 of these vessels possibly in Str. VB

Locus 2081

Site &

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

Stratum

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's

Comments

Classification

Hazor IX

Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, pi. CCVIII:38

Trefoil-lipped squat juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:18

Hazor IX-X

Yadin (ed) 1958, pi. XLVI: 1,2

Handle-ridge juglet

2

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Hazor IXB

Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, pl. CLXXV: 18

Deep carinated bowl, no handles (?)

1

1

BoR II (IV) - no exact parallel

Hazor XA

Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, pi. CLXXIV:9

Deep carinated bowl, frags only

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24 (not exact parallel)

Ta'anach Cultic Structure?

Rast 1978, Fig. 93:6

Conical Juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

Stratigraphy less reliable

Ta'anach Cultic Structure?

Rast 1978, Fig. 93:5

Handle-ridge juglel

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Stratigraphy less reliable

Tel Michal XIV

Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.1.1

Wide medium-shallow bowl with flat looped handles (no base preserved)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 10)

Tel Michal XIV

Singer-Avitz 1989. Fig. 7.1.15

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

Tel Michal XIII

Singer-Avitz 1989. Fig. 7.3.10

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Tel Michal XIII

Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.3.11

Conical juglet (with 'eye' & bulging neck)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:9

Rim & neck only preserved

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Comments

Beersheba VI (VII)

Herzog 1984, Fig. 24:7, 30:8

Handle-ridge juglet

2

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. X X X V I I L 9

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 8:3

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Beth-Shan Lower Level V (VI)

James 1966, Fig. 9:2

'Sack'-shaped juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1 6 - o r poss. BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIIL21

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 22:1

Trefoil-lipped jug

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1 8 or poss. BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXIX:2

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 22:9

Barrel-juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:6,7

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 18:21

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tell elFarah (N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:8

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. X X X I X : 18

Inaccurate drawing

Tell elFarah (N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:9

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIIL9

Inaccurate drawing

Tell elFarah(N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:3

Wide medium-deep bowl, looped handles (no foot preserved)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20

Tell elFarah (N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:7

Amphora

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVI:2

N o neck preserved

Not exact parallel

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Comments

Tel 'Amal IV (-III)

Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 13:19

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tel 'Amal IV (-III)

Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 15:10

Small mediumdeep bowl, two flat looped handles

1

1

Tel 'Amal IV (-III)

Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 15:11

Medium-deep bowl, two flat looped handles

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:20

Tell Keisan Niv. 8b-c

Briend & Humbert 1980, Fig. 56:2

Medium bowl with carinated body

1

1

BoR Π (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:23

Tell Keisan Niv. 8b-c

Briend & Humbert 1980, Fig. 56:1

Wide, mediumdeep bowl with looped handles (no base preserved)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (HI): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Tell elHammeh Loci 117119

Cahill 1989, 36

Handle-ridge juglets

2

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tel Halif tomb

Biran & Gophna 1970

Handle-ridge juglets

5

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tell Abu Hawam III

Hamilton 1935, PL. XIII:87

Conical juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

Room 18

Sarepta Substratum D-l

Anderson 1988, pi. 34:14

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Neck & handle juncture only preserved

Sarepta Substratum C-2

Anderson 1988, pi. 36:11

Conical juglet

1

2

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: II

Beth-Shan Upper Level V

James 1966, Fig. 13:8

Handle-ridge juglet

1

2

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

BoR II (IV) CF. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXV1L17

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Megiddo IV

Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5:123

Handle-ridge juglet

1

2

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Megiddo III

Lamon & Shipton 1939. PI. 5:123

Handle-ridge juglet

4

3

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948. Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Megiddo III

Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 17:87

Two-handled juglet

2

3

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Megiddo IV

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 29:107

Wide medium-deep bowl with low foot. flat looped handles

1

2

Comments

Stratigraphy less reliable

Stratigraphy less reliable

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Megiddo III

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 29:107

Wide medium-deep bowl with low foot, flat looped handles

1

3

Megiddo II

Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 29:109

Bowl with concentric circles (frag. only)

1

3

Megiddo IV

Loud 1948, PI. 91:2

Trefoil-lipped juglet

1

2

Hazor VII

Yadin 1958, PI. L : I 4

Handle-ridge juglet (Frag, only)

2

2

Two-handled juglet (Frag, only)

1

Hazor VIII

Yadin I960. PI. LVIILI2

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Late type but frag. only. Possibly from jar. BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6

Frag, of neck only. poss. conical juglet 2

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948. Fig. X X X I X : 18

Frag, of neck only

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Comments

Hazor VII

Ben-Tor ed. 1989, PI. CCXIV17

Very shallow bowl (frag, only)

1

2

Frag, only

Hazor VI

Ben-Tor ed. 1989, PI. CLXXXII:18

Wide medium-shallow bowl, flat looped handles (no base preserved)

1

3

Tel Qiri VB/VI

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 43:10

Wide deep bowl with bar handles frag, only

1

2

Frag only + poss. inaccurate reconstruction

Tel Qiri V

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 22:18

Simple-rimmed bowl - frag, only

1

3

Frag only + poss. inaccurate reconstruction

Tell elFarah (N) Vlld

Chambon 1984, Pi. 62:5

Shallow bowl with low carination

1

3

BoR II (IV)?

N o exact parallel

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:12, 7, 10

Handle-ridge juglet

3

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Note: Chronolo gy of this site undetermined as site not yet fully published. Possibly belongs in Phase 2.

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:9, 8

Trefoil-lipped juglet

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:23 + Fig. XXXIX: 6

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:6

Basket-handled spouted juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV22

Hurvat Rosh Zayit

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:11

Conical juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15

Site &

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

Stratum

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Unpublished (Ref. (96-2454)

Conical juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 13

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:4

Trefoil-lipped jug

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:1

Wide medium-shallow bowl with low foot, horizontal bar handles at rim

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 14

Hurvat Rosh Zayit

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:2

Wide medium shallow bowl with low foot, two looped handles

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15

Tyre VIII

Bikai 1978, PI. XIIA:I0, PI. XXIIA:9

Handle-ridge juglet

2

2

Tyre II

Bikai 1978, PI. XIA:21

Medium bowl with carinated body (no handles preserved)

1

3

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24

Hama Niv. Ε

Ingholt 1940, 97-98 PI. XXX:2

Trefoil-lipped juglet

2

3

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:23

Hama Niv. Ε

Fugman 1958,252253, Fig. 325

Handle-ridge juglet

2

3

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Comments

Peculiar vessel sawn off at waist and drilled with suspension holes

Necks only preserved

A P P E N D I X IV

T H E EARLIEST A P P E A R A N C E OF BOR POTTERY AT PALAEPAPHOS-SKALES:

PROPORTIONS OF BOR TYPES VERSUS WHITE PAINTED (After Karageorghis 1983)

BoR Footed Bowls

«

IN

BoR Plain Bowls


rn

IN

O^

BoR Amphorae

M

IN

ύ χ =5 u Ζ SS β ei τν e « - = S = 'Ζ -!

IN

»

5 « -» ψ σ «

*

~ £ S ?Sfi Sfi S -î=

OC

IN

Ό

oc

oc

M

M

TF

(Ν

Γ-

'i-j

vC

OO

Ο

ιΛί

ί vO

Ξ ·= § ^ bLÍ ûs

I—

vC

Tomb 52

SI

^ m

É £

C

Π

Tomb 46

ST

CL

IN

TOMB

· -

-Τ

Tomb 69

ä 1 ν JÏ

M

IN

Tomb 63

White Painted Amphorae

IN
Tomb 54

—

TFR

(N

IN

«ο

NC

Ct t

Ό >/"

IN

nn

Tomb 79 (Lower) Tomb 80

Τ

Tomb 77

IN

Tomb 90 (Lower) TOTALS

Κ

Tomb 72

Β;

Tomb 71

4.

FIGURES

Figure 2:1 - BoR juglet from Lapithos tomb 417 (82) (Photo courtesy of K. Kaiser)

16

^L7

S

10

I5EN

J

10

IJcw

Φ 5

10

m

TB*

12

15

14

13

17

•saatr? :

20

^7 19

18

3

10

I3ca 21

Figure 13 - (1) (2) (3) (4)

Corinithian aryballos Cypriot Bichrome Jug with Ship Motif Wind Routes in the East Mediterranean Terracotta Equid Carrying Pots

2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, C. M.

1976 Cypro-Geometric Pottery: Refinements in Classification. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XLVII, Göteborg. Aharoni, Y. 1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. The Biblical 31(l):2-32.

Archaeologist

1973 Beersheba I: Excavations at Tel Beersheba, 1969 - 1971 Seasons.

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Aharoni, Y. (editor)

1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and Residency (Lachish

V). 5 vols. Gateway Publishers, Tel Aviv.

1975 Tel Beersheba, 1975: Notes and N e w s . Israel

Exploration

Journal 25:169-171. Albright, W. F. 1924 Excavations at Gibeah of Benjamin (Tell el-Ful). Annual

of the

American School of Oriental Research IV. 1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim I. Annual

of the

American

School of Oriental Research XII. 1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim III. Annual

of the

American

School of Oriental Research XXI-XXII. Albright, W. F. and E. Gjerstad 1953 Correspondence with Professor Einar Gjerstad on the Chronology of "Cypriote" Pottery from Early Iron A g e Levels in

Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 130:22-26. Alexandre, Y. 1995 The 'Hippo' Jar and Other Storage Jars at Hurvat Rosh Zayit.

Tel Aviv 22:77-88. Amiran, R.

1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Massada Press, Jerusalem.

A m y x , D. A.

1988 Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period II-III. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Anderson-Stojanovic, V. R. 1987 The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria.

American Journal of Archaeology 91:105-122. Anderson, W.

1988 Sarepta 1: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Département des publications de l'université libanaise, Beyrouth. 1989 The Pottery Industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon), with Parallels to Kilns from Other East Mediterranean

Sites. In Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics, edited by P. E. McGovern, pp. 197-216. Ceramics and Civilisation, vol. IV, W. D. Kingery, general editor. The American Ceramic Society, Inc., Westerville, Ohio. 1990 The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and Ceramic Technology in the Early Phases of The Phoenician Iron A g e .

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279:35-54. Andrae, W. 1943 Die Kleinfunde & Co., Berlin.

von Sendschirli

V. Verlag von Walter de Gruyter

Artzy, M. 1985 Supply and Demand: A Study of Second Millennium Cypriote

Pottery in the Levant. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. B. Knapp and T. Stech, pp. 93-99. Monograph XXV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1994 Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade Routes and Maritime Outlets in the 2nd Millennium. Oxford Journal of

Archaeology

13:121-147.

1998 Routes, Trade, Boats and "Nomads of the Sea". In

Mediterranean

Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar

and E. Stern, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 4 8 . Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Askinson, G. W.

1923 Peifumes and Cosmetics - Their Preparation and Manufacture. A Complete and Practical Treatise. Crosby, Lockwood and Son, London. Assaf, A. A.

1997 Tell Sukas. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. Meyers, pp. 90-91. vol. V. Oxford University Press, N e w York.

Aubet, Μ. Ε.

1993 The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Aupert, P. and C. Tytgat 1984 Deux tombes Géométriques de la nécropole nord d'Amathonte

(NT 226 I-II). Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 108:619-649. Aznar Sanchez, C.

1996 El Impacto Asirio en La Expansion de Los Fenicios Hacia Occidente. El Caso de Tell Abu Hawam (Haifa, Israel): La Rampa Septentrional. Spain.

Unpublished M A thesis, Universidad Complutense,

Badre, L. 1998 Late Bronze A g e and Iron A g e Imported Pottery from the Archaeological Excavations of Urban Beirut. In Eastern

Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 73-86. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. Badre, L., E. Gubel, M. Al-Maqdissi and H. Sader 1990 Tell Kazel, Syria: Excavations of the A U B Museum, 19851987. Preliminary Reports. Berytus 38:10-124. Baker, H., D. Collon, J. D. Hawkins, T. Pollard, J. N. Postgate, D. Symington and D. Thomas 1995 Kilise Tepe 1994. Anatolian Studies 45:139-193. Balensi, J. and M. D. Herrera 1985 Tell Abu Hawam 1983-1984: Rapport Préliminaire.

Revue

Biblique 92:82-128. Balensi, J., M. D. Herrera and M. Artzy

1993 Tell Abu Hawam. In The New Encyclopedia

of Excavations

in

the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 7-14. vol. 1. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Barag, D. 1963 A Survey of Pottery Recovered from the Sea off the Coast of

Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 13:13-19. Baramki, D.

1961 Phoenicia and the Phoenicians.

Khayats, Beirut.

1964 Second Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell el

Ghassil. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth XVIL47-103.

Barlow, J. 1991 N e w Light on Red Polished Ware. In Cypriot

Ceramics:

Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 51-57. University Museum Symposium Series, vol. II. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania & The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Philadelphia. Barlow, J., D. L. Bolger and B. Kling (editors)

1991 Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania & The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Philadelphia. Barreca, F. 1986 The Phoenician and Punic Civilization in Sardinia. In Studies

in

Sardinian Archaeology: Sardinia in the Mediterranean, edited by M. Balmuth, pp. 145-170. vol. II. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Bass, G. 1986 A Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas): 1984 Campaign.

American Journal of Archaeology 90(3):269-296. 1987 Oldest known shipwreck reveals splendours of the Bronze Age.

In National Geographic, pp. 692-733. vol. 172. 1990 Nautical Archaeology and Biblical Archaeology.

Archaeologist

Biblical

53( 1 ):4-13.

1991 Evidence of Trade from Bronze A g e Shipwrecks. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 69-82. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag, Jonsered. Bass, G., C. Pulak, D. Collon and J. Weinstein 1989 The Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign.

American Journal of Archaeology 93( 1 ): 1 -29. Benson, J. L.

1973 The Necropolis of Kaloriziki. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology X X X V I , Göteborg. Ben-Tor, A. (editor) 1989 Hazor

IIl-IV.

Text. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

1993 Jokneam. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 805-811. vol. 3.

4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.

1993 Tel Qiri. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 1228-1229. vol.

4. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.

Ben-Tor, A. 1999 Excavating Hazor. Part I: Solomon's City Rises from the

Ashes. Biblical Archaeology Review 25(2):26-37, 60. Ben-Tor, A. and D. Ben-Ami 1998 Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.

Israel

Exploration Journal 48( 1 -2): 1 -37. Ben-Tor, Α., R. Bonfil, Y. Garfinkel, R. Greenberg, A. M. Maier and A. Mazar 1997 Hazor V. Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Ben-Tor, A. and Y. Portugali 1987 Tel Qiri - A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Qedem

24.

Ben-Tor, Α., Y. Portugali and M. Avissar 1981 The First T w o Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish, 1978-

1979: Preliminary Report. Israel Excavation

Reports 31:137-164.

Bergoffen, C. J. 1991 Overland Trade in Northern Sinai: Evidence of the Late

Cypriot Pottery. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284:59-76. Bieber, A.

1973 Neutron Activation Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics from Cyprus.

PhD, University of Connecticut.

1978 Appendix C: Neutron Activation Analysis. In The Pottery of Tyre, edited by P. Bikai, pp. 88-90. Aris & Phillips, Warminster. 1989 Neutron Activation Analysis of Cypriot Pottery. In

American

Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, 1973-1980, edited by L. Stager and A. Walker, pp. 357-397. Oriental Institute Communications No. 24. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago. Biers, W„ K. Gerhardt and R. Braniff

1994 Lost Scents: Investigations of Corinthian "Plastic" Vases by Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 11. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. 1995 Scientific Investigations of Corinthian "Plastic" Vases. Paper Presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Atlanta, Georgia, 1994. American Journal of

Archaeology

99:320.

Bikai, P. 1978 The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology.

of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229:47-56.

Bulletin

Bikai, P. 1978 The Pottery

of Tyre. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

1983 The Imports from the East - Appendix II. In

Palaepaphos-

Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 396 - 406. G M B H . Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

1987 The Phoenician Pottery. In La Nécropole d'Amathonte.

Tombes

113-367, edited by V. Karageorghis, O. Picard and C. Tytgat, pp. 119. Études Chypriotes VIII. Leventis, Nicosia.

1987 The Phoenician Potteiy of Cyprus. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia. 1987 Trade Networks in the Early Iron Age: The Phoenicians at

Palaepaphos. In Western Cyprus: Connections, edited by D. W. Rupp, pp. 125-128. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. LXXVII. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg. 1992 Cyprus and Phoenicia: Literary Evidence for the Early Iron

Age. In Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, edited by G. C. Ioannides, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 4 8 . Leventis, Nicosia.

1992 The Phoenicians. In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, edited by W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 132-141. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

1994 The Phoenicians and Cyprus. In Cyprus in the 11th Century

BC,

edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 31-36. The University of Cyprus, Nicosia. n.d. Statistical Observations on the Phoenician Pottery of Kition. Unpublished ms. Biran, A. 1994 Biblical

Dan. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Biran, A. and R. Gophna 1970 An Iron A g e Burial Cave at Tel Halif. Israel

Exploration

Journal 20:151-169. Biran, A. and J. Naveh 1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. Israel

Exploration

Journal 43(2-3):81-98. 1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Journal 45(1): 1-18. Biran, A. and O. Negbi 1966 The Stratigraphical Sequence at Tel Sippor. Israel

Journal 16:160-173.

Exploration

Exploration

Birmingham, J. 1963 The Chronology of S o m e Early and Middle Cypriot Sites.

American Journal of Archaeology 67:15-42. 1964 Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey. Anatolian XrV:21-37.

Studies

Blinkenberg, C.

1931 Lindos. Fouilles de L'Acropole 1902-1914. Fondation Carlsberg-Copenhague, Berlin. Bliss, F. J. and R. A. Macalister 1902 Excavations in Palestine.

Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

Blue, L. Κ. 1997 Cyprus and Cilicia: The Typology and Palaeogeography of Second Millennium Harbours. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the

Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 31-43. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Boardman, J. 1960 The Multiple Brush. Antiquity

34:85-89.

1980 The Greeks Overseas: their early colonies and trade. Thames and Hudson, London.

1990 Al Mina and History. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(2): 169-190. 1999 The Excavated History of Al Mina. In Ancient Greeks West and East, edited by G. Tsetskhladze, pp. 135-161. Brill, Leiden. Bound, M. 1991 The Giglio Wreck: A wreck of the Archaic Period (c. 6 0 0 BC) off the Tuscan island of Giglio. An account of its discovery and 1: excavation: a review of the main finds. EN ALIA Supplement

Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology . Bounni, A. 1991 La syrie, Chypre et l'egee d'après les fouilles de Ras Ibn Hani.

In Proceedings of an International Symposium "The Civilizations of the Aegean and their diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean 2000-600 BC" (1989), edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 105-110. Pierides Foundation, Larnaca, Cyprus. Bounni, Α., Ε. J. Lagarce and N. Slaiby 1978 Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne de fouilles ( 1 9 7 6 ) a Ibn Hani. Syria 55:233-301.

Bouzek, J. 1994 The Distribution of Greek Painted Pottery in the Mediterranean and in the Black Sea Region. A Comparison. Oxford Journal of

Archaeology

13(2):241-243.

Braemer, F. 1986 La céramique à e n g o b e rouge de l'âge du Fer. Syria 221-246.

63:

Braidwood, R. J. 1940 Report on Two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of Tartous. Syria XXI: 183-226. Briend, J. and J.-B. Humbert

1980 Tell Keisan (1971-1976). Une cité phenicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1. Éditions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, Paris. Brock, J. K.

1957 Fortetsa: Early Greek Tombs Near Knossos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brodie, N. J. and L. Steel 1996 Cypriot Black-on-Red Ware: Towards a Characterisation.

Archaeometry

38(2):263-278.

Brody, A. J.

1998 "Each Man Cried Out To His God." The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Buhl, M.-L.

1992 Hamath. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, pp. 33-36. vol. III. Doubleday, N e w York. Cahill, J., G. Lipton and D. Tarier 1987 Tell el-Hammeh, 1985 - 1987: Notes and N e w s .

Israel

Exploration Journal 37(4):280-283. 1988 Tell el-Hammeh, 1988: Notes and N e w s . Israel Journal 38(3): 191-194.

Exploration

Cahill, J. and D. Tarier

1993 Tell el-Hammeh. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 561-562. vol. 3.

4 vols. Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Cahill, J., D. Tarier and G. Lipowitz 1989 Tell el-Hammah in the Tenth Century B.C.E (Heb.). 22(l-2):33-38.

Qadmoniot

Calvet, Y. 1980 Sur certains rites funéraires a Salamine de Chypre. In

Salamine

de Chypre. Histoire et Archéologie, edited by M. Yon, pp. 115-121. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. 1982 Pharmacopée antique. Un pot à 'lykion' de Beyrouth. In

Archéologie au Levant. Recueil R. Saidah, edited by J. Starcky, pp. 2 8 1 - 2 8 6 . Collection de la Maison de L'Orient Méditerranéen No. 12; Serie Archéologique, 9. Maison de L'Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon. Campbell Thomson, R.

1949 A Dictionary

of Assyrian Botany. British Academy, London.

Cariolou, G. A. 1997 K Y R E N I A II: The Return from Cyprus to Greece of the Replica of a Hellenic Merchant Ship. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus

and

the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 83-97. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Casson, L.

1995 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Casson, S. 1938 The Modern Pottery Trade in the Aegean. Antiquity

12:464-473.

1951 The Modern Pottery Trade in the Aegean: further notes.

Antiquity

25:187-190.

Catling, H.

1977 The Knossos Area. Archaeological Reports for 1976-1977 23:3-23. Caubet, A. 1992 Reoccupation of the Syrian Coast after the Destruction of the

"Crisis Years". In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, edited by W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 123-131. Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Chambon, A.

1984 Tel! el-Far'ah

I: L'Âge du Fer. Éditions Recherche sur les

Civilisations, Paris. 1993 Tell el-Farah (North): Late Bronze A g e to the Roman Period.

In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 4 0 . vol. 2. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.

Chapman, S. 1972 A Catalogue of Iron A g e Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye and Qasmieh of South Lebanon. Berytus XXI:55-194. Charters, S., R. P. Evershed, L. J. Goad, A. Leyden, P. W. Blinkhorn and V. Denham 1993 Quantification and Distribution of Lipid in Archaeological Ceramics: Implications for Sampling Potsherds for Organic Residue Analysis and the Classification of Vessel Use. Archaeometry 35(2):211-223. Christodoulou 1972 A Cypro-Archaic Tomb Group from Maroni. Report

of the

Department of Antiquitites in Cyprus : 156-160. Christou, D. 1974 Pottery Types from a N e w Necropolis at Kato Dheftera.

Report

of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 174-185. 1984 Supplementary Report on the Iron A g e Necropolis at Kato

Dheftera. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 174-206. 1998 Cremations in the Western Necropolis of Amathus. In

Eastern

Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 1 5 . The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. Cline, E.

1994 Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean.

Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.

Cline, E. H. 1995 Egyptian and Near Eastern Imports at Late Bronze A g e

Mycenae. In Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, edited by W. V. Davies and L. Schofield, pp. 91-115. British Museum Press, London. Cogan, M. and H. Tadmor

1988 The Anchor Bible - II Kings. Doubleday, New York. Coldstream, J. N.

1969 The Phoenicians of Ialysos. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies

16:1-8.

1972 Knossos 1951-61: Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery from

the Town. Annual of the British School at Athens 67:63-98. 1977 Geometric

Greece.

Ernest Benn Limited, London.

Coldstream, J. N. 1979 S o m e Cypriote Traits in Cretan Pottery. Paper presented at the Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 B.C., Nicosia. 1982 Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean. In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 2 6 1 - 2 7 5 . Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. 1984 Cypriaca and Cretocypriaca from the North Cemetery at

Knossos. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 122-137. 1985 Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-1985: The Geometric and Archaic

Periods. In Archaeology

in Cyprus 1960 - 1985, edited by V.

Karageorghis, pp. 4 7 - 5 9 . Leventis Foundation, Nicosia. 1986 Kition and Amathus: S o m e Reflections on their Westward Links During the Early Iron Age. In Acts of the International

Archaeological Symposium "Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident," 8-14th Sept 1985, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 321-329. Department of Antiquities, Nicosia. with a note by Patricia Bikai 1988 Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: S o m e Preliminary

Comparisons. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :35-44. 1996 The Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery. In Knossos

North

Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. Discussion, edited by J. N. Coldstream and H. W. Catling, pp. 19-420. BS A Supplementary Volume No. 28. vol. II. 4 vols. British School at Athens. 1998 Crete and the Dodecanese: Alternative Eastern Approaches to the Greek World During the Geometric Period. In Eastern

Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 2 5 5 - 2 6 3 . The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. 1998 The First Exchanges between Euboeans and Phoenicians: W h o

Took the Initiative? In Mediterranean

Peoples in Transition, edited

by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 353 - 360. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Coldstream, J. N. and H. W. Catling (editors)

1996 Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. The Tombs, and Catalogue

of Finds.

I. 4 vols. The British School at Athens.

Conkey, M. and C. Hastorf (editors)

1990 The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge.

Cambridge University Press,

Contenau, G. 1920 Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1914). Syria

1:198-229.

Cook, R. M.

1960 Greek Painted Pottery. Methuen, London Courbin, P. 1975 Rapport sur la 4 è m e campagne de fouille ( 1 9 7 4 ) a Ras el

Bassit. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 25:59-71. 1986 Bassit. Syria

63:175-220.

1993 Fouilles de Bassit: Tombes de Fer. Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris. Crielaard, J. P. 1998 Surfing on the Mediterranean Web: Cypriot Long-distance Communications during the Eleventh and Tenth Centuries B.C. In

Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon

- Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and Ν

Stampolidis, pp. 187-206. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. Crowfoot, G. M. 1957 Israelite Pottery, General List. In Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects, edited by J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and Κ. M. Kenyon, pp. 134-198. Palestine Exploration Fund, London. Crowfoot, G. M. and L. Baldensperger

1932 From Cedar to Hyssop: A Study in the Folklore of Plants in Palestine.

Sheldon Press, London.

Culican, W.

1966 The First Merchant Venturers: The Ancient Levant in History and Commerce.

Thames and Hudson, London.

1968 Quelques aperçus sur les ateliers phéniciens. Syria XLV:275-293. 1970 Phoenician Oil Bottles and Tripod Bowls. Berytus

19:5-18.

1973 The Graves at Tell er-Reqeish. Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2(2):66-105. 1976 Phoenician Metalwork and Egyptian Tradition. Revista

de la

Universidad Complutense XXV(101):83-89. 1976 A Terracotta Shrine From Achzib. Zeitschrift

Palästina-Vereins 92:47-53.

des

Deutschen

Culican, W. 1982 The Repertoire of Phoenician Pottery. In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 45-82; Plates 4-8. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. Curtin, P. D.

1984 Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dahlberg, B. and K. O'Connell (editors) 1989 Tell el-Hesi. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake. Davies, G. 1986 Megiddo. Cambridge.

Cities of the Biblical World. Lutterworth Press,

Davies, W. V. and L. Schofield (editors)

1995 Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: interconnections in the Second

Millennium

BC. British Museum Press, London.

Davis, J. L. and H. B. L e w i s 1985 Mechanisation of Pottery Production: A Case Study from the

Cycladic Islands. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. Knapp and T. Stech, pp. 79-92. Monograph XXV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Dayagi - Mendels, M.

1989 Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 305, Jerusalem. de Crée, F. 1991 The Black-on-Red or Cypro-Phoenician Ware. In Phoenicia and the Bible, edited by E. Lipinski, pp. 95-102. Studia Phoenicia XI. Uitgeverij Peeters, Leuven. de Montlivault, E.

1982 La Chronologie de la Céramique dite "Black-on-Red" en Palestine. Vue à travers son évolution dans Γ histoire de la recherche.

Unpublished thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain.

de Vaux, R. 1952 La Quatrième Campagne de Fouilles à Tell el-Far'ah, Près

Naplouse. Revue Biblique 59:551-583. Desborough, V. R. d. A.

1980 An Amphora from Salamis. In Salamine de Chypre.

Histoire et

Archéologie, edited by M. Yon, pp. I l l - 114. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

Desborough, V. R. d. A. 1957 A Group of Vases from Amathus. Journal 77:212-219. 1972 The Greek Dark Ages.

of Hellenic

Studies

Ernest Benn Limited, London.

Deshayes, J. and B. C. S. Wilson

1963 La nécropole de Ktima. P. Geuthner, Paris. Dever, W.

1990 Of Myths and Methods. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:121 -130. 1997 Archaeology and the "Age of Solomon": A Case-Study in Archaeology and Historiography. In The Age of Solomon.

Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L. Handy, pp. 2 1 7 - 2 5 1 . Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert, general editor. Brill, Leiden. Dikaios, P. 1963 A 'Royal' Tomb at Salamis. Archäologischer

Anzeiger

: 126-198.

Domemann, R. H.

1983 The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Milwaukee. Dorsey, D. A.

1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Dothan, M. 1958 Azor - Notes and N e w s . Israel Exploration

Journal

1961 Excavations at Azor. Israel Exploration Journal

8:272-274.

11:171 -175.

1965 The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea. Israel Exploration Journal 15:134-151. 1971 Ashdod II-III, 1963, 1965. 'Atiqot

IX-X.

1982 Ashdod IV. 'Atiqot XV. Dothan, M. and D. N. Freedman

1967 Ashdod I, 1962. 'Atiqot VII. Doumet, C.

1982 Les tombes IV et V de Rachidieh. Annales d'histoire et d'archéologie. (Faculté des lettres et des sciences humaines, Beyrouth, Liban) 1:89-148.

Doumet, C. and I. Kawakabani 1995 Les Tombes de Rachidieh: Remarques sur les contacts interna tionaux et le commerce phénicien au V i l l e siècle av. J.-C. In Actes du

Ule congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques (1991),

pp. 3 7 9 - 3 9 5 . vol. I. Institut National du Patrimoine, Tunis.

Doumet-Serhal, C. 1993-1994 La cruche a "arete sur le col": Un fossil directeur de l'expansion phénicienne en Mediterranee aux 9 è m e et 8ème siècles avant J.-C. Berytus X L L 9 9 - 1 3 6 . du Mesnil du Buisson, L. C. 1932 Une Campagne de Fouilles A Khan Sheikhoun. Syria

13:171-188.

du Plat Taylor, J. 1959 The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina, Syria. Iraq XXL62-92. Dunand, M.

1954 Fouilles de Byblos 1933-1938 II. Geuthner, Paris. Dunand, M.. A. Bounni and N. Saliby 1964 Fouilles de Tell Kazel - Rapport Préliminaire.

Annales

Archéologiques de Syrie 14:1-14. Duncan, J. G.

1930 Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London. Edelstein, G. and Ν. Feig

1993 Tel 'Amal. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 1447-1450. vol.

4. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Edelstein, G. and S. Levy 1972 Cinq Années de Fouilles à Tel 'Amal. Revue LXX:325-367.

Biblique

Elgavish, J.

1993 Shiqmona. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 1373-1378. vol.

4. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Eriksson, K. 1991 Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: A Product of Late Bronze A g e

Cyprus. In Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 81-96. University Museum Symposium Series Volume II. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania & The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Philadelphia.

Eshel, I.

1978 Petrie's Excavations at Tel Jemmeh: Pottery and Chronology of the Iron Age Levels.

Unpublished M A thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Eshel, I. and K. Prag (editors)

1995 Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. IV. Published for the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem by Oxford University Press, Oxford. Esse, D.

1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago. Fensham, F. C. 1983 The Relationship Between Phoenicia and Israel During the

Reign of Ahab. In Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale Di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma, 5-10 Novembre 1979, edited by P. Bartolom, pp. 5 8 9 - 5 9 4 . Collezione di Studi Fenici, 16. Istituto Per La Civiltà Fenicia e Punica. vol. 2. 3 vols. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Richerche, Roma. Finkelstein, I. 1990 On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations:

Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:109-119. 1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Levant 28:177-187. 1998a Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iron A g e Ta'anach. Tel Aviv 25(2):208-218. 1998b Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron A g e ? A Rejoinder. Levant 30:167-174. 1999 Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology

Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 314:55-70. Fitzgerald, G. M.

1930 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan Part II: The Pottery. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia. Flourentzos, P. 1981 Four Early Iron A g e Tombs from Nicosia. Report

of the

Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :115-128. 1985 An Archaic Tomb from Khirokitia. Report

Antiquities in Cyprus :222-231.

of the Department

of

Flourentzos, P. 1986 Tomb Groups From the Necropolis in Ay. Omologites, Nicosia.

Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 150-163. 1997 The Early Geometric Tomb No. 132 from Palaepaphos.

Report

of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :205-218. Forbes, R. J.

1993 Studies in Ancient Technology III. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Frankel, D. 1991 Ceramic Variability: Measurement and Meaning. In

Cypriot

Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 5 2 . The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Unviersity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Franken, H. J.

1974 In Search of the Jericho Potters. North Holland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 1995 Theory and Practice of Ceramic Studies in Archaeology.

Newsletter: Department of Pottery Technology, Leiden University 13:81-102. Fritz, V. and A. Kempinski

1983 Ergebnisse Der Ausgrabungen Auf der Hirbet el-Msas (Tel Masos)

1972-1975.

2 vols. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.

Frost, H. 1995 Harbours and Proto-Harbours; Early Levantine Engineering. In

Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 1-22. University of Cyprus, Nicosia. Fugmann, E.

1958 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches. 1931-1938. L'Architecture des Périodes Pré-Hellénistiques

II.i. Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.

Furumark, A.

1941 The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery. Svenska institutet i Athen, Stockholm. Gal, Z. 1979 An Early Iron A g e Site near Tel Menorah in the Beth-Shan Valley. Tel Aviv 6:138-146. 1984 Hurvat Rosh Zayit - A Phoenician Fort in Upper Galilee (Heb.).

Qadmoniot

XVII(2-3):56-59.

Gal, Ζ. 1992a Hurvat Rosh Zayit and the Early Phoenician Pottery. 24:173-186.

Levant

1992b Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series Volume 8. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana. 1993 Horvat Rosh Zayit. In The New Encyclopedia

Excavations

of

Archaeological

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 1289-1291. vol.

4. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. 1995 The Diffusion of Phoenician Cultural Influence in Light of the Excavations at Hurvat Rosh Zayit. TA 22:89-93. Gale, Ν. H. (editor)

1991 Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag, Jonsered. Galili, E. and J. Sharvit 1992 Classification of Underwater Archaeological Sites along the Mediterranean Coast of Israel: Finds from Underwater and Coastal

Archaeological Research. Actes Du Symposium International 7-12 Octobre 1991 Sozopol: Thracia Pontica V:269-296. Gates, M.-H.

1994 Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 98:249-278.

1996 Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 100(2):277-335.

1997 Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 101(2):241-305. Georgiades, C. C.

1985 Flowers of Cyprus - Plants of Medicine. Georgiades, C., Nicosia. Georgiou, H. 1991 Bronze A g e Ships and Rigging. In Thalassa. L'Egée Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 6171. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège. Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique, Liège. 1997 Seafaring, Trade Routes, and the Emergence of the Bronze Age: Urban Centers in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Res Maritimae.

Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 117-124. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.

Gilboa, A. 1989 N e w Finds at Tel Dor and the Beginning of Cypro-Geometric Pottery Import to Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 39:204-218. 1998 Iron I - IIA Pottery Evolution at Dor - Regional Contexts and

the Cypriot Connection. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 4 1 3 - 425. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Gilboa, A. 1999 The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from

Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316:1-22 Gill, D. 1988 Expressions of wealth: Greek art and society. 62(237):735-743.

Antiquity

1988 Silver Anchors and Cargoes of Oil: S o m e Observations on Phoenician Trade in the Western Mediterranean. Papers of the British

School at Rome 56:1 -12. 1991 Pots and Trade; S p a c e f i l l e d or Objets D'Art? Journal

of

Hellenic Studies 111:29-47. Gilmour, G.

1995 The Archaeology of Cult in the Southern Levant in the Early Iron Age: An Analytical and Comparative Approach. Unpublished D. Phil, Oxford University. Gitin, S.

1990 Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II. Persian and Hellenistic

Periods

at Tel Gezer.

Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem.

Gitin, S., A. Mazar and E. Stern (editors)

1998 Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries

BCE. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Gittlen, B. 1975 Cypriote White Slip Pottery in its Palestinian Stratigraphie

Context. In The Archaeology of Cyprus: Recent Developments, edited by N. Robertson, pp. 111-120. N o y e s Press, Park Ridge, N e w Jersey.

1977 Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery found in Palestine. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. 1981 The Chronological and Cultural Implications of the CyproPalestinian Trade During the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 241:49-59.

Gjerstad, Ε.

1934 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition I. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Stockholm.

1935 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition II. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Stockholm. 1944 The Initial Date of the Cypriote Iron Age.

Archeologica

Opuscula

111:73-106.

1948 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV:2, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Stockholm. 1953 Correspondence with Professor Einar Gjerstad on the Chronology of "Cypriote" Pottery from Early Iron A g e Levels in

Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 130:22-27. 1974 The Stratification of Al Mina (Syria) and its Chronological

Evidence. Acta Archaeologica 45:107-123. Goldman, H. (editor)

1963 Excavations at Gözlii Kule, Tarsus. Ill - The Iron Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Grant, E. and G. E. Wright

1938 'Ain Shems Excavations IV: Text, Haverford. 1939 'Ain Shems Excavations IV: Pottery, Haverford. Greenberg, R. 1987 N e w Light on the Early Iron A g e Levels at Tell Beit Mirsim.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 265:55-80. Greenberg, R. and N. Porat 1996 A Third Millennium Levantine Pottery Production Center: Typology, Petrography, and Provenance of the Metallic Ware of Northern Israel and Adjacent Regions. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 301:5-24. Guy, P. L. O. 1924 Mt. Carmel - An Early Iron A g e Cemetery near Haifa;

excavated September 1922. Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 5:47-55. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Volume XXXIII. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Hadjicosti, M. 1997 The Family Tomb of a Warrior of the Cypro-Archaic Period at

Mari. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :251-263. Hadjidaki, E. 1997 The Classical Shipwreck at Alonnesos. In Res

Maritimae.

Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 125-134. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Hadjisavvas, S. 1989 T w o Cypro-Archaic I Tombs at Alassa-Kampos. Report

of the

Department of Antiquities in Cyprus: 95-108. 1995 Cyprus and the Sea: the Archaic and Classical Periods. In

Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 89-98. University of Cyprus, Nicosia. Hagens, G. 1999 An ultra-low chronology of Iron A g e Palestine. 73:431-439.

Antiquity

Haidane, C. 1990 Shipwrecked Plant Remains. Biblical 55-60.

Archaeologist

53(1):

1993 Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze A g e .

World Archaeology 24(3):348-360. Hamilakis, Y. 1996 Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze A g e Crete: A

Review of the Evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology Hamilton, R. W. 1934 Tall Abu Hawam: Interim Report. Quarterly

of the

15(1): 1-33.

Department

of Antiquities in Palestine 3:74-80. 1935 Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly

of the

Department

of Antiquities in Palestine IV: 1-69. Handy, L. 1997 On the Dating and Dates of Solomon's Reign. In The Age of

Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L. Handy, pp. 96-106. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert, general editor. Brill, Leiden.

Hanfmann, G. M. A.

1963 The Iron Age Pottery of Tarsus. In Excavations

at Gözlü

Knie,

Tarsus, edited by H. Goldman, pp. 18-160. Vol. Ill, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Hannestad, L. 1996 Absolute Chronology: Greece and the Near East c. 1000 - 5 0 0

BC. Acta Archaeologica Supplementa 1:39-51. Hayes, J. W. 1991 Fine Wares in the Hellenistic World. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 183-202. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hemelrijk, J. M. 1991 A closer look at the potter. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 2 3 3 - 2 5 6 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hermary, A. 1998 Votive Offerings in the Sanctuaries of Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete during the Late Geometric and Archaic Periods. In Eastern

Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 2 6 5 - 2 7 6 . The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Rethymnon, Crete. Herrera, M.

1989 Las Excavationes de R.W. Hamilton en Tell Abu Hawam, Haifa: El Stratum 111: Historia del Puerto Fenicia durante Los Siglos X-V1II A. de C. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. Hershkovitz, M. 1986 Miniature Ointment Vases from the Second Temple Period.

Israel Exploration Journal 36:45-51. Herzog, Ζ.

1984 Beersheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Herzog, Ζ., G. Rapp and Ο. Negbi (editors)

1989 Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Hodos, T. 1999 Iron A g e Kinet Höyük (Hatay, Turkey) and the Aegean. Paper presented at the meeting of the British Association of Near Eastern Archaeology, Cambridge, 16th-18th December.

Holladay, J. 1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:23-70. 1995 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic

Centralization in the Iron II Α-B. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. Levy. Leicester University Press, London. Holmes, Y. L. 1975 The Foreign Trade of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. In

The Archaeology of Cyprus: Recent Developments, edited by N. Robertson, pp. 90-110. N o y e s Press, Park Ridge, N e w Jersey. Horden, P. and N. Purcell

2000 The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean

History.

Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Hughes, J. 1990 Secrets of the Times. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. JSOT Press, Sheffield. Hulin, L. 1989 Marsa Matruh 1987, Preliminary Ceramic Report. Journal

of

the American Research Centre in Egypt XXVI: 115-126. Humbert, J.-B.

1993 Tell Keisan. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 862-867. vol. 3.

4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Hunt, M.

1985 The Iron Age Pottery of the Yoqneam Regional Project. Unpublished Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. 1987 The Tel Qiri Pottery. In Tel Qiri - A Village in the Jezreel Valley, edited by A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali, Qedem 24: 139-223. Iacovou, M.

1988 The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century B.C. Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology LXXIX. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg. Ingholt, H.

1940 Rapport Préliminaire sur Sept Campagnes de Fouilles a Hama en Syrie (1932-1938).

Einar Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

Jacopi, G.

1929 Scavi Nella Necropoli di Jalisso 1924-1928. Clara Rhodos III. Istituto storico-archeologico, Rodi.

,1931 Scavi nelle Necropoli Camiresi 1929-1930. Clara Rhodos IV. Istituto storico-archeologico, Rodi.

Jacopi, G.

1933 Esplorazione

Archeologica

Di Camiro. Clara Rhodos VI-VII.

Istituto storico-archeologico, Rodi. James, F. 1966 The Iron Age at Beth-Shan.

Pennsylvania University Museum.

James, P. 1991 Centuries

of Darkness,

Jonathan Cape, London.

James, P., I. J. Thorpe, N. Kokkinos and J. A. Frankish 1987 Bronze to Iron A g e Chronology in the Old World: Time for a

Reassessment? Studies in Ancient Chronology 1. Johns, C. N. 1938 Exavations at Pilgrims' Castle, 'Atlit (1933): Cremated Burials

of Phoenician Origin. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine VI: 121-152. 1948 Discoveries in Palestine since 1939. Palestine

Quarterly

Exploration

81-101.

Johnston, A.

1991 Greek Vases in the Marketplace. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 2 0 3 - 2 3 2 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jones, R.E. (editor)

1986 Greek and Cypriot Pottery - A Review of Scientific Studies. British School of Archaeology at Athens, Athens. Jones, R. E. and L. Vagnetti 1991 Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean: Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 127-148. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag, Jonsered. Joukowsky, M. S.

1997 Byblos. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. Meyers, pp. 3 9 0 - 394. vol. I. Oxford University Press, N e w York. Karageorghis, V.

1967 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (3). Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.

1970 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis II (4). Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.

Karageorghis, V.

1974 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III - Plates (5). Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.

1976 Kition. Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus. N e w Aspects of Antiquity. Thames and Hudson, London.

1978 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis IV 7. Department of Antiquities, Nicosia, Cyprus. 1982 Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident in the Eleventh

Century B.C. In Archéologie au Levant. Recueil R. Saidah, edited by J. Starcky, pp. 173-178. Collection de la Maison de L'Orient Méditerranéen No. 12; Serie Archéologique, 9. Maison de L'Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon.

1982 Cyprus: From the Stone Age to the Romans. Thames and Hudson, London.

1983 Palaepaphos-Skales.

An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus.

Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz. (editor)

1986 Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium "Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident," 8-l4th Sept 1985. Department of Antiquities, Nicosia. 1987 A Cypro-Archaic I tomb at Palaepaphos-Skales. Report

of

Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :85-97. (editor)

1991 Proceedings of the International Symposium "The Civilizations of the Aegean and their diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean

2000-600 BC" (1989). Peirides Foundation, Lamaca,

Cyprus. Karageorghis, V. and J. des Gagniers

1974 La Céramique Chypriote de Style Figuré. Age du Fer ( 1050 500 Av. J.-C.). Biblioteca di antichitá cipriote, 2. Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Rome. Karageorghis, V., O. Picard and C. Tytgat (editors)

1987 La Nécropole d'Amathonte.

Tombes 113-367. A.G. Leventis,

Nicosia. Karageorghis, V. and D. Michaelides (editors)

1995 Proceedings of the International Symposium "Cyprus and the Sea."

University of Cyprus, Nicosia.

Karantzali, Ε. 1998 A N e w Mycenaean Pictorial Rhyton from Rhodes. In

Eastern

Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 87 - 104. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. Kearsley, R.

1989 The pendant semi-circle skyphos: a study of its development and chronology and an examination of it as evidence for Euboean activity at Al Mina. The Institute of Classical Studies: Bulletin Supplement 44. Institute of Classical Studies, London. Kempinski, A. and W.-D. Niemeier (editors)

1990 Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of 1989 Season 4. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Kempinski, A. and W.-D. Niemeier (editors)

1991 Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of 1990 Season 5. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

1992 Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of 1991 Season 6. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Kempinski, A. and W.-D. Niemeier

1994 Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1992-1993 Seasons

7-8. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Kenyon, K. 1957 The Evidence of the Samarian Pottery and its Bearing on Finds at Other Sites. In Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects, edited by J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. K.M., pp. 198-210. Palestine Exploration Fund, London. 1982 Excavations in Jerusalem.

at Jericho:

Vol. 4. British School of Archaeology

Kinch, K. F. 1914 Vroulia.

Fondation Carlsberg-Copenhague, Berlin.

Kitchen, K.

1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). Second Edition with Supplement ed. Aris & Phillips Ltd., Warminster. 1997 Egypt and East Africa. In The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L. Handy, pp. 106-126. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert, general editor. Brill, Leiden.

Knapp, Α. Β. 1991 Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic G o o d s in Bronze A g e East Mediterranean Trade. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by Ν. H. Gale, pp. 2 1 - 6 8 . Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag, Jonsered. Knapp, Β. and J. F. Cherry

1994 Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus. Prehistory Press, Madison. Knappett, C. 1999 Local versus Imported Pottery at Kilise Tepe; the Role of Pétrographie and Chemical Analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology, Cambridge, 16th - 18th December. Kochavi, M. 1998 The Eleventh Century B C E Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel

Hadar. In Mediterranean

Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A.

Mazar and E. Stem, pp. 4 6 8 - 4 7 8 . Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Koehl, R. B.

1985 Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X, Beyrouth. Kolb, C. C. 1993 Review of 'Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach', edited by George J. Bey & Christopher A. Pool, 1992,

Westview Press, Boulder. American Journal of

Archaeology

97(3):572-573. Krauss, R.

1985 Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomischen und tech nischen Chronologie Altägyptens.

Gerstenberg Verlag, Hildesheim.

Krings, V.

1995 La Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique. Brill, Leiden. Kurtz, D. C.

1975 Athenian White-Ground Lekythoi. Patterns and Painters. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Lambrou-Phillipson, C. 1991 Seafaring in the Bronze A g e Mediterranean: The Parameters

involved in Maritime Travel. In Thalassa. L'Egée Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 11-20. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège. Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique, Liège.

Lamon, R. S. and G. M. Shipton

1939 Megiddo 1: Seasons of 1925-34, Strata I-IV. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lapp, P. 1967 The 1966 Excavations at Tell Ta'annek. Bulletin

of the

American Schools of Oriental Reseach 185:2-43. Laurenzi, L. 1936 Necropoli Ialisie (Scavi Dell'Anno 1934). Clara Rhodos VIII:7-205. Lehmann, G.

1996 Untersuchungen zur spaten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr. Alterumskunde des Vorderen Orients. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster. 1997 Al Mina and the East: Syrian and Phoenician pottery finds and their implications. Paper presented at the 21st British Museum Classical Colloquium: The Greeks in the East, London, 9th - 10th December. 1998 Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron A g e and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 7 0 0 to 3 0 0 B.C.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311:7-37. forthcoming

Excavations at Tel Kabri: The Iron A g e .

Leonard, J. R. 1997 Harbour Terminology in Roman Periploi. In Res

Maritimae:

Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. Wylde Swiny, pp. 163-200. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Liddy, D. J. 1996 A Chemical Study of Decorated Iron A g e Pottery from the

Knossos North Cemetery. In Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs, edited by J. N. Coldstream and H. W. Catling, pp. 4 6 5 - 5 1 4 . vol. Supplementary Volume No. 28. The British School at Athens. Lolos, Y. G. 1995 Late Cypro-Mycenaean Seafaring: N e w Evidence From Sites in the Saronic and the Argolid Gulfs. In Cyprus and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 65-85. University of Cyprus, Nicosia. London, G. 1991 Ethnoarchaeological Evidence of Variation in Cypriot Ceramics and Its Implications for the Taxonomy of Ancient Pottery. In Cypriot

Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, pp. 221-235. The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Unviersity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Loud, G.

1948 Megiddo II - Seasons of 1935-1939. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lucas, A.

1989 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. 4th Edition: Revised by J.R. Harris ed. Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd., London. Lund, J.

1986 Sukas VIII: The Habitation Quarters. Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia, 10. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 1997 The Distribution of Cypriot Sigillata as Evidence of Sea-trade

Involving Cyprus. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 2 0 1 - 2 1 5 . Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Macalister, R. A. S.

1912a The Excavation ofGezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 Volume 1: text. John Murray, London.

1912b The Excavation ofGezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 Volume 3: plates. John Murray, London. MacLaurin Hemsley, L. 1991 Techniques of Village Pottery Production. In Cypriot

Ceramics:

Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 2 1 5 - 2 2 0 . The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Macridy, T. 1904 À travers les nécropoles sidoniennes. Revue Biblique 571.

13:547-

Maguire, L. 1995 Tell el-Dab'a: The Cypriot Connection. In Egypt,

the

Aegean

and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC, edited by W. V. Davies and L. Schofield, pp. 54-65. British Museum Press, London. Maisler (Mazar), B. 1951 The Stratification of Tell Abu Hawam on the Bay of Acre.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 124:21-25. Maiuri, A. 1926 Jalisos - Scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana a Rodi.

Annuario della R. Scuola Archeologica Di Atene e Delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente VI-VII:83-341. 1928 Jalisos e L'Agro Jalisio. Clara Rhodos

1:56-82.

Mallowan, M. E. L. 1939 Phoenician Carrying Trade, Syria. Antiquity

13:86-87.

Manniche, L.

1989 An Ancient Egyptian Herbal. British Museum Publications, London.

1999 Sacred Egyptian Luxuries. Fragrance, Aromatherapy, and Cosmetics in Pharaonic Times. The American University in Cairo Press, Cairo. Marcus, E.

1998 Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIA Period. Unpublished D.Phil., University of Oxford. Markoe, G.

1985 Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Berkeley.

Classical Studies 26. University of California Press,

1996 The Emergence of Orientalizing in Greek Art: S o m e Observations on the Interchange Between Greeks and Phoenicians in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 301:47-67. 1998 The Phoenicians on Crete: Transit Trade and the Search for

Ores. In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon

- Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N.

Stampolidis, pp. 233-241. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. 2 0 0 0 Phoenicians. London.

Peoples of the Past. British Museum Press,

Marx, A. 1999 De Shîshaq à Shéshak. A propos de 1 Rois X I V 25-26. Vêtus Testamentum 49(2): 186-190. Matthäus, H. 1998 Cyprus and Crete in the Early First Millennium B.C. In

Eastern

Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 127-158. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Rethymnon, Crete. Matthers, J., D. J. Liddy, G. W. A. Newton, V. J. Robinson and H. Al-Tawel 1983 Black-on-Red Ware in the Levant: A Neutron Activation

Analysis Study. Journal of Archaeological Science 10(4):369-382.

Matthews, V.

1992 Perfumes and Spices. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary,

edited by

D. N. Freedman, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 2 8 . vol. 5. Doubleday, N e w York. Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1974 Assyrian Sources of Iron. A Preliminary Survey of the Historical and Geographical Evidence. Iraq 36:139-154. May, H. G.

1935 Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. University of Chicago Press, Illinois. Mazar, A. 1985 Excavations at Tel Qasile, part Π. Qedem

20.

1991 Comments on the Nature of the Relations between Cyprus and Palestine during the 12th - 11th Centuries BC. In Proceedings of an

International Symposium "The Civilizations of the Aegean and their diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean 2000-600 BC" (1989), edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 95-104. Pierides Foundation, Lamaca, Cyprus.

1993 Beth-Shean. In The New Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 214-223. vol. 1. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. 1994 The 11th Century B.C. in the Land of Israel. In Cyprus in the 11th century B.C., edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 39-57. Leventis, Nicosia. 1997 Iron A g e Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein. 29:157-167.

Levant

1998 On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron A g e I Period in

Israel. In Mediterranean

Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A.

Mazar and E. Stem, pp. 368 - 378. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. 1999 The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report.

Israel Exploration Journal 49( 1 -2): 1 -42. Mazar, B. 1956 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. Supplement

to

Vetus Testamentum 4:57-66. 1962 The Aramaean Empire and its Relations with Israel.

Biblical

Archaeologist 25(4):98-120. 1993 'En Gev. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 409-411, vol. 2.

4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.

Mazar, Β., A. Biran, M. Dothan and I. Dunayevsky

1964 'Ein Gev: Excavations in 1961. Israel Exploration Journal 14:1-49. Mazar, E.

1996 The Achziv Burials: A Test-Case for Phoenician-Punic Burial Customs. Mazzoni, S. (editor)

Unpublished Ph.D, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1992 Tell Afis e L'Età del Ferro. Giardini Editori e Stampatori in Pisa, Pisa. McNicoll, A. (editor)

1992 Pella in Jordan. 2. Meditarch, Sydney. Mellaart, J. 1955 Iron A g e Pottery from Southern Anatolia. XIX(74):115-136.

Belleten

Mellink, M. J.

1959 Archaeology in Asia Minor. American Journal of

Archaeology

63:79.

1959 Misis-Mopsouhestiou. Anatolian Studies 63:79. Merrillees, R. 1962 Opium Trade in the Bronze A g e Levant. Antiquity 292.

36(144):287-

1968 The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery found in Egypt. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XVIII, Lund. 1975 The Cypriote Bronze A g e Pottery Found in Egypt: A Reply.

Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :81 -90. 1991 The Principles of Cypriot Bronze A g e Pottery Classification. In

Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 0 . The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Mills, J. S. and R. White 1989 The Identity of the Resins from the Late Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun. Archaeometry 31(l):37-44. Moldenke, H. N. 1952 Plants of the Bible. Chronica Botanica Company, Waltam, Massachusetts. Montet, P. 1928 Byblos Paris.

et L'Egypte

Texte. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,

Montet, P. 1929 Byblos Paris.

et L'Egypte

Atlas. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,

Moore Cross, F. 1986 Phoenicians in the West: The Early Epigraphic Evidence. In

Studies in Sardinian Archaeology: Sardinia in the Mediterranean, edited by M. Balmuth, pp. 117-130. vol. II. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Moorey, P. R. S.

1980 Cemeteries of the First Millenium B.C. at Deve Hüyük, near Carchemish, salvaged by T.E. Lawrence and C.L. Woolley in 1913. BAR International Series 87. BAR, England. Morricone, L. 1978 Sepolture della prima età del ferro a Coo. Annuario

della

Scuola Archeologica di Atene New Series 40:9-427. Moshkovitz, S. 1989 Iron A g e Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata XIV-XII). In

Excavations

at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp and

O. Negbi, pp. 64-72. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, Number 8. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Mountjoy, P.

1993 Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 36. O x b o w Books, Oxford. Mullins, R. 1999 The Excavations at Tel Rehov: The Chronology of Iron A g e II.

American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter 49(l):7-9. Murray, W. M. 1995 Ancient Sailing Winds in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Case

for Cyprus. In Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 3343. University of Cyprus, Nicosia. Myres, J. L.

1914 Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, N e w York. Myres, J. L. and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter

1899 A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Na'aman, N. 1992 Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19:71-93.

Na'aman, Ν. 1997 Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel.

Tel Aviv 24(1): 122 - 128. 1997 Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon. In The

Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L. Handy, pp. 57-80. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. Η. E. Weippert, general editor. Brill, Leiden. Negbi, O. 1989 Bronze A g e Pottery (Strata XVII - X V ) . In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, pp. 4 3 - 6 3 . University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis & Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv. 1992 Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands: A

Reappraisal. American Journal of Archaeology 96:599-615. Negueruela, I., J. Pinedo, A. Minano, I. Arellano and J. S. Barba 1995 Seventh-century B C Phoenician vessel discovered at Playa de la

Isla, Mazarron, Spain. The International Archaeology

Journal of Nautical

24(3): 189-197.

Nicolaou, K.

1982 The Mycenaeans in the East. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 121-126. vol. I. Department of Antiquities, Amman. Niemeyer, H. G. 1990 "Trade before the Flag? On the Principles of Phoenician Expansion in the Mediterranean.", A. Biran (ed.) in Biblical

Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp 336-345, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Ohata, K. (editor) 1967 Tel Zeror. Tokyo.

II. Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan,

Oren, E. 1969 Cypriot Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze A g e Context.

Opuscula Atheniensia 9:127-150. Oren, E. et al. 1986 A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of Egypt (Heb.).

Qadmoniot

XIX(3-4):83-91.

Orton, C., P. Tyers and A. Vince 1993 Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Palaima, T. G. 1991 Maritime Matters in the Linear Β Tablets. In Thalassa. L'Egée Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 2 7 3 - 3 0 9 . Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège. Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique, Liège. Papadopoulos, J. K.

1997 Phantom Euboians. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10(2): 191-219. Papathanasspoulos, G., Y. Vichos, E. Hadzidaki and Y. Lolos

1992 Dokos: 1990 Campaign. ENALIA Annual 1990: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology 2:6-24. Parker, A. J.

1992a Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. Oxford.

BAR International Series 580. Tempus Reparatum,

1992b Cargoes, containers and stowage: the ancient Mediterranean.

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21 (2):89-100. Patrich, J. and B. Arubas 1989 A Juglet Containing Balsam Oil (?) From a Cave Near Qumran.

Israel Exploration Journal 39:43-60. Peckham, B. 1992 The Phoenician Foundation of Cities and Towns in Sardinia. In

Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot and T. Andrews, K., pp. 4 1 0 - 4 1 7 . Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Peserico, A.

1996 Le Brocche "A Fungo" Fenicie nel Mediterraneo: Tipologia e Cronologia. Collezione di Studi Fenici 36. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome. Petrie, F. 1891 Tell el-Hesy

(Lachish).

Palestine Exploration Fund, London.

1894 Tell el-Amarna. Methuen, London. 1928 Gerar.

British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London.

1930 Beth-Pelet I (Tel Fara). Egypt, London.

British School of Archaeology in

1932 Ancient Gaza II (Tell el-Ajjul). British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London.

Petrie, F. 1937 Anthedon London.

(Sinai).

British School of Egyptian Archaeology,

Pitard, W. T.

1992 Ben-Hadad. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, pp. 6 6 3 - 6 6 5 . vol. 1. Doubleday, N e w York. Plog, S. 1990 Sociopolitical implications of stylistic variation in the American

Southwest. In The uses of style in archaeology,

edited by M. Conkey

and C. Hastorf, pp. 61-72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Porada, E. 1983 Appendix III: Cylinder and Stamp Seals from Palaepaphos-

Skales. In Palaepaphos-Skales.

An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus,

edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 4 0 7 - 4 1 5 . Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz. Portugali, Y. and Α. Β. Knapp 1985 Cyprus and the Aegean: A Spatial Analysis of Interaction in the

17th to 14th centuries. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. B. Knapp and T. Stech, pp. 44-69. Monograph XXV. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Prag, Κ. 1985 The Imitation of Cypriote Wares in Late Bronze A g e Palestine.

In Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, edited by J. Tubb, pp. 154-165. Institute of Archaeology, University of London. Prausnitz, M. 1966 A Phoenician Krater from Akhziv. Oriens Antiquus

5:177-188.

1972 Red Polished and Black-on-Red Wares at Achziv, Israel and Cyprus in the Early Middle Iron Age. Praktikou tou protou diethrous

Kyporlogikou Synedrion : 152-156. 1982 Die Nekropolen von Akhziv und die Entwicklung der Keramik v o m 10. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in Akhziv, Samaria und Ashdod. In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 3144. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. 1982 Discussion with William Culican over "The Repertoire of Phoenician Pottery". In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 78-82. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz A m Rhein. 1998 Discussion in 'The Crystallization of N e w Societies'. In

Mediterranean

Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar

and E. Stern, pp. 3 6 1 - 3 6 2 . Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Pritchard, J. B.

1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. The University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Pulak, C. 1988 The Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985

Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 92( 1 ): 1 -37. 1997 The Uluburun Shipwreck. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the East Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 233-262. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Raban, A. 1985 The Ancient Harbours of Israel in Biblical Times. In

Harbour

Archaeology. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caeserea Maritima, edited by A. Raban, pp. 11-44. B A R International Series 257. University o f Haifa, Haifa. 1991 Minoan and Canaanite Harbours. In Thalassa. L'Egée Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 131-145. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège, Liège. 1995 The Heritage of Ancient Harbour Engineering in Cyprus and

the Levant. In Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 139188. The University of Cyprus, Nicosia. 1998 Near Eastern Harbours: Thirteenth - Seventh Centuries BCE.

In Mediterranean

Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar

and E. Stern, pp. 4 2 8 - 4 3 8 . Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Rasmussen, T. 1991 Corinth and the Orientalising Phenomenon. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 57-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rasmussen, T. and N. Spivey (editors) 1991 Looking at Greek Vases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rast, W.

1978 Ta'anach I - Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Mass. Redford, D. 1973 Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the

First Millenium B.C. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93:3-17.

Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn

1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and Hudson, London. Reyes, R. T. 1994 Archaic

Cyprus.

Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Riis, P. J.

1948 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches. Les Cimetières à Crémation II 3 . 1 Kommission Hos, Copenhague. 1960 L'activité de la mission archéologique danoise sur la côte phenicienne en 1959. Syria 10:111-132.

1970 Sukas 1: The North-East Cemetery and the First Settling of Greeks in Syria and Palestine I. Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia, Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 1982 Griechen in Phönizien (Discussion). In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H.-G. Niemeyer, pp. 2 5 6 - 2 6 0 . Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. Riis, P. J. and M.-L. Buhl

1990 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg. Les Objets de la Periode dite Syro-Hittite (Age du Fer) II 2. I Kommission Hos, Copenhague. Roberts, Ο. T. P. 1991 The Development of the Brail into a Viable Sail Control for

Aegean Boats of the Bronze Age. In Thalassa.

L'Egée

Préhistorique

et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 55-59. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège, Liège. Rocchetti, L.

1978 Le Tombe dei Periodi Geometrico ed Arcaico délia Necropoli a Mare di Ayia Irini "Paleokastro". Bibliteca di antichità cipriota - 4. Istituto per gii Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Rome. Rowe, A.

1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan 2. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Rupp, D. W. 1987 Vive Le Roi: The Emergence of the State in Iron A g e Cyprus.

In Western Cyprus: Connections, edited by D. W. Rupp, pp. 147-161. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. LXXVII. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg. Saidah, R.

1966 Fouilles de Khaldé. Bulletin de Musées de Beyrouth

19:51-90.

Sailer, S. 1966 Iron A g e Tombs at Nebo, Jordan. Liber Annus

XVI: 165-298.

1968 Iron A g e Remains From the Site of a N e w School at Bethlehem. Liber Annus XVIII: 153-180. Salles, J.-F.

1980 La Nécropole

"Κ" de Bybios. Recherche sur les grandes

civilisations. Editions A.D.P.F., Paris. Schaeffer, C. 1935 Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Sixième Campagne (Printemps 1934). Syria 16:141-176. Schreiber, Ν. forthcoming

The Black-on-Red pottery at Achziv.

forthcoming

The Black-on-Red pottery from Kition in

Excavations

at Kition Volume VI, edited by V. Karageorghis. Schumacher, G.

1908 Tell el-Mutesellim: Β - Tafeln. R. Haupt, Leipzig. Sellers, O. R.

1933 The Citadel ofBeth-Zur.

Westminster, Philadelphia.

Sellin, Ε.

1904 Tell Ta'annek. C. Gerold, Wien. Shanks, Η.

1999 A Mickey Mouse Operation. Biblical Archaeology

Review

25(2):38-41, 64-65. Shaw, J. W. 1989 Phoenicians in Southern Crete. American

Archaeology

Journal

of

93:165-183.

1998 K o m m o s in Southern Crete: an Aegean Barometer for East-

West Interconnections. In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 13-27. University of Crete and The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. Shelmerdine, C. W.

1985 The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg. Shepard, Α. Ο.

1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington, Washington D.C.

Carnegie Institution of

Shepstone, H. J. 1937 Palestine's N e w Lighterage Ports. Palestine

Quarterly

Exploration

69:263-267.

Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt 1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze A g e Trading Systems. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 351-386. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag, Jonsered. 1993 The growth of the Mediterranean e c o n o m y in the early first

millennium BC. World Archaeology

24(3):361-378.

Sherratt, S. 1994 Commerce, Iron and Ideology: Metallurgical Innovation in

12th - 11th century Cyprus. In Cyprus in the 11th Century

B.C.,

edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 59-106. Leventis, Nicosia. 1998 "Sea Peoples" and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 292-313. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Shiloh, Y.

1993 Megiddo. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 1016-1023. vol.

3. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Singer-Avitz, L. 1989 Iron A g e Pottery (Strata XIV - XII). In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp and O. Negbi, pp. 7687. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, Number 8. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Snodgrass, A. 1981 Early Iron Swords in Cyprus. Report

of the Department

of

Antiquities in Cyprus : 129-134. S0rensen, L. W. 1987 Cypriote Iron A g e Pottery. An Experiment Employing Simple

Quantitative Analysis. In Western Cyprus: Connections, edited by D. W. Rupp, pp. 129-146. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. LXXVII. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg. 1991 Aspects of Iron A g e Pottery from the Canadian Palaepaphos

Survey Project. In Acta Cypria. Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22-24 August, edited by P. Aström, pp. 356-370. vol. 2. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg. 1997 Travelling Pottery Connections Between Cyprus, the Levant, and the Greek World in the Iron Age. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and

the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 2 8 5 - 2 9 9 . Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia. Stager, L.

1985 The Firstfruits of Civilisation. In Palestine in the Bronze and

Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, edited by J. Tubb, pp. 172-188. Institute of Archaeology, London.

1990 Shemer's Estate. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:93-107. Stager, L. and A. Walker (editors)

1989 American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, 1973-1980. The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago. Stager, L„ A. Walker and G. E. Wright (editors)

1974 American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus. First Preliminary Report: Seasons of 1971 and 1972. American Schools of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Stampolidis, N. 1998 Imports and Amalgamata: the Eleuthema Experience. In

Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon

- Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N.

Stampolidis, pp. 175-185. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens. Steel, L. 1996 Transition from Bronze to Iron at Kourion: A Review of the Tombs from Episkopi-Bamboula and Kaloriziki. Annual of the British

School of Archaeology at Athens: 287-300. Stem, E. 1978 Excavations at Tel Mevorakh Part I: From the Iron A g e to the Roman period. Qedem 9:86-94. 1990 N e w Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 279:27-34. (editor)

1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. 1994a Dor:

Ruler of the Seas. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

1994b A Phoenician-Cypriote Votive Scapula from Tel Dor: A

Maritime Scene. Israel Exploration Journal 44(1-2): 1-12.

402 Stern, Ε.

1995 Excavations

at Dor, Final Report. Qedem Reports 1. Α-B vols.

Hebrew University of Jerusalem / Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. 1995 Tel Dor: A Phoenician - Israelite Trading centre. In

Recent

Excavations in Israel. A View to the West., edited by S. Gitin, pp. 8193. vol. 1. Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and Conference Papers. Swift, G. F.

1958 The Pottery of the 'Amuq Phases Κ to O, and its historical relationships.

Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Chicago.

Sznycer, M. 1983 Appendix V - Note sur l'inscription gravée sur une cruche de la

tombe 69 de Palaepaphos-Skales. In Palaepaphos-Skales.

An Iron

Age Cemetery in Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 4 1 6 - 4 1 7 . Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz. Tappy, R. E.

1992 The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: I, Atlanta. Teixidor, J. 1987 L'Inscription D'Ahiram À Nouveau. Syria

64:137-140.

Teixidor, J.

1997 Ahiram Inscription. In The Oxford Encyclopedia

of

Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. Meyers, pp. 31. vol. I. Doubleday, N e w York. Tubb, J.

1985 Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell.

Institute of Archaeology, London.

Tufnell, O.

1953 Lachish HI: the Iron Age - text. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Tytgat, C. 1979 La céramique des tombes 121 et 135: Problèms de typologie et de chronologie du matérial Amathousien. Bulletin de Correspondance

Hellénique

103:742-749.

1989 Les Nécropoles Sud-Ouest et Sud-Est D'Amathonte I. Les Tombes

110-385.

Études Chypriotes XI A.G. Leventis, Nicosia.

1995 La tombe N W 194 de la nécropole nord d'Amathonte. Report

the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus : 137-185.

of

Ussishkin, D.

1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. 1990 Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenth

to Ninth Centuries BC. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:71-91. Ussishkin, D. and J. Woodhead 1997 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994-1996: Third Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 2 4 ( l ) : 6 - 7 2 . Van Beek, G. W. 1951 Cypriote Chronology and the Dating of Iron I Sites in Palestine.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 124:26-29. 1955 The Date of Tell Abu Hawam. Bulletin of the American

Schools

of Oriental Research 138:34-38. Van Der Leeuw, S. E. 1984 Pottery Manufacture - S o m e Implications for the Study of Trade. In Pots and Potters, edited by P. Rice, pp. 55-69. University of California Press, Los Angeles. Vandenabeele, F. 1968 Quelques Particularités de la Civilisation d'Amathonte.

Bulletin

de Correspondance Hellénique 92:103-114. 1985 Un Depot de Céramique Archaïque Chypriote dans un silo à

Amathonté. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique CIX:629-655. Vaughan, S. 1991 Material and Technical Characterization of Base Ring Ware: A

New Fabric Typology. In Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 119-130. The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick

1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Vichos, Y. and Y. Lolos 1997 The Cypro-Mycenaean Wreck at Point Iria in the Argolic Gulf: First Thoughts on the Origin and the Nature of the Vessel. In Res

Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 321-337. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.

Vickers, M. and D. Gill

1994 Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Vinson, S. 1990 Ships in the Ancient Mediterranean. Biblical 53( 1 ): 13-19. Wampler, J. C.

Archaeologist

1947 Tell en-Nasbeh II: The Pottery. American Schools of Oriental Research, N e w Haven. Watzinger, C.

1929 Tell el-Mutesellim II. R. Haupt, Leipzig. Weinstein, J. M. 1998 Egyptian Relations with the Eastern Mediterranean World at the

End of the Second Millennium BCE. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century BCE, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 188-196. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem. Weiss, H.

1997 Archaeology in Syria. American Journal of Archaeology 101(1 ):97-148. Wightman, G. J.

1990 The Myth of Solomon. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:5-22. Williams, D. 1996 Refiguring Attic red-figure: A review article.

Archéologique

Revue

(2):227-252.

Wilson, J. A. 1969 The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia. In Ancient

Near

Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by J. B. Pritchard, pp. 25-29. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Winter, I. 1990 Markoe, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls. Gnomon

62:236-241.

Wood, B. G.

1990 The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine 4. JSOT/ ASOR Monographs, Sheffield. Woolley, L.

1938 Excavations at Al Mina, Sueida. Journal of Hellenic

Studies

LVIII: 1-30. 1939 The Iron A g e Graves of Carchemish. Liverpool XXVI: 11-37.

Annals

Woolley, L.

1952 Carchemish III: The Excavations in the Inner Town. British Museum Press, London. Yadin, Y. 1958 Hazor I. The Magnes Press of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 1960 Hazor II. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. 1961 Hazor III-IV Plates. Magnes Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

1972 Hazor: The head of all those Kingdoms. The Schweich Lecture Series of the British Academy 1970. Oxford University Press, for the British Academy, London.

1993a Hazor. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 594-603. vol. 2. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.

1993b Megiddo. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 1012-1013. vol.

3. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem. Yadin, Y. and S. Geva 1986 Investigations at Beth-Shan. The Early Iron A g e Strata. 23.

Qedem

Yellin, J. 1989 The Origin of Some Cypro-Geometric Pottery from Tel Dor.

Israel Exploration Journal 39:219-228. Yellin, J. and I. Perlman 1978 Appendix I - Provenance of Iron A g e Pottery from Tel Mervorakh. Qedem 9:86-105. Yon, M. 1971 La Tombe T. I du Xle s. av. J.-C. Editions de Boccard, Paris. Zaccagnini, C. 1983 Patterns of Mobility A m o n g Near Eastern Craftsmen. Journal

Near Eastern Studies 42:245-264. Zarzeki-Peleg, A. 1997 Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the Tenth Century B.C.E. Tel

Aviv 24(2):258-288. Zimhoni, O. 1992 The Iron A g e Pottery from Tel Jezreel - An Interim Report. Tel

Aviv 19:57-70.

of

Zimhoni, Ο. 1997 Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre - Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24:83-109. Zohary, M. 1982 Plants of the Bible. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

INDEX Achziv XXV, 30, 48, 50-51, 78, 167, 212, 277, 279 Adad-Idri 90 Ahab 9 0 , 9 1 Ahaziah 90 Akko Bay xxvii, 30, 77-78, 85 Al Mina xxiv, xxviii, 25, 30-31,38, 46, 80, 168, 211, 234,278-279 Albright, William Foxwell xxii, xxiii, 226-227 Amathus xxv, 230, 232, 262-264 Amiran, Ruth xxv Ammianus Marcellinus, History, on Cyprus 74 ' Ammonite ' pottery 171 'Amuq 30, 37, 80, 168, 227 Aramaeans 90, 91, 105, 112 Ashdod 3 1 , 3 7 , 4 6 , 7 8 - 7 9 'Ashdod' ware 2, 13 Ashkelon 78 Ashlar quays 77 Aspendos 34 'Atlit 5 1 , 7 7 , 7 9 , 2 1 2 Ayia Irini, Cyprus 266 Balsam 63-64 Beersheba 7, 1 1 , 2 8 , 7 9 , 124-128, 173, 175-176, 178, 181,196-197 Beirut 2 6 , 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 9 Ben-Hadad 90-91, 112, 182 Beth-Shan 28, 31, 37, 39, 79, 85, 91, 100, 114, 127, 129-137, 170171, 180, 197 Beth-Shemesh xxii, 7, 28, 36, 37, 3 8 , 4 6 , 127, 167 Beth-Zur 6 Biblical history, reliance on 128 Bieber, Alan xxviii Bikai, Patricia xxvi, 182, 231, 233 Birmingham, Judy xxiv, 228-230 Boeotia 54 Bon-Porté shipwreck 74

Brodie, Neil xxviii, 232 Byblos 30, 168, 169 Cap D'Antibes shipwreck 74 Cape Gelidonya shipwreck 74 Carbon-14 testing 182 Carchemish 3 0 , 3 8 , 4 6 Carmel Plain xxvii, 34, 39, 51, 72, 7 5 , 7 7 , 79, 121 Carnelian 98, 101, 141, 156 Chapman, Susan xxv Chatal Hüyük 168 Cilicia xxiv-xxv, 34, 277-280 Coldstream, Nicolas xxviii Corinthian aryballoi 55, 66, 68, 72, 74, 289, 305 Cos 290-293 Crete xxviii, 293-306 Culican, William xxi, xxvi du Plat Taylor, Joan xxiv Early Bronze Age, Metallic Ware 61 Egypt 2 6 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 7 7 , 8 5 - 9 2 'Ein Gev 28, 31, 39, 167 Enkomi 120 Finkelstein, Israel 91 Galilee, region of 79, 85 Gaming pieces 101,119 Gath 91 Gela shipwreck 74 Gezer 6 - 7 , 3 1 , 4 6 , 8 7 , 9 0 Giglio shipwreck 74 Gjerstad, Einar xxi, xxii, 3-5, 221226, 240-259, 272-273 Grant, Elihu xxii Gurob, Egypt 46 Hama 3 0 , 8 0 , 8 9 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 2 1 2 Hazael 90, 91, 182 Hazor 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 7 - 3 9 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 5 0 , 91, 100, 103-113, 116, 142, 170, 174, 180, 182, 189-195 Hebron 28 Hellenistic unguentaria 56, 64

Hematite 101 Herodotus, Histories 304 Hunt, Melvin xxvii Hurvat Rosh Zayit 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 9 , 46-47, 50, 59, 177-178, 182, 201202, 245 Idalion, Cyprus 232, 269 Imitation pottery 277-280 Ivory 97 Jaffa (Tel Aviv) 7 7 , 7 8 Jehu's revolt 182 Jericho 28 Jeroboam 86 Jerusalem 28, 87 Joram 90 Jordan Valley 79 Joya 3 0 , 2 1 0 Kaloriziki, Cyprus 265 Karageorghis, Vassos 231 Karnak, Egypt 8 5 , 8 6 , 8 7 , 8 8 Kato Dheftera, Cyprus 268 Kenyon, Kathleen xxvii Khalde 34 Khan Sheikun 3 9 , 4 6 KhirbetSilm 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 2 1 0 KiliseTepe 3 0 , 2 7 8 Kinet Hoyük 3 0 , 2 7 8 Kition xxviii, 239, 268-269, 300-301 Knossos, Crete 69, 238, 293-306 Kommos, Crete 302 Lachish 28, 39, 46, 79, 89, 120, 168,173-174, 177, 201 Lahun, Egypt 31 Lapis lazuli 95 Lapithos 9, 260-262 Late Bronze Age pottery 2, 51-54 Late Minoan pottery 61 Lebanon, modern 26 Lefkandi, Euboea 285 Linear Β 64, 67, 70 Maritime trade 73-78,310-312 Marsa Matruh, Egypt 31 Matthers, J. xxviii Mazar, Amihai xxvii Megiddo 30-39, 46-47, 50, 54, 7980, 85-86,91-103, 112-116, 127, 142, 170-189,212, 227 Megiddo tombs 168 Memphis, Egypt 3 1 , 3 9 Metal influences 58 Miniature BoR pottery 282

Mt. Carmel 30, 50, 54-55, 75, 79, 160, 175, 180 Mt. Carmel, tombs 149-152 Mt. Nebo, Jordan 171 Mycenaean perfume trade 63-64 Myrina, Turkey 55 Naukratis, Egypt 31 Nicosia, tombs 266-268, 270 Omri 141 Opium 62 Pack animals 79-80 Paint, BoR 242-243 Palaepaphos-Skales 231,255-259, 269-271,275-276, 301 Pella 28, 79, 167, 172 Perfumed oil 65-72,308 Perlman, Isaac xxvi, xxviii Philistine pottery 6, 10-13 Phoenician pottery 13-15, 48-51, 102, 282, 284 Phoenician trade to west 281-306 Pliny, Natural History, on perfume 69-72, 304 Point Iria shipwreck 74 Porosity, ceramic 56 Prausnitz, Moshe xxv Pylos, perfume trade 64, 67, 69 Qashish 30 Qraye 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 5 4 , 2 1 0 Ramoth-Gilead 90 Ras al-Bassit 30, 37, 39, 46 Ras Ibn Hani 39 'Red Ware' 1 3 - 1 5 , 2 7 6 , 3 0 8 Rehoboam 85 Rhodes 286-290,299-300 River navigation 78-79 Routes inland 79 Sail 76 Salamis, Cyprus 264 Samaria xxvii, 28, 34, 39, 142 Sanam, Egypt 31 Sarepta 26, 30-31, 34, 37, 163-166, 205,231 Scientific testing xxviii, 57, 68, 234-239 Sennacherib 89 Sheshonq, Pharaoh 85-92 Shipwrecks 53, 65, 74 Shiqmona 8, 37, 160, 181 Shishak, Pharaoh 85-92, 117, 137, 141, 149, 159, 181, 309

Sidon xxv, 26 'Solomonic'archaeology 213 Steel, Louise xxviii, 2 3 2 Stern, E p h r a i m x x v i Stobi, Macedonia 55 Stoppers 63 Swift, Gustavus xxiv, 2 2 7 Tabbat a l - H a m m a m 3 0 , 3 9 , 7 7 , 2 1 1 Tappy, R o n x x v i i Tarsus x x v , 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 7 - 2 8 0 Tel ' A m a l 3 4 , 9 1 , 114, 1 2 7 , 1 4 6 149, 1 7 3 - 1 8 1 , 198 Tel B a t a s h 168 Tel D a n 91 Tel D o r 3 0 , 3 4 - 3 9 , 5 1 , 7 5 - 7 8 , 8 0 , 279 Tel Fara ( S ) 2 8 , 3 6 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 7 9 , 167, 243, 244, 279 Tel G e r i s a 3 6 Tel H a l i f 2 8 , 5 0 , 7 9 , 1 2 0 1 2 7 , 1 5 7 159, 1 7 4 - 1 8 0 Tel J e m m e h 3 9 , 2 4 4 Tel J e z r e e l 3 4 , 3 9 , 9 1 , 1 0 2 , 2 1 1 Tel Kabri 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 8 , 7 9 , 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 ,

212 Tel M a s o s 2 , 11, 1 7 4 - 1 7 8 Tel M e v o r a k h x x v i , x x v i i , 3 0 - 3 9 , 4 7 , 50, 7 8 - 7 9 , 142-146, 198, 235 Tel M i c h a l 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 6 - 4 7 , 7 8 , 1171 2 1 , 1 7 3 - 1 7 6 , 180, 195 Tel N a m i 8 0 Tel Q a s h i s h 3 0 , 5 0 , 7 9 , 121 Tel Qiri x x v i i , 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 8 , 4 7 , 7 9 , 121-124, 195-196 Tel R e h o v 2 8 , 3 1 , 8 5 , 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 , 1 8 2 Tel Z e r o r 3 7 , 4 6 , 5 4 , 7 9 Tell A b u H a w a m 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 7 , 3 9 , 4 6 - 4 7 , 51, 78-79, 160-162, 175176, 180 Tell Beit M i r s i m xxi, xxii, 6, 3 7 , 167 Tell D a r o u k 3 7 Tell e d - D a b ' a 5 5 , 6 1 Tell e l - A j j u l 2 8 , 5 4 , 7 8 , 7 , 1 6 7 , 2 4 4

Tell e l - A m a r n a 3 1 , 1 6 9 Tell e l - F a r ' a h ( N ) 2 8 , 3 4 , 3 7 - 3 9 , 4 7 , 5 0 , 114, 128, 1 3 7 - 1 4 2 , 1 7 3 1 8 0 , 198, 2 1 2 Tell e l - F u l x x i , 3 7 Tell e l - H a m m e h 4 6 , 1 5 4 - 1 5 7 , 1 7 5 180, 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 Tell e l - J u d e i d a h 1 6 8 Tell e n - N a s b e h 2 8 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 7 , 2 4 4 Tell e r - R a c h i d y e h 2 7 6 Tell e r - R e q e i s h 2 8 , 3 9 , 5 0 , 2 1 2 Tell e z - Z u w e y i d 2 8 , 3 1 Tell J e m m e h 2 8 , 3 1 , 4 6 , 5 0 , 7 9 Tell K a z e l 2 6 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 204-205 Tell K e i s a n 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 8 - 3 9 , 4 6 - 4 8 , 5 1 , 1 5 2 - 1 5 4 , 173, 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 , 199200, 2 0 4 , 2 1 2 , 242, 279 Tell Q a s i l e x x v i i , 3 4 - 3 9 , 7 9 , 1 6 6 167, 179 Tell S u k a s 3 0 , 3 7 , 3 9 , 8 0 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 , 208-209 Tell T a ' a n a c h 3 0 , 8 5 , 9 1 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 105, 1 1 3 - 1 1 7 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 1 7 5 - 1 8 0 , 195 Tell T a y i n a t 168 Tell T e b i l l e h 3 9

Theophrastus, On Odours

63, 67-

71 T i g l a t h p i l e s e r III 1 3 7 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 Tirzah 8 5 Tyre x x v , x x v i , 2 6 , 3 0 , 3 4 - 3 9 , 4 6 , 7 6 , 168, 2 0 5 - 2 0 8 , 2 3 6 Ulu Burun shipwreck 53, 65, 7 4 Van B e e k , G u s x x i i i , 2 2 6 V a n d e n a b e e l e , Frieda x x v , 2 3 0 - 2 3 1 Winds, Mediterranean 7 6 W r i g h t , G e o r g e Ernest x x i i Yellin, Joseph xxvi, xxviii Yoqneam 30, 34, 37, 46, 50, 79, 9 1 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 116, 1 2 1 , 1 7 2 , 177 Zinjirli 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 6

CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST ISSN 1566-2055 1. Grootkerk, S.E. Ancient Sites in Galilee. A Toponymie Gazetteer. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11535 8 2. Higginbotham, C.R. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine. Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periph-ery. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11768 7 3. Yamada, S. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III Relating to His Campaigns in the West. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11772 5 4. Yener, Κ.A. The Domestication of Metals. T h e Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11864 0 5. Taracha, P. Ersetzen und Entsühnen. Das mittelhethitische Ersatzritual für den Großkönig Tuthalija ( C T H *448.4) und verwandte Texte. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11910 8 6. Littauer, M.A. & Crouwel, J.H.and P. Raulwing (ed.) Selected Wrìtings on Chariots and other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness. 2002. ISBN 90 04 11799 7 7. Malamat, A. History of Biblical Israel. Major Problems and Minor Issues. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12009 2 8. Snell, D.C. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12010 6 9. Westbrook, R. & R. Jasnow (ed.) Security for Debt in Ancient near Eastern Law. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12124 2 10. Holloway, S.W. Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12328 8 11. Daviau, P.M.M. Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan. Volume 2: T h e Iron Age Artefacts. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12363 6 12. Homan, M.M. To your Tents, Ο Israel! T h e terminology, function, form, and symbolism of tents in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12606 6 13. Schreiber, Ν. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12854 9 14. SchifTman, L.H. Semitic Papyrology in Context. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12885 9