The Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid Administrative Center at Tel Kedesh, Israel, in a Regional Context

Home , 2nd century, Ephraim Stern, Europus (Macedonia), Gamla nature reserve, Iturea, Kedesh

‘PROVINCIAL’ PERSPECTIVES: THE PERSIAN, PTOLEMAIC, AND SELEUCID ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER AT TEL KEDESH, ISRAEL, IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctorate of Philosophy

in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences by

Peter James Stone

March, 2012

B.A. University of Minnesota, 2004 M.A. University of Cincinnati, 2007

Committee Chair: Kathleen M. Lynch, Ph.D.

iii

ABSTRACT

In this dissertation I explore how people in the eastern Mediterranean responded to

imperial rule under the Achaemenid Persians (539-331 BCE) and Alexander the Great

and his Greco-Macedonian successors, the Ptolemies (c. 300-201 BCE) and Seleucids (c.

201-104 BCE). To get an intimate perspective on these responses, I approach them

through the recently excavated Persian and Hellenistic Administrative building (hereafter

PHAB) at Tel Kedesh in the Upper Galilee of modern day Israel. The PHAB was in use

under the Persians, the Ptolemies, and the Seleucids before being abandoned after the

Seleucids were defeated in a nearby battle against a Judean army led by Jonathan

Maccabee in 143 BCE. People moved north from the Central Hills a few years after this

battle and inhabited the site of the semi-ruined building as squatters for a generation.

From the vantage of the PHAB, it is possible to consider how economies and

lifestyles changed against the dramatic historical backdrop of Alexander’s conquest of

the Persian Empire, the five Syrian Wars fought between his Ptolemaic and Seleucid

successors over the southern Levant in the 3rd century, and the Maccabean Revolt against

Seleucid rule in the mid 2nd century. In this dissertation I consider the largest body of evidence for economic and cultural interconnections of the staff of the PHAB, the pottery, in a regional context in order to characterize the daily habits and tastes of the administrators and squatters who lived at Kedesh. By considering changes in these tastes and habits over time as regimes and borders shifted, I show that people responded to the limitations and opportunities presented by Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid rule (and its aftermath) in thoroughly local ways and at different paces according to political circumstances, economic opportunity, and their own sense of taste and tradition. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The debt of gratitude that I owe to my colleagues, advisors, friends, and family for their assistance, advice, and support cannot be quantified or described coherently. I will here list the names of those people and institutions to whom I am most indebted for the completion of this dissertation.

I have enjoyed the generous support of a Louise Taft Semple Fellowship from the

Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati and a University Graduate

Scholarship since the fall of 2004. From 2004 to 2007, this funding allowed me to focus on classes that sharpened my research, writing and presentation skills, and since 2008 on the research and writing of this dissertation. Over this span, I have received assistance regarding a host of administrative matters from Gayle McGarrahan, Laura Deller, Deema

Maghathe, and Kenneth Gottorff. The cheerful and capable staff of the Burnam Classics

Library: Phoebe Acheson, the late David Ball, Mike Braunlin, and Jacquelene Riley have made it possible for me to make the most of a unique and vast collection of materials.

Assembling the data for this dissertation and illustrating it required confidence in technology and my ability to use it. Thanks to the tutelage of John Wallrodt and his reassuring presence in the department, I have had no need to worry on either front. The archaeology graduate directors while I have been here, Jack Davis, Gisela Walberg, and

Kathleen Lynch, deserve praise for clearly communicating the expectations and requirements of the program and making us aware of opportunities in the field.

I was fortunate to participate in courses and lively seminars at the University of

Cincinnati that broadened my knowledge of the ancient world as it deepened my understanding of how and why we study the past. I have been enriched by courses with vi

Susan Allen, Barbara Burrell, Tom Carpenter, Getzel Cohen, Jack Davis, Eleni Hatzaki,

William Johnson, Kathleen Lynch, Peter van Minnen, Holt Parker, and Gisela Walberg. I thank all of them for the time and careful thought that they invested in my development as a scholar and teacher. In the same vein I would like to thank Kathryn Gutzwiller for discussing the literary culture and aesthetic sensibilities of the Hellenistic world with me,

Susan Prince for hosting a series of pedagogy lunches, and Alan Sullivan for sharing his thoughts on Classics from the point of view of an anthropologist.

Sharon Herbert and Andrea Berlin gave me permission to work on the Persian and

Hellenistic pottery from their extremely well run excavations at Tel Kedesh in Israel.

When I began research at Kedesh in 2008, four seasons of excavation had taken place, but there was no backlog because Andrea Berlin conducted pottery readings in 1997,

1999, and 2000 and Nicholas Hudson did in 2006. I thank both of them for working diligently on this material. Moreover, when I arrived at Kedesh I found in place a system that ensured the pottery remained part of the stratigraphic record from its time of excavation until the assignment of stratigraphic loci at the end of each season. This system would not have worked without the dedication of the trench supervisors at

Kedesh. The author of this system, Sharon Herbert, deserves credit too. Her commitment to the marriage of stratigraphy and pottery has made the formidable task of interpreting this huge corpus of pottery much more practical and pleasurable. I was blessed in the spring and summer of 2010 with the capable assistance and good company of Andrew

Boos and Caitlin Clerkin for the final quantification of the pottery from Kedesh. They made long hours at the sorting tables much less arduous and were a sounding board for ideas I had about the pottery. Without the efforts of Linda Clougherty and Meg Morden vii in the registry, Suzanne Davis, Claudia Chemello, and Meghan McFarlane in conservation, the illustrators Darin Anderson, Fritz McBride, Hannah Schnobrich, and

Lorene Sterner, and the photographer Sue Webb, I would literally have little to show for my efforts. My understanding of the pottery from Kedesh and its archaeological context benefited greatly from conversations in the 2008-2010 seasons and afterwards with Bjorn

Anderson, Donald Ariel, Andrea Berlin, Lisa Cakmak, Henry Colburn, Suzanne Davis,

Ameera Elrasheedy, Gerald Finkielsztejn, Sharon Herbert, Tom Landvatter, Kate Larson,

Paul Lesperance, Lindy Lindorfer, Charlotte Maxwell-Jones, Fritz McBride, Leah Minc,

Meg Morden, Adrian Ossi, Anastasia Shapiro, and Justin Winger.

Collaborations with other scholars have helped me understand the material from

Kedesh and how to work with it. Before I began work at Kedesh in 2008, I had the opportunity to work on pottery from the University of British Columbia excavations at

Stymphalos and the Sikyon Survey Project in Greece. This experience helped me put the

Persian and Hellenistic pottery from Kedesh and other eastern Mediterranean sites into broader perspective. I thank the directors of those projects: Hector Williams and Yannis

A. Lolos as well as Ben Gourley, Matt Maher, Erika Nitsch, Leticia Rodriguez-Hinojosa,

Gerald Schaus, Daniel Richard Stewart, Conor Trainor, and Elli Tzavella for camaraderie and productive conversations. In the summer of 2008, when I was just beginning work on the pottery at Kedesh, Andrea Berlin enlisted my help in publishing pottery from

Hellenistic and early Roman Akko. I thank her and Danny Syon, Moshe Hartal, and

Eliezer Stern, the directors of the project, for making this material available. In the fall of

2010 Søren Handberg invited me to join Jane Hjarl-Petersen in writing an article on the unusual distribution of Hellenistic Italian finewares in the eastern Mediterranean. Work viii on this article led me to a clearer view of the economic and social interconnections of the people who lived at Kedesh that has proved valuable in this dissertation. These collaborations have sharpened my skills as a researcher and all have been personally rewarding.

In 2009, the United States Department of State awarded me an Educational and

Cultural Affairs Grant to conduct research at the Albright Institute of Archaeological

Research in east Jerusalem. Thanks to the staff of the Albright, and in particular Helena

Flusfeder and Sy Gitin, its director, this was a period of almost unparalleled scholarly productivity for me. Sy and Helena helped me arrange visits to the Israel Antiquities storerooms at Beit Shemesh and put me in contact with scholars working on Persian and

Hellenistic sites throughout Israel. I offer thanks to Yardenna Alexandre, Nourit Feig,

Moshe Fischer, Rafael Frankel, Moshe Hartal, Malka Hershkovitz, Yo’av Lehrer, Barak

Monnikendam-Givon, Yiftah Shalev, Howard Smithline, Danny Syon, and Oren Tal for taking the time to show me material from their projects and discussing it with me. It would have been hard to make many of these meetings without the use of Sharon

Herbert’s Renault. I thank her for letting me use it and making sure that it was registered.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to Marie Henriette-Gates for allowing me to view pottery from her excavations at Kinet Höyük in Turkey, and Gisela Walberg for giving me the opportunity to study the Hellenistic pottery from her excavations at Episkopi-Bamboula in Cyprus.

My advisors: Andrea Berlin and Kathleen Lynch, and committee members:

Getzel Cohen, Eleni Hatzaki, and Sharon Herbert have read and commented on this dissertation with great care. They each deserve more than a word of thanks here. ix

I have been interested in history my entire life, but I had not been properly

introduced to the traditional tools of historical research before I took courses with Getzel

Cohen. While writing this dissertation Getzel has helped me access the historical record

of the Hellenistic world and navigate the voluminous secondary scholarship devoted to it.

Pottery is a category of find common to archaeologists who research many

periods and places. It is fortunate then that I have been able to get a well-informed

perspective on it from the vantage of a prehistorian, Eleni Hatzaki. Eleni has helped me

keep in mind the broader anthropological implications of the pottery from Kedesh.

Kathleen Lynch has provided me with advice and guidance of the very highest order since I arrived at the University of Cincinnati. She has helped me understand classical (Greco-Roman) pottery in all its dimensions: production, exchange, use, and deposition. As a result of Kathleen’s mentoring and peerless example I have become a much better writer and speaker, and am confident in my ability to present information visually. The speed and diligence with which Kathleen has read drafts of this dissertation, and the careful thought that she put into her comments, have improved it immeasurably.

My thanks to her are comparable in scale.

Sharon Herbert deployed her keen stratigraphic eye on my dissertation and

provided comments that helped me clarify complicated issues relating to the site that

were among my chief sources of anxiety while writing. No one else could have helped

me clear these hurdles.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to Andrea Berlin for her enthusiasm and support

for my career. I cannot possibly list all of the ways in which she has helped me over the

past dozen years, so I will employ an anecdote. In the Spring of 2000 when I was not yet x out of high school, Andrea agreed to let me come excavate at Kedesh and provide funding for room and board, on the basis of nothing more than the recommendation of my friend Eric Schindelholz. That summer I went from effective ignorance to the realization that archaeology, and pottery, were tangible and powerful tools for understanding life in antiquity because Andrea made the evidence speak, as she is uniquely able to do. I feel privileged now, as then, to learn with Andrea and look forward to continuing our conversation.

Graduate school is a unique period of immersion in academic life. I thank all of my colleagues in the Department of Classics at the University for creating a vibrant community. It has been a privilege to spend eight years among such smart and dedicated people, and I have enjoyed both scholarly discourse and lighthearted discussion with them. I have space here to mention but a few who have provided advice and moral support as I neared the completion of this dissertation: Mark Atwood, Charlie Campbell,

Marcie Handler, Sarah Lima, Hüseyin Öztürk, John Ryan, and Shannan Stewart.

Graduate school is also trying, and I am thankful to my friends for helping me maintain perspective and enjoy the world that exists outside the walls of the Blegen

Library. I look forward to seeing them again once this project is completed. During the final months of writing, as hours in the library have become increasingly precious,

Natalie Draper has made my life brighter through small gestures like delivering soup and great ones like rebinding my copy of Tel Anafa, Vol. 2.1 (a casualty of this dissertation).

She has made me smile in a time of extreme focus.

I have had the unconditional support of my mother, Annmarie, my brother Dan, and my late father Charles throughout my life and career. As years go by, I appreciate xi more and more their encouragement of my peculiar curiosities while I was growing up.

My mom took us to the library or Science Museum at every opportunity, including many mornings after late shifts. My dad would find some (often very creatively improvised) way to help us get involved with anything that interested us. I have them to thank for my inquisitiveness and willingness to try different approaches until something works, both of which have served me well in completing this dissertation.

At the core of the humanities is shared understanding and appreciation of human experience and achievement. It is a cruel irony that humanistic research is often so specialized. I have had the unique pleasure to have as a colleague in the study of

Hellenistic pottery my friend, Shannan Stewart. When Shannan and I are together a single conversation can range from the details of our upcoming summer research, to our favorite lunch spots in Minneapolis, to her nest collection and its hazards, to how west- slope decoration is like wallpaper, and back again without either of us becoming confused. Shannan has listened with an understanding ear and dispensed reliable advice regarding this dissertation and a host of other matters.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii

Acknowledgements v

List of Tables xvi

List of Figures xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction to Kedesh and the Southern Levant 1

General introduction 1

Historical Overview of the Southern Levant in the Persian and 11 Hellenistic Periods

Approaching Lifestyle in the Persian and Hellenistic Levant 12

Imperial Rule in the Southern Levant Before the Persian Period 14

The Persian and Hellenistic Administrative Building (PHAB) at 23 Kedesh in the Upper Galilee

Kedesh: A Unique Case Study 37

Chapter 2: The Persian Period Ceramic Assemblage 39

The Achaemenid Persian Empire in the Southern Levant 39

The Persian Period PHAB 44

Persian Period Wares 46

Persian Period Shapes and Forms 52

Comparative Persian Period Assemblages 74

Persian Period Kedesh in a Regional Context 101

“Household Economy” at Persian Period Kedesh 104

“Household Economy” at Persian Period Kedesh, Anafa, and 106 Nahal Tut

Persian Period Summary 109

xiii

Chapter 3: The 3rd Century Ceramic Assemblage 111

Ptolemaic Rule in the Southern Levant 111

The 3rd Century PHAB 118

3rd Century Wares 122

3rd Century Shapes and Forms 126

Comparative 3rd Century Assemblages 147

3rd Century Kedesh in a Regional Context 164

“Household Economy” at Kedesh in the Persian Period 171 and 3rd Century

“Household Economy” at Kedesh and Anafa in the 174 3rd Century

3rd Century Summary 178

Chapter 4: The early to mid 2nd Century Ceramic Assemblage 180

Seleucid Rule in the Southern Levant 180

The Early to Mid 2nd Century PHAB 187

Early to Mid 2nd Century Wares 192

Early to Mid 2nd Century Shapes and Forms 203

Comparative Early to Mid 2nd Century Assemblages 258

Early to Mid 2nd Century Kedesh in a Regional Context 306

“Household Economy” at Kedesh in the 3rd Century 316 and the Early to Mid 2nd Century “Household Economy” at Kedesh, Zemel, and Anafa in the 320 Early to Mid 2nd Century

Early to Mid 2nd Century Summary 325

xiv

Chapter 5: The Squatter Ceramic Assemblage 328

The Southern Levant After the Seleucids 328

Kedesh After the PHAB 332

Squatter Wares 337

Squatter Shapes and Forms 342

Comparative Late 2nd Century Assemblages 357

Squatter Kedesh in a Regional Context 371

“Household Economy” at the PHAB in the Early to Mid 2nd 373 Century and the Squatter Settlement at Kedesh

“Household Economy” at Squatter Kedesh and Anafa 378

After the Squatters: Sites in the Late Hellenistic Upper Galilee, 381 Hula Valley, and Golan

Squatter Summary 384

Chapter 6: The PHAB and Environs over Time 390

General Introduction: The PHAB at Kedesh as a Case 390 Study in Cultural Change

Diachronic Overview of Assemblages in the Southern Levant 392 From the Persian Period to the 2nd Century

Diachronic Overview of Assemblages at Kedesh from the 397 Persian Period to the 2nd Century

Taste and Lifestyle in the Persian and Hellenistic Southern 408 Levant

Accounting for Changing Tastes in the Persian and Hellenistic 415 World

Appendix A: Methodology 417

Pottery as an Index of Economic Orientation and Lifestyle 417

Stratigraphic and Ceramic Phases at Kedesh 417

The Identification and Weighing of Wares at Kedesh 423

The Identification and Tallying of Shapes and Forms 426 at Kedesh

Abundant Comparanda: Published Persian and Hellenistic 428 Pottery in the Southern Levant

Appendix B (Tables B1-4): Concordance of Vessels 430 Shown in Figures

Bibliography 431

Tables and Figures 459

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Local, regional, and imported Persian period wares at Kedesh.

xvi

2.2 Persian period wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only.

2.3 Persian period diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

3.1 Local, regional, and imported 3rd century wares at Kedesh.

3.2 Hell 1 wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only.

3.3 Hell 1 diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

4.1 Local, regional, and imported Hell 2 wares at Kedesh.

4.2 Hell 2/2b wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only.

4.3 Hell 2/2b diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

5.1 Local, regional, and imported Hell 3 wares at Kedesh.

5.2 Hell 3 wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only (gritty cooking ware not included).

5.3 Percentage of ware weight in loci 35010 and 35011 compared to Roman average.

5.4 Hell 3 diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

A1 Fabric/ware abbreviations used in the Appendix A and B tables.

A2 Ceramic phase LDMs at Kedesh: Persian period, Hell 1, Hell 2, Hell 3.

A3 Forms that make their first appearance in Persian loci at Kedesh.

A4 Forms that make their first appearance in Hell 1 loci at Kedesh.

A5 Forms that make their first appearance in Hell 2/2b loci at Kedesh.

A6 Forms that make their first appearance in Hell 3 loci at Kedesh.

B1 Persian Period vessels shown in Figs. 2.1; 2.3-5; 2.7-9.

B2 Hell 1 vessels shown in Figs. 3.1; 3.3-5; 3.7-8.

B3 Hell 2 vessels shown in Figs. 4.2-10; 4.12-16; 4.18-36.

B4 Hell 3 vessels shown in Figs. 5.6-13.

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Map of eastern Mediterranean with southern Levant highlighted. xviii

1.2 Map showing regions of the southern Levant.

1.3 Map showing local (one day’s travel) and regional (two-three day’s travel) proximity to/from Kedesh.

1.4 Aerial view of Upper Galilee from above Kedesh, looking southeast. (photo: Skyview)

1.5 Aerial view of Tel Kedesh looking northeast, Hula Valley in distance. (photo: Sharon Herbert and Andrea Berlin)

1.6 Aerial view of the PHAB at Kedesh, looking north. (photo: skyview)

1.7 Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

1.8 Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh with Iron Age, Persian, and Hellenistic walls in the line of Persian period walls. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

1.9 Plan of PHAB at Kedesh with 3rd century floors and 3rd or 2nd century modifications. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

1.10 Plan of PHAB at Kedesh showing tentative functional layout in final phase. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

2.1 Persian Period and Hell 1 storage jars. 2:5

2.2 Persian and 3rd century local jar forms as percentage of fragmentary vessels: holemouth, holemouth with thickened rim, and narrow neck, thickened rim, by phase.

2.3 Persian Period transport jars. 2:5

2.4 Persian Period utility vessels, mortaria and basins. 2:5

2.5 Persian Period utility jug, cooking vessels. 2:5

2.6 Neckless cooking pots with triangular rims as percentage of fragmentary vessels, by phase.

2.7 Persian Period table vessels, local and regional: 1-4; Attic/Atticizing imports: 5-9. 2:5

2.8 Persian Period service vessels: 1-3; and toilet vessels: 4-6. 2:5

2.9 The Persian Period ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. 1:5 xix

2.10 Map of eastern Mediterranean with comparative Persian period sites.

2.11 Map of Kedesh and nearby sites in the Persian period.

2.12 Local and regional/imported transport jars from Kedesh, Persian period wares and forms.

2.13 Local, coastal (regional), and Attic/Atticizing Persian Period table and service vessels at Kedesh.

2.14 Quantities of Persian Period Attic/Atticizing imports from Kedesh, by function.

2.15 Percentage of Persian Period vessels by function, Persian loci and all loci.

2.16 Percentages of Persian Period vessel forms by functional class, Kedesh and Nahal Tut.

3.1 Hell 1 transport vessel, Phoenician SF shouldered baggy jar. 2:5

3.2 Quantities of coastal/imported jars found in Persian and Hell 1 loci at Kedesh.

3.3 Hell 1 utility vessels. 2:5

3.4 Hell 1 cooking vessels. 2:5

3.5 Hell 1 table vessels, bowls and saucers. 2:5

3.6 Hell 1 central coastal fine ware table assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

3.7 Hell 1 drinking vessels: 1-2; service vessel: 3; and toilet vessels. 2:5

3.8 Hell 1 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. 1:5

3.9 Map of eastern Mediterranean with comparative 3rd century sites.

3.10 Map of Kedesh and nearby sites in the 3rd century.

3.11 Quantities of cooking and table vessels from Hell 1 loci found in central Levantine coastal fabrics (sandy cooking ware and central coastal fine) and local spatter painted ware.

3.12 Counts of regional/local table vessels and imported table vessels found in Hell 1 loci, or independently attributable to phase Hell 1.

3.13 Quantities of Hell 1 vessels in Hell 1 and later loci at Kedesh, by function.

3.14 Percentages of Persian and 3rd century vessels by functional class, all loci.

3.15 Percentages of 3rd century vessel forms by functional class, Kedesh and Anafa.

4.1 Hell 2 vessels as a percentage of total vessels tallied at Kedesh, Hell 2 and later loci.

4.2 Hell 2 storage jar in low-fired orange ware. 1:5

4.3 Hell 2 storage jar in low-fired brown ware. 1:5

4.4 Hell 2 storage jar in low-fired brown ware. 1:5

4.5 Hell 2 regional transport jars, Phoenician SF baggy jars. 1:5

4.6 Hell 2 imported transport jar, Rhodian amphora. 1:5

4.7 Hell 2 transport vessels, amphoriskoi. 2:5

4.8 Hell 2 transport vessels, amphoriskoi and unguentarium from the archive room.

4.9 Hell 2 utility vessels, mortarium, basin, coarse krater. 2:5

4.10 Hell 2 utility vessels, jug and flask. 2:5

4.11 Hell 2 utility jar. 2:5

4.12 Hell 2 cooking vessels, cooking pots. 2:5

4.13 Necked cooking pots with pointed rim as percentage of total vessels tallied at Kedesh, by phase.

4.14 Hell 2 cooking vessels, cooking pots: 1-5; casseroles: 6-7. 2:5

4.15 Hell 2 cooking vessels, casseroles. 2:5

4.16 Hell 2 cooking vessels, pans. 2:5

4.17 Hell 2 cooking vessels, brazier. 1:1

4.18 Hell 2 table vessels, bowls with incurved rims. 2:5

4.19 Percentage of bowls with incurved rims that occur in central coastal fine, by phase (only Hell 2 or earlier wares considered). xxi

4.20 Hell 2 table vessels, bowls. 2:5

4.21 Hell 2 table vessels, saucers and plates. 2:5

4.22 Hell 2 table vessels, BSP and NCF fishplates with hanging rims. 2:5

4.23 Hell 2 table vessels, plates and platter. 2:5

4.24 Hell 2 table vessels, plate and platters. 2:5

4.25 Hell 2 table vessels, platters. 2:5

4.26 Hell 2 table vessels, drinking vessels. 2:5

4.27 Hell 2 table and service vessels, drinking vessels: 1-3; krater: 4. 2:5

4.28 Hell 2 service vessels, kraters. 2:5

4.29 Hell 2 service vessels, jugs and table amphoras. 2:5

4.30 Hell 2 service vessels, table amphoras. 2:5

4.31 Hell 2 service vessels, lagynoi: 1-2; juglets: 3-5; guttus: 6. 2:5

4.32 Hell 2 toilet vessels, jugs and juglets: 1-2; unguentaria: 3-6; and ointment pot: 7. 2:5

4.33 Hell 2 toilet vessels, varia. 2:5

4.34 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB Kedesh, storage and transport vessels. 1:5

4.35 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, utility and cooking vessels. 1:5

4.36 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, table and service vessels. 1:5

4.37 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, toilet vessels, rare imports, and rare imports from the archive room. 1:5

4.38 Map of eastern Mediterranean with comparative early to mid 2nd century sites.

4.39 Map of Kedesh and nearby sites in the early to mid 2nd century.

xxii

4.40 The Hell 2 utility assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

4.41 The Hell 2 cooking assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

4.42 The Hell 2 table assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, vessels used between the end of the 3rd and the mid 2nd century. (photo: Sue Webb)

4.43 The Hell 2 table assemblage from the mid 2nd century (Hell 2b) abandonment of the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

4.44 The Hell 2 service assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

4.45 The Hell 2 toilet assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, vessels for personal use (photo: Sue Webb)

4.46 The Hell 2 spatter painted ware table assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

4.47 Quantities of Hell 2/2b vessels by source region.

4.48 Quantity of coastal/imported jars in Persian loci, Hell 1 loci, and Hell 2/2b loci.

4.49 Percentages of Persian, 3rd century, and early to mid 2nd century vessels by functional class, Kedesh.

4.50 Percentage of vessels by functional class at Kedesh, Anafa, and Zemel.

4.51 Quantity of reconstructable vessels in Hell 2b loci, by function.

5.1 Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh with approximate area of squatter use highlighted. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

5.2 Density plot of fragmentary ESA vessels and sherds in the area of the PHAB. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

5.3 Density plot of fragmentary tan-gray marl vessels in the area of the PHAB. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

5.4 Density plot of fragmentary basaltic cooking ware vessels in the area of the PHAB. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

5.5 Fragments of vessels used in each phase at Kedesh as percentage of diagnostic fragments from that phase, vessels that make their first appearance in phase and all possible fragments.

5.6 Hell 3 transport and storage jar. 2:5 xxiii

5.7 Hell 3 utility vessels. 2:5

5.8 Hell 3 cooking vessels, cooking pots. 2:5

5.9 Hell 3 cooking vessels, cooking pots. 2:5

5.10 Hell 3 cooking vessels, casseroles and lid: 1-3; cooking ware jugs: 4-6. 2:5

5.11 Hell 3 table vessels, bowls and saucer in tan-gray marl; bowls in ESA: 4-8. 2:5

5.12 Hell 3 table vessels, plates and drinking vessels: 1-4; Hell 3 toilet vessels: 5-6. 2:5

5.13 The Hell 3 squatter assemblage from Kedesh. 1:5

5.14 Map of eastern Mediterranean with comparative mid to late 2nd century sites.

5.15 Map of Kedesh and nearby sites in the mid to late 2nd century.

5.16 Percentages of early to mid 2nd century and squatter vessels by functional class, Kedesh.

5.17 Vessels by functional class at Kedesh, Anafa, and Gamla.

6.1 Map of eastern Mediterranean with southern Levant highlighted.

6.2 Map showing regions of the southern Levant.

6.3 Map showing local (one day’s travel) and regional (two-three day’s travel) proximity to/from Kedesh.

6.4 Aerial view of the PHAB at Kedesh, looking north. (photo Skyview)

6.5 Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer)

6.6 Pottery left behind in the abandonment of the PHAB at Kedesh in 143 BCE. (photo: Meghan McFarlane)

6.7 The Persian Period ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. 1:5

6.8 The Hell 1 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. 1:5

6.9 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, storage and transport vessels. 1:5

xxiv

6.10 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, utility and cooking vessels. 1:5

6.11 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, table and service vessels. 1:5

6.12 Hell 2 table and service vessels from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photos: Sue Webb)

6.13 The Hell 2 ceramic assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh, rare imports, rare imports from the archive room, and toilet vessels. 1:5 (photo: Sue Webb)

6.14 The Hell 2 spatter painted ware table assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh. (photo: Sue Webb)

6.15 The Hell 3 squatter assemblage from Kedesh. 1:5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO KEDESH AND THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In the 1st millennium BCE the eastern shores of the Mediterranean were the scene of dramatic

military and political tumult. During this time the southern Levant (see Figs. 1.1-2 for the

location and geography of the southern Levant) was wracked by local conflicts between the

Israelites and the Canaanite and Philistine city-states of the coast; by Assyrian, Babylonian, and

Persian conquerors from the east; and by Greeks and Macedonians from the west led by

Alexander the Great. Under Persian rule from the late 6th to the late 4th century BCE (all dates hereafter BCE unless otherwise noted) economic and cultural interaction between people living in the southern Levant and the Greek world to the west intensified. After Alexander’s death his successors fought over the region. By the beginning of the 3rd century the Ptolemies, one dynasty

of Alexander’s successors, ruled over the southern Levant from Egypt. In the course of the 3rd century the Seleucids, another successor dynasty, contested the Ptolemies for rule of the southern

Levant in five wars (the so-called “Syrian wars”). These wars ended with the Seleucid conquest of the region in 201 and the removal of borders to the north and east. In the mid 2nd century the

Jews living in the Central Hill Country revolted from the Seleucids and several coastal cities

claimed or were granted their independence from Seleucid rule soon after. The decline of

Seleucid power returned the region to a remarkably similar political configuration to the

beginning of the millennium with a Jewish kingdom on the interior and independent Phoenician

city-states on the coast. But although the political situation in the region had seemingly come full

circle, the cultural landscape was irreversibly changed by interactions between peoples both 2

native and foreign to the Levant who adopted, adapted, ignored, or rejected each other’s

traditions and material culture. Indeed, the first millennium in the southern Levant was defined

by increasing entanglement with the world of the Aegean to the west.

It goes without saying though that the people living in the southern Levant did not simply become “Greek” or “Hellenized,”1 whatever Alexander and his subordinates may have intended

regarding the unity of mankind or intermixing of Greeks and barbarians.2 The population of the

southern Levant consisted mostly of the same people who had lived there for centuries (e.g.,

Jews, Phoenicians), and their traditions were not erased or changed overnight. Furthermore, as

mentioned above, economic and cultural interaction with the Aegean world is well documented

along the coast already in the Persian period. This makes it critical to assess the economic and

cultural conditions of the region under Persian rule if we are to understand transformations that

took place after Alexander’s conquest. The question I am interested in here is how the people

living in the region responded to changing political conditions and economic possibilities from

the Persian period until the eclipse of Seleucid power in the 2nd century. More specifically I will explore how these responses varied according to geographic location, social status vis-à-vis the ruling regime, and cultural background. Because of the strength of the historical and archaeological records in the region, it is possible to do just this. The southern Levant in the

Persian and Hellenistic periods constitutes a perfect laboratory for exploring how people of different status and cultural backgrounds interacted in antiquity.

The Persian and Hellenistic Administrative Building (PHAB) at Kedesh as a Case Study

1 This fact has been recognized at least since Johann Gustave Droysen (1877-1878) coined the term “Hellenistic” to refer specifically to the period immediately between the Alexander’s death and Roman rule in the Levant. 2 Hall 2002, 220-226.

In order to render the complicated historical and cultural situation of the Persian and Hellenistic

southern Levant more comprehensible I am employing a case study based at the site of Tel

Kedesh (hereafter Kedesh) since it constitutes a discrete, well-defined vantage point. At Kedesh,

excavations led by Sharon Herbert of the University of Michigan and Andrea Berlin of Boston

University from 1997-2010 have uncovered a large building that was in use more or less without

interruption from the early 5th century until the middle of the 2nd century, with little later

disturbance.3 The plan and the finds from the building indicate that it was a monumental administrative center in use while the southern Levant was under Persian, Ptolemaic, and

Seleucid rule. This Persian and Hellenistic administrative building (hereafter PHAB) is unrecorded in ancient sources, and a rather unexpected find in the Upper Galilee, a region little remarked upon in antiquity and considered a backwater in the Roman period, if not earlier.4 The presence of the PHAB in this context allows us to discern how the the market connections and tastes of its rich and politically well-connected staff, who operated in the region with the blessing or at the behest of foreign imperial regimes, contrasted with those of people living at other sites in the southern Levant. Because Kedesh functioned in an official capacity for over 300 years under three distinct imperial regimes, I will also consider how the lifestyle of the administrators under each regime compared with each other.

The Geographic Setting of the Southern Levant

Before going into greater depth concerning the history of the southern Levant, and the place of

the PHAB within it, it will be instructive to describe its geography. The southern Levant as

referred to in this dissertation encompasses approximately the area between the Sinai Peninsula

3 For preliminary results of the excavations at Kedesh see Ariel and Naveh (2003); Berlin, Ball, Thompson, and Herbert (2003); and especially Herbert and Berlin (2003a). 4 Freyne 1980, 13.

in the south to the headland of Tyre and the Hermon massif in the north and is bounded by the

Jordan Valley on the east (see Figs. 1.1-2).5 As such, it corresponds to the south of modern day

Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. In antiquity it had strategic importance as an overland gateway to and from Egypt to the south. The hilly terrain of the southern Levant and its long coastline with extensive stretches devoid of good natural harbors had a great effect on how people and their goods circulated in antiquity. The region is defined by a coastal plain bordered by inland hills, with few valleys that run horizontally into the interior. In the north a long and narrow (5-10 km) coastal plain is limited by sharp hills on the east. North of the Sea of Galilee, these hills stretch almost to the Golan Plateau and Hermon Massif, with only the Hula Valley and River Jordan interrupting them. The plains of the lower Galilee, located to the west of the

Sea of Galilee are separated from the coastal plain by hills, except along the course of the broad

Jezreel Valley, which stretches southeast from the Carmel range to the Jordan Valley south of the

Sea of Galilee. To the south of the Carmel range there is a broader coastal plain that rises in gentle foothills (the Shephelah) to the more forbidding terrain of the Central Hills located around

30 km inland. The only route inland that avoids the Central Hills in the south is the Negev desert that leads towards Arabia to the southeast. Relatively well watered inland plains exist on either side of the Jordan River. In the north the Jordan Valley branches out into the Jezreel Valley, the area around the Sea of Galilee, and the Hula Valley, located near the sources of the Jordan River just to the south of the Hermon massif. In short, it is difficult to access the interior of the southern Levant from the coast except via the wide expanse of the Jezreel Valley, the Negev, or the occasional wadi that runs a substantial distance. The geography of the region thus presents challenges for communication and trade between the coast and interior as well as travel between areas inland.

5 For detailed maps showing the geography and ancient settlements of the region see Talbert 2000, 67-70.

Kedesh itself was positioned in a small upland valley above the fertile Hula Valley, and

within a day or two’s journey to the Sea or Galilee in the south, the Beqa’a Valley in the north

and two or three days journey in antiquity from the cities of Tyre and Akko on the coast to the

west and three ir four days journey to Damascus to the northeast.

Pottery as an Approach6

In order to make comparisons between the residents of Kedesh and people living at sites ranging from small villages to large cities, it is necessary to utilize categories of evidence that are attested broadly. Pottery fits this description best because it is indestructible and was used for a wide range of activities in the Ancient Mediterranean world: the transport and storage of foodstuffs and commodities; fetching water, washing, and processing food; cooking; setting the table with vessels for food and drink; mixing and serving wine; and the distribution of perfumes and ointments for personal use. Because pottery fulfilled these functions at almost every site, I have grouped vessels according to functional categories: transport and storage, general household utility like fetching water and washing (hereafter utility), cooking vessels, table vessels, service vessels, and toilet vessels.7 Grouping vessels by functional categories makes it possible to

consider the priority put on different sorts of activities in the PHAB at Kedesh.

At Kedesh, over 20,000 kilograms of pottery have been recovered during the course of

the excavations of the PHAB. While some of this pottery has been found in fills of soil and

rubble that were deposited as garbage while the building was in use or in primary deposits of

reconstructable vessels associated with the PHAB’s abandonment in the middle of the 2nd

6 For a description of how pottery was recovered and processed in the field at Kedesh and my methodology for studying the corpus see Appendix A, below. 7 For studies of large bodies of pottery from the Persian and/or Hellenistic Mediterranean organized according to function see e.g., Berlin (1997a; 2006); Jackson (2011a); Rotroff (2006a).

6 century BCE, most of the pottery derives from fills that postdate its use at Kedesh. This poses the question of whether this pottery can be said to have been used at the PHAB, rather than other buildings on the site, such as the house or workshop just to the west of the PHAB. Because there is no evidence for extensive rebuilding or deep ploughing in the area of the PHAB that would move pottery far from its place of original deposition, we can be sure that most of the pottery found in the area of it was in fact used in the PHAB or by the squatters who reused portions of it.

In this dissertation, I view the pottery from Kedesh as the household equipment that stocked the pantries and storerooms of the PHAB. To the people living at Kedesh and the staff of the PHAB these pots were, by and large, items that they were accustomed to from frequent and casual use, rather than detailed scrutiny. As such, I have opted to avoid singling out individual pots by including them in a catalogue, and thus drawing detailed attention to features that would likely not have been noticed in antiquity. I have instead described each vessel form as a category with a discrete range of formal characteristics nested within its functional grouping (e.g.,

“cooking vessels”). I also establish the range of distribution of each form and note its frequency at the PHAB. By considering the range of vessel forms used for each task at the PHAB, and by comparing the evident variety (or lack thereof) with contemporary sites, it is possible to discern patterns that result from proximity to market routes and/or the preferences of people for particular commodities, cuisine, or table settings. While there is no way for us in the present to experience daily life in the PHAB as its staff did,8 such an organization gives us an

8 Since there is no evidence that the PHAB acted primarily as a residence, I refer to its users as “staff,” and people living at Kedesh generally as “residents” of Kedesh. The staff of the PHAB were a subset of the latter category. Even if they did not live in the building, it is clear that the staff who operated it had the sanction of the ruling regime and had access to the relatively lavish (by regional standards) facilities of the PHAB (see pages 24-37, below). As concerns the pottery, such agency as was involved in the acquisition of vessels was almost certainly that of the staff who manned the building, and so the pottery can be said to encode their priorities and tastes.

approximation of how their pots, most of which rarely elicited comment by them, expressed both

ingrained habits and particular tastes.

Recognizing the availability of vessels from different sources is key for defining the

economic horizons of the PHAB and the cultural outlook of its staff. For this reason, I have

endeavored to identify the likely place of origin for specific wares recovered at Kedesh (for

definition of “ware” see Appendix A, pages 423-426, below). In order to characterize the range

of market connections that the PHAB had, in the chapters below I have grouped wares as “local”

products, “regional” products, or imports from far away. My proximate goals in doing so are to

reflect how far vessels came from their place of origin and how complicated the route to Kedesh

was. By paying attention to these factors, I can consider how likely it was that people living at or

near Kedesh knew of goods’ ultimate place of origin and intended use there.

I have described as “local” those products that were available from suppliers within a

day’s travel from Kedesh and back (c. 20-25 km; see Fig. 1.3)9 and that residents of the site could have easily acquired on their own by traveling to the place of production or expect to encounter regularly via local market circuits.10 There are few indications of how exactly such

markets were structured. In ancient Greece, merchants frequently concentrated at festivals to

peddle their wares to assembled worshippers.11 We have no evidence for festivals in the

environs of Kedesh that would serve as a similar venue for exchange.12 There was a sanctuary to

9 I have considered the local topography to arrive at distances from Kedesh that seem reasonable for local or regional reach in antiquity. For instance, the Hula Valley and its continuation via the Jordan Valley make it possible to cover a greater distance in the same period of time and with less effort than descending into the Hula from the Upper Galilee and ascending the Golan plateau to travel to the east, or snaking through the hills and wadis of the Upper Galilee to the west. I have delineated the “local” and “regional” zones of proximity to Kedesh accordingly on Fig. 1.3. 10 MacMullen 1970. For discussion of local distribution methods recognizable cross-culturally see Rice (1987, 191- 197). 11 deLigt and deNeeve 1988, 391-400. 12 Rabbinic sources of the Roman period do refer to market fairs at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor associated with Pagan religious festivals. See Cohn (2011).

the Greek god Pan in the Hellenistic period at nearby Banias-Paneion. However, neither a

volume nor a variety of ceramic vessels suggestive of regular trade has been recovered from the

sanctuary.13 A more likely method of local distribution in the rural context of the eastern Upper

Galilee and Hula Valley would be “periodic markets” that circulated among small settlements in rural areas, allowing people living nearby to exchange their excess produce for other household necessities, like pottery.14 If such periodic markets were active in the eastern Upper Galilee and

Hula Valleys in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, as seems likely,15 they would have made it

unnecessary for locals to travel to more distant regional centers or to rely on merchants from

them.

“Regional” products are those that came from two to three day’s journey away (thus

requiring more effort than local products for merchants to peddle at Kedesh or for the site’s

residents to acquire on their own), but that probably arrived in one “step” from a regional

production center (Fig. 1.3). In the case of Kedesh, pottery produced on the coast at Tyre or

Akko-Ptolemais (each about 40 kilometers away) and shipped inland via merchant caravans

would fit into this category. It would not make sense to convey such goods a substantial distance

unless they fulfilled a need not covered adequately by local products, or unless they were

somehow preferable to the residents of Kedesh. If demand for specific vessels was sufficient at

(a) site(s) a couple of days journey from their place of production, it would be worth merchants’

while to establish a regular pattern of circulation. A regular pattern is key, as it would reassure

customers that they could expect (and thus wait for) a regular supply of their favored goods.

13 See Berlin (1999a). 14 de Ligt and deNeeve 1988, 400-403, 409-416; MacMullan 1970; Peacock 1982, 106-107, 156-158. Hannestad (2005) suggests that “local” production would be located within two hours walk of a site. If the sort of periodic markets described here were active in the Upper Galilee/Hula Valley, they could have effectively made goods available at such a distance. 15 Berlin 1997a, 1.

Indeed, Andrea Berlin has demonstrated that pottery produced regionally at Tyre and Akko-

Ptolemais on the southern Levantine coast was regularly traded in the Hula Valley late in the

Hellenistic period despite a flourishing local pottery industry.16 The definition “regional” as applied to the pottery that arrived at Kedesh is meant to reflect a degree of proximity for its production – not in the immediate environs, and only a few days and one likely “step” in transit to the site – rather than production in any specific “region” (e.g., the coast, the Beqa’a Valley) of the southern Levant.

“Imported” vessels are those that would have been transported in more than one step, and/or from a great distance, to reach Kedesh. Vessels ultimately shipped from the Aegean,

Cyprus, or the northern Levant to a port and then transported inland from the coast would fall into this category, as would vessels transported along overland caravan routes of great distance

(e.g., down the Orontes Valley from the Northern Levant, across the Syrian plateau from

Mesopotamia). In the case of these imports, the people acquiring the pottery would possibly be unaware of its ultimate place of origin unless they were well traveled or curious enough to inquire. The availability of imported pottery reflects how well connected a given region is with

the wider world of the Mediterranean and Near East. In some times and places in antiquity (e.g.,

the Middle and Late Roman Mediterranean)17 import of almost all vessels fulfilling a specific function (e.g., tablewares) was the norm. In the Persian period vessels serving most functions were produced principally locally or regionally at sites in the eastern Mediterranean, the chief exception was the widespread export of Athenian tablewares, which made up a large proportion of table assemblages at coastal sites throughout the eastern Mediterranean by the 4th century

16 See Berlin (1997b). 17 See Peacock (1982, 114-128); Slane (2003).

BCE (see e.g., pages 79-82, 85-86, 99-101, below).18 In the Hellenistic period there was a marked tendency towards regional production,19 though long distance trade in pottery increased

in volume from the 2nd century on.20 The regular presence of imports from outside the region at

an inland site like Kedesh in the Persian and Hellenistic Levant can best be attributed to them

fulfilling a need or desire that local, or perhaps regional, products, could not fulfill. As a result,

ceramic imports have great potential to illuminate specific tastes and perceived needs.21

In Chapters 2-5, I describe the ceramic assemblages from each phase of the PHAB and place them into context by comparing them with sites in the Levant and Cyprus. In doing so, I pay close attention to the overall context of the site being compared (e.g., village, coastal city, country villa), the range of shapes used, and what these suggest about connections to market routes and about culturally charged preferences for commodities, cuisine, or specific table settings. I also compare the functional assemblage at Kedesh to sites in its immediate environs that have been thoroughly published to see similarities and differences between rhythms of life in the PHAB and sites of different function. By defining the range of shapes used at the PHAB, considering them as functional groups, and comparing them with other sites in the region, it is possible to give an impression of the activities that the PHAB’s staff were engaged in regularly, their market interconnections, what kinds of meals they prepared and how they ate them, and their aesthetic preferences. It is in turn possible to consider how their lives compared with people

18 E.g., Stewart and Martin 2005. 19 For a general impression compare Crete (Eiring 2001); the Peloponnese (Edwards 1975; Georgiadou 2005; Hausmann 1996); Athens (Rotroff 1982; 1997; 2006a); northern Greece and Macedonia (Anderson- Stojanović, 1992); the Aegean islands (Etienne 1990); the Black Sea Region (Alexandrescu 2005); western Asia Minor (Berlin 1999b; 2002; Krinzinger 2001; Shäfer 1968); western Anatolia (Rotroff and Oliver 2003); central Anatolia (Stewart 2010); the northern Levant (Jones 1950; Waagé 1948); North Syria (Kramer 2004; Jackson 2011a-c; Tidmarsh 2011); Cyprus (Hayes 1991; Berlin and Pilacinski 2005); the southern Levant (Berlin 1997a; Guz-Zilberstein 1995; N. Lapp 2008; Slane 1997; Tidmarsh 2000); Egypt (Berlin 1998; 1999c; Herbert and Berlin 2003b); North Africa (Kenrick 1985; Riley 1979); Mesopotamia (Hannestad 1983). 20 E.g., Lund 2004; 2005; Lund, Malfatina, and Poblome 2006; Vogeikoff-Brogan 2000. 21 These tastes and needs were those of people in antiquity, the rationales behind preferences for certain regional or imported pots can be inscrutable to modern eyes. See e.g., Peacock (1982, 100-101).

living elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean. Because there has been so much excavation in the

southern Levant, we can compare the preferences of people with different cultural backgrounds,

thus making it possible to consider whether differences in assemblages of pottery reflect cultural

differences, strong preferences, or simply the accidents of local availability.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT IN THE PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC PERIODS

The southern Levant has been, in part or in whole, subject to a wide range of foreign powers

from the Late Bronze Age until modern times. This situation stems in part from its position as an

outlet to the Mediterranean for Mesopotamian and Arabian goods and as the landward gateway

to and from Egypt. The Persian and Hellenistic periods were no exception to this history of

foreign dominance and intervention.22

Sometime between the Achaemenid Persian king Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539, and the beginning of Cambyses’ campaign in Egypt in 525, the southern Levant was incorporated into the newly ascendant Achaemenid Persian Empire. Persian rule over the region continued with only the interruption of sporadic revolts until Alexander the Great conquered it on his way to Egypt in 332/331. Its location between the Egyptian heartland of the Ptolemies and Seleucid holdings in Syria ensured that it was hotly contested throughout the Hellenistic period. Between the death of Alexander in 323 and 301 the southern Levant changed hands five times before being formally awarded to Seleucus in the settlement after the Battle of Ipsus, although Ptolemy

I of Egypt seized it and Seleucus did not seriously challenge his claim. During the 3rd century five wars, known as the “Syrian wars,” were fought between the Ptolemies and Seleucids over the region. The Seleucids eventually prevailed with the victory of Antiochus III (r. 222-187) over

22 For a more detailed discussion of the historical record for these periods see Chapters 2-5, below.

the forces of the Ptolemaic general Scopas in the battle of Paneion at the northern end of the

Hula Valley in 202 or 201. By 198 the Seleucids had consolidated their rule over the region.

Seleucid rule over the southern Levant was eroded by a series of internal and external pressures

from the middle of the 2nd century on. In 166 the Maccabean revolt broke out amongst the Jewish

population in the Central Hills. By the 140s Jewish armies had campaigned along the coast and

as far north as the Upper Galilee, and Seleucid control weakened to the extent that several major

cities along the coast such as Tyre and Akko-Ptolemais claimed their independence in the second

half of the 2nd century. Although the Hasmoneans agreed to become Seleucid vassals in the

Central Hills, the Seleucids still exercised little direct influence over internal affairs of the

Southern Levant at all after the 140s. By 104, the lower Galilee, the Central Hills, Gaulinitis, and

portions of the coast were under control of the Hasmonean successors of the Maccabees, and the

remaining cities of the coast that were not, were independent, or only nominally under Seleucid

sway.

APPROACHING LIFESTYLE IN THE PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC LEVANT

Biblical, Near Eastern, and Classical archaeologists and historians have accumulated a vast and

detailed knowledge base concerning the local impact of successive imperial regimes in the

southern Levant. As a result, there is a greater density of excavated and published Persian and

Hellenistic period sites in the southern Levant than anywhere else,23 allowing for detailed

comparisons of sites of different size, character, and location, ranging from large coastal cities to

small villages in the hilly interior. Indeed, interest in the cultural context of Judaism in the first

23 This evidence is not perfectly even across chronological periods. For instance certain regions, such as the Central Hills in the Persian period (see Milevski 2011), and certain spans within the broader frame like the 3rd century (see Smith 1990), are not as well understood as others. However, given the great coverage achieved by archaeological fieldwork in the region, we can be confident that these gaps in some way reflect an ancient reality. For instance, less evidence can indicate a period of less intensive activity in a site or region.

and second temple periods (c. 1000 BCE-70 CE),24 the Maccabean revolt against Seleucid rule and Hellenistic culture and subsequent Hasmonean dynasty,25 the setting of Jesus’ life,26 and the first Jewish revolt against the Romans (c. 67-70 CE),27 have caused scholars to focus with

remarkable intensity on the details of life in a region that was a provincial “backwater” for much

of antiquity. As I have already mentioned above, during the second half of the 1st millenium, the

Levant became increasingly tied to the world of Greece and the Aegean to the west, creating

opportunities for people to adopt or reject foreign attitudes, practices, cuisine, and material

culture generally. These opportunities were of course limited to a greater or lesser degree by

geographical and political constraints. The choices that people in the region made in response to

these opportunities and constraints are what I explore in this dissertation. These choices are

expressed in the literary, artistic, and archaeological records of the period. I focus here

principally on the archaeological evidence, and pottery especially, because it reflects choices

made by people across the entire social spectrum, and can reveal both ingrained tendencies that

people were often hardly aware of, as well as particular tastes of specific groups that were

expressed in order to signal cultural affinities.

In the last three decades, Classical and Near Eastern archaeologists have become

increasingly interested in elucidating daily life in antiquity by paying close attention to

archaeological evidence in context. Archaeologists have studied the distribution of finds of

different functions within burial and settlement sites, evidence for diet and food preparation,

dining and drinking practices, how artifact assemblages can illuminate cultural orientation and

attitudes, and what household equipment and décor tells us about taste at a level below that of

24 E.g., Ephraim Stern 2001. 25 E.g., Aviam 2004; Goodman 1998; Gruen 1993; S. Schwartz 1998. 26 E.g., Chancey 2005; Freyne 1980; Horsley 1996; Magness 2011. 27 E.g., Berlin and Overman 2002; Berlin 2012.

high art.28 In short, they have begun to explore lifestyle and the agency that particular individuals

and groups had in organizing their lives in antiquity in light of the historical and literary record.29

With the aid of the literary and historical records available from the ancient Near East and

Classical world, scholars have begun to illuminate specific cultural phenomena that are unique in

time and place even as they underscore the range of human experience. Indeed, such research

into the lifestyle of ancient peoples has especial potential to enlighten us about cross-cultural

interactions in an environment where the circumstances of history brought together disparate

groups of people. As the discussion above shows, the southern Levant in the Persian and

Hellenistic periods fits this description perfectly. My goal in the analysis of the pottery from the

PHAB at Kedesh and comparison of it with other sites in the eastern Mediterranean is to

elucidate lifestyles at different sorts of sites and characterize how the staff of the PHAB at

Kedesh, who lived at the site, who operated a particularly large and well-appointed building and

who presumably enjoyed favorable social status in each of these periods, fit into the mosaic of

life in the region. As such, in the chapters that follow I also bring together the ceramic evidence

for daily life in the Persian and Hellenistic periods at key sites in the southern Levant, Cyprus,

and the northern Levant and North Syria.30

28 Notable examples include Nick Cahill’s study of household and city organization at Olynthus (Cahill 2002); Mark Lawall’s use of transport amphora evidence to elucidate the relationship between political conditions and trade in the Classical and Hellenistic periods (e.g., Lawall 2002; 2005); Kathleen Lynch’s study of the Athenian symposium in context (Lynch 2011); Susan Rotroff’s studies of domestic assemblages, technological innovation, and behavior in Hellenistic Athens (Rotroff 1996; 1997; 2006a; 2006b); Sharon Herbert and Andrea Berlin’s study of Phoenician material culture and cosmopolitanism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Berlin 1997a; 1997b; Herbert 1994; 2003a); Jodi Magness’ study of daily life in the Levant in the 1st centuries BCE-CE (Magness 2011); and Nicholas Hudson’s study of the changing practice of the Roman convivium between the middle and late Roman period (Hudson 2010). 29 For discussion of agency see Barrett (2001); Dobres and Robb (2001); Dietler (1998); Gardner (2008). 30 Other areas of the Persian and/or Hellenistic world that are well served by publication of archaeological remains include Greece and the Aegean, the Black Sea Region, and Italy. However, because of the radically different historical records in these regions, and their position outside of the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Seleucids or Ptolemies (and in the case of Greece and Italy, were never under Persian sway), in-depth comparisons of assemblages and lifestyles between Kedesh and these areas are beyond the scope of this dissertation. Here I have

IMPERIAL RULE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT BEFORE THE PERSIANS

Since a central question of this dissertation is how foreign rule impacted local economies and

lifestyles of people at different sorts of sites, it will be useful to survey the background of imperialism in the southern Levant in the centuries leading up to the Persian period. Persian and

Hellenistic administrative practices in the Levant are generally thought to have been built upon the administrative infrastructure of the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians. In the following section I will consider the aims of Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian imperial rule in the southern

Levant, and what evidence there is for its effects on local economies and day-to-day life. Parallel sections for the periods of Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid rule are placed at the beginning of

Chapters 2-5 that follow in order to provide historical context.

The Neo-Assyrian Empire in the Southern Levant

The Neo-Assyrians Empire has its genesis in the 10th century as a resurgence of the city-state of

Ashur on the Euphrates. Although Neo-Assyrian rulers conducted several military campaigns in

the southern Levant aimed at exacting tribute in the 9th century, they did not make a serious effort to annex territory until the final third of the 8th century. In 734-732 Tiglath Pileser III

embarked upon a campaign in the southern Levant in order to conquer Egypt, or at least to secure

the border against it, and to gain access to trade routes along the coast.31 Initially, only the northern half of the northern kingdom of Israel was annexed as Megiddo province in 732, and the rest of the region was subjugated by the end of the century. The Assyrian kings followed a strategy whereby they placed most territories under treaty and tribute. But upon violation of

decided to radiate out from Kedesh and carefully study sites in the southern Levant and neighboring regions in historical context in order to get a coherent and intimate view of cultural continuity and change. 31 Hoglund 1992, 8-9, 11.

these commitments by vassal states, they did not hesitate to invade, annex territory, and appoint

Assyrian governors. Much of the southern Levant was annexed in just this manner late in the 8th

century, resulting in the formation (in addition to Megiddo province) of provinces based at

Samaria in the northern central hills and lower Galilee (c. 722),32 Philistia along the southern coast (c. 712),33 and the coast between the Carmel and Ashkelon as a possible province centered

on Dor (date uncertain).34 Judah in the central hills and the Phoenician city-state of Tyre were

allowed to remain client kingdoms after they were conquered in 702/135 and some city-states

within annexed provinces such as Ekron in Philistia were allowed to retain local kings. In sum,

the Assyrians implemented a patchwork policy to exercise political and economic control in the

southern Levant, relying on existing power structures when possible, but supplanting these with

direct Assyrian rule when local rulers proved to be troublesome or inconvenient. Such flexibility

and willingness to incorporate influential locals into the imperial power structure would also be a

feature of Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid rule in the region.

Assyrian provinces were assessed a tax of goods in kind by their appointed governors,

most of which were stored at provincial centers to sustain staff and garrisons, rather than being

sent to Assyria.36 Two large palaces built with a Mesopotamian “open court” plan and

Mesopotamian decorative elements, and including storage facilities probably meant to hold local produce, have been excavated at the provincial capital of Megiddo.37 Smaller Assyrian period palaces, possibly used for delegation of authority at a level subsidiary to the governor, are known

32 Grayson 1991a, 85-86; Kuhrt 1994, 497; Stern 2001, 3. The entire region west of the Euphrates was referred to as the “province” of “Beyond the River” from the Assyrian until the Persian period, although this vast area does not seem to have constituted a single cohesive administrative unit. 33 Grayson 1991a, 89. 34 There is some debate on whether or not Dor was a distinct province. See Stern (2001, 11-12). Na’aman (2009) is skeptical that the accumulated literary and archaeological evidence can allow for an interpretation. 35 E.g., Culican 1991, 469. Tyre’s king Luli was forced to flee to Cyprus in advance of Assyrian armies in 701, and local client kings chosen by the Assyrians were appointed. Aubet 2001, 58-59. 36 Grayson 1991b, 214-215. 37 Reich 1992, 217-218, fig. 13; Stern 2001, 27-28, 49, fig. I.16.

from Hazor,38 Tel Keisan near Akko, Tel Dan at the northern end of the Hula Valley,39 Tel Ekron in Philistia,40 Tel Dothan in Samaria, and Gezer and Tel Hadid in the central hills.41 If these

other sites are indeed administrative sub-centers, they are an indication of the complexity of

internal administration within the Assyrian provinces.

Client kingdoms were expected to provide the Assyrians with military assistance and/or

exotic raw materials and finished goods. Such an arrangement is reminiscent of the sorts of

alliances centered on gift exchange that were popular in the eastern Mediterranean in the Late

Bronze Age. The Phoenician city-states would have been particularly good partners in such an

arrangement because of their long tradition of trading throughout the Mediterranean. Indeed, it

has been posited that Phoenician trade in the central and western Mediterranean intensified in the

late 8th and 7th centuries in part to meet Assyrian demands for foreign raw materials, and tin and

silver in particular.42 Phoenicia was also home to craftsmen skilled in the production of eclectic

luxury goods, and examples of Phoenician workmanship are attested in Iron Age palaces and

elite burials in the Near East.43 Such goods were also among their instruments of trade in the west, as is well evidenced in 7th century Greece (the “Orientalizing” period), where Phoenician

objects and artistic motifs were particularly popular. In the Levant itself this trade with the west

is best evidenced by the presence of imported Greek pottery. There has been debate in the past

regarding whether the presence of this material is the result of trade or the presence of actual

Greek colonists.44 But the limited range of Greek shapes (mostly drinking or perfume vessels),

and the small proportion they make up of the assemblage at any given site, suggest that they

38 Reich 1992, 215, fig. 11. 39 Biran 1994, 214. 40 Gitin 1997, 92, 99, fig. 17; Stern 2001, 29-30, fig. I.17. 41 Reich 1992, 219. 42 Aubet 2001, 54-58; Gitin 1997, 77-81. 43 E.g., Herrmann 2002, 227-231. Curtis 2002, 243, 248, 252-253. 44 Al Mina along the North Syrian coast has been particularly hotly debated, for a summary of the debate see Luke 2003, 23-30.

were acquired by locals as imported goods.45 Despite increasing political pressure put on the

Phoenician cities by the Assyrians in the 7th century,46 the stability that they brought and their desire for raw materials and exotic goods may have contributed to a flourishing of trade with the rest of the Mediterranean that is evident in 7th century material assemblages from the Levant,47

and elsewhere, such as the Aegean,48 and native settlements in southern Iberia.49

Assyrian control over vast stretches of territory also may have had a role in the realignment of trade between the coast and inland regions. Gunnar Lehmann has noted a marked decrease in regional variation in the ceramic record during the 7th century along the Levantine

coast and in the north Syrian region. The likely cause of this phenomenon was the eradication of

political borders of local kingdoms through incorporation into the Assyrian realm.50 This in turn

opened up a route for at least small quantities of goods imported from across the Mediterranean

to reach inland areas where they had previously been extremely rare and broadened the

circulation of regionally produced goods. One of these routes to the interior may have passed

from Damascus or the Transjordan through the northern Upper Galilee.51 Support for the

existence of such a route can be found in the coastal imports at sites such as Dan dating to the 8th and 7th centuries.52 The links between the coast and inland sites forged by this route may also

have opened up inland areas to Phoenician settlement, since they were the chief agents of this

trade at its maritime outlet.

45 Aubet 2007; Waldbaum 1997, 5-8. 46 Aubet 2001, 59. 47 E.g., Lehmann 1998, 15, 17. Imports were common at many coastal sites before the Assyrian period. E.g., Bikai 1978, 53-56. 48 Morris 2006, 69, 72, 76. 49 Aubet 2001, 285-291; 2007. 50 Lehmann 1998, 31. 51 Rainey 1981. 52 Biran 1994, 261, 266-267, figs. 220:1; 221:3, 6-7.

Thus, it seems that Assyrian rule had a substantial economic impact on the southern

Levant. It is more difficult to determine from the written record, or the mute material evidence,

the extent to which peoples’ daily activities or cultural orientation were affected. One of the most

discussed aspects of Neo-Assyrian imperialism is the systematic relocation of groups of people

from one area of their empire to another, referred to in both Neo-Assyrian sources and the

Hebrew Bible.53 It is generally thought that this was done in order to avoid local uprisings by

putting peoples into new contexts in which they would be reliant on the Assyrians for security,54

or to move people with specific skill sets into the Assyrian heartland or elsewhere as needed.55

Survey evidence shows that the number of sites declined in the Galilee in the late 8th and 7th centuries, perhaps indicating a relocation of people away from there, and the inverse is true of

Judea, where there is an increase in the number of sites.56 But there is little conclusive archaeological evidence from the 8th or 7th century southern Levant indicating major changes in the makeup of the population, suggesting that the program of relocations from one region to another was not on as grand a scale as some sources suggest. Thin walled bowls in imported and locally produced Assyrian “palace ware,” as well as Mesopotamian style juglets and kraters, some with impressed decoration perhaps inspired by cuneiform, appeared in the southern Levant.

These forms, and Assyrian style objects in general, are best attested at major sites or provincial centers such as Megiddo and Dor.57 Lehmann has emphasized that the Mesopotamian vessels

imported or made locally are shapes meant for serving drink, while vessels for cooking and

storage continued in the Levantine tradition, even at major centers.58 Thus, it seems that

53 For the Assyrian program of deportation in the southern Levant see Oded (1979). 54 E.g., Hoglund 1992, 7-8. 55 Postgate 1979, 210-211. 56 Gitin 1997, 79-80. 57 Lehmann 1998, 17, 19-20, fig. 7; Stern 2001, 36-37; Zertal 2003, 397. 58 Lehmann 1998, 19.

Mesopotamian style vessels, much like contemporary imports from the Aegean and Cyprus, were

utilized in a specific context as part of a range of exotic goods for entertaining rather than

signaling acculturation to, or affiliation with, any specific foreign group. At many sites vessels in

the local tradition meant for serving guests such as red slip ware continued to be used, even

alongside imports from Mesopotamia, the Aegean, and Cyprus.59

Scholars have suggested that more careful town planning and the appearance of houses with Mesopotamian “open court” plans in provincial centers or sub-centers such as Megiddo and

Hazor in the 7th century are evidence of an influx of people from Mesopotamia or at least

Mesopotamian influence.60 It is certainly possible that Assyrian planning went into the construction of the capital cities, regardless of whether or not people from the Assyrian heartland made up the bulk of the population.61 Houses with courtyards are attested in the southern Levant

prior to the Assyrian conquest though,62 and the sample of comparative domestic architecture from Iron Age Mesopotamia is too small to make any comparison of house plans meaningful.63

The evidence provided by ceramic assemblages and architectural planning is hardly conclusive,

but it suggests that Assyrian material culture was generally employed in very specific contexts

associated with Assyrian administration, and only occasionally incorporated into local

assemblages of material goods and construction techniques.

In sum, there is evidence for an expansion of trade between the southern Levant and the

rest of the Mediterranean in the Assyrian period, and within the southern Levant itself. This

expansion was quite possibly a result of the political unification of the region and Assyrian

enthusiasm for exotic goods coupled with Phoenician expertise in importing them. But the

59 Lehmann 1998, 15, 17-18, fig. 6. 60 Peersman 2000; Stern 2001, 18-20; 23-24, 27, 48-49. 61 Halpern 2000, 565-566, 568. 62 Netzer 1992, 199-201. 63 E.g., Reich 1992, 216-217.

evidence for the movement of large populations of Mesopotamians into the region and/or local

assimilation to Assyrian cultural practices is largely limited to major cities that were loci of

imperial control. Despite the major changes fostered by Assyrian rule in the southern Levant, the

“Assyrian” footprint was rather modest.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire in the southern Levant

The transition from Neo-Assyrian to Neo-Babylonian rule is not well understood. Records for

the final two decades of the Neo-Assyrian Empire are sparse. It is evident that Assyrian power

and influence declined precipitously after the death of Ashurbanipal sometime around 630, and

by 607 the Neo-Assyrian Empire had been replaced by the Neo-Babylonian Empire after a joint

invasion by the Medes from the north and the Babylonians from the south.64 We have even less information concerning what happened on the fringes of the empire, including the southern

Levant. It is likely that many of the client kingdoms ceased paying tribute and that some or all of the provinces in the southern Levant had broken loose or come under the sway of Egypt by

609,65 rather than simply being “transferred” to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. However, the

Babylonians wasted little time in asserting their authority in this region, campaigning there against the Egyptians as soon as 605 and securing the submission of the southern Levant in

604.66

The Babylonians are presented in a negative light in the Hebrew Bible because they put an end to the Israelite dynasty in Judah, destroyed Jerusalem, and exiled much of the population of Judah (and the upper classes in particular) to Babylon in 586.67 However, these harsh

64 Kuhrt 1994, 589. 65 E.g., Gitin 1997, 98. 66 Hoglund 1992, 13-14, 17; Kuhrt 1994, 589-591; Wiseman 1991, 230-231. 67 II Kings 25:8-25 (Gray 1970, 766-769); Wiseman 1991, 234-235.

measures were carried out after they unsuccessfully tried to put in place local puppet kings in

Judah, much as the Assyrians had done with several of their former vassal states. As such, the

Babylonians should not be seen as exceptionally oppressive by local standards.68 Despite this,

the account of Babylonian desolation from the Hebrew Bible has colored modern archaeological

and historical studies of the late 7th and first half of the 6th century in the Levant in general.

Indeed, some of the earlier excavations in the southern Levant, the ones that established

the ceramic chronology for the region as a whole, were conducted at sites that were (or were

assumed to be) destroyed by the Babylonians or abandoned in the wake of their conquests.69

Because of this assumption little or none of the material from these sites was considered to date to the Babylonian period, so that via a circular argument the sites acted as “fixed points” because of their purported association with a Babylonian destruction. It is now generally acknowledged that there is little that distinguishes local pottery of the late Assyrian period (i.e., the late 7th century) or early Persian period (i.e., the second half of the 6th century) from each other.70 It logically follows that there would be little distinctive about the intervening Neo-Babylonian period (c. 605-539) assemblage. Recent considerations of material from sites excavated long ago have shown that some did indeed have a Babylonian phase.71 Further study along these lines may

allow for a more coherent picture of the Babylonian period in the southern Levant than is

currently visible.

The lack of evidence from archaeological contexts securely dated to the Neo-Babylonian

period makes it difficult to say anything with assurance about how trade networks and ways of

life were affected. Aegean imports, and in particular East Greek material and imitations of it,

68 II Kings 23:36-24 (Gray 1970, 754-763); Vanderhooft 2003, 242; Wiseman 1991, 231. 69 Carter 2003; Vanderhooft 2003, 253-254. 70 Carter 2003, 306; Zorn 2003, 414. 71 E.g., Carter 2003, 309-311; Netzer 1992, 215; Zorn 2003.

remained popular in the Levant,72 indicating that the patterns of long distance trade with the west that arose in the Assyrian period continued as they had before. Mesopotamian vessels and their local imitations were not as common as they had been in the Neo-Assyrian period though, if our scant evidence from the Babylonian period is to be considered a reliable sample.73 The similarity

of material assemblages dated to the end of Assyrian rule and those dating to the 2nd half of the

6th century in the southern Levant, and the evidence for continued trade patterns in the

Mediterranean does suggest that for most people living in the region, the shift to Babylonian rule did not have a profound impact on their everyday lives.

Summary

The southern Levant came under the rule of a distant foreign empire for the first time since the

Bronze Age in the late 8th century, establishing a pattern that would continue until the middle of

the 2nd century. There are few outward signs that foreign rule translated into cultural imperialism

of any sort. The chief impact seems instead to have been economic. Regional differences in

household assemblages became less marked after the Assyrian conquest, perhaps due to the

elimination of borders between states. At the same time, there was an increase in trade with the

Aegean and western Mediterranean, especially on the coast. This trade may have been driven by

a desire by Assyrian rulers for raw materials and exotic prestige goods. Thus, already before the

Persian conquest sometime between 539-525, goods and merchants from the west were a regular

sight along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

72Aubet 2007. 73 Lehmann 1998, 21-22.

THE PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING (PHAB) AT KEDESH IN THE UPPER GALILEE

Kedesh is located in the Upper Galilee of what is now northern Israel (see Figs. 1.1-2). The

Upper Galilee was first referred to as a distinct region by Josephus in the 1st century CE and

rabbinical sources of the Roman period, who record that it consisted of the territory north of

where sycamore trees grow to approximately Tyre, or alternatively north of the village of Kfar

Hananya, which is located just to the northwest of the Sea of Galilee.74 This description leaves out the western and eastern borders – the Mediterranean coastal plain, and the Golan Heights, respectively (see Fig. 1.3). The Upper Galilee encompasses approximately 1500 km2 in area. The

region is very hilly, but it is good for agriculture, viticulture, and pasturage because of the

relatively abundant rainfall and the fertility of the local soils (see Figs. 1.4-5).75 The uneven

terrain of the Upper Galilee makes it difficult to access its interior both from the coast and from

the more expansive plains of the Lower Galilee to the south. For this reason, along with the

absence of any major urban centers aside from Hazor, which was largely deserted after the

Babylonian conquest in 605, the Upper Galilee is often assumed to have been economically and

culturally isolated and “backward” from the Persian to the Roman periods.76 After the Assyrian period (c. 732-605) the Upper Galilee was never again the heartland of any major kingdom or city-state.77 It was little discussed by classical authors, except for in narratives (e.g., Josephus,

Tacitus) recounting the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66-70 CE.78

Kedesh itself is located on the eastern edge of the Upper Galilee plateau just to the northwest of the Hula Valley, in a position overlooking the latter, and just to the south of an east-

74 Jos. War. 3.38-40 (Thackeray 1927, 586-587). 75 Freyne 1980, 5. 76 E.g., Freyne 1980, 13. 77 E.g., Herr 1997, 136. 78 Cappelleti 2007.

west route running from the headwaters of the River Jordan to Tyre via Dan.79 Its geographic setting in the hills of the Upper Galilee and position near Hazor correspond to references to the site in ancient written sources scattered across 15 centuries.80 The earliest of these references is on a stele listing cities conquered by the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I in the 13th century.81 In the

Hebrew Bible Kedesh is referred to multiple times as a Canaanite city conquered by the

Israelites82 and as one of Joshua’s “Cities of Refuge” for people who had committed

unintentional homicide in the period just after the Israelite conquest of Canaan.83 According to the author of II Kings, Kedesh was conquered again during Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaign of

734-732 that resulted in the incorporation of the Galilee as a province of the Assyrian Empire.84

In the Hellenistic period, Kedesh is mentioned on two of the 3rd century Zenon papyri from

Egypt, which constitute an archive of administrative documents kept by Zenon, an assistant of

the Ptolemaic official Apollodorus. Kedesh is included on an itinerary of places visited by Zenon

on a trip from the Transjordan to Damascus and back to the coast in 259. At Kedesh Zenon and

his party received flour, and Zenon took a bath.85 Another papyrus missing key sections of text refers to a large consignment of wheat and barley to be measured out by Zenon, either at Kedesh or Akko-Ptolemais.86 Xavier Durand suggests that these provisions were meant for agents of

Apollodorus living and traveling outside of Egypt, like Zenon himself. Victor Tcherikover

suggested that the places listed on Zenon’s itinerary were royal estates of the Ptolemies.87 Either

79 Rainey 1981. 80 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 13-14. 81 Aharoni 1993. 82 Josh. 12:22 (Boling and Wright 1982, 320); 19:37 (Boling and Wright 1982, 457). 83 Josh. 20:7 (Boling and Wright 1982, 471); 21:32 (Boling and Wright 1982, 480); Chr. 6:62, 76 (Myers 1973, 42- 43); Jos. Ant. 5.91 (Thackeray and Marcus 1934, 42-43). 84 II Kings 15:29 (Gray 1970, 626); Jos. Ant. 9.235 (Marcus 1937, 124-125). 85 Durand 1997, 55-72 (P. Cairo Zen. I 59.004); Edgar 1925, 7-10 (P. Cairo Zen. I 59.004); Westermann, Keyes, and Liebesny 1940, 8 (no. 61). 86 Durand 1997, 102-105 (P. L. Bat. 20, 32); Skeat 1974, 11-12 (Papyrus 1931). 87 Tcherikover 1937, 48.

some sort of official must have been present at Kedesh to concentrate produce and make a

disbursement of flour for travelers on business, or it was common practice for travelling officials

to be supplied at settlements throughout the kingdom. The former possibility seems more likely

and suggests that Kedesh had a redistributive function whether it was on an “estate” or not.

Kedesh is mentioned in the First Book of Maccabees and Josephus’ Antiquities as an

encampment of the Seleucid king Demetrius II’s army after its defeat at the hands of Jonathan

Maccabee at the battle of the Valley of Hazor (the modern Hula Valley) in 143.88 Josephus also

mentioned Kedesh as an encampment of Titus’ army during the first Jewish revolt and referred

to it as “a village of the Tyrians.”89 The scanty written sources suggest that Kedesh of the Upper

Galilee was a city of some prominence in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, possibly an estate with

some official function under the Ptolemies, and a large village in the orbit of Tyre in the

Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.

Tel Kedesh is peanut shaped, extending approximately 900 m north to south from the

higher north tel, down to a saddle and then expanding out into the broad and fairly flat terrace of

the south tel (see Fig. 1.5), and encompassing approximately 30 hectares. Yohanon Aharoni

conducted cursory excavations at the northwestern end of the north tel in 1953. These

excavations established that the tel was initially formed during the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300-

2000), and was inhabited subsequently in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1550), Late Bronze

Age (c. 1550-1200), Iron Age I-II (c. 1200-539), the Hellenistic (c. 323-31), and modern periods

(until 1948).90 To the east of the tel, a temple and group of sculpted Roman sarcophagi were

88 1 Macc. 11:63-74 (Goldstein 1976, 441-443). Based upon the position of the account of the battle of Kedesh in relation to other events recorded in 1 Macc., the battle must have happened between September of 145 and summer of 143. See Goldstein (1976, 161-174). Since the latest in a sequence of stamped Rhodian amphora handles found at Kedesh dates to 143/2, the battle must have taken place in the spring or summer of 143. I thank Donald Ariel for sharing preliminary results of his study of the stamped amphora handles. 89 Jos. War 2.459 (Thackeray 1927, 502-503); Jos. War 4.104-105 (Thackeray 1928, 32-33). 90 Berlin and Herbert 2003a, 15.

surveyed and excavated by teams led by Moshe Fischer in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The

temple was built in the 2nd century CE and used through the 3rd century91 and was dedicated

either to Apollo,92 or to the Canaanite/Phoenician deity Baalshamin.93 Surface finds from Kedesh were collected in the 1990s as part of the regional survey of the Upper Galilee led by Raphael

Frankel. Kedesh was surveyed as two separate sites, “Tel Qedesh” referring to the north tel, and

“Tel Qedesh (south)” to the south.94 The survey detected habitation on the north tel dating to the

Early Bronze Age (c. 3300-2300), the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1750), Iron Age I (c. 1200-

1000), and the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods. On the south tel of Kedesh, the surveyors noted material of the Early Chalcolithic (c. 4300-3300) period and Early Bronze Age

II-III date (c. 3050-2300). The absence of later material from the south tel in the survey record is somewhat perplexing given the results of subsequent excavations at the site. The explanation may lie in the fairly small sample of material that the surveyors collected95 and the limited range

of ceramic “type fossils” they used to identify certain periods, most notably the Persian and the

Hellenistic.96 Shovel surveys conducted by Moshe Fischer of Tel Aviv University have turned up

Hellenistic pottery from across the tel as well.97

Since 1997 the south tel at Kedesh has been under excavation by joint teams from the

University of Michigan and University of Minnesota under the direction of Sharon Herbert and

Andrea Berlin.98 The original goal of these excavations was to examine daily life in an inland

Phoenician village (in accord with the reference in Josephus mentioned above) during the

91 Fischer, Ovadiyeh, and Roll 1984, 168. 92 Magness 1990. 93 Fischer, Ovadiyeh and Roll 1984, 166-168; Ovadiyeh, Roll, and Fischer 1993. 94 Frankel et al. 2001, 44. 95 Frankel et al. 2001, 72, 75, tables 3.1, 3.2. 96 Frankel et al. 2001, 60-63, figs. 3.7, 3.8, 3.9. 97 Moshe Fischer, personal communication, December 2009. 98 See Ariel and Naveh (2003), Berlin, Ball, Thompson, and Herbert (2003), and especially Herbert and Berlin (2003a) for preliminary results of the excavations at Kedesh.

Hellenistic period and to juxtapose it with the extravagant lifestyle evidenced by the architecture

and finds from the late Hellenistic stuccoed building excavated (hereafter LHSB) at Tel Anafa

(hereafter Anafa) in the nearby Hula Valley (see Fig. 1.3), which was inhabited from c. 125-75

BCE by Phoenicians from Tyre.99 After a trial trench at Kedesh in 1997 yielded a primary

assemblage of finds of 2nd century date from a Hellenistic house, the excavators conducted a geophysical investigation of the mound that revealed the outline of what appeared to be an insula of housing or large rectangular building measuring approximately 40 x 56 m.100 Subsequent excavation showed this structure to be a monumental Persian and Hellenistic administrative building (PHAB) that has been the focus of investigation at Kedesh since 1999 (see Figs. 1.6-7).

The PHAB takes up only a portion of the area of the south Tel, most of which is unexcavated. As mentioned above, to the west of the PHAB a portion of a house dating to the Hellenistic period has been excavated, but no other Persian or Hellenistic architecture has been unearthed at

Kedesh.101 As a result, it is impossible at present to compare the lifestyle of the administrators

who used the PHAB with the residents of the surrounding town.102 It is also uncertain where the administrators lived; there is little space suited for occupation in the building and there is no evidence for a second story. Excavations on the south Tel to the north of the PHAB have uncovered the remains of a Byzantine period funeral chapel.103 A step trench located on the south

slope of the north tel has exposed parts of a Medieval and Ottoman period building. Beneath this

are architectural remains of the early Islamic period that were constructed on earlier fills.104

99 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 16; For Tel Anafa see Herbert (1994); Berlin (1997a); Slane (1997). 100 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 18-19, fig. 4. 101 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 38-41. 102 The Persian and Hellenistic settlement at Kedesh probably extended off the tel, as finds of Persian and Hellenistic pottery from the excavations in the later sanctuary of Apollo demonstrate. Moshe Fischer, personal communication, January 2010. 103 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 42-43. 104 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 44-45.

The PHAB was constructed over the remains of an Iron Age structure or structures and

the Persian period builders reused some of these walls as foundations when they laid out the

PHAB (see Fig. 1.8, gold colored walls).105 Not enough of these earlier structures have been

uncovered to establish their precise date or the nature of the latest Iron Age settlement at Kedesh.

The latest datable materials found sealed beneath the earliest floors in the courtyard of the PHAB

itself are common wares datable broadly to the Persian period. The date of Persian occupation at

the site can be more closely defined on the basis of Attic imports dating from the late 6th or early

5th century until the late 4th or early 3rd century found in the area of the PHAB (for detailed

discussion of the dating of this phase see pages 44-46, below).106 Thus the PHAB was founded

about a generation after the Persian conquest of the southern Levant. Only a few walls can be

assigned with assurance to the Persian period (see Fig. 1.8, dark purple colored walls). Several

walls of Hellenistic date are built in exact orientation with fragmentary walls of Persian date (see

Fig. 1.8, light purple colored walls). The Hellenistic walls surely reflect the course that these

walls had in the Persian Period. The overall plan that we can discern then is a rectangular

building measuring approximately 40 x 56 m that is oriented east-west. The main entrance to the

building was via an entrance court on its eastern end that featured ashlar foundations for a

stylobate that originally supported Doric columns. The entry court was axially aligned with a

central courtyard located to the west. This arrangement demonstrates a monumental character

through both symmetry and architectural adornment. Long rooms open off of this courtyard on

either side and behind it, at the western end of the building, are two long corridors or rooms.

Doric columns surrounded at least one end of the entrance court and two columns flanked the

105 I will not be going into great depth concerning the architectural phasing of the site here. Study of the Persian Period building is being undertaken by Andrea Berlin and the architectural phasing of the building itself by Sharon Herbert. I thank both of them for sharing their insights into the building as their work is ongoing. 106 Kathleen Lynch has identified the Attic pottery from the excavations at Kedesh. I thank her for sharing her findings.

entrance to the inner courtyard. This plan and the prominent position of the PHAB on the south

tel of Kedesh are most similar to the so-called “residency,” a Persian period palace excavated at

Lachish in the Shephelah.107 Other palatial administrative centers of Persian date that are

comparable in scale are known from Vouni on Cyprus and Daskyleion in western Asia Minor.108

The royal palaces of the Persian Kings at Pasargadae and Persepolis are far greater in scale and

monumentality than the PHAB or these other palaces, since they feature sculpted friezes and vast

hypostyle halls. Given the date of its construction, its great size, and its palatial layout, it seems

that the Persian period PHAB was inhabited by wealthy people with official sanction or favor.

The PHAB, whether or not it included a residential function, was more elaborate than Persian

period houses in the southern Levant,109 and the few excavated storage forts in the region.110 As

mentioned above, its only close comparandum is the residency at Lachish.

Three distinct, successive phases (Hell 1, Hell 2/2b, and Hell 3) of Hellenistic occupation

can be discerned in the stratigraphic and ceramic record at Tel Kedesh. I will here summarize the

chronological range and architectural remains associated with each of these phases. It is not

certain if the PHAB continued to be occupied during the chaotic years between the conquest of

Alexander in 332 to the beginning of the 3rd century. Ptolemaic coins found in and around the

PHAB attest to activity throughout the 3rd century (for detailed discussion of the evidence for

dating this phase see pages 118-121, below). Third century remains at the site have been

assigned to phase Hell 1, as the earliest Hellenistic occupation of the site recognizable in the

ceramic record. Loci that contain no material datable later than the 3rd century and that do not

overlie later loci or features are assigned to this phase (for discussion of loci and how phases

107 See Nielsen (1999, 51-55); Tufnell (1953, 131-141, pls. 119-120). 108 For Daskyleion see Bakır (2006); for Vouni see (Gjerstad 1933; Młynarczyk 1994, 198-200, fig. 6; Nielsen 1999, 54-61, figs. 28-31). 109 E.g., Dor (Ephraim Stern 1995a). 110 E.g., Nahal Tut (Alexandre 2006).

were assigned see Appendix A, pages 417-423, below). Secure evidence that the PHAB

remained in use as a coherent architectural unit in the 3rd century is provided by the excavation

of wall to wall floors dated by material beneath them to the 3rd century in two rooms at either end

of the building (Fig. 1.9, red highlights).111 These floors are themselves sealed by floors dated by material sealed beneath them to the 2nd century. In one of these rooms a coin of Antiochus III

dated 199-188 was found sealed between the Hell 1 floor and the Hell 2 floor above it (see

below), suggesting that modifications to the PHAB occurred soon after the Seleucid conquest of

the region. Resurfacing of these floors and several other (less closely datable) floors provides

evidence for multiple Hellenistic architectural phases and/or subphases.112 A blocked Hellenistic

doorway and the subdivision of large rooms sometime in the 3rd or 2nd century, provide further

evidence for modifications that may have taken place between the 3rd and 2nd century (see Fig.

1.9, yellow highlights). Column drums that may have originally stood in the Persian period

entrance court were built into some of the walls that divided the eastern entry court of the Persian

period into smaller rooms of uncertain function, indicating that the monumental entrance was not

longer used in the Hellenistic period. In addition, the incorporation of great quantities of the most

common 3rd century table ware at the site, central coastal fine ware, into the Hell 2 floors laid over the two floors described above, provides circumstantial evidence for substantial 3rd century

occupation of the PHAB. The range of pottery found at the site and the reference to Zenon’s

receipt of flour there suggest that in the 3rd century Kedesh was at least a storage depot, and quite possibly the seat of a royal estate or the estate of a court favorite. The exact plan of the PHAB in the 3rd century cannot be reconstructed, though it must have had the same basic footprint as the

111 Several additional floors with no material datable later than the 3rd century have been excavated, though they do not have the additional assurance of coming up to walls on all sides that these two floors do. Likewise, there are several sizable fills that do not date later than the 3rd century, but I have left these out of this discussion because they are not sealed. 112 E.g., Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 21.

Persian period and later Seleucid building. There are are almost no Ptolemaic palatial

administrative centers that are comparable to the PHAB at Kedesh.113

There was no break in occupation of the PHAB between the 3rd and 2nd centuries, when

the Seleucids took control of the southern Levant. An abundance of early to mid 2nd century coins and stamped amphora handles attest to activity at the site until 143, when it was abandoned in the wake of a nearby battle between the forces of the Seleucid general Demetrius and Jonathan the Maccabee (for detailed discussion of the evidence for dating this phase of the building see pages 187-192, below). Pottery that is datable to the early to mid 2nd century at the site is

assigned to phase Hell 2 and loci that contain no material that need date later than the mid 2nd

century and do not overlie later loci and features are assigned to phase Hell 2. Because it was

abandoned, the plan of the PHAB is most clear in this phase. It retained the footprint of the

Persian Period PHAB discussed above, although the entrance was moved to the northern end and

the entry court was subdivided into smaller rooms either in the 3rd or 2nd century (Fig. 1.10). In this phase the PHAB included storerooms (Fig. 1.10, green shaded spaces), an archive complex in which over 2000 clay bullae that originally sealed papyrus documents were found (Fig. 1.10, purple shaded areas), rooms equipped for measuring out produce or industrial activities (Fig.

1.10, orange shaded areas), cooking and utility rooms and spaces (possibly unroofed) equipped with drains (Fig. 1.10, brown shaded areas), and an elaborate dining and reception complex featuring painted and plastered wall decoration (Fig. 1.10, pink shaded areas), all surrounding the original Persian period courtyard on the western end of the building. A more disturbed suite of rooms of uncertain function occupied the space of the Persian period entrance court (compare

113 A possible Ptolemaic governor’s palace of uncertain date has been excavated at Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. Nielsen 1999, 145-150, figs. 78-80.

Figs. 1.8 and 1.10).114 Several walls associated with this phase, but perhaps erected as early as the 3rd century, feature reused column drums probably taken from the Persian period entrance

court. In the final phase of the PHAB; at any rate, the Persian period stylobate blocks were in

place but were barren of columns.

Several palatial Hellenistic administrative centers comparable in scale, plan, and

(probably) function to Kedesh are known from the Seleucid realm. Included amongst these are

Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates in north Syria;115 two examples at Dura Europus on the Euphrates in Mesopotamia: the citadel palace116 and the redoubt palace;117 at Nippur in Mesopotamia;118 and at Aï Khanoum in Bactria.119 Most of these palaces are comparable in their scale and

prominent position in the landscape to the PHAB at Kedesh (with the exception of that at Aï

Khanoum). But most also have stone architectural features in the Greco-Macedonian tradition

such as colonnaded courtyards that the Hellenistic PHAB does not share. Of course, none of

these other palaces were used in the Persian period as far as we can tell, so perhaps the

explanation can be found in the reuse of the PHAB. It is curious then, that the entrance court

featuring Doric columns of the Persian period PHAB was apparently dismantled sometime in the

Hellenistic period. None of these other excavated administrative centers have as extensive or

well-dated assemblages of pottery as Kedesh.

The acropolis palace at Jebel Khalid, erected in the 3rd century and used as a residence and administrative center until the early 1st century BCE, is a particularly relevant comparison

for the PHAB since it is relatively close to Kedesh, well excavated, and approximates the PHAB

114 The décor and finds from within rooms of the PHAB, in most cases the pottery, make it possible to assign these likely functions. Since the organization of space in the building is not a primary concern of this dissertation, I will not discuss in detail how the likely functions of these rooms were determined. 115 Clarke 1994; 2001. 116 Downey 1986; Nielsen 1999, 119-121. 117 Nielsen 1999, 115-119, figs. 59-61. 118 Nielsen 1999, 121-123, figs. 64-65. 119 Nielsen 1999, 123-128, figs. 66-67.

most closely in size and arrangement.120 It is positioned on the highest point of the acropolis and has a view over the River Euphrates, just like the PHAB has a view over the nearby Hula Valley

(see Fig. 1.4). Also like the PHAB, the Jebel Khalid acropolis palace is centered on a large courtyard that gives access (via corridors) to rooms for storage of bulk goods, kitchens/service rooms, and decorated dining and reception rooms featuring drafted and painted wall plaster. Two bullae found on the site suggest that there may have been an archive as well, though such a small number is perhaps more likely to indicate personal correspondence. The most obvious difference between the Jebel Khalid acropolis palace and the PHAB is the elaborate architectural adornment of the Jebel Khalid courtyard. The courtyard at the Jebel Khalid palace is surrounded by a Doric colonnade with a triglyph and metope frieze above it and sculpted lion’s head gutter spouts at the corners of the interior roof. At present there is no evidence for standing columns (as opposed to reused Persian period columns) during the Seleucid occupation of the PHAB or any other decorative elements comparable to the courtyard of the Jebel Khalid acropolis palace.

Part of the reason for this significant difference in the palaces doubtlessly has to do with the fact that the PHAB was a reused building originally erected in the Persian period, and it would probably have been difficult to retrofit the existing courtyard and roofing system

(however it was configured) with the addition of a colonnade. The presence of the colonnade at

Jebel Khalid is similar to Macedonian palaces of the late Classical and Hellenistic periods

(although the palace itself was less ostentatious),121 and corresponds to the redoubt palace at

Dura Europus. This attests to the construction and use of the acropolis palace at Jebel Khalid by

Seleucid authorities early in the Hellenistic period. The PHAB at Kedesh was initially founded

120 For a detailed, if still preliminary, description of the architecture of the Jebel Khalid acropolis palace see Clarke (2001). 121 E.g., Demetrias (Nielsen 1999, 93-98, fig. 48); Vergina-Aegae (Nielsen1999, 82-84; Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2001, fig. 1).

by the Persians, and the dismantling of the colonnaded entry court sometime in the Hellenistic

period may indicate that under the Ptolemies or Seleucids it was put to more quotidian use (or

conceived of thusly) than the palace at Jebel Khalid. The decorated dining and reception rooms

of its final phase suggest that this was not the case under the Seleucids, when it was occupied by

people of comparable social position, and quite possibly served a similar function to the Jebel

Khalid palace. As such, the PHAB demonstrates that the Near Eastern palace (with modification)

was a wholly suitable general platform for contemporary needs in the 2nd century.

Because the PHAB at Kedesh was abandoned abruptly in 143, many complete vessels

were left behind in the building as it was deserted and remained broken but restorable. Loci that

contain an abundance of material left in-situ or nearly so after the abandonment of the PHAB are

assigned to their own phase (Hell 2b) because the reconstructable pottery in them constitutes a

snapshot of the equipment of the building right around 143. The state of this pottery within the

building offers an exciting opportunity to consider in detail the function of different areas of the

building in its final phase, assuming that it was not moved around substantially by the squatters

who reused parts of the building subsequently or Roman Period wall robbers (see below).

Because stratigraphic and architectural analyses of this phase are ongoing, I will not discuss at

length how the pottery contributes to our understanding of the use of space in the PHAB.122

Furthermore, since comparative detail is not available for the other phases of the PHAB or at other contemporary sites, such discussion falls outside the immediate aims of this dissertation: to consider lifestyle in the PHAB diachronically across imperial regimes, and to place the tastes and habits of its staff into a regional context in each period.123

122 The projected publication of the site (to be overseen by Sharon Herbert and Andrea Berlin) will feature a volume on each phase of the PHAB with discussion of finds (including pottery) in their architectural context. 123 Of course, were there detailed evidence concerning the use of space in contemporary houses or palaces in the Levant, comparison of them would be very illuminating for a discussion of lifestyle.

At some point within a few years of the abandonment of the building,124 a group of

people returned to it, sacrificed an infant, and deliberately set fire to the archive room. Portions

of the building were re-occupied in a modest, “squatter” fashion within five years after its

abandonment, as walls erected within some of the rooms of the PHAB and higher floor surfaces

attest.125 The squatters had in turn abandoned the area of the PHAB by around c. 125-120 (for

detailed discussion of the dating of this phase see pages 332-336, below). Pottery datable to this

final Hellenistic use of the area of the PHAB is assigned to phase Hell 3, and loci that contain no

material datable later than the third quarter of the 2nd century and that do not overlie later loci or features have been assigned to phase Hell 3.

The remains of the PHAB and the subsequent squatter occupation at Kedesh were disturbed by wall robbers in the 1st-2nd centuries CE, a Byzantine burial, and some pits of Roman

and Byzantine date. Sporadic finds of the Ottoman and early modern periods have been

recovered at Kedesh, including cibuks (Turkish pipes), ceramic canteens and other vessels of

types produced in Akko from the 17th through early 20th centuries, and bullet casings. Since these

finds are not associated with any architecture, it is most likely that the south tel was used for

agricultural purposes or sheep herding in the Ottoman and early modern periods, and may have

been the scene of fighting in 1948.

No extensive architecture can be associated with the post-Hellenistic phases. However,

pottery and other finds left behind during these later activities occurs regularly, and by assigning

loci with these later finds to post Hellenistic phases, we can trace more accurately the

124 Because vessels found on the floor of the archive room show scant traces of burning, and several amphoriskoi that held oil did not explode, enough time had to have elapsed between the abandonment and the fire for soil to accumulate over vessels left in the room and for most of the oil to drain from the amphoriskoi. Alternatively the roof of the room could have collapsed on the contents before it burned, though this makes the seemingly deliberate burning of the room somewhat perplexing. For discussion see Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 24-25. 125 Justin Winger has worked on the Squatter phase at Kedesh for his dissertation, I thank him for sharing his insights on this phase.

stratigraphic representation of finds from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, much of which occurs residually in these later loci. For instance, wall robbers in the Roman period disturbed many deposits left largely in place when the final occupants of the PHAB or squatters abandoned the building, so that much well preserved pottery originally used at Kedesh in the 2nd century

BCE is actually found in deposits that were disturbed in the Roman period. Accordingly, loci with latest datable material dating to the Roman period are assigned to the Roman phase; loci with latest datable material dated to the Byzantine or early Islamic periods are assigned to the

Byzantine-Islamic phase; and loci with latest datable material date to the Medieval or modern periods are assigned to the Medieval-modern phase.

KEDESH: A UNIQUE CASE STUDY

To date, no palatial administrative building comparable to the PHAB at Kedesh in its historical

circumstances and detail of archaeological evidence – spanning both the Persian and Hellenistic

periods, and with well-dated assemblages of pottery – has been excavated and published. It is

thus impossible at present to compare the day to day use of the PHAB with other palatial Persian

and Hellenistic administrative centers. Accordingly, it is also impossible to consider similarities

and differences in the way people at Kedesh and other administrative centers in the Persian and

Hellenistic period engaged with local economic systems and customs. But the unique use of the

PHAB at Kedesh across three imperial regimes, combined with the intensity of excavation and

publication of Persian and Hellenistic sites in the southern Levant, makes it possible to paint an

incredibly detailed picture of how the lifestyle of the administrators compared with people living

at other sorts of sites in the region over time and in the face of major political changes. Thus,

while Kedesh cannot be seen as “typical” in the heterogeneous context of the Persian and

Hellenistic world, it can serve as a valuable in-depth case study of how people adjusted to the unique and variable political and economic circumstances of these periods.

CHAPTER 2-THE PERSIAN CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE (C. 500-330)

THE ACHAEMENID PERSIAN EMPIRE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Unlike the Neo-Babylonian period, there is a wealth of data, both literary and archaeological, for

life under Achaemenid Persian rule in the Levant.126 The Achaemenid Persians took over the

lands formerly held by the Babylonians after conquering Babylon itself in 539, before expanding

beyond the borders of either the Neo-Assyrian or the Neo-Babylonian empires to include both

Egypt and western Asia Minor by c. 520.127 Thus, as part of the Persian Empire the southern

Levant was unified politically with Asia Minor to the northwest for the first time in its history. It

was incorporated into the huge province of “Beyond the River,” meaning all territory west of the

Euphrates.128 Such a unit was too large to be practical administratively speaking, and there were

numerous subdivisions that generally correspond to the provincial divisions of the Neo-Assyrian

Empire.129 In addition to these provinces, the cities of the coastal strip were placed under the

aegis of the Phoenician city-states of Tyre or Sidon in non-continuous stretches, probably to limit

the potential for concerted rebellion.130 It is also possible that the northern half of the former province of Galilee (i.e., the Upper Galilee) was under Phoenician control, as the Phoenician sanctuary located at Mizpe Yammim suggests.131

126 E.g., Ephraim Stern 1982. 127 Rainey 1969, 55-56. 128 See Rainey (1969) for discussion of “Beyond the River.” 129Avi Yonah 2002, 23-28; Hoglund 1992, 24-25; Stern 1990. The exact borders of provinces in both periods is difficult to determine. It is in fact quite possible that they lacked firm borders. E.g., Betlyon 2005, 8. 130 Pseudo-Skylax, 104 (Shipley 2008). For discussion see Avi-Yonah (2002, 28-29); Grainger (1991, 11-12). Anson Rainey (1969, 63-64, 68-69) warns against seeing the references in Pseudo-Skylax as portraying a hard and fast political reality, rather than as an indication of the presence of Phoenicians from one city or another at various coastal settlements. 131 For discussion of the role of this sanctuary in the region see Berlin and Frankel (forthcoming). 40

Although client kings were not generally indulged by the Achaemenid Persians (except in

the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon), they did allow a good deal of local political and

economic autonomy in their conquered provinces, in much the same way that the Assyrians (and

probably Babylonians) had done, by making use of prominent members of conquered groups.132

The story of the return of Babylonian Jews from exile in the Hebrew Bible is a good example of

the savvy with which the Persian monarchs did this. Cyrus appointed a prominent Babylonian

Jew by the name of Sheshbazzar or Zerubabble to lead the Jews who had been exiled to

Babylonian back to Jerusalem and act as governor of Jerusalem. The choice of

Sheshbazzar/Zerubabble was a convenient way to install a new puppet governor who felt a

measure of gratitude towards Cyrus, knew him personally, and may even have been familiar with

the cultural norms of a Persian “core” region.133 The effectiveness of this strategy in making the populace of Judah amenable to Persian rule is well reflected in the praise given to Cyrus in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.134 In another instance, the Persians’ preferable treatment of the

Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon secured them naval assistance for their struggles in Greece,

Cyprus, and Egypt.135

The Achaemenid Persians, like the Neo-Assyrians before them, were principally interested in controlling strategic areas and trade routes and receiving tribute and military support. Towards this end they constructed small fortresses or administrative centers along important routes throughout their empire. These fortresses/administrative centers consisted of a

132 Kuhrt 2001, 103, 120-121. 133Ezra 1.11-2.2 (Coggins 1976, 9-13); Briant 2002, 47. 134E.g., Ezra 1.1-2.2 (Coggins 1976, 9-13); Neh. 2.2-8 (Coggins 1976, 71-73). Kuhrt 1994, 648-649. Indeed, Anson Rainey (1969, 62-63) suggests that Ezra himself may have been sent to Jerusalem from Babylon to promote a favorable account of the Persian leadership amongst Jews living in the Central Hills. 135 Hdt. Hist. 3.19 (Godley 1921, 24-27); 5.108 (Godley 1922, 130-131); 6.6 (Godley 1922, 152-153). Rainey 1969, 63.

series of storage and workrooms placed around a central courtyard.136 The storage facilities at these fortresses suggest that they collected local produce and goods in kind as taxation.

Examples in the southern Levant have been excavated on the coastal strip near Ashdod,137 and

possibly Nahal Tut.138 At Michal a smaller, simpler fortress (perhaps a watchtower) was erected

early in the Persian period and remodeled down to the end of the Persian period.139 Nearby storerooms may have supported a garrison or served for the collection of taxes in kind, or fulfilled both functions. Although there is little specific evidence for their date, it is possible that these fortresses were erected in the late 5th and 4th century as staging points for the reconquest of

Egypt, which rose in revolt in 404 and was not subdued until 343, and as a defense against

periodic uprisings in Phoenicia.140 Structures identified as palaces that may also have served as

administrative centers have also been excavated at Akko,141 Ruqeish near Gaza,142 Shiqmona,143

and Lachish.144 We do not at present have a clear idea of who staffed such fortresses and

administrative centers or how they were selected. This makes it difficult to assess whether these

centers would have been an apparatus and symbol of foreign domination (if staffed by Persians),

or of permissiveness towards local autonomy (if they were delegated to prominent locals). Of

course each palace and fortress may have been differently staffed. Even if locals ran them, the

136 Kuhrt 2001, 116-118; Kuhrt 2007, 732; Ephraim Stern 1990, 222. 137 Porath 1974. 138 Alexandre 2006. Yardenna Alexandre suggests on the basis of a coin of Alexander the Great found at this one period site that it was a storage fort erected after Alexander’s initial conquest and destroyed during the Samaritan revolt of c. 328. However, the fort is built on a plan and using construction techniques common in the region in the Persian period, and there is no evidence aside from the coin mentioned above to suggest Macedonian agency in its construction or use (though locals certainly could have been commissioned by the Macedonians to build and staff it). The coin could just as well have been dropped by a Greek or Macedonian soldier taking part in the attack that destroyed the fortress or arrived through some other coincidence. The evidence presently available could support interpretation of the fortress as either Persian or Macedonian. 139 Herzog 1989a, 88-113, figs. 8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.11, 8.18, 8.19, table 8.3. 140 Rainey 1969, 67-71. 141 Goldman 1993, 22. 142 Stern 2001, 415. 143 Stern 2001, 390. 144 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2188, 2191-2192; Tufnell 1953, 131-141, pls. 119-120.

choice of which locals were allowed to operate them surely rested with the Persian authorities,

and taxes were collected at them, thus acting at least indirectly as a manifestation of their power

over the region.

Scholarly consensus holds that the Achaemenid kings did not attempt to impose Persian

cultural practices or closely control local economies in most of their realm.145 They were

generally satisfied with deliveries of taxes in kind to regional administrative centers and a

moderate tribute of the local specialties of specific regions.146 The portrayal of a procession of

emissaries attired in provincial costumes and bearing distinctive goods on the Apadana reliefs at

the royal capital of Persepolis underscores this strategy and its consonance with Achaemenid

royal ideology.147 It seems that the relatively hands-off approach the Persians took towards local

economic administration in their vast empire resulted in something like an eastern Mediterranean

“free trade” zone similar to, but more active than, that of the Neo-Assyrian period.148 Imports of fine tablewares from Greece (and Athens especially) increased dramatically at coastal sites from the first quarter of the 5th century on, despite the hostilities between the Persian Empire and

many Greek city-states, Athens chief among them.149 Wine shipped in amphoras from Greece and the Aegean began to appear in quantity on the southern Levantine coast in the Persian period, the beginning of a trend that would last well into the Roman period. While Greek and

Greek-style goods are concentrated at coastal sites, they did reach inland sites in small quantities throughout the Persian period, as the evidence from Kedesh and other sites discussed below shows.

145 E.g., Betlyon 2005, 8-9; Briant 2002, 48-49, 64; Kuhrt 2001. However, Elspeth Dusinberre (1999) emphasizes that in some places of the Achaemenid Empire, a definite cultural impact can be felt. 146 Kuhrt 1994, 690-691; 2007, 669-671. 147 Kuhrt 2001, 105. 148 Lawall 2002; Lehmann 1998, 23, 25. 149 E.g., Stewart and Martin 2005; Waldbaum 1997, 5.

Greek-style sculpture and figurines were also common in southern Levantine sanctuaries,

particularly those of the Phoenicians. Much has been made of the “Hellenization” implied by

these objects in combination with the quantities of Greek (mostly Attic) pottery found in

domestic assemblages at coastal sites. But as in the Assyrian period, most of the Greek vessels

were meant for perfumes or the service of food and drink at the table, and are found alongside

local vessels, supporting the idea that these imports were selected for use in traditional local

commensal events, rather than supplanting them.150 In her recent survey of Persian and

Hellenistic art and architecture from Phoenicia Jessica Nitschke has shown that Greek style

objects occurred side by side with items made in local and other foreign (particularly Egyptian

and Achaemenid) craft and/or artistic traditions, suggesting an artistic and cultural eclecticism,

rather than total assimilation to Greek tastes.151

Although there are few imports attested from Mesopotamia or the Zagros region during the Persian period, monumental constructions and sculpture in part inspired by Achaemenid building projects appeared at Phoenician sites on the coast.152 However, it is important to note

that we may be somewhat limited in our ability to recognize Persian style material culture dating

to the Persian period due to the dearth of excavated and published evidence from all but the most

prominent sites in Mesopotamia and Persia such as Persepolis and Pasargadae.153 As a result, it is

impossible to make detailed comparisons between domestic assemblages, house plans, and other

finds from the Persian heartland and the Levant. For instance, carinated “Achaemenid” bowls are

relatively scarce compared to Sardis, a satrapal capital in western Asia Minor.154

150 Stewart and Martin 2005, 86. 151 Nitschke 2007. 152E.g., Kuhrt 2001, 101; Nitschke 2007, 102-103. 153 E.g., Stronach 2001. 154 See Dusinberre (1999).

Under the Achaemenid Persians, as under the Neo-Assyrians, there was both latitude and

the proper economic conditions for a true cultural eclecticism to develop in the southern Levant.

And although this phenomenon was certainly facilitated by the rather laissez-faire approach the

Achaemenid Persians took in their administration, it was not in any way a direct imposition by

the Persian kings or governors. They were chiefly concerned with maintaining power and

collecting tribute and would intervene militarily on behalf of these interests. But they did not

seek to change the cultural environment or local economic patterns of their provinces as far as

we can tell. As Amelié Kuhrt and Helene Sancisi-Weerdenburg aptly put it, the Persian Empire

is often “invisible” in the archaeological record of the eastern Mediterranean in the Persian

period.155

THE PERSIAN PERIOD PHAB

There is little concrete evidence with which to pinpoint the original date and plan of the PHAB at

Kedesh. Sealed deposits beneath the original plaster floor surface of the courtyard contain coarse

pottery that need not date later than the 6th or early 5th century. Attic pottery found on the site

makes it possible to refine the likely foundation date of the building. Of 170 datable fragments of

Attic pottery from the area of the PHAB at Kedesh 43 (25%) date to 510-480, attesting to

activity right around the turn of the 5th century. Seven fragments (4%) date to 480-430, while 99 fragments (58%) date from 430-330. Twenty-two Attic fragments postdate the Persian period.

The chronological distribution of Attic pottery at the site indicates that the PHAB was occupied continuously from the late 6th or early 5th century at least until Alexander’s conquest of the southern Levant in 332/1. It is not clear on the basis of the stratigraphic, numismatic, or ceramic

155 Kuhrt and Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1990, xiii.

45 record if habitation was continuous from the date of Alexander’s conquest, or if the building went back into use only at the beginning of the 3rd century when the Ptolemies firmly established their rule in the region.

It is likely that small modifications were made to the building during the century and a half of Persian occupation, but due to later use and remodeling of the PHAB it is impossible to recognize such changes. Indeed, only deeply founded walls of obviously different construction than the later Hellenistic walls on the site or walls with no material datable later than the Persian period in their construction trenches can be assigned to the Persian phase (see Fig. 1.8).

Nonetheless, enough of the footprint of the Persian period PHAB is preserved to show that it was large and laid out in a monumental fashion. At least some of the staff of such a building were certainly people of some means and importance. The only other Persian period building in the southern Levant of the same scale and with the same sorts of architectural embellishments as the

PHAB is the “residency” at Lachish (see pages 88-90, below).

Loci at Kedesh have been assigned to the Persian phase (and termed “Persian loci”) if they contain no material that need date later than the Persian period and do not overlie loci with later material or post Persian features at the site (for further discussion of loci and how they are assigned to phases at Kedesh see Appendix A, pages 417-423, below). Although there are sealed and clean Persian loci at Kedesh, there are no superimposed Persian loci of substantial size. This makes it impossible to make chronological divisions for regional and local vessels within the period unless they can be more precisely dated on the basis of published comparanda. Still, the range of Persian period pottery allows us to make meaningful generalizations about the activities conducted at the PHAB and the tastes of its staff in the Persian period. To support the assignment of forms and wares to the Persian phase, I have cited regional publications from securely dated

contexts at Hazor, Mizpe Yammim, Dor, Nahal Tut, and Michal. In the case of vessels with few

or no comparanda from these sites, I have cited parallels from other sites in the region that are

more distant and/or less closely datable. Because so much of the Persian or possibly Persian

ceramic material from Kedesh occurs in loci of later date, and several Persian period wares and

forms continued to be used in the 3rd century, the totals of Persian period vessels at the site are

only approximate. For this reason I have charted how many examples of each Persian period

vessel form occur in Persian loci and how many in later loci.

In this chapter I describe and quantify the ceramic wares and forms used in the PHAB

during the Persian period. I also describe Persian period assemblages from other sites in the

eastern Mediterranean that are representative of different regions and sites of particular character

or function. I compare the functional makeup of the Kedesh assemblage with the nearby sites of

Anafa, a small village or farmstead, and Nahal Tut, a storage fort on the route from the coast at

Dor inland. The goals of these descriptions and comparisons are twofold: to show how Kedesh

fit into eastern Mediterranean trade networks and local market routes and to contrast the function

of the Persian period PHAB and the lifestyle of the people living there with those of a small

domestic site in the Hula Valley and a storage fortress near the coast.

PERSIAN PERIOD WARES

Nine different wares were regularly brought to and used at Kedesh during the Persian period:

red-brown gritty ware, coarse orange ware, white ware, spatter painted ware, crystal cooking

ware, sandy cooking ware, Phoenician semi fine ware (hereafter Phoenician SF), central coastal

plain ware, and Attic/Atticizing tablewares. The vast majority of the pottery was produced locally in the eastern Upper Galilee or Hula Valley (for local, regional, and imported wares of

the Persian period see Table 2.1). Some cooking vessels arrived from the Golan or Chorazim

plateau to the south, and pottery produced on the central Levantine coast appeared regularly.

Imports from abroad were rather scarce, most that do occur originated in Athens. Here I will

describe first the wares local to the environs of Kedesh (the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula

Valley) and proceed to regional wares and imports from abroad.

Local Wares of the Eastern Upper Galilee/Hula Valley Fabric Region: Red-brown Gritty Ware, Coarse Orange Ware, White Ware, Spatter Painted Ware

Four Persian period wares of local origin in the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley are

attested at Kedesh: red-brown gritty ware, coarse orange ware, white ware, and spatter painted

ware.

Red-brown gritty ware was readily identified at Kedesh in 1997 due to its preponderance

among the fabrics studied and weighed during daily pottery reading at the site. Red-brown gritty

ware is a relatively hard, very coarse fabric with many medium angular white inclusions. It is

generally fired a dark red-brown to pink color on the surface (2.5YR 4/4-5YR 4/4), and many

sherds exhibit a wide, dark gray core (2.5 YR 4/1). Red-brown gritty ware is the most common

ware attested at Kedesh (33.1% of all identified pottery by weight; see Table 2.2). Fragmentary

examples of Iron Age jars, cooking pots, juglets, and kraters in the ware from Kedesh with

comparanda at nearby Hazor indicate that red-brown gritty ware was already brought to Kedesh in the Iron Age. In the Persian period the only red-brown gritty ware vessels regularly used at

Kedesh were jars for storage and/or transport. The use of red-brown gritty ware for large jars is surely a major reason that it is represented in such bulk. The very limited distribution of red-

brown gritty ware at sites in the eastern Upper Galilee such as Hazor, Kedesh, and Khirbet esh

Shuhara, combined with petrographic testing, indicate that it had an origin on the eastern Upper

Galilee plateau.156 Red-brown gritty ware sherds account for 56.7% of the identified pottery

recovered from Persian loci by weight. The ware continued to be produced and brought to

Kedesh in the 3rd century as the similarly high proportion of the ware (54.7%) and the quantity of red-brown gritty ware diagnostic vessel fragments in Hell 1 loci show.

Coarse orange ware is similar to red-brown gritty ware in texture, thickness, inclusions, and the range of shapes that were manufactured in it. It is also very abundant at Kedesh, constituting 21.9% of identified pottery at the site by weight and 27.2% of the identified pottery in Persian period loci. It is a moderately hard, coarse fabric with frequent medium sized angular white and gray inclusions that are visible in the core rather than the interior and exterior surfaces of sherds. Coarse orange ware vessels are consistently fired orange on the surface (5YR 6/6) with a wide gray core (5YR 5/1-2) that often extends to the interior surface of the sherd. The only vessels to occur regularly at Kedesh in coarse orange ware are jars of the same forms produced in red-brown gritty ware in the Persian period. The only other sites at which coarse orange ware is certainly attested are Khirbet esh Shuhara, located on the Upper Galilee plateau near Kedesh, and Anafa in the Hula Valley just to the east,157 though it was almost certainly present at Hazor as well. Petrographic results indicate that the ware originated in the west central Hula Valley, just to the east of the Upper Galilee plateau on which Kedesh is positioned.158 The distribution of

coarse orange ware across stratigraphic phases at Kedesh suggests that it was introduced later

than red-brown gritty ware (probably first in the Persian period) and continued to be used at the

site after red-brown gritty ware went out of use. Coarse orange ware sherds constitute 27.2% of

identified pottery by weight in Persian loci, 24.2% in Hell 1 loci, and 28.3% in Hell 2 loci,

suggesting that jars in the ware were brought to the site later in the 3rd century than red-brown

156 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 157 Berlin 1997a, 17-18, 151-152. 158 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

gritty ware jars, and perhaps even into the early 2nd century (see Table 2.2). Coarse orange ware vessels had not been brought to Kedesh for some time by the time the PHAB was abandoned in

144/3 since coarse orange ware sherds only account for 0.6% of identified pottery by weight in

Hell 2b loci associated with the abandonment, and there are no reconstructable coarse orange ware vessels in abandonment loci.

White ware is a moderately hard semi-fine to coarse fabric, often with a porous surface texture. As its name implies it is very light in color, usually a pale pink (2.5YR 6/6-2.5YR 7/6), and often slipped with a matte cream or light green slip (2.5Y 8/3). Frequent small rounded voids can be seen on the surface, and moderate small to medium red and black inclusions are present, with occasional larger rounded black pellets. White ware was used to produce a variety of shapes for utility and the service of food and drink at the table. The appearance of white ware is similar to that of wares produced all over the southern Levant in the Persian period, suggesting that potters throughout the region tried to approximate the same “look.” Most samples of white ware from Kedesh that were tested petrographically have an origin in the Hula Valley.159 It is possible

(even likely) given the general similarity in appearance of white wares from all over the Levant

that some white wares that originated elsewhere were grouped along with Hula Valley white

ware during pottery reading at Kedesh and have been included in the weight of Hula Valley

white ware. White ware is most abundant in Persian and Hell 1 loci (6% and 6.2% of identified

sherds by weight, respectively). However, given the date range of white ware shapes attested at

other sites and the presence of functional replacements for white ware forms in Hell 1 loci, it is

unlikely that the ware continued to be brought to Kedesh in the 3rd century. The production of white ware in the Hula Valley demonstrates the extent to which people in the environs of Kedesh were attuned to wider trends in the region in the Persian period.

159 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

The quantity of spatter painted ware and the range of vessels made in it increases dramatically in Hell 1 loci. As such, I will reserve description of this ware and discussion of its variations for the next chapter.

Regional Ware of The Golan/Chorazim Plateau Fabric Region: Crystal Cooking Ware

Crystal cooking ware is the only Persian period ware from the Golan or Chorazim plateaus recognized at Kedesh. It is a coarse red-brown fabric (2.5/5YR 4/6), often with a gray core (5YR

4/4). As its name suggests there are many medium to large angular calcite crystals both in the core and on the surface of the vessel. These have a distinct glint when turned in the sunlight.

Only cooking pots are attested in crystal cooking ware at Kedesh. Crystal cooking ware or a similar ware may be attested at the late Persian fort at Nahal Tut just inland from the coast near

Dor.160 Petrographic testing of samples from Kedesh has shown basaltic inclusions that must have originated on the Golan or Chorazim plateaus just to the north and east of the Sea of

Galilee.161 Crystal cooking ware is more abundant in Persian loci than in later loci, making up

2.4% of the identified sherd weight in Persian loci before dropping to 1.6% in Hell 1 loci and even lower in subsequent loci. This stratigraphic distribution indicates that crystal cooking ware cooking pots were no longer used at Kedesh after the Persian period. Indeed, after the Persian period, calcite rich wares are not attested in the Galilee until the middle of the 2nd century.

Regional wares of the Central Levantine Coast Fabric Region: Sandy Cooking Ware, Phoenician Semi-Fine Ware, Central Coastal Plain Ware

Three wares from the central Levantine coastal plain (i.e., the stretch of coast from Mt. Carmel just south of Akko to Tyre in the north) were used at Kedesh in the Persian period: sandy

160 E.g., Alexandre 2006, 157. fig. 48: 4-6; Gorzalczany 2006, 192. 161 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

51 cooking ware, Phoenician semi-fine ware (hereafter Phoenician SF), and central coastal plain ware. Sandy cooking ware is moderately soft and very granular in texture with few rounded white inclusions. It is usually fired a warm red-brown color (10R 4/6-2.5YR 5/8), though occasionally it is fired orange as well (5YR 5/4-5YR 5/6); it rarely has a gray core. Exterior surfaces are often blackened by cooking fires. Cooking pots are the only shapes that were made out of sandy cooking ware in the Persian period. Sandy cooking ware and/or similar wares are common at Persian and Hellenistic sites on the coast and inland Galilee. Petrographic testing has isolated its geologic zone of origin as the coastal plain between the Carmel in the south and Rosh

Ha Niqra near Nahariya in the north.162 As such, sandy cooking ware is the local cooking ware of

Persian and Hellenistic Akko. Sandy cooking ware vessels were brought to Kedesh until the abandonment of the PHAB in 143. Sandy cooking ware accounts for 2.4% of sherd weight in

Persian loci, 2% in Hell 1 loci, and 3.4% in Hell 2 loci and is less frequent in later loci (see

Table 2.2). The regular occurrence of the ware at Kedesh over such a long span demonstrates the strength of market connections between the Phoenician coast and the eastern Upper Galilee.

Phoenician SF is a moderately soft and powdery fabric with a granular texture along breaks, fired from yellow (7.5YR 7/6) to pinkish-orange (5YR 6/6) with no core. Phoenician SF sherds have frequent small to medium black, gray, and/or red inclusions. Vessels are sometimes partially coated with a matte red-orange slip. In the Persian period, this slip was most often applied in neat bands. Phoenician SF transport jars, table vessels, vessels for service of liquids, and juglets for perfume were all used at Kedesh during the Persian period. As the name of the ware implies Phoenician SF vessels were most common at sites along the Phoenician coast in the

Persian and Hellenistic periods, especially Akko-Ptolemais, Keisan, Oumm el Amed, and

162 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

Tyre.163 They are also regularly attested at some inland sites such as Anafa in the Hellenistic period, but are generally rare inland prior to the 2nd century. Petrographic testing confirms what this distribution strongly suggests: that SF was produced on the Phoenician coast at both Akko and Tyre.164 Phoenician SF vessels continued to be used at Kedesh throughout the life of the

PHAB, as the increasing frequency of the ware from Persian (2.4% of identified wares by weight) to Hell 2b (8.1% of identified wares by weight) loci shows (see Table 2.2).

Central coastal plain ware is a moderately hard, very granular fabric fired pink-orange

(5YR 6/8-7/8) often with a wide gray core (5YR 6/1). It has many tiny to small rounded white inclusions, often “pocked” through the matte white (10YR 8/3) saltwater slip to give the surface a porous texture. The resulting surface appearance of the ware is generally similar to the white ware described above. Jars and mortaria/“Persian” bowls are the shapes most commonly attested in central coastal plain ware at Kedesh. Central coastal plain ware is most common at coastal sites such as Dor and Akko, and petrographic testing indicates that it was produced at one or both of these sites.165 If so, it overlapped with the Phoenician SF industry in those cities during the

Persian period. At Kedesh central coastal plain ware is best represented in Persian (2.3% of

identified sherds by weight), Hell 1 (2.5% of identified sherds by weight), and Hell 2 loci (2.4%

of identified sherds by weight), but since the forms attested in central coastal plain ware find

their only parallels in Persian assemblages elsewhere in the Levant the central coastal plain ware

in Hell 1 and 2 loci is most likely residual.

Imported Wares: Attic/Atticizing Tableware

163 For discussion of the “Phoenician” character of the Phoenician SF assemblage in the Hellenistic period see Berlin (1997b). The distribution of the ware in the Persian period suggests that it was largely used at Phoenician sites then too. 164 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 165 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

The only recognizable imported wares recovered from Kedesh of Persian or possible Persian

date are Attic or Atticizing tableware and Aegean amphora fabric. Attic fabric is moderately hard

and extremely fine, it is a deep orange or red color (2.5YR 5/6-5YR 6/6) and is usually partially

or entirely coated with a smooth, lustrous black slip. Inclusions are rarely visible in the fabric.

Since Atticizing imitations are very difficult to differentiate from real Attic vessels, especially

when examples are fragmentary, and since they would have arrived at Kedesh via the same

coastal sources and represented the same sorts of market connections, preferences, and behaviors as Attic vessels (i.e., when consumed at an inland site in the Levant), I have included them both in this discussion and quantified them together.166 Attic and Atticizing vessels and fragments are

represented only in small quantities in Persian loci in the PHAB, but as I have already mentioned

the majority of diagnostics in these wares are of Persian date indicating that most of the Attic and

Atticizing fragments found in later loci occur in these loci residually and were brought to the site

in the Persian period.

Only a few sherds of Aegean amphora fabric have been found in Persian or Hell 1 loci.

For this reason I have described it along with the Hell 2 wares.

PERSIAN PERIOD SHAPES AND FORMS

One thousand and thirty-one fragmentary vessels were recovered from Persian loci at Kedesh.

Three hundred and eighty-four (37%) of these were of vessel forms that could not be identified.

Many of these vessels doubtlessly pre-dated the Persian period but were not readily identified as

166 For a discussion of the difficulties encountered in differentiating Attic from Atticizing vessels see Berlin and Lynch (2002). Since there is no evidence at present for the production of Atticizing pottery in the Levant, or anywhere closer than western Asia Minor, its presence in the southern Levant can be considered representative of the same sort of trade with the Aegean as Attic pottery itself.

Pre-Persian shapes (pre-Persian vessels are excluded from the counts here).167 There are thus 647

fragmentary vessels of likely Persian date in Persian loci, accounting for the other 63% of

fragmentary vessels found in Persian loci. Persian period shapes and forms decrease as a

percentage of identified diagnostic vessels until Hell 2/2b (30% and 11%) before increasing

slightly in Hell 3 loci (35%) and dropping off to the same frequency as in Hell 2 loci (28%) in

Byzantine through modern loci (see Table 2.3). The decrease in the proportion of Persian period

vessel fragments in later loci is the result of residual material making up a smaller proportion of

pottery recovered in loci of each successive phase, as new vessels were introduced and more

earth was deposited over Persian period architectural remains. Nonetheless, the very regular

occurrence of Persian period vessels in these later loci is a testament to the length and intensity

of the Persian period occupation of the PHAB. Over half of the diagnostic vessel fragments

found in Hell 1 loci are of shapes used in the Persian period. Persian period forms that occur with

equal or greater frequency in Hell 1 loci than in Persian loci and that do not have obvious

functional replacements were probably still produced and used in the region in the 3rd century.

Indeed, many of these forms have parallels in contexts dated to the 3rd century at sites such as

Anafa and Dor. Thus, while some of the examples of forms present at Kedesh in the Persian period found in later loci are Persian residuals, not all of them were, since many of these forms continued to be brought to Kedesh and used there in the 3rd century. This means that it is difficult to say for certain exactly how many vessels out of the total attested for these forms at Kedesh were used in the Persian Period. We can assume at a minimum that those Persian period forms in

Persian loci were used in the Persian period.

167 Vessel fragments that were recognized as predating the Persian period are not included in this sample because they would just inflate the number of unknown vessels. I include a count of unknown vessels since, being unknown, they may in fact be Persian or Hellenistic vessels that I failed to recognize.

Transport and Storage Vessels

An abundance of Persian period jars have been recovered from Kedesh. Most originated locally

in the eastern Upper Galilee or Hula Valley in four forms: holemouth jars and holemouth jars

with thickened rims were used for storage, and torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened

rims and jars with high necks were used for transport and storage. Most examples of all of these

forms were made in red-brown gritty ware or coarse orange ware. Regional commodities arrived

at Kedesh in shouldered torpedo jars, most of which were made on the coast in Phoenician SF

and coastal plain ware.

Holemouth jars (Fig. 2.1: 1-3) and holemouth jars with thickened rims (Fig. 2.1: 4-5) are

large and broad at the shoulder, with a rim diameter of 10-14 cm. The only substantial difference

between these forms is the thickening of the rim on holemouth jars with thickened rims. No

complete examples of either form occur at Kedesh, and published comparanda are scarce,

making their height range a matter of conjecture. Several rounded stubby toes in the same wares

as these jars have been found at Kedesh, and these were certainly the bases. Vertical handles and

horizontal basket handles have been found of appropriate size and in appropriate wares to fit

these jars. The only parallels for holemouth jars are fragmentary vessels from Hazor168 in a stratum dated c. 450-300 and at Tel Mevorakh on the coast in a context of mid 5th to early 4th century date.169 Fifty-six holemouth jars have been recovered from Persian loci at Kedesh and

505 in later loci. They account for 5% of fragmentary vessels in Persian loci and 6% in Hell 1

loci, before dropping to 2.5% of the vessels in Hell 2 loci, indicating that they had gone out of

use by the 2nd century, and probably sometime rather early in the 3rd century (see Fig. 2.2).

168 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 32. 169 Ephraim Stern 1978, 36, fig. 8: 21.

Holemouth jars occur almost exclusively in red-brown gritty ware (514 examples) while only a

few examples occur in coarse orange ware (34) or unknown ware(s) (13).

Parallels for holemouth jars with thickened rims are more widespread than holemouth

jars, perhaps indicating that the latter were produced by idiosyncratic potters in the Upper

Galilee. Holemouth jars with thickened rims have been recovered at Hazor in a stratum dated

from c. 450-300170 and at Dor in a context dated from c. 400-300.171 At Kedesh 118 fragmentary holemouth jars with thickened rims have been recovered from Persian loci, and 1245 from later loci. They account for the same percentage of fragmentary vessels in Persian and Hell 1 loci

(11%), before decreasing in quantity in Hell 2 loci (see Fig. 2.2). Unlike holemouth jars, holemouth jars with thickened rims may have remained in use at least until the beginning of the

2nd century.172 A great number of them occur in a ware (coarse orange ware) that reaches its peak

as a proportion of fabric weight in Hell 2 loci, suggesting that they were still entering the

stratigraphic record. Seven hundred and thirty-five holemouth jars with thickened rims occur in

red-brown gritty ware, 586 in coarse orange ware, and 42 in unknown ware(s).

Torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims are tall and slim (Fig. 2.3: 1-4).

Examples published at other sites measure approximately 50 cm in height. They have narrow

mouths measuring 7-10 cm in diameter, externally thickened rounded rims, short, narrow

tapering necks, rounded shoulders, and nearly cylindrical bodies tapering in their lower portion

to form slightly pointed toes. (An) ovoid handle(s) are attached between the neck or the shoulder

and their upper body. Their constricted necks make these jars well suited for shipping and storing

170 Yadin, et al. 1958, pl. 81: 2. 171 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 58-59, fig. 2.5: 2-3. 172 I have not included these jars in the counts of potential Hell 2 vessels since there is no sure evidence of their use in the 2nd century based upon published comparanda, and since they, like all the Persian period jar forms discussed here, were clearly long out of use by the time the PHAB was abandoned in 143/2. No reconstructable examples are attested in Hell 2b loci material associated with the abandonment of the building.

liquid goods, since they would allow for slow, measured pouring of contents and lids could be

tied to their thickened rims. Parallels for torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims are

sporadic throughout the Levant and Cyprus, appearing perhaps as early as the mid 6th century.173

Examples of the form are even attested at Persepolis, suggesting that they transported a commodity that was important to the Achaemenid court.174 Regional parallels are attested at

Hazor in a stratum dated from 450-300;175 at Dor in contexts dated to last three quarters of the 5th century and the last quarter of the 5th and first quarter of the 4th century;176 at Nahal Tut in deposits associated with the abandonment of the site in the third quarter of the 4th century;177 and at Michal in a context dated to the end of the 4th century.178 One hundred and eighty-nine torpedo

jars with narrow necks and thickened rims have been found in Persian loci at Kedesh, and

another 1918 in later loci. As with the other jar forms discussed here, they probably continued in

use in the 3rd century since they account for 29% of fragmentary vessels fragments in both

Persian and Hell 1 loci. Of the 2107 examples of this form on the site, 1030 occur in coarse orange ware, 986 in red-brown gritty ware, 34 in white ware, and 58 in unknown ware(s). The occurrence in several different wares indicates that potters in several different production centers had a common template for how transport vessels should look, possibly because torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims circulated so regularly. Despite the wide distribution of this form in the eastern Mediterranean and inland Near East, it seems that Kedesh only received examples produced locally. Perhaps the Persian PHAB stockpiled local supplies of oil or wine shipped in these jars.

173 Lehmann 1998, 23, 25, fig. 10: 2. 174 Schmidt 1957, pls. 71: 13; 72: 17. 175 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 81: 1, 3-4. 176 Stern 1995b, 62, fig. 2.9: 1, 4. 177 Alexandre 2006, 161, 163, 170, 172, figs. 52: 9; 53: 14; 60: 10, 13-14, 16-17; 61: 15. 178 Singer-Avitz 1989, 136-137, fig. 9.13: 9.

Jars with high necks (Fig. 2.3: 5) probably had similar bodies to torpedo jars with narrow

necks and thickened rims. Their chief difference is in the treatment of their necks and rims,

which were pulled upwards and outwards and rounded or flattened on top. Twenty-five jars with

high necks occur at Kedesh in Persian loci and another 138 in later loci. They decline markedly

in frequency in Hell 1 loci, suggesting that unlike the other jar forms already discussed they had

gone out of use by the 3rd century. Most examples (130) occur in coarse orange ware, although

there are a handful in white ware (three), central coastal plain ware (19), red-brown gritty ware

(five) and unknown ware(s) (six). Like the jars already discussed, jars with high necks conveyed

local produce and/or commodities to the PHAB.

Shouldered torpedo jars are tall and narrow (Fig. 2.3: 6-7), with cylindrical bodies that

taper to form a toe. Unlike the torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims described

above, shouldered torpedo jars have bodies that are closed off by abrupt shoulders that terminate

in thickened holemouths or slightly everted rims measuring 7-12 cm in diameter. No complete

examples have been found at Kedesh but published examples elsewhere are around 50 cm in

height. Parallels for shouldered torpedo jars are widespread in the eastern Mediterranean at sites

of Persian date.179 Dated parallels are attested at Dor in contexts dating from the mid 5th to the beginning of the 3rd century,180 and at Michal in strata dated from 450-430, 430-400, and 350-

300.181 Their absence at Nahal Tut, abandoned in the third quarter of the 4th century, may

indicate that they were declining in popularity late in the Persian period. Fifteen out of 146

shouldered torpedo jars found at Kedesh were recovered in Persian loci and there is no indication

that they continued to be brought to the site in the 3rd century. Eighty-six examples are in

Phoenician SF, 24 in central coastal plain ware, 17 in white ware, nine in red-brown gritty ware,

179 Bettles 2003; Lehmann 1998, 17-18, 21-22, 27, figs. 6: 31-32, 34-45, 8: 17, 19, 12: 2-3. 180 Stern 1995b, 58, 60, fig. 2.7: 1-7. 181 Singer-Avitz 1989, 121-122, 124-125, 131-132, figs. 9.3: 7-8; 9.5: 9; 9.10: 5-6.

two in coarse orange ware, and eight in unknown ware(s). Most of these jars came from the

coast, presumably bearing wine and oil produced there. A variant of these torpedo jars are jars

with squared rims that are grooved on the exterior. These jars may be earlier in date than

shouldered torpedo jars, as they find many parallels at Iron II sites in the southern Levant. Still,

parallels for these jars are attested at Hazor in a stratum dated from 450-300182 and at Nahal Tut

in the third quarter of the 4th century.183 At Kedesh, three examples were found in Persian loci and another 62 in later loci at the site. Sixty-one examples occurred in central coastal plain ware and four in unknown ware(s).

The only Persian period amphora identified at Kedesh that was certainly imported from abroad is an Aegean or Cypriote mushroom rim amphora of 5th or 4th century date. Amphoras of

the same form are attested at Dor184 in the Persian period. The Kedesh example is in a Medieval

to modern locus.

Utility Vessels

Four Persian period vessel forms suited for general household chores (e.g., fetching water,

washing, grinding, mixing ingredients) have been recovered at Kedesh: mortaria/deep bowls

with rolled rims, pale porous basins, mortaria with narrow rounded rims, and jugs with thickened

rims. Most examples of these forms occur in white ware and central coastal plain ware, although

certain shapes occur in spatter painted ware and a handful in imported wares, probably from the

Aegean. Some of these forms may have been used for serving food or drink at the table in

addition to other household tasks. However, there are forms that occur in some quantity that are

clearly only meant for table service, and some only meant for utility. For this reason, I will

182 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 31. 183 Alexandre 2006, 156, 174, fig. 63: 2, 4. 184 Mook and Coulson 1995, 98, fig. 3.13.

describe here the vessels that seem most obviously suited for chores, with the caveat that many

of them may have been used for service as well.

The most abundant Persian period utility vessels at Kedesh are mortaria/deep bowls with rolled rims (Fig. 2.4: 1-2). These mortaria/deep bowls are broad (29-35 cm at the rim) and moderately deep (9-14 cm in height) with bulbous rims that are rolled towards the exterior. There are one or more bulges or ridges along their exterior walls, suggesting that the form was at least partially produced in a mold. In the Iron Age mortaria of this form had flat bottoms,185 but most

examples dating to the Persian period have broad pedestal ring feet.186 Mortaria/bowls with rolled rims were common all over the eastern Mediterranean near the end of the Iron Age and in the Persian period. Near Kedesh they are attested at Anafa;187 at Dor in contexts dating from the

6th or 5th century to the beginning of the 3rd century;188 at Hazor in a stratum dated 450-300;189 at

Michal in contexts dated from c. 525 to 300;190 and at Nahal Tut in the third quarter of the 4th century.191 Thirty-two mortaria/bowls with rolled rims found at Kedesh occur in Persian loci and another 273 in later loci. They decrease as a proportion of fragmentary vessels in Hell 1 loci, suggesting that they were no longer brought to the site after the Persian period. One hundred and eighty-six examples occur in white ware, 86 in central coastal plain ware, seven in red-brown gritty ware, six in spatter painted ware, and 20 in unknown ware(s).

Due to the broad distribution of mortaria/deep bowls with rolled rims in the Near East and Cyprus, there has been much speculation about the origins of the form and its function. Their appearance at fortresses such as Michal and administrative centers such as Lachish caused John

185 Lehmann 1998, 15, 18, 21-22, figs. 6.15-16, 8: 7-8. 186 Lehmann 1998, 23-24, fig. 9.7. 187 Berlin 1997a, 126-127, pl. 38: PW 341-347. 188 Stern 1995b, 53-54, fig. 2.2: 1-3, 5, 14-18. 189 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 79: 21, 23-25. 190 Singer-Avitz 1989, 116-118, 120, 127-128, 135-137, figs. 9.1: 1-2, 16-18; 9.2: 1-2; 9.7: 1-2; 9.8: 2; 9.13: 1-2. 191 Alexandre 2006, 157, 163, figs. 48: 2; 53: 4.

Bennett and Jeffrey Blakely to postulate that they were official, standardized, bowls for grinding

grain.192 However, the quantities of them at sites that were probably not administrative centers, such as Tel Anafa and Shechem, argues against an official function. Since they are made of ceramic rather than stone, mortaria/bowls with rolled rims would not have been durable enough to grind a substantial quantity of grain. It is possible that they were used for more occasional grinding of herbs or spices instead. It could also be that they were not grinding bowls at all, or at least not exclusively. Andrea Berlin has suggested that “pale porous basins” from Troy that are generally similar in form to Levantine rolled rim mortaria were meant to emulate stone vessels used at the Achaemenid Court.193 Examples of stone vessels similar in appearance to pale

porous basins have been recovered from the treasury at Persepolis in a variety of stones.194

Accordingly, the pale color and seemingly deliberately porous surface texture of Levantine white wares (e.g., white ware, central coastal plain ware) in which so many Levantine mortaria/bowls with rolled rims occur may have been meant to resemble stone. It is possible that the mortaria/bowls so commonly found in the southern Levant are simply a regional variant of the same template as the pale porous basins of western Asia Minor, in which case these may have been a central feature of the dining assemblage in addition to or instead of grinding vessels.

Vessels more closely corresponding to the pale porous basins discussed above are also attested at Kedesh (Fig. 2.4: 3-4). These are generally the same in appearance as mortaria with rolled rims but have rims that are slightly everted and more gently thickened. Many of these occur in imported wares, probably from the Aegean. Comparanda for pale porous basins are attested at Dor in contexts dated to the 4th century195 and at Nahal Tut in the third quarter of the

192 Bennett and Blakely 1989, 201-203. See also N. Lapp (2008, 28). 193 Berlin 2002, 139-140. 194 Schmidt 1957, pls. 57-62. 195 Stern 1995b, 53-54, fig. 2.2: 7-8.

4th century.196 At Kedesh, eight examples are attested in Persian period loci, and another 61 in

later loci. Forty-one examples occur in white ware, 19 in ware(s) probably imported from the

Aegean, four in central coastal plain ware, and five in unknown ware(s).

Mortaria with narrow rounded rims (Fig. 2.4: 10) found at Kedesh are more obviously

meant just for grinding. These mortaria have heavy flat feet, gently sloping walls, and narrow

rounded rims thickened towards the exterior. Parallels for the form are attested at Hazor in a

stratum dated from 450-300,197 at Dor in contexts dated from the 5th to the early 3rd century,198 and at Nahal Tut in the third quarter of the 4th century.199 At Kedesh, eight examples occur in

Persian loci and 59 in later loci. These mortaria continued to be used at Kedesh in the 3rd century,

during which they were used at Anafa as well.200 Thirty-four of the examples at Kedesh are in spatter painted ware, 18 in hard mortarium fabric, four in red-brown gritty ware, three in white ware, two in central coastal plain ware, and six in unknown ware(s).

The principal vessels for fetching and pouring water at Kedesh were jugs with thickened rims (Fig. 2.5: 1). No complete examples have been preserved, but published comparanda have ovoid bodies and gently constricting necks that terminate in thickened rims, often slightly offset from their necks. Vertical strap handles are attached at rim and shoulder. Dated parallels in the southern Levant are attested at Hazor in a stratum dated from 450-300,201 at Dor in a context of early to mid 4th century,202 at Nahal Tut in the destruction debris of the site dating to the third

quarter of the 4th century,203 and at Michal in a context dated from 400-350.204 At Kedesh, 16

196 Alexandre 2006, 154-155, 162-163, 171-174, figs. 53: 2-3; 61: 1; 62: 2, 4. 197 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 79: 17-18, 20, 26. 198 Stern 1995b, 53-55, fig. 2.2: 10-12. 199 Alexandre 2006, 154-155, 173-174, fig. 62: 3, 5-6. 200 Berlin 1997a, 128-129. 201 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 81: 7. 202 Stern 1995b, 65, fig. 2.11: 8. 203 Alexandre 2006, 155, 157-158, fig. 48: 8-10. 204 Singer-Avitz 1989, 130-131, fig. 9.10: 1, 9.

jugs with thickened rim are attested in Persian loci and another 136 in later loci. Almost all of

them (141) occur in white ware, while a handful of examples (five) occur in central coastal plain

ware or unknown (six) ware(s).

In addition to these regularly occurring utility vessels, four cylindrical stands with

thickened rims and bases in red-brown gritty ware have been found at Kedesh. These stands most

likely supported jars. Parallels are attested at Dor in contexts dated from the second half of the

6th to the 4th century.205 At Kedesh two occur in Persian loci (one largely intact) and two in later

loci.

Cooking Vessels

The Persian period staff of the PHAB used two forms of deep globular cooking pots suitable for

cooking soups and gruels: cooking pots with thick grooved rims in crystal cooking ware and

neckless cooking pots with triangular rims in sandy cooking ware and occasionally in imported

cooking wares.

Cooking pots with thick grooved rims (Fig. 2.5: 2-3) are deep and globular with short

vertical rims that are thickened and have a groove on top. They are wide mouthed for cooking

pots, with rims around 15 cm in diameter. Two vertical handles are attached at rim and shoulder.

The closest parallels for these cooking pots are found at Hazor in a stratum dating from 450-

300206 and at Shechem in a stratum dated to the late 6th and early 5th century.207 At Kedesh 27 examples come from Persian loci, and 274 were found in later loci at the site, all in crystal cooking ware. Since they make up a much smaller proportion of total fragmentary vessels in Hell

1 loci (as does crystal cooking ware as a proportion of fabric weight), it seems that they had gone

205 Stern 1995b, 68, fig. 2.15: 1-3. 206 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 83: 8. 207 N. Lapp 2008, 200-203, pl. 2.10: 1-3, 5-12, 14-20, 26.

out of use by the 3rd century. Given the stratigraphic representation of the form at Kedesh and the absence of parallels at Nahal Tut and Dor, it is likely that these pots were used early in the

Persian period. They were eventually supplanted by the neckless cooking pots with triangular rims described below.

Neckless cooking pots with triangular rims (Fig. 2.5: 4) are also deep and globular. Their rims are pulled up from body and beveled downwards towards the exterior. Two vertical strap handles are attached at rim and body. Their mouths measure 9-16 cm in diameter, and most examples are around 13 cm. The form of these cooking pots approximates Aegean cooking pots of the 6th and 5th centuries.208 Despite this similarity, and the likelihood that they were based on imported models, the form of these cooking pots is wholly appropriate for cooking the sorts of meals consumed in the southern Levant throughout the Iron Age. Neckless cooking pots with triangular rims are first attested in the Levant early in the 6th century,209 and they were the most

common cooking vessel in the region in the Persian period and early in the Hellenistic period.

Persian period parallels for the form are attested at Hazor in a stratum dated 450-300;210 at Dor in

contexts dated to the 5th and 4th centuries;211 at Nahal Tut in the abandonment of the third quarter of the 4th century;212 and at Michal in contexts dated from 490-350.213 At Kedesh, there are 41

examples in Persian loci and another 370 in Persian period wares occur in later loci. The

continued use of the form at other sites in the region and the regular occurrence in Hell 1 loci

indicate that it continued to be used at Kedesh in the 3rd century (see Fig. 2.6). Their continued use in the 3rd century indicates that at some point in the Persian period they replaced the cooking

208 E.g., Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 224, 371-372, fig. 18: 1928, 1932; pl. 93: 1923-1940. 209 Lehmann 1998, 21-22. 210 Yadin et al., 1958, pl. 80: 25-27. 211 Stern 1995b, 55, 57, fig. 2.4: 5, 7-11, 13-14. 212 Alexandre 2006, 157, 163, figs. 48:7; 53:5-7. 213 Singer-Avitz 1989, 116-118, 124-125, 128-130, figs. 9.1: 3-4; 9.2: 4; 9.5: 11-12; 9.8: 5.

pots with thick grooved rims described above. Four hundred and seven neckless cooking pots

with triangular rims occur in sandy cooking ware and four in imported Aegean cooking ware(s).

Table Vessels

The Persian period table assemblage included eight regularly recurring forms: bowls with plain rims in white ware and red-brown gritty ware, saucers with banded ledge rims in Phoenician SF, carinated “Achaemenid” bowls in white ware and red-brown gritty ware, and Attic/Atticizing bowls with incurved and outturned rims, kylikes, skyphoi, and kantharoi.

Bowls with plain rims (Fig. 2.7: 1-2) are broad and moderately deep with a roughly conical profile, they have simple rounded or slightly everted rims, and straight or slightly convex walls that terminate in shallow ring feet. The form would work equally well for eating or drinking and the great range of rim diameter (from 10-24 cm) suggests that their function was not terribly specialized. Published parallels are surprisingly scarce in the southern Levant.

Examples are published from Hazor in a stratum dated c. 450-300;214 at Dor in a context dated to

the 5th century;215 at Apollonia-Arsuf in an early Persian context;216 in a Persian context at

Keisan;217 at Mevorakh in a mid 5th to mid 4th century context;218 at Shechem in a context dated

525-475;219 and at Tel el-Hesi in a context dated from the late 6th to early 4th century.220 Bowls with plain rims are the most common Persian period table vessels from Kedesh, 64 examples occur in Persian loci and 485 occur in later loci, and they decrease as a proportion of vessels in

214 Yadin et al. 1958, 57-58, pl. 83: 6. 215 Stern 1995b, 52, fig. 2.1: 1, 7. 216 Tal 1999, fig. 4.21: 1. 217 Briend and Humbert 1980, 122, pl. 20: 2. 218 Stern 1978, 30, fig. 5: 6. 219 N. Lapp 2008, 24-25, pl. 2.4: 3. 220 Bennett and Blakely 1989, figs. 140: 23; 143: 19; 147: 14, 32-39; 148: 5-6, 15, 18; 150: 32; 155: 30; 157: 13, 16; 162: 25.

Hell 1 loci, indicating that they went out of use after the Persian period. Of the 549 examples at

Kedesh, 528 occur in white ware, 16 in red-brown gritty ware, and five in unknown ware(s).

Saucers with banded ledge rims are only represented by five examples at Kedesh (Fig.

2.7: 3). They consist of shallow bowls on flat or concave bases with a thick ledge rim that measures approximately 12-15 cm in diameter. A band of red slip is applied on the edge of their rims. No exact parallels dating to the Persian period have been found in the southern Levant, though saucers with ledge rims and no slip band dating to the Persian period have been published from Dor221 and Kition on Cyprus.222 At Kedesh, five examples of these saucers occur in Persian

loci and another three in later loci. Seven examples occur in Phoenician SF and one in central

coastal plain ware.

Carinated “Achaemenid” bowls (Fig. 2.7: 4) are broad and moderately deep with rounded

or tapered and splayed rims that meet their walls in a characteristic exterior carination.223 Their lower bodies consist of a simple convex curve, terminating in rounded or flat bases to be cupped in the hand. Carinated bowls of similar form are attested in the Levant from the 8th century,

around the time of the Assyrian conquest of the region.224 They were originally modeled on carinated bronze bowls from Mesopotamia. Persian period examples are known in both bronze and ceramic from Persepolis and are depicted in the hands of delegates approaching the

Achaemenid kings on the Apadana.225 Levantine parallels are attested at Dor in a context dated from the last quarter of the 5th century to the first quarter of the 4th century226 and at Hazor in a

stratum dated from 450-300.227 Four examples are attested at Kedesh in Persian loci, and 36

221 Stern 1995b, 52, fig. 2.1: 4-6. 222 Salles 1983, 28, 30, fig. 9: 15-16. 223 For discussion see Dusinberre (1999). 224 Lehmann 1998, 16, fig. 4: 7-8. 225 Schmidt 1957, pls. 68: 1, 70: c. For the form in ceramic Schmidt 1957, pl. 72: 1. 226 Stern 1995b, 52, fig. 2.1: 9. 227 Yadin et al., 1958, pl. 59: 28.

more in later loci. Twenty-four examples occur in white ware, 11 in red-brown gritty ware, and

five in unknown ware(s).

Imported table vessels of Persian date are relatively rare at Kedesh; the only ones

identified are East Greek and Attic. East Greek vessels of Persian date, common at coastal sites,

are limited to a single banded bowl with beveled rim in a Medieval to modern locus. East Greek

bowls with beveled rims are published from Dor228 and Michal.229

Attic and Atticizing table vessels are more common than East Greek vessels and include

bowls with outturned and incurved rims, kylixes, skyphoi, kantharoi, and a variety of shapes that

occur more sporadically. Attic and Atticizing bowls with outturned rims are small and shallow

(Fig. 2.7: 6). They have slightly outturned rims and gently curving convex walls that terminate in

ring feet. Their interior floors are often decorated with stamped palmettes and/or rouletted

circles. Bowls with outturned rims were first produced in Athens in the early 5th century, but are

not numerous until the final quarter of the 5th century,230 and Attic and Atticizing exports were extremely popular in the eastern Mediterranean throughout the 4th century, after which their circulation largely ceased. Attic bowls with outturned rims are amongst the most common table

vessels at many coastal Levantine sites in the 4th century. Regional parallels are attested at Hazor in a stratum dated from 450-300,231 at Dor,232 and at Michal.233 At Kedesh three examples occur

228 Mook and Coulson 1995, 118, fig. 3.3. 229 Marchese 1989, 145-147, fig. 10.1: 6. 230 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 128-129. 231 Yadin et al., 1960, pl. 75: 24. 232 Marchese 1995, 127, 175, fig. 4.2:1-6. Because Attic vessels are the chief means of assigning dates to Persian period contexts at both Dor and Michal, I refrain from attaching too much importance to the context date, which would have been determined by the very pieces I am citing. 233 Marchese 1989, 147-149, fig. 10.2: 7.

in Persian loci and 32 Persian period examples in later loci. All of the datable examples found at

Kedesh dated to the final third of the 5th century or later.234

Attic and Atticizing bowls with incurved rims (Fig. 2.7: 5) are comparable in size to the

bowls with outturned rims just described. They usually have thicker walls than bowls with

outturned rim and their upper walls terminate in tapered, incurved rims. The latter feature would

have been particularly useful for avoiding spillage when dipping bread in oil or other garnishes.

Bowls with incurved rims were first produced in Athens in the late 5th or early 4th century, and like bowls with outturned rim, they were extremely popular at coastal sites in the Levant in the

4th century.235 Southern Levantine parallels are attested at Dor236 and Michal. At Kedesh one

Attic/Atticizing bowl with incurved rim is attested in a Persian locus, and seven more in later loci. All datable examples at Kedesh dated to the late 5th century or later.

Several other small Attic bowls appeared in a few examples at Kedesh. These include a convex-concave bowl found in a Persian locus;237 two bowls with projecting rims in a Hell 2 and a Roman locus;238 a small and low bowl in a Hell 1 locus;239 a bowl with thickened rim dated to

the last quarter of the 5th century in a Roman locus;240 two bolsals dated to the late 5th century in a Hell 1 and a Hell 3 locus; and two spool saltcellars in Roman loci. In addition, there are 11

Attic bowls of uncertain form, one in a Persian locus and ten in later loci.

234 Kathleen Lynch examined and assigned dates to the Attic/Atticizing pottery from Kedesh. Hellenistic Attic imports will be discussed below with the 3rd century assemblage. 235 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 131-132. 236 Marchese 1995, fig. 4.1: 1-8. 237 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 130-131. 238 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 135. 239 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 134. 240 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 128-129.

Attic plates, relatively common at coastal sites in the Levant such as Dor and Michal

appeared in small numbers at Kedesh. One fishplate241 is attested in a Persian locus and three in

later loci, in addition to one plate with rolled rim242 in a medieval to modern locus.

Attic type A skyphoi are deep and open and shaped generally like an inverted bell (Fig.

2.7: 8). They have simple, slightly everted or tapered rims with two horizontal handles attached

just below. Their bodies bulge out at mid-wall and then curve inward and taper towards their

lower walls, terminating in squared ring feet that are offset from the exterior wall. Type A

skyphoi were first produced at Athens in the mid 6th century, but did not take on the form in

which they appear at Kedesh until the early 5th century.243 They were amongst the most common

Attic and Atticizing exports to the Eastern Mediterranean in the 5th and 4th centuries and appear in abundance on Cyprus and at coastal Levantine sites. Regional parallels in dated contexts are attested at Dor in contexts dated from c. 400-275,244 and at Michal in contexts dating to 450-

350.245 One Attic skyphos of Persian date is attested in a Persian locus at Kedesh and 17 more in

later loci.

Classical Attic kantharoi have molded or plain rims (Fig. 2.7: 9), concave upper walls

and convex bowls for lower walls, which are placed upon molded stems. Two vertical handles,

often with thumb spurs, are attached at rim and lower body. Kantharoi of this form were

produced at Athens beginning in the 4th century and continued to be made well into the 3rd

century.246 At Kedesh seven kantharoi of classical date have been found, one in a Persian locus and six in later loci. Classical kantharoi are attested elsewhere in the southern Levant at Dor.247

241 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 147-148. 242 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 147. 243 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 84-85. 244 Marchese 1995, 129-130, 177, fig. 4.4: 5-7. 245 Marchese 1989, 148-150, fig. 10.2: 9-10, 15. 246 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 118-122; Rotroff 1997, 83-84. 247 Marchese 1995, fig. 4.5: 2-3.

As with bowls, there are several Attic drinking vessel forms that arrived in only a few examples. Included amongst these are six kylikes, one in a Persian locus and five in later loci;248 four stemless cups (Fig. 2.7: 7), two in Persian loci and two in later loci;249 three cups in post

Persian loci; and a calyx cup in a medieval to modern locus.

Service Vessels

As mentioned above, in the Persian period southern Levant it is difficult to differentiate regionally produced jugs and kraters for tasks such as fetching water and those meant for serving liquids at the table. Indeed, some forms were probably used for both sorts of tasks. The shapes described here are those that seem more likely to have been conceived of as vessels for serving drink than for general household utility. Three forms found at Kedesh fit this description: column kraters, jugs with thickened slip banded rims, and cylindrical olpai.

Column kraters (Fig. 2.8: 1) have deep bowl shaped bodies that bulge outwards before meeting roughly vertical cylindrical necks that terminate in thickened or ledge rims that measure around 35 cm. Two vertical handles are attached at their rims and shoulders. Dated parallels are attested at Hazor in a stratum dated c. 450-300,250 at Dor in contexts dated from the mid to late

5th century,251 at Nahal Tut in the abandonment dating to the third quarter of the 4th century,252 and at Michal in a context dated to 450-430.253 At Kedesh, two column kraters occur in Persian loci and another 26 in later loci. Fourteen examples occur in Phoenician SF, 12 in white ware, one in coastal plain ware, and one in red-brown gritty ware.

248 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 88-97. 249 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 98-105. 250 Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 80: 28-29. 251 Stern 1995b, fig. 2.3: 1-2. 252 Alexandre 2006, 155, 162-163, fig. 53: 7. 253 Singer-Avitz 1989, 120, fig. 9.2: 3

Jugs with thickened slip-banded rims (Fig. 2.8: 2) are the same in overall appearance as

the jugs with thickened rims described with the utility vessels above. The chief difference is the

application of a horizontal band of red or black slip on their rims, usually coating the interior and

the exterior face. Most examples of jugs with thickened slip-banded rims occur in Phoenician SF

(19), a fabric generally better levigated and finer than the white ware and central coastal plain

ware in which jugs with thickened rims occur. Formal parallels for jugs with thickened slip-

banded rims have already been described above, and no published examples from the region

have the characteristic slip band. At Kedesh one jug with thickened slip-banded rim is attested in

a Persian locus, and another 23 in later loci. Nineteen examples occur in Phoenician SF and

another five in white ware.

Cylindrical olpai (Fig. 2.8: 3) are tall and slender with slightly bulging cylindrical bodies,

flat or slightly concave feet and simple everted rims. Single handles are attached at their rims and

shoulders. Published examples measure 15-20 cm in height with a rim diameter of around 5 cm,

and their small size suits them best for individuals to mix their wine and water to their liking, or perhaps as drinking vessels themselves. Dated regional parallels are attested at Dor in contexts from the last quarter of the 5th century to the middle of 4th century254 and at Michal in a context dated c. 430-400.255 Seven fragmentary cylindrical olpai have been recovered from Persian loci

at Kedesh and another 47 in later loci. Similar olpai continued to be used at sites in the eastern

Mediterranean in the 3rd and 2nd centuries, and a reconstructable example is even attested

amongst the material left behind when the PHAB was abandoned in the middle of the 2nd century. Thus, many of the examples in later loci were brought to Kedesh after the Persian period. Most examples at Kedesh (48, including six in Persian loci) occur in Phoenician SF,

254 Stern 1995b, 65, fig. 2.11: 2-3. 255 Singer-Avitz 1989, 124-126, fig. 9.5: 14.

though there are four examples in central coastal plain ware, one in white ware, and one in an

imported ware, probably from Cyprus.

Only a few Attic or Atticizing service vessels arrived at Kedesh in the Persian period.

These include two pelikai or table amphoras, one in a Hell 1 and one in a Roman locus;256 three

bell kraters, one in a Hell 1 and two in a Roman locus;257 and fragments of three other kraters in

later loci. These vessels represent stray acquisitions rather than regular household equipment.

Indeed, the scarcity of kraters and jugs for serving liquid in general from the PHAB suggest that

service was not a priority, or that vessels in metal that no longer survive were used.

Toilet Vessels

Two Persian period ceramic forms for perfumes have been recovered at Kedesh: juglets with

stumpy feet and Attic lekythoi. Juglets with stumpy feet (Fig. 2.8: 4) have squat bulbous bodies

and stumpy feet as their name indicates. This shape and their constricted necks suit them well for

holding perfumes and dispensing them at a slow, measured pace. No complete examples are

preserved at Kedesh, but comparanda from Anafa, Mizpe Yammim, Nahal Tut, Dor, and Michal

have simple everted and thickened rims and measure 10-15 cm in height. Dated parallels in the

region are attested at Hazor in a stratum dated c. 450-300,258 at Mizpe Yamim in contexts dated broadly to the Persian period,259 at Dor in a context dated from the last quarter of the 5th century

to the first quarter of the 3rd century,260 at Nahal Tut in the abandonment of the site dating to the

third quarter of the 4th century,261 and at Michal in strata dated to 450-430262 and 400-300.263 At

256 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 47-51. 257 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 55. 258 Yadin et al., 1958, pl. 80: 1-20. 259 Berlin and Frankel forthcoming. 260 Stern 1995b, 65, fig. 2.11: 5. 261 Alexandre 2006, 155, 162-163, fig. 53: 9-10. 262 Singer-Avitz 1989, 120, 122, fig. 9.2: 7-9

Kedesh one fragmentary juglet with stumpy foot is attested in a Persian locus in Phoenician SF,

and eight examples (four each in Phoenician SF and white ware) are attested in later loci.

Attic and Atticizing lekythoi (Fig. 2.8: 5) are tall and narrow with cylindrical bodies and

a single handle attached at their neck and shoulder. Attic lekythoi have a variety of rim and foot

treatments and were decorated in the black and red figure technique as well as white ground.

Most examples identified at Kedesh were only small body sherds.264 Like the other Attic shapes

discussed here, Attic lekythoi are most common at coastal sites in the Levant. Regional parallels

have been recovered in contexts at Dor265 and Michal.266 Two lekythoi were found at Kedesh in

Persian loci and 26 in later loci. Two squat lekythoi (Fig. 2.8: 6) with short bulbous bodies have

been found as well. All of the datable lekythoi found at Kedesh date from the late 6th through the

5th century, indicating that they were not brought to the site in the final 70 years of the Persian occupation of the PHAB.

Summary

The Persian period assemblage (Fig. 2.9) at Kedesh shows that there was an emphasis on stockpiling agricultural produce and bulk commodities from the local environs at the PHAB. The situation of the PHAB in the fertile Upper Galilee so close to the Hula valley and only one or two days journey from coastal outlets at Akko and Tyre suits it very well to such a role. Locally produced jars make up the bulk of the assemblage, though jars from the coast also occur regularly. Most utility vessels were also acquired locally. Cooking vessels were acquired from suppliers on the Golan or Chorazim plateaus and later on from Akko, indicating that market

263 Singer-Avitz 1989, 124, 128-131, figs. 9.8: 11; 9.9: 2; 9.10: 10. 264 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 150-155. 265 Stewart and Martin 2005, 82-83, tables 2-3. 266 Marchese 1989, 148-149, fig. 10.2: 16-17.

74 networks to these areas were well enough established to make the local acquisition (and perhaps production) of cooking vessels unnecessary. The assemblage of table and service vessels was fairly monotonous, the most abundant vessels being local undecorated bowls, with only a few coastal vessels and a moderate quantity of Attic and Atticizing imports. The small Attic bowls that account for most of the imports from abroad at the site were equivalent functionally to the small local bowls, suggesting that the PHAB was only supplied with a range of Attic vessels suited to traditional tastes and needs. Likewise, although a few Attic and Atticizing drinking vessels were brought to the site, kraters and other elements of a sympotic assemblage are sparse, indicating that the full range of Attic vessels used at coastal cities was not used at Kedesh.

Ceramic toilet vessels were scarce, possibly indicating that personal adornment was not a major concern or that relatively few people actually lived in the PHAB. It is also possible that alabastra or glass vessels that are not as well preserved were used at the site. The overall impression is that the staff of the Persian PHAB were charged with collecting local produce and bulk commodities.

They were also connected to the coast, though not terribly concerned with the latest trends in entertaining.

COMPARATIVE PERSIAN PERIOD ASSEMBLAGES

In order to characterize the economic interconnections of the Persian period PHAB and lifestyle of its staff, it is necessary to compare the ceramic assemblage described above with other Persian period sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Fortunately, many Persian period sites have been excavated in Israel, making it possible to compare the assemblage from Kedesh with assemblages at a number of other sites of different character. In the interests of clarity I have limited comparisons to sites in the immediate vicinity of Kedesh and a representative sampling

of sites of different character from around the Levant and Cyprus with thoroughly published

bodies of material. I have begun with major sites at a distance from Kedesh in order to show

general trends and zoomed in towards the smaller sites in the vicinity of Kedesh itself. I follow a

similar organization in my discussion of comparative assemblages in Chapters 3-5. The sites I

have selected are Kition on Cyprus; Dor and Nahal Tut on the central/southern Levantine coast;

Ashdod in Philistia; Gezer and Lachish in the Shephelah; Shechem in the northern Central Hills;

and Tel Anafa (hereafter Anafa), Hazor, and Mizpe Yammim in the environs of Kedesh itself

(see Figs. 2.10-11). Having described these sites, I will discuss the Persian period assemblage

from Kedesh in relation to them to show the economic interconnections of the site and consider

how the tastes of its residents compared to people living nearby and at sites of different

character.

Eastern Cyprus: Kition

Kition was a prosperous Phoenician port on the southeastern coast of Cyprus in the Late Bronze

Age and the Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic periods. The city continued to prosper during

the Cypro-Classical period (contemporary with the Persian period in the Levant). Port facilities

were constructed at Kition late in the 5th century, and the city was a source of naval assistance for

the Persian Empire.267 Excavations in a possible sanctuary at the site have uncovered a row of rooms and drainage system with extensive deposits of material. These deposits can be dated to the end of the 5th and beginning of the 4th century, and the middle of the 4th century on the basis

of the Attic pottery found within them.268 The ceramic material from these deposits may

267 Salles 1993b, 27-28. 268 Salles 1983, 6-7, 10-11, 18-19, fig. 2.

represent votive debris, but it is likely also a reflection of the range of material used by the

people of Kition in the late 5th and 4th centuries.

The assemblage of transport and storage vessels at Kition attests to widespread trade connections with other areas of the eastern Mediterranean. Cypriote basket handled jars,269

shouldered torpedo jars both from Cyprus and the Levantine coast,270 and amphoras identical in

form to classical Greek amphoras were abundant.271 Although they are published as Cypriote

“plain white” ware, some of the latter amphoras may in fact be Aegean. Household tasks were

performed with a variety of coarseware jugs272 and deep bowls/lekanai with ledge rims.273

Mortaria/bowls with rolled rims like those attested in the Levant are abundant.274 As with the

examples in the Levant they may have been used for serving food instead of or in addition to

grinding. Mortaria with grooved rims and volute handles are also attested,275 as are basins with thickened rims similar in form to pale porous basins.276

Cooking was done at Kition in deep globular cooking pots both with and without

necks.277 Several casseroles and their lids for preparing dishes with larger chunks of food and a thicker consistency are attested as well.278 Casseroles were first produced in Greece in the third

quarter of the 5th century and were extremely popular thereafter.279 Dishes prepared in them are mentioned in sources (as lopades) from the 5th century on.280 Thus, their presence at Kition

269 Salles 1983, 86-87, fig. 34: 302-304. 270 Salles 1983, 86-87, 100-101, figs. 34: 314; 38: 353-354. 271 Salles 1983, 86-87, fig. 34: 306-312. 272 Salles 1983, 82-84, fig. 33: 284-292. 273 Salles 1983, 75-76, fig. 29: 250-261. 274 Salles 1983, 71-73, fig. 28: 233, 236, 237-238, 241. 275 Salles 1983, 71-72, fig. 28: 246, 249. 276 Salles 1983, 71, 74, fig. 28: 242-243. 277 Salles 1983, 91-93, fig. 37: 334-339, 343-344. 278 Salles 1983, 92-93, fig. 37: 340-342, 347-349. It is not clear based on the descriptions of the casseroles if they were imports or Cypriote products. 279 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 227-228. 280 For discussion of their presence in the eastern Mediterranean and cultural implications see Berlin (1997a, 94-95).

indicates a familiarity with Greek-style cuisine and sufficient demand to warrant their regular

importation or local production.

The table assemblage reflects the eclectic tastes of Kition’s Cypro-Classical residents as

well. Locally produced vessels for food include bowls with plain,281 incurved,282 outturned,283 angled ledge,284 and beveled rims;285 and saucers with angled ledge rims.286 Local drinking

vessels include carinated “Achaemenid” style bowls287 and short hemispherical skyphoi with horizontal handles.288 These locally produced table vessels were complemented by an impressive quantity and array of imports, most of them Attic. Attic vessels for dining include salters with incurved rims289 and spool saltcellars;290 dishes with thickened rims;291 bowls with incurved292

and outturned rims;293 saucers with ledge rims;294 and plates with rolled rims295 and fishplates.296

Attic drinking vessels are also well represented. Skyphoi, both plain black glazed297 and

decorated with red figure scenes,298 are particularly common. Bolsals299 and kantharoi300 are

represented as well. Other imported tablewares are limited to several east Greek banded bowls

with beveled rims.301

281 Salles 1983, 65-67, figs. 25: 188-190; 26: 188-189. 282 Salles 1983, 65-67, 69-70, figs. 25: 191-193; 26: 191; 27: 225, 228. 283 Salles 1983, 66, 68, fig. 25: 216. 284 Salles 1983, 65-67, figs. 25: 194, 196, 199-202; 26: 194, 196. 285 Salles 1983, 70, 72, fig. 27: 230. 286 Salles 1983, 66-68, figs. 25: 206-214; 26: 206-207, 209, 211. 287 Salles 1983, 64-67, figs. 25: 182, 184, 187; 26: 182. 288 Salles 1983, 69-70, 72, fig. 27: 217-218, 221-222, 224. 289 Salles 1983, 28-30, figs. 9: 12-13; 10: 13. 290 Salles 1983, 28-30, figs. 9: 14; 10: 14. 291 Salles 1983, 27-29, figs. 9: 6, 8-11; 10: 8-11. 292 Salles 1983, 31-33, figs. 11: 19-21; 12: 20-21 293 Salles 1983, 31-34, figs. 11: 25-27, 29-31; 12: 29-31. 294 Salles 1983, 28, 30, fig. 9: 15-16. 295 Salles 1983, 26-29, figs. 9: 1-2; 10: 2. 296 Salles 1983, 27-28, figs 9: 4-5. 297 Salles 1983, 40-43, figs. 15: 80-82, 86, 88, 92-94, 96-97, 99, 109, 111; 16: 92-94, 97. 298 Salles 1983, 40-41, 43, figs. 15: 108; 16: 98, 102, 108. 299 Salles 1983, 36-39, figs. 13: 65-67, 69-71; 14: 65-67, 69-71. 300 Salles 1983, 37-39, figs. 13: 72-75, 77-78; 14: 73, 78. 301 Salles 1983, 100-102, fig. 38: 355, 357-359.

Cypriote service vessels at Kition include column kraters,302 kraters with angled rims,303 table amphoras,304 jugs with narrow neck and thickened rims,305 juglets with plain rims,306 and

cylindrical olpai.307 Attic vessels for serving drink are poorly represented in comparison to other

Attic table vessels. A red figured krater handle and a few body sherds of other Attic kraters308 and a pelike or table amphora rim309 are the only vessels for serving drink. Some Attic lids,310 an

askos,311 and a guttus312 are published as well. Two large carinated bowls from the Levant may also have been used for serving drink.313 The only toilet vessels attested at Kition are small

juglets with narrow necks.314

The assemblage of pottery deposited around the drainage system at Kition bespeaks a prosperous local community and possibly frequent visitors from overseas. Indeed, the character of the assemblage, with a great quantity of table vessels and lamps315 (and imported finewares in

particular) is evocative of that found at late Classical Greek sanctuaries elsewhere, most notably

the sanctuary of Athena Ilias at Troy.316 Be that as it may, the residents of Kition clearly had regular access to Attic pottery and a comfortable familiarity with imported vessels for both food and drink. They were also accustomed to Greek culinary traditions, as the presence of casseroles demonstrates. Despite these western economic and cultural connections, there is also a great deal

302 Salles 1983, 78-79, fig. 31: 262-264. 303 Salles 1983, 78-79, fig. 31: 265. 304 Salles 1983, 81-82, fig. 32: 279, 280-283. 305 Salles 1983, 83-84, fig. 33: 293-294, 296-297. 306 Salles 1983, 80-82, fig. 32: 269-274. 307 Salles 1983, 81-82, fig. 32: 276-277. 308 Salles 1983, 43-46, figs. 17: 117; 18: 112-115, 118. 309 Salles 1983, 44, 47, fig. 17: 129. 310 Salles 1983, 44-46, figs. 17: 119-124; 18: 120, 122-123. 311 Salles 1983, 44-47, figs. 17: 125; 18: 125. 312 Salles 1983, 44-45, 47, figs. 17: 127; 18: 127. 313 Salles 1983, 99-101, fig. 38: 350-351. 314 Salles 1983, 83-84, fig. 33: 298, 300. 315 For imported Greek lamps see Salles (1983, 50-53, figs. 21-22); for locally produced folded lamps see Salles (1983, 88-89, figs. 35-36). 316 Berlin 1999b.

of evidence for trade with sites along the Levantine coast in the form of household equipment

such as mortaria/bowls with rolled rims, common throughout the Achaemenid realm. The

Persian assemblage of Kition is consonant with the oft-cited characterization of Cyprus as a

cultural crossroads in antiquity.

The Southern/Central Levantine Coast: Dor

Dor is located on the southern Levantine coast just to the south of the Carmel range. The

presence of a good natural harbor at the site was critical to its prominence in several periods, and

by the Persian period it had been the site of a prosperous port city since at least the middle of the

2nd millenium.317 In the Persian period, the Achaemenid rulers placed Dor under the oversight of the Sidonians in return for commercial and naval assistance.318 Excavations at Dor have

uncovered two Persian strata that are dated by the many Attic vessels found in them. In the

earliest stratum, dating from the second half of the 6th century down to the early 4th century, the

city was surrounded an impressive inset-offset fortification wall originally erected in the Iron

Age and houses were probably laid out on an orthogonal plan.319 In the upper Persian period stratum, dating from the early 4th century to c. 275, a new casemate fortification was erected and

the orthogonal plan of houses can be seen more clearly.320 Houses were built in the pier-and- rubble technique typical of Phoenician domestic architecture.321 Dor was a major port city with

public infrastructure and a planned domestic quarter. Phoenician artisans and merchants

doubtlessly made up much of the population.

317 Ephraim Stern 1995c, 1. 318 Ephraim Stern 1995c, 2. 319 Ephraim Stern 1995a, 29, 32-34, plan 4.2. 320 Ephraim Stern 1995a, 34-38, plans 4.3-4; fig. 4.2. 321 Sharon 1987.

Locally or regionally produced holemouth jars,322 elongated baggy jars with everted rims,323 and torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims are attested at Dor.324 The most

abundant jars at the site are locally or regionally produced shouldered torpedo jars325 and at least

a few shouldered baggy jars are attested too.326 Imported and local jars with basket handles are present327 as well as amphoras from the Aegean and/or Cyprus.328 The jars and amphoras found at Dor indicate that it was well supplied with a range of local, regional, and imported commodities, exactly as one would expect of a bustling port city.

The assemblage of utility vessels is in keeping with other Persian period sites in the southern Levant. Mortaria/bowls with rolled rims are well attested at Dor,329 as are pale porous

basins (at least one from the Aegean),330 and mortaria with narrow rounded rims.331 Jugs with

thickened rims were used for fetching and pouring water at Dor,332 and perhaps served liquids at the table too. Flasks with everted rim found at the site would have been used for carrying water on journeys away from the site.333 Stands with thickened rims and bases like those found at

Kedesh are also attested at Dor.334 The range of utility vessels from Dor matches that of Kedesh and the inland Levantine sites discussed here, suggesting that local potters drew on traditional regional templates for the most basic utilitarian goods used at the site. The most common cooking vessels at Dor in the Persian period were neckless cooking pots with triangular or plain

322 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 58-59, fig. 2.5: 2-3. 323 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 58-59, fig. 2.6: 1. 324 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 62, fig. 2.9: 1-4. 325 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 58, 60-62, figs. 2.7: 1-7; 2.8: 1-13, 15-16, 18-20. 326 Emphraim Stern 1995b, fig. 2.8: 14, 17. 327 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 62-63, fig. 2.10: 1-13. 328 Mook and Coulson 1995, 98, fig. 3.13. 329 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 53-55, fig. 2.2: 1-5, 14-18. 330 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 53-55, fig. 2.2: 6-8; Mook and Coulson 1995, 95, 108, 120, fig. 3.8: 8. 331 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 53-55, fig. 2.2: 10-12. 332 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 65-66, fig. 2.11: 7-10. 333 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 66, fig. 2.12: 3-4. 334 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 68, fig. 2.15: 1-3.

rims.335 Casseroles for preparing semi-set, Greek style dishes are attested as well,336 but were

less common.

Locally made table vessels for food at Dor include bowls with plain337 and incurved rims.338 Saucers with ledge rims are attested as well.339 The only locally produced drinking

vessels attested are carinated “Achaemenid” bowls.340 The local table vessels at Dor were supplemented by some east Greek/Cypriote and a great quantity of Attic pottery. East/Greek and

Cypriote table vessels include banded bowls and bowls with beveled rims.341 Attic vessels for

food include spool saltcellars, bowls with outturned, incurved, thickened, ledge, and tapered

rims;342 plates with rolled rim and fishplates occur as well.343 Type A skyphoi,344 stemless cups,

cup/skyphoi, and bolsals are the most common Attic drinking vessels at Dor, though type B

skyphoi, mugs,345 cup kantharoi, and kantharoi346 are attested as well. Many of the Attic drinking

and service vessels are decorated in red figure technique. Locally produced service vessels at

Dor include column kraters347 and kraters with thickened348 and grooved rims.349 Cylindrical olpai are attested as well.350 Bell kraters are the most common Attic serving vessels at Dor;351

column and calyx kraters are also attested, as are a few oinochoai and juglets, a stamnos, and an

335 Emphraim Stern 1995b, 55, 57, fig. 2.4: 5-11, 13-14. 336 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 55, 57, fig. 2.4: 15. 337 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 52, fig. 2.1: 1, 7. 338 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 52, fig. 2.1: 8. 339 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 52, fig. 2.1: 4-6. 340 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 52-53, fig. 2.1: 9. 341 Mook and Coulson 1995, 93-94, 100-101, 117-119, figs. 3.1-6. 342 Marchese 1995, 174-177, figs. 4.1-3; 4.7: 1-2, 9-15. See Stewart and Martin (2005, 82-85, tables 2-4) for a summary and tally of the Attic pottery recovered at Dor. 343 Marchese 1995; 130, 178-179, photos 4.5-7; figs. 4.5: 4-12; 4.6: 1-2; 4.7: 3-4. 344 Marchese 1995, 130, 177, photo 4.3; figs. 4.4: 5-7; 4.7: 16. 345 Marchese 1995, 178, fig. 4.5: 1. 346 Marchese 1995, 178, fig. 4.5: 2-3. 347 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 55-56, fig. 2.3: 1-3. 348 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 55-56, fig. 2.3: 9-10. 349 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 55-56, fig. 2.3: 4, 6, 8. 350 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 65-66, fig. 2.11: 2-3. 351 Marchese 1995, 181, fig. 4.8: 15-22.

olpe. Additional Attic service vessels include askoi for oil.352 East Greek or Cypriote table

amphoras and oinochoai353 and askoi354 are present as well. Toilet vessels used at Dor in the

Persian period include juglets with stumpy feet355 and squat amphoriskoi (possibly imported).356

East Greek357 and Attic lekythoi are also attested. The broad range and quantity of imports at Dor suggests a regular supply of, and sustained demand for, imported goods and possibly some local knowledge of Greek modes of drinking and dining.

The people of Dor in the Persian period were well-connected and had eclectic tastes.

Imported commodities and perfumes were popular and at least some residents enjoyed Greek- style cuisine on occasion. If the publications of the site are approximately representative, it seems that Attic and imported east Greek tablewares made up most of the assemblage for eating and drinking in the Persian period.358 Indeed, residents of Dor were supplied with a sufficient range of Attic drinking and service vessels to conduct entertainments similar to the Attic symposium.359 Such an abundance and variety of imported pottery is at variance with Kedesh and most of the inland Levantine sites discussed here, where only a limited selection of Attic vessels, mostly for food, was used regularly.

The Southern Levantine Coastal Plain: Nahal Tut

Nahal Tut is located about eight kilometers inland from Dor, on a route inland to the Galilee.

One end of a large square structure (c. 55 by 55 m) consisting of a series of rectilinear rooms

352 Marchese 1995, 130, photo 4.4. 353 Mook and Coulson 1995, 96-97, 111-113, 122, fig. 3.10. 354 Mook and Coulson 1995, 96, 104, 122, fig. 3.9: 6. 355 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 65-66, fig. 2.11: 4-6 356 Ephraim Stern 1995b, 66, fig. 2.12: 1-2. 357 Mook and Coulson 1995, 94, 121, fig. 3.9: 1-5. 358 Stewart and Martin 2005, 90. 359 Stewart and Martin (2005, 86) emphasize that the people of Dor were probably incorporating Greek tablewares into modes of entertainment that they already enjoyed.

grouped around a large central courtyard and with a sturdy square tower at each corner has been

excavated at the site.360 The plan of the building corresponds to storage fortresses found

throughout the southern Levant in the Iron Age and Persian period.361 In the Persian period these

were concentrated along the coast in particular, perhaps in an effort to protect the route from

Egypt to the northern Levant.362 Projectile points found at the site attest to its military character.

A coin of Alexander the Great together with the ceramic finds from the site suggest that it was

occupied for a brief period in the third quarter of the 4th century before being violently destroyed,

possibly by the forces of Alexander the Great. Yardenna Alexandre has suggested alternatively

that it was an outpost established by Alexander and destroyed by rebels during the Samaritan

revolt shortly after Alexander passed through the region. The latter possibility seems unlikely

given the indigenous appearance of the architecture and the ceramic assemblage used in the

fortress. In either case, the fortress at Nahal Tut presents a snapshot of life at a fortress and

official storage depot at the very end of the Persian period.

Storage jars occur with great abundance at Nahal Tut, supporting the interpretation of the

site as a storage depot. Almost all of the jars are of the same form, elongated torpedo or baggy

jars with thickened rims and vertical handles attached at the shoulder and the body.363 The rims and necks of many examples closely resemble torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims, and the forms are probably derived from the same basic visual and functional template. The other jars attested include jars with squared rims that are grooved on the exterior,364 two basket handled jar handles,365 and two possible imported amphora toes.366 The great quantity of jars in

360 Alexandre 2006, 138-149, plan 2. 361 E.g., Hazor (see Reich 1992, 215, fig. 11); near Ashdod (Porath 1974). 362 Kuhrt 2001, 116-118; 2007, 732; Ephraim Stern 1990, 220. 363 Alexandre 2006, 156, 158-163, 170-174, figs. 50:1-10; 52: 1-3, 6-12; 53: 12-17; 60: 2-18; 61: 9-15; 63: 1, 3. 364 Alexandre 2006, 156, 174, fig. 63: 2, 4. 365 Alexandre 2006, 156, 162-163, 170-171, figs. 53: 11; 60: 19. 366 Alexandre 2006, 156, 158, fig. 49: 4-5.

one form and fabric suggests that the site was systematically supplied with goods from one

source, which is wholly consistent with its role as a fortress and storage depot.

Mortaria/bowls with rolled rims,367 pale porous basins,368 and mortaria with narrow

rounded rims369 were used at Nahal Tut for grinding and/or serving. Fetching and pouring water was accomplished using jugs with thickened rims.370 A flask with everted rim is attested at the site and would have been useful for carrying water on journeys away from the site.371 Neckless globular cooking pots with thickened372 and triangular rims373 are the only cooking vessels

attested at the site.

Very few table vessels are attested at Nahal Tut. A locally produced bowl with incurved

rim and carinated wall374 and an imported Attic or Atticizing bowl with incurved rim375 and ring foot376 are the only obvious table vessels attested. The only toilet vessels attested are two juglets

with stumpy feet377 and a juglet with splayed neck.378

The assemblage at Nahal Tut is very homogenous and basic by the standards of a

Levantine site near the coast in the Persian period, which can most probably be attributed to the

short duration of habitation (so that the residents could not accumulate much material from

different sources) and the function of the site as a fortified storage depot. Indeed, unless more

vessels for household utility, cooking, and dining were kept in unexcavated portions of the

367 Alexandre 2006, 154-155, 157-158, 162-163, 170-172, figs. 48: 2; 53: 4; 60: 1; 61: 7. 368 Alexandre 2006, 154-155, 162-163, 171-174, figs. 53: 2-3; 61: 1; 62: 2, 4. 369 Alexandre 2006, 154-155, 173-174, fig. 62: 3, 5-6. 370 Alexandre 2006, 155, 157-158, 162-163, 173-174, figs. 48: 8-10; 53: 8; 62: 11. 371 Alexandre 2006, 155 173-174, fig. 62: 10. 372 Alexandre 2006, 155, 157-158, 171-174, figs. 48: 4-5; 61: 8; 62: 7-8. 373 Alexandre 2006, 155, 157-158, 161-163, 171-174, figs. 48: 6-7; 52: 7; 53: 5-7; 61: 2; 62: 9. 374 Alexandre 2006, 154, 157-158, fig. 48: 1. 375 Alexandre 2006, 154, 162-163, fig. 53: 1. 376 Alexandre 2006, 173-174, fig. 62: 1. 377 Alexandre 2006, 155, 162-163, fig. 53: 9-10. 378 Alexandre 2006, 155, 171-172, fig. 61: 3.

fortress,379 it seems that very few people actually lived there permanently. Further clues to the

site’s function can be found in the other finds recovered from the site, which include several

metal farm implements such as pickaxes, plough components, and sickles380 as well as grindstones for milling flour.381 These finds suggests that the produce stored at the fort was grown nearby and processed at the site itself. At Nahal Tut, we have a fortress dedicated to the growing, processing, and storage of bulk agricultural produce. The most likely circumstance of its construction and use seems to have been in preparation for Alexander’s invasion. Unlike the

PHAB at Kedesh, the fortress at Nahal Tut is laid out and equipped solely with the practical aims of storage and defense, and possible periodic habitation by a garrison. It does not seem to have been “palatial” despite its large size.

Philistia: Ashdod

Ashdod is a tel located on the southern Levantine coast approximately 70 km west of Jerusalem and 15 km north of Ashkelon in a region settled by the Philistines in the 11th century. It was a major settlement in the Late Bronze Age, near the end of which “sea-peoples,” possibly from the

Aegean, settled there. These people were the ancestors of the Philistines with whom the Israelites and the kingdom of Judah fought in the Iron Age. The city was captured by the Babylonian king

Nebuchadnezzar in the late 7th century and possibly abandoned until the Persian period.

Herodotus mentions Ashdod as a prominent city in the Persian period.382 The only coherent Persian period architecture published is the fragmentary remains of a large public

379 This is a very real possibility since most of the vessels found in the excavation seem to have been left near their place of use. 380 Alexandre 2006, 160, 164-166 figs. 51: 1-2; 54: 1-4; 55: 1-2; 56: 1-3. 381 Alexandre 2006, 169, fig. 59: 1-2. 382 Hdt. 2.157 (Godley 1921, 468-471).

building with three Persian period phases.383 Pottery from this building includes a shouldered

torpedo jar,384 mortaria with rolled rims,385 a cooking pot with thickened rim,386 and a variety of

Attic vessels including skyphoi,387 kylikes,388 and kraters.389 Persian period pottery found

elsewhere on the site includes more shouldered torpedo jars,390 mortaria with rolled rims,391 a

flask,392 a cooking pot with short ledge rim,393 and a local bowl with thickened rim.394 Additional

Attic pottery at the site includes a convex-concave bowl,395 bowls with incurved rims,396 more kylikes,397 bell kraters,398 and lekythoi.399

The range of vessels used by the people of Ashdod for transport and storage, utility, and

cooking is in keeping with most other Persian period southern Levantine sites surveyed here.

Attic pottery, and vessels for serving and drinking in particular, seem to have been more

common at Ashdod than at inland sites in the region.

The Northern Shephelah: Gezer

Gezer is located at the border of the Central Hills and coastal plain, an area known as the

Shephelah, approximately 30 km northeast of Ashdod and 30 km west of Jerusalem. Gezer had

been inhabited more or less continuously from the late Chalcolithic period in the 4th

383 Dothan 1971, 171-173. 384 Dothan 1971, fig. 97: 12. 385 Dothan 1971, fig. 97: 1, 7. 386 Dothan 1971, fig. 97: 11. 387 Dothan 1971, fig. 97: 4-5. 388 Dothan 1971, fig. 97: 6. 389 Dothan 1971, fig. 97: 8, 10. 390 Dothan 1971, fig. 6: 16-18. 391 Dothan 1971, fig. 6: 11. 392 Dothan 1971, fig. 6: 14. 393 Dothan 1971, fig. 6: 15. 394 Dothan 1971, fig. 6:12. 395 Dothan 1971, fig. 60: 17. 396 Dothan 1971, fig. 60: 18-19. 397 Kee 1971, fig. 14: 7. 398 Kee 1971, fig. 14: 5-6. 399 Kee 1971, fig. 14: 3-4.

millennium.400 Early in the Iron Age Gezer was an eastern bulwark of the Philistines who lived on the coast. It was occupied briefly by the Egyptians in the 10th century before being given to

Solomon, who fortified it heavily.401 When the Israelite kingdom split in the 9th century Gezer

was incorporated into the northern kingdom. It was conquered by the Assyrians along with the

rest of the northern kingdom in 733 and was the site of an Assyrian garrison or administrative

center. It is unclear if the site continued to be inhabited in the Babylonian period, though there is

no evidence that it was. Remains dating to the Persian period are limited to a few walls and

surfaces dating from the late 5th through the 4th century.402 In the Persian period Gezer was

probably the site of a village or small town.

The ceramic assemblage from the site indicates that its residents had regular contact with

the coast but did not often indulge in goods imported from further afield. The most common jars

at the site are locally produced elongated baggy jars with everted and thickened rims,403 although

local torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims,404 and shouldered torpedo jars,405 the latter probably from the coast, appear regularly as well. The most common utility vessels at the site are mortaria/bowls with rolled rims,406 mortaria with narrow rounded rims,407 and jugs with thickened rims.408 Some pale porous basins, possibly from the Aegean, are attested as well.409

The only cooking vessels used at Gezer are neckless cooking pots with triangular rims.410

400 Gitin 1990, vol. 1, xxviii-xxix. 401 Gitin 1990, vol. 1, 16-18. 402 Gitin 1990, vol. 1, 18-19. 403 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 29: 1-11. 404 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 29: 12-14. 405 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 28: 11-24. 406 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 30: 7-17, 20. 407 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 30: 3-6. 408 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 29: 15-19, 24. 409 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pls. 30: 2; 31: 9-10. 410 Gitin 1990. vol. 2, pl. 31: 11-15.

The assemblage of table vessels consists of bowls with plain rims411 and with ledge rims.412 An Attic bowl with outturned rim, a fragment of a cup, and possibly a krater are published from excavations at the site early in the 20th century as well.413 Local or regional

column kraters with thickened rims414 and the necks of a local or regional jug with a band of

slip415 and of an Attic or east Greek jug416 are the only service vessels attested at Gezer. Toilet

vessels found at the site include a juglet with stumpy foot,417 two juglets with thickened rims,418

and Attic lekythoi.419

The people of Gezer in the Persian period had a rather limited range of household equipment. Even though they received commodities in jars brought from the coast, they did not enjoy wine from abroad, and they did not regularly receive Attic or Atticizing table vessels.

Their table assemblage consisted entirely of locally or regionally produced bowls, and the most of their service vessels were locally made kraters. The people who lived at Gezer did not go out of their way to acquire table, cooking, or service vessels of any ostentation. In this they were similar to residents of the other inland sites here.

The Southern Shephelah: Lachish

Lachish is located in the Shephelah to the south of Gezer. It is roughly 25 km southeast of the port of Ashkelon and 40 km southwest of Jerusalem. Lachish had been a major center in the Late

411 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 31: 6-8. 412 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 31: 2-4. 413 Macalister 1912, vol. 3, pl. 177: 14-15a. Given the astounding quantity of material excavated by Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister and his evident interest in reporting imported goods (see Macalister 1912, 307-364), it seems unlikely that much (or any) more Attic pottery was found in his excavations. 414 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 31: 19-23. 415 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, 16. 416 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, 18. 417 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 29: 29. 418 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 29: 30-31. 419 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 31: 17; Macalister 1912, vol. 3, pl. 177: 28.

Bronze and Iron Ages. It was destroyed by the Assyrians in 722, by the Babylonians again in

586, and possibly left deserted for some years after that.420 It was resettled in the middle of the

5th century, as finds of Attic pottery at the site attest and the historical record suggests.421 In the

mid 5th to early 4th century a large public building referred to as the “residency” was built at

Lachish.422 The residency measures approximately 40 x 50 m. It has a broad entrance court, a central court surrounded by small square rooms on two sides and long corridors with columned openings onto the courtyard on the other two sides. Long rooms or corridors are positioned along the eastern and southern perimeter of the building.423 In size, plan, and monumental character the residency at Lachish is very similar to the Persian period PHAB at Kedesh.

The Persian period pottery from Lachish originated from pits and fills assigned to the uppermost stratum in the area of the residency. It has been identified on the basis of comparanda from other sites as 5th and 4th century with some stray Hellenistic pottery intermixed.424 The

residents of Lachish used a very similar assemblage of household pottery to those of the PHAB

at Kedesh. Jars include holemouth jars425 and torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims and/or elongated baggy jars with everted rims.426 They also regularly received shouldered

torpedo jars of the sort produced on the coast,427 indicating that they enjoyed coastal

commodities with some regularity. The most common utility vessels, as at Kedesh, were

420 Tufnell 1953, 54-58. 421 Tufnell 1953, 58-59; Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2188. 422 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2188. 423 Tufnell 1953, 131-135, fig. 11; pl. 119. 424 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2174, 2188. 425 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2182, fig. 30.4: 10. 426 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2176-2178, 2180-2181, 2184-2185, figs. 30.1: 12-16; 30.3: 9-11; 30.6: 18-19, 21. The examples from Lachish are too poorly preserved to distinguish between torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims and elongated baggy jars with everted rims. 427 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2176-2182, figs. 30.1: 17-19; 30.2: 9, 11; 30.3: 15; 30.4: 9.

mortaria with rolled rims.428 At least one jug with thickened rim is attested at Lachish429 as well

as a table amphora with a simple everted rim.430 The only Persian period cooking vessels attested at Lachish are neckless cooking pots with triangular or plain rims431 and cooking pots with undulating necks,432 although the latter may be Hellenistic.

The Persian period table assemblage at Lachish includes a bowl with plain rim, perhaps

imported from Egypt,433 and a carinated “Achaemenid” bowl.434 The residents of Lachish also used Attic or Atticizing bowls with outturned and incurved rims for eating435 and skyphoi436 and cups for drinking.437 Vessels for serving drink at Lachish include column kraters with thickened

or ledge rims,438 a dinoid krater,439 an Attic bell krater,440 a dipper juglet,441 and several

cylindrical olpai.442 Perfumes were shipped to Lachish in juglets with stumpy feet443 and an Attic

lekythos.444

The household goods used by the Persian period residents of Lachish correspond closely to other inland sites in the southern Levant. They did regularly receive coastal jars, and perhaps used more Attic and Atticizing imports than residents at some other inland sites. But this is hardly surprising given the position of the site in a boundary region between the coastal plain and

428 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2174-2175, 2177-2186, figs. 30.1: 1-3; 30.2: 2; 30.3: 2-4; 30.4: 1-4; 30.5: 1-2; 30.6: 2-4; 30.7: 2-4. 429 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2182, fig. 30.4: 5. 430 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2183, fig. 30.5: 6. 431 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175, 2179-2181, 2184-2185, figs. 30.2: 3, 5; 30.3: 6; 30.6: 9-11. 432 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175, 2177-2179, 2183-2185, figs. 30.1: 7, 9; 30.2: 4; 30.5: 3-4; 30.6: 8. 433 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2174-2175, 2186, fig. 30.7: 1. 434 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2174-2175, 2184-2185, fig. 30.6: 1. 435 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2187-2189, fig. 30.8: 1-6. 436 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2187-2188, 2190, fig. 30.9: 2-3. 437 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2187-2189, fig. 30.8: 10-11. 438 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175, 2177-2178, 2184-2185 figs. 30.1: 5; 30.6: 5-6. 439 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175, 2177-2178, fig. 30.1: 4. 440 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2187-2189, fig. 30.8: 8. 441 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175-2177, 2179, fig. 30.2: 10. 442 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175-2176, 2180-2182, 2184-2185, figs. 30.3: 7; 30.4: 6; 30.6: 13, 16. 443 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2175-2176, 2182-2185, figs. 30.4: 8; 30.5: 5; 30.6: 14-15. 444 Fantalkin and Tal 2004, 2187-2189, fig. 30.8: 9.

the Central Hills. The assemblage does not feature as great a variety of cooking, table, or service

vessels as coastal cities such as Dor. Although they lived in a conspicuously large and nice

building, the occupants of the “residency” used a standard assemblage of pottery by regional

standards, much like the staff of the PHAB at Kedesh.

The Northern Central Hills: Shechem

Finds of Attic pottery at the site indicate that Shechem was inhabited during the last quarter of

the 6th century and the first quarter of the 5th century before being abandoned until c. 325. The

Persian phase was largely recognized through stratigraphic analysis of pottery, and there is little architecture preserved from Persian Shechem aside from two installations of uncertain function and an oven.445 The scarcity of architectural remains, and their apparent obliteration by the modest Hellenistic period houses on the site, suggests that the site was a rather humble settlement and not a large town or city. Thus the pottery found at Shechem can be considered representative of a small village or farmstead of early Persian date in the northern Central Hills.

All of the storage jars used at Shechem in the Persian period seem to have been of local manufacture. Jars with squared rims that are grooved on their faces,446 everted rims,447 and

grooved rims;448 and holemouth jars with thickened rims are attested.449 The torpedo jars, basket handled jars and imported amphoras seen on the coast are not present at Shechem. Several of the jars at Shechem bore stamps of the Hebrew Tet (the number 26) on their handles indicating that they held a standard quantity of liquid, probably wine or oil.450 Similar handles are found at Iron

445 N. Lapp 2008, 5-6. 446 N. Lapp 2008, 170-171, pl. 2.1: 3, 5, 7, 11, 14. 447 N. Lapp 2008, 170-171, pl. 2.1: 2, 4, 9, 19. 448 N. Lapp 2008, 170-171, pl. 2.1: 6, 8, 10, 12, 20. 449 N. Lapp 2008, 170-171, pl. 2.1: 17-18. 450 N. Lapp 2008, 21-22, 174-175, pl. 2.2.

II and Persian period sites in the Central Hills with links to Jerusalem, and their presence at

Shechem suggests that the site was connected to market networks further to the south in the

Central Hills. Mortaria/bowls with rolled rims are very common at Shechem.451 The only other

utility vessels regularly attested at the site are jugs with narrow ridged necks and thickened

rims.452 The cooking assemblage was similarly monotonous, consisting only of cooking pots with thick grooved rims453 and with thickened rims.454 The table assemblage consists of small locally produced bowls with thickened455 and grooved456 rims and a few Attic cups (including six black figure examples)457 and skyphoi.458 Service vessels used at Shechem include kraters with thickened rims,459 grooved rims460 (both of which may have been used for utilitarian tasks such as washing as well), and with incised and impressed decoration on the top of their rims.461

Several fragments of Attic black and red figured kraters are attested at Shechem as well.462

Persian period toilet vessels attested at Shechem include tall and narrow local juglets463 and very

fragmentary Attic lekythoi.464

The people at Shechem early in the Persian period lived very basic lives, even by the standard of the inland sites in the southern Levant surveyed so far. Aside from imported perfumes in Attic lekythoi, they received no commodities from abroad, or possibly even from beyond the immediate environs of the site. Meals were prepared in deep globular cooking pots

451 N. Lapp 2008, 194-197, pls. 2.8-2.9. 452 N. Lapp 2008, 176-177, pl. 2.3: 1-14. 453 N. Lapp 2008, 200-203, pl. 2.10: 1-3, 5-12, 14-20, 26. 454 N. Lapp 2008, 200-203, pl. 2.10: 4, 13, 21-25, 27-34. 455 N. Lapp 2008, 180-181, pl. 2.4. 456 N. Lapp 2008, 186-187, pl. 2.6: 1, 5-6. 457 N. Lapp 2008, 210-211, pl. 2.14: 1-8, 12. 458 N. Lapp 2008, 210-211, pl. 2.14: 13-14. 459 N. Lapp 2008, 184-185, pl. 2.5. 460 N. Lapp 2008, 186-187, pl. 2.6: 3-4, 7-8. 461 N. Lapp 2008, 190-193, pl. 2.7. 462 N. Lapp 2008, 207-209, pls. 2.12-2.13. 463 N. Lapp 2008, 177-179, pl. 2.3: 15-18. 464 N. Lapp 2008, 214-216, pl. 2.15.

and consumed from local, unadorned bowls. A small quantity of Attic drinking and service

vessels are the only indication that the residents of Shechem desired household equipment meant

to be anything more than functional. This trend of very basic household assemblages in the

Central Hills would persist well into the Hellenistic period.

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Tel Anafa

Tel Anafa (hereafter Anafa) is located in the Hula Valley approximately 10 km to the east of

Kedesh. Like at Shechem, no coherent Persian period architecture has been found, although the absence of even the vestiges of architecture and the character of the assemblage suggests that it was a farmstead or modest village, like Shechem. Attic pottery found at Anafa dates to the 5th

and 4th centuries, suggesting that the site was roughly contemporary with the PHAB. It is

possible that Anafa supplied PHAB with some of the local produce and commodities that were

stocked there in the Persian period. Because Persian material was recovered entirely from loci of

later date, defining the entire range of the Persian period assemblage has proved difficult, but the

fact that there are so few distinct and recognizable types from Anafa suggests that much of the

assemblage was basic and non-descript, like that of Shechem.

The only jar found at Anafa that can be attributed to the Persian period is a torpedo jar

with narrow neck and thickened rim, most likely in coarse orange ware.465 The only utility vessels are mortaria/bowls with rolled rims in white ware.466 Mortaria with narrow rounded rims

are also attested at Anafa, and although they are assigned to the early Hellenistic assemblage at

the site,467 they may have already been in use in the Persian period since they are attested in

Persian loci at Kedesh. Neckless cooking pots with triangular rims in spatter painted ware may

465 Berlin 1997a, 17, 159, fig. 7, pl. 62: PW503bis. 466 Berlin 1997a, 17, 126-127, pls. 38, 82: PW341-347. 467 Berlin 1997a, 128-129, pl. 39: PW357-359.

have been used for cooking in the Persian period, although these are also assigned to the early

Hellenistic phase of Anafa.468 The only recognizable Persian period table vessels are Attic bowls with incurved and outturned rims, possibly some plates, and type A skyphoi, cups, and a mug for drinking.469 Serving was possibly accomplished with kraters with wedge impressed decoration

like those found at Shechem.470 Toilet vessels from the site include juglets with stumpy feet471 and Attic lekythoi.

The people who lived at Anafa in the Persian period had similarly simple lives to those who lived at Shechem. Much of their assemblage was unrecognizable at time of excavation because of its nondescript nature. The preponderance of vessels that can be assigned to this phase are local and utilitarian. Local or regional juglets for perfume and a few Attic table vessels and lekythoi are the only indication that the people at Persian Anafa were attuned to material goods meant to serve more than basic, day to day needs. Such goods arrived at the site only sporadically.

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Hazor

Hazor is located approximately 7 km to the southeast of Kedesh, on the western edge of the Hula

Valley. It is the largest tel in the southern Levant as a result of near continuous occupation from the Middle Bronze Age to the Hellenistic period. Hazor had been a major city from the Middle

Bronze age on. In the 10th century it was one of the fortified cities of Solomon and later on a major center of the Israelite kingdom. Under the Assyrians a palace and administrative center

468 Berlin 1997a, 87, pl. 20: PW179. 469 Andrea Berlin, personal communication, August 2011. 470 Berlin 1997a, 17, 167-168, fig. 7, pls. 71, 94: PW 564-569. 471 Berlin 1997a, 17, 51-52, fig, 7, pls. 9, 74: PW49-52.

was established at Hazor in the late 8th century.472 Hazor may have been abandoned after the

Babylonian conquest of much of the southern Levant in 604. In any case the site fell from its

former prominence, and it never again was the site of a large city. A small fortress measuring

about 26 by 30 m consisting of rooms and long halls surrounding a central courtyard was erected

on the western edge of the tel in the 7th century under Assyrian or Babylonian rule. The structure was modified and reused in the Persian period, possibly as two buildings rather than one.473 This

may be an indication that the building was no longer a fortress but the dwelling of two different

families. The pottery associated with this phase of the building dates broadly to the Persian

period, and the excavators suggested a date of c. 450-300. Two 4th century Attic lamps and a silver stater of Tyre dated to 400-332 give certain evidence for use in the 4th century.474

Like Kedesh and the other inland sites discussed here, Hazor was largely supplied with

household pottery and commodities like wine and oil from local sources. Holemouth jars,475 holemouth jars with thickened rims,476 and torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims are attested.477 The description of published vessels suggests that all examples of those forms were probably in red-brown gritty ware and/or coarse orange ware. The only jars from outside the eastern Upper Galilee or Hula Valley are a shouldered torpedo or baggy jar478 and a jar with squared rim that is grooved on its face,479 both probably from the southern Levantine coast.

Mortaria/bowls with rolled rims were used for grinding and/or food service.480 Mortaria with

472 Reich 1992, 215, fig. 11. 473 Yadin et al. 1958, 45-63; pls. 12; 177. 474 Yadin et al. 1958, 61-63. 475 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 32. 476 Yadin et al. 1958, 59-60, pl. 81: 2. 477 Yadin et al. 1958, 59-60, pls. 81: 1, 3-4; 83: 1-3. 478 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 34. 479 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 31. 480 Yadin et al. 1958, 57-58, pl. 79: 21, 23-25.

narrow rounded rims were more certainly used for grinding.481 A jug with thickened rim is the only Persian vessel for fetching or pouring water published from Hazor.482 A cooking pot with

thick grooved rim in a ware whose description corresponds to crystal cooking ware483 and

neckless cooking pots with triangular or plain rims484 are attested at Hazor. The fabric description of the latter corresponds well with that of sandy cooking ware from Akko. A bowl with plain rim,485 a carinated “Achaemenid” bowl,486 and an Attic or Atticizing bowl with

outturned rim487 are the only Persian period table vessels published from the site. Likewise,

column kraters are the only service vessels attested at Hazor.488 Juglets with stumpy feet are attested in some number at Hazor and their description suggests that they are in Phoenician

SF.489 The only other toilet vessel is a carrot shaped juglet not paralleled elsewhere.490

The people who lived in the Hazor fortress in the Persian period, whether they were there as a garrison or reusing the building as (a) house(s), were satisfied with a fairly simple range of goods. The presence of coastal storage jars, cooking pots, and perfume bottles shows that they were connected to the coast (presumably via the same market routes that connected Kedesh to the coast), but the relative infrequency of obvious coastal imports aside from the juglets shows that they were not terribly desirous of such imports. Indeed, aside from two lamps and a bowl with outturned rim, Attic pottery of the sort common on the coast and present at both Kedesh and

Anafa is absent.

481 Yadin et al. 1958, 57-58, pl. 79: 17-18, 20, 26. 482 Yadin et al. 1958, 59-60, pl. 81: 7. 483 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 83: 8. 484 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 23-27. 485 Yadin et al. 1958, 57-58, pl. 83: 6. 486 Yadin et al. 1958, 57-58, pl. 79: 28. 487 Yadin et al. 1960, pl 75: 24. 488 Yadin et al. 1958, 59, pl. 80: 28-30. 489 Yadin et al. 1958, 58-59, pl. 80: 1-20. 490 Yadin et al. 1958, 58-59, pl. 80: 22.

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Mizpe Yammim

Mizpe Yammim is a peak located at the southern end of the Meiron range, about 15 km

southwest of Kedesh. Architectural remains at the site consist of a large, walled, open-air

enclosure, a small two-room structure, and a watchtower.491 The position of the site, the non- domestic character of the architecture, and the discovery of obvious votives including an Apis bull and Osiris figurines indicate that it was a sanctuary. Finds from the building and enclosure date to the 5th and 4th centuries and include Tyrian silver fractions dating from the late 5th to mid

4th century. The latest datable votives have parallels in the first half of the 4th century, suggesting that the site was abandoned around the time of Alexander’s conquest in 332. Rafael Frankel and

Andrea Berlin suggest that the sanctuary at Mizpe Yammim marked the southeastern boundary of territory administered by Tyre (via the PHAB Kedesh) in the Persian period.

As a sanctuary, Mizpe Yammim had no residents aside from a few guards stationed at the watchtower. Much of the pottery found at the site then represents dedications made by people living in the region, rather than household equipment. Nevertheless, a substantial quantity of transport and storage, utility, cooking, and table vessels have been recovered from the site. Most of the transport and storage jars found at Mizpe Yammim are torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims, holemouth jars, and pithoi with thick rolled rims in Galilean coarse ware, a ware produced at several locales in the central Galilee. Shouldered torpedo jars in a white ware (not necessarily the same as the Hula Valley white ware attested at Kedesh) are also attested at Mizpe

Yammim. A few Galilean coarse ware jugs with trefoil and squared rims have been found as well as a few mortaria with rolled rims in a white ware. The only cooking vessels found at the site that may date to the Persian period are several neckless cooking pots with plain and

491 For discussion of the remains from Mizpe Yamim see Berlin and Frankel (forthcoming). I thank the authors for sharing their manuscript in advance.

triangular rims in sandy cooking ware. Small bowls with plain and inturned rims in Galilean

coarse ware are the only Persian period table vessels attested at the site.

The most common vessels at Mizpe Yammim are small perfume juglets and bottles made

in Phoenician SF or a coastal white ware. Given their abundance and the function of the site it is

most likely that they represent dedications of perfume by worshipers in the sanctuary. Since they

were dedications and not discarded habitation debris, these juglets were better preserved than

those found at Kedesh, allowing for more refined typological designations, but most of them

have short, flat stumpy bases similar to those of the juglets with stumpy feet recovered at

Kedesh.

The assemblage of pottery found at Mizpe Yammim reflects well the site’s function as a

sanctuary. The inordinate quantity of small juglets and relatively few vessels for basic household

tasks points to dedicatory behavior. In addition to dedications of perfume in small juglets and

bottles, people brought commodities to the site in jars from the coast and the central Galilee, and

the presence of a few holemouth jars and pithoi attests to the storage of some bulk produce or

something similar at the site, perhaps for the soldiers who kept watch at the tower.492 The few

Persian utility, cooking, and table vessels found at the site may have been used by them as well, although it is possible that worshipers ate meals within the enclosure from time to time. The sanctuary received jar borne goods from local sources and coastal suppliers as well as table vessels from local suppliers while cooking vessels and the perfume juglets and bottles dedicated at the site arrived from the coast. The absence of Attic pottery at the site is in accord with its scarcity at settlement sites in the region such as Anafa, Hazor, and (to a lesser extent) Kedesh itself. A few more valuable dedications like the figurines mentioned above, several fibulae, an

492 Berlin and Frankel forthcoming.

antique Egyptian slate pallet and schist statuette, and a bronze situla are present, but it seems that

most worshipers were content to leave a simple bottle of perfume.

Summary

There are profound differences between the ceramic assemblages of coastal cities in Cyprus and

the Levant such as Kition, Dor, and Ashdod and inland sites such as Gezer, Lachish, Shechem,

Anafa, and Hazor. Residents of coastal cities received jar borne goods shipped from several

different sources and prepared foods in both the local Levantine tradition, and at least on

occasion, in Greek-style casseroles. Food and drink was largely consumed from imported East

Greek and Attic or Atticizing vessels at these sites.493 Indeed, the range of Attic and Atticizing

drinking and serving vessels found at these sites may even indicate that some of their residents

were familiar with sympotic drinking parties494 in much the same way that they enjoyed Greek- style food prepared in casseroles. The regular appearance of such a wide range of imported goods at southern Levantine sites is in keeping with evidence for vibrant trade at Persian period sites elsewhere, most notably western Asia Minor.495 It is interesting to note that the preferred imports were generally Greek, suggesting an openness to Greek-style goods despite the frequent political conflicts between the Persian Empire and the Greek city-states, and Athens in particular.496 Conversely, there are few ceramic imports from Mesopotamia or the Persian

493 Stewart and Martin 2005, 87. 494 I use the term “sympotic drinking parties” here instead of “symposia” because while residents of Levantine coastal cities were comfortable with sympotic equipment and the outward appearances of it, the social meaning of their entertainments was surely much different from the social meaning they held in Greece. For discussion of the Greek symposium in context see Lynch (2011, especially 75-79; 169-175). 495 Strong evidence for this can be seen at Troy, where there is evidence for increased trade under Persian rule in the late 6th and 4th centuries, compared to the 5th century, when it was subject to Mytilene and Athens. For discussion see Lawall (2002, 198-199; 211-215). 496 This situation also pertains along the western coast of Asia Minor, as the extensive Persian period assemblage of Attic and Atticizing pottery at Troy demonstrates. For discussion see Berlin (2002, 145-147) and Berlin and Lynch (2002, 174-175).

100 heartland, although vessels such as mortaria with rolled rims and pale porous basins produced along the coast in pale fabrics with a porous texture, may have been inspired by stone vessels used in Mesopotamia in the Persian period.

Ceramic evidence suggests that the sites located at a distance from the coast surveyed here (Gezer, Lachish, Shechem, Anafa, and Hazor) were supplied almost entirely with local produce and commodities. They were strongly self-reliant. A limited range of utility vessels was used at these sites, and the only cooking vessels were deep globular cooking pots. It is likely that at some of these sites other means of food preparation, such as grilling, were employed. Still, it is telling that casseroles for preparing Greek-style cuisine are not attested at any inland sites in the

Persian period. Likewise, while some Attic table and toilet vessels arrived at Gezer, Lachish,

Shechem, and Anafa and some lamps and a bowl at Hazor, the range is much more limited than on the coast, and confined to at most a few shapes, suggesting that their acquisition was occasional. Unlike the cities of the coast, coordinated sets of imported tableware were not available or desirable inland, even at sites featuring palatial architecture, like Lachish. Imports from Mesopotamia are scarce as at sites on the coast, though people at inland sites did regularly use mortaria and basins possibly inspired by originals from the Persian east produced in pale and porous local wares.

Neither Nahal Tut nor Mizpe Yammim are settlement sites like the ones described above, and the character of their ceramic assemblages reflects this distinction quite well. Despite being located only a few kilometers inland from Dor on a route from the coastal plain inland to the

Galilee, the residents or garrison of Nahal Tut had only the most basic array of household vessels and an abundance of jars for storing produce grown at and/or brought to the site. Given this location, the monotonous assemblage cannot be attributed to Nahal Tut being an isolated site.

101

Rather, it seems that the limited range of goods reflects that Nahal Tut was meant to serve a very specific set of functions. The garrison was perhaps not settled permanently enough to acquire a broader range of goods even if they had wished to. The assemblage of goods used by the guards stationed at Mizpe Yammim is similarly basic, suggesting that some garrisons were truly hardship postings, or that the tastes of the people manning them were provincial.

PERSIAN PERIOD KEDESH IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT

When Kedesh is considered vis à vis the Levantine and Cypriote sites described above it is apparent that despite the size and ostentation of the PHAB, and by extension the prominence of its staff, their range of ceramic goods has more in common with inland sites both near and far including Gezer, Lachish, Shechem, Anafa, and Hazor than with the cosmopolitan cities of the coast.

The overwhelming majority of the storage and transport vessels at Kedesh were produced nearby in the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley. Of the Persian period transport jars found at the site, 2214 were locally produced jars and only 191 arrived from the coast or overseas (see

Fig. 2.12). The preponderance of local transport vessels constitutes strong evidence that in the

Persian period the PHAB collected, and perhaps redistributed, great quantities of agricultural produce and bulk commodities from its fertile environs. The small number of imported jars probably contained goods for the personal use of the staff of the PHAB. Utility vessels were also mostly acquired locally from potters in the Hula Valley with the exception of some mortaria with rolled rims from the coast and pale porous basins from the Aegean.

The cooking assemblage at Kedesh attests to regular contact with the coast during the

Persian period, perhaps intensifying as the period progressed. It is likely that early in the Persian

102 period cooking pots with thick grooved rims were brought from the Golan or Chorazim plateau, and by the end of the period most of the cooking pots brought to the site were in the sandy cooking ware produced at Akko on the coast. Despite the acquisition of cooking vessels from the coast, no casseroles for preparing Greek-style cuisine were used at Kedesh in the Persian period, unlike Dor and Kition. The Persian period staff of the PHAB and residents of Kedesh were apparently unfamiliar with or uninterested with Greek-style meals prepared in casseroles, much like the people living at inland sites such as Gezer, Shechem, Anafa, and Hazor. Cooking vessels and toilet vessels are the only functional groups supplied almost exclusively from non-local sources. In the case of cooking vessels, this is probably a reflection of the availability of, and a preference for, specialized products. Trade networks stretching more than a day or two’s journey from the site were secure and regular enough to supply a whole category of household equipment. It could even be the case that potters of the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley rarely made cooking vessels themselves, since supply from the Chorazim plateau early in the

Persian period or the coast later in the Persian period was so reliable.

The assemblage of table and service vessels at Kedesh, like the transport, storage, and utility vessels, points to a strong reliance on local sources for goods, despite a regular connection with the coast. Most table and service vessels were locally produced in the Hula Valley (see Fig.

2.13). Only a few of the table and service vessels at Kedesh were produced on the coast. Attic vessels occur more regularly than coastal table vessels, but unlike coastal cities like Dor and

Kition in eastern Cyprus, a limited range of shapes occurs with any regularity, primarily small bowls for food that are functional equivalents of the small, local bowls with plain rims that occurred in great abundance at Kedesh. Plates for serving food to groups are rare in comparison to coastal sites, and it is possible that mortaria/bowls with rolled rims (also mostly local) and

103

pale porous basins (or metal vessels) were used for serving food to groups of people instead.

Several Attic drinking vessels (45) are also attested at Kedesh, but not enough to suggest regular

sympotic behavior like that of coastal cities, especially given the scarcity of serving vessels such as kraters and table amphoras (see Fig. 2.14). By contrast with the table and service vessels from the site, most of the few toilet vessels found at Kedesh did arrive from the coast in the form of juglets in Phoenician SF and Attic lekythoi. All of the other inland sites discussed here received such vessels from the coast as well. This is probably an indication that in the Persian period the production of luxury perfumes in the Levant was practiced principally at or near coastal urban centers.

In short, Kedesh was connected to the coast in the Persian period, but received most of its commodities (with the exception of perfumes) and ceramic goods (with the exception of cooking vessels) from local sources as was typical of all the other inland sites surveyed here. Proximity alone probably does not explain this, since the staff of the PHAB were probably people of some importance and means. It may be that regular access on the coast to fine imported ceramic goods

(principally east Greek and Attic) and foreign merchants and travelers made ceramic tablewares seem a natural medium through which to express style in much the same way that regular contact doubtlessly encouraged the adoption of Greek-style cuisine. In inland areas, where such familiarity could not develop so easily, assemblages were dominated by forms of local derivation or that emulated Mesopotamian models that had been introduced during the Assyrian period.

Despite the presence of some vessels in a Near Eastern tradition, there is no ceramic evidence for

the practice of Near Eastern style feasts or drinking parties such as the marzeah.497 It is certainly possible that metal vessels were used for entertaining and were not left behind at the PHAB. The probable infrequency of travel inland by Greek travelers would have limited exposure to western

497 Clifford 1990.

104

practices like the symposium at places like Kedesh. Simply put, the people who operated the

PHAB in the Persian period did not come to appreciate foreign goods or practices that they did

not often encounter.

The southern Levantine coast faced emphatically westward in the Persian period,

especially from the late 5th century on. The relative conservatism of the ceramic assemblages at the PHAB at Kedesh and at the Lachish residency, both important sites located just 30-40 km inland, shows that the frontier between the Persian period west and east lies just inland in the southern Levant. It also suggests that the trappings of Greek culture so popular on the coast were not considered essential for signaling good taste or elite status throughout the entire Persian

Empire. Other sites with an official function, like the fortress at Nahal Tut, exhibit an even more monotonous assemblage of household goods used in a less elborate architectural setting. This may stem from a less permanent habitation for most of its residents. It could also indicate that they were poorer and/or less sophisticated than the staff of the PHAB at Kedesh or the people living at or operating the so-called residency at Lachish.

“HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY” AT PERSIAN PERIOD KEDESH

If we consider the relative quantities of vessels suited for different tasks in the Persian period at

Kedesh, the large sample of Persian period pottery allows us to determine what priority was put

on different sorts of activities (see Fig. 2.15). It is then possible to get a sense of how the

operation of the PHAB compared with rhythms of life at other sites in the southern Levant.

There are 390 locally produced transport and storage jars of Persian date in Persian loci

(accounting for 60% of fragmentary vessels) and 4213 fragmentary jars possibly used at Kedesh

in the Persian period in all loci (65% of fragmentary potential Persian vessels). As I have

105

mentioned above (see pages 53-57, above), since some Persian period storage and transport jar

forms remained in use in the 3rd century, some of the latter do not represent Persian period

activity, but the sample from Persian loci alone shows that transport and storage vessels made up

a large proportion of the assemblage. As mentioned above, most of the transport jars were local,

representing a very ample supply of local produce or commodities such as wine or oil to the

PHAB in the Persian period (see Figs. 2.12; 2.15). Together, the great number of local storage

and transport vessels attest to a concentration of local produce and commodities, surely more

than that required by the staff of the building for personal needs. It is likely then that the PHAB

acted as a sort of depot for caravans or redistributive center in the Persian period. The coastal and

imported jars and amphoras that occur in much smaller numbers at Kedesh (there are only 16

(2%) coastal jars in Persian loci and 194 Persian period (3%) coastal or imported jars in all loci)

may represent “luxuries” indulged in by the staff of the PHAB.

Utility, cooking, and table vessels make up approximately the same proportion of the

Persian period assemblage at Kedesh. Sixty-six utility vessels were found in Persian loci (10%)

and 536 in all loci (8%) (see Fig. 2.15). Sixty-eight cooking vessels were found in Persian loci

(11%) and 712 (11%) in all loci, although many of the latter were neckless cooking pots with

triangular rims, a form that continued to be used in the 3rd century. Eighty-six table vessels are attested in Persian loci (13%) and 716 in all loci (11%). Relatively few service vessels are represented in Persian loci (18, 3%) or at the site (121, 2%), and it is possible that some of the jugs and/or mortaria/bowls grouped with the utility vessels were used for serving food and/or drink at the table. There are only three (<1%) Persian period toilet vessels in Persian loci and 39

(1%) at Kedesh as a whole.

106

Summary

The relative quantities of vessels suited for different tasks at Kedesh shows a distinct emphasis

on the collection and storage of local produce and commodities in the Persian period,

underscoring the function of the PHAB as an administrative center. There is no ceramic evidence

for frequent elaborate entertainments, and indeed the “balance” in the assemblage (aside from the

abundance of jars) suggests that many common household activities like washing and preparing

meals were conducted in the PHAB, even if it was not used as a residence. Such equipment

would be good to have at hand for the reception of guests, which would have required that the

PHAB (and its visitors and staff) be clean and provided with drinking water, and at least basic

meals. If the PHAB was staffed with gaurds and record keepers, they may have eaten in or near

the building as well. It is possible that more elaborate entertainments occurred elsewhere at

Kedesh, perhaps at the houses of the administrators, if they did not live in the PHAB. Personal

luxuries such as perfumes were perhaps rare, though non-ceramic containers may have held

them. The staff of the PHAB was supplied with pottery from local and regional sources, and received a modest quantity of imported Attic finewares, conveyed to the site from the coast.

Although the Persian period PHAB was a very elaborate building, the pottery selected and used

by its staff was largely practical and provincial according to the ceramic record.

“HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY” AT PERSIAN KEDESH, ANAFA, AND NAHAL TUT

Unfortunately, there are few other Persian period sites in the vicinity of Kedesh with which it is

possible make a quantified comparison of assemblages. The closest available sites are Anafa,

where the small quantity of material and complete disturbance of Persian period deposits made it

impossible to recognize a full range of Persian period vessels, and the fortress Nahal Tut, near

107

Dor, where vessels were left in near primary deposition when the site was destroyed. A major

drawback of the relatively undisturbed nature of Nahal Tut is that if the fortress were divided

into areas of discrete use, we would expect vessels serving specific functions to cluster in rooms

that they were used in. Since only one wing of the fortress was excavated, it is possible that

vessels that are underrepresented amongst the excavated remains were concentrated elsewhere in

the fortress. Indeed some rooms at Nahal Tut contain almost nothing but storage jars,498 while

others held vessels for general household utility, cooking, and table use and held no jars.499 Some

rooms contained a mixture of domestic equipment and jars.500 Despite these problems, it is worthwhile to compare the assemblage from Kedesh with the remains from a small farmstead or village in the Hula Valley and a large storage fortress at the edge of the coastal plain.

Kedesh (67%) and Nahal Tut (52%) both had a high proportion of transport and storage jars made from local and regional wares in the Persian period, attesting to the function each site had in concentrating local goods (see Fig. 2.16). At Anafa, by contrast, only one Persian period jar could be recognized. There surely were some more at the site, but the fact that they were too few and too fragmentary to be identified by the excavators suggests that they were nowhere near as abundant as they had been at Nahal Tut and Kedesh. Utility vessels made up a higher proportion of the Nahal Tut assemblage (17%) than the Kedesh (8%) assemblage. Cooking vessels are represented in similar proportions at Nahal Tut (13%) and Kedesh (11%). However, table and service vessels are more common at Kedesh (11% and 2%, respectively), than at Nahal

Tut (3% and 0%, respectively) perhaps attesting to the more permanent nature of the PHAB and the more refined tastes of its staff. Table and service vessels (including some Attic imports) are also more common at Anafa than at Nahal Tut. There are almost as many Attic table vessels at

498 E.g., Alexandre 2006, 159-160, fig. 50. 499 E.g., Alexandre 2006, 157-158, fig. 48. 500 E.g., Alexandre 2006, 162-163, fig. 53.

108

Anafa as at Kedesh, but without knowing the total size of the assemblage at Anafa it is difficult to make a meaningful comparison between Kedesh and Anafa. Toilet vessels make up a very small proportion of the Kedesh and Nahal Tut assemblages, and are better represented at Anafa.

This may indicate that more people lived at Anafa, or that they acquired perfumes from the coast more often that the people at Kedesh, who may also have also received perfumes in vessels of stone or other materials.

Summary

Kedesh and Nahal Tut, unlike Anafa, have evidence for the storage of large amounts of produce and commodities, suggesting (along with their architectural configuration) that both sites had an official function. The staff of the PHAB seem to have been established at Kedesh more permanently than the garrison and staff of Nahal Tut and had equipped themselves to drink and dine in more style than the residents of Nahal Tut. However, as the discussion of regional assemblages shows, the residents of all three of these sites did not receive the full range of imports or indulge in foreign foods and modes of entertaining that people living in coastal cities did. It is clear that despite the unification of the coastal and inland Levant under the Persian

Empire, there were major differences in the lifestyles lived on the coast and the interior. There do not seem to have been significant differences in the functional range of goods at inland sites or in the market routes that they were connected to. Although they were politically well-connected administrators who were possibly Phoenicians from the coast themselves, the people who made up the staff of the PHAB were content with the same sort of pottery as residents of ordinary inland settlements like Gezer, Shechem, and nearby Hazor and Anafa. If we can assume that the residents of Kedesh and staff of the PHAB were of some means and had a privileged status, then

109 it would seem that household goods like pottery were not necessarily used to express wealth and privilege in the Persian period Levant.

PERSIAN PERIOD SUMMARY

The size and plan of the PHAB, and the great quantity of jars found within it, attest to its function as a palatial administrative center where local produce and commodities were concentrated. It also drew heavily on the surrounding region for ceramic goods such as utility and table vessels. They were thoroughly integrated into local market networks. The staff of the

PHAB received coastal goods at least on occasion as well, and were supplied with almost all of their cooking vessels from the coast by the 4th century, if not sooner. Taken alone, their assemblage of cooking vessels, which consisted entirely of globular cooking pots from the

Chorazim plateau and later the coast, suggests a monotonous diet of soups and gruels. It is likely that foods such as meat were prepared using another method for which we have no ceramic evidence, such as grilling and/or that major meals were eaten elsewhere at the site. Tables in the

PHAB were set almost exclusively with bowls, and there are no plates and few dedicated ceramic drinking or service vessels of any sort. Imports from outside the region were limited to a few Attic and Atticizing table vessels that principally consisted of small bowls that could function in just the same manner as locally produced bowls. In other words, the presence of these particular Attic and Atticizing table vessels does not suggest a desire to emulate the dining or drinking practices of Greece (or the Levantine coast, for that matter). The administrators/residents of the PHAB in the Persian period were satisfied with the ceramic equipment available locally and seem to have done little over the course of 150 years to expand to adopt or adapt Aegean modes of cooking, drinking, and dining. In this, they were markedly

110 different from the residents of the coast just 40 km to the west who had access to foreign goods and practices and adopted them readily.

CHAPTER 3-THE 3RD CENTURY CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

PTOLEMAIC RULE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

The Ptolemies did not immediately follow the Persians as the rulers of the southern Levant, but

they were in charge of the region when the dust settled after the wars of the successors (323-

301), and their grip was only made firm during the reign of Ptolemy II (283-246) who founded or

refounded several cities in the region. We have a relative wealth of written evidence for the

period in the form of fragmentary accounts of the Syrian wars501 and the Zenon papyri found in

Egypt, which record the itinerary of Zenon, an assistant of the Ptolemaic official Apollodorus in

the region.502 Archaeological evidence for the 3rd century has proven to be frustratingly elusive.

This is no doubt in part because of difficulties in recognizing material and strata of 3rd century

date.503 There are no broadly attested, well dated, historical horizons like the conquest of

Alexander in the 4th century or the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids in the middle of the

2nd century that might constitute “fixed points.” The only synthetic publication to date treating

Levantine pottery of the Hellenistic period, Paul Lapp’s Palestinian Ceramic Chronology,

200B.C.-70A.D.,504 left out the 3rd century. Since there was no equivalent handbook that incorporated 3rd century material, and there is no equivalent class of readily datable import to the

Attic pottery of the Persian period in the 3rd century Levant, much pottery that was likely produced in the 3rd century has either been assumed to date to the 4th or 2nd centuries on the basis

501 For an overview see Grainger (2010). 502 These documents have been published and commented on by Edgar (1925; 1926; 1928; 1931); Westermann and Hasenoehrl (1934); Westermann, Keyes, and Liebesny (1940); Tcherikover and Fuks (1957); and Durand (1997). 503 Smith 1990, 124-125. 504 P. Lapp 1961. 112

of formal similarities to published pottery. This evidential problem is similar to that of the period

of Babylonian rule.

Thus, although we know much about the official policies of the Ptolemaic kings in the

region, and have some very specific accounts of economic transactions in the Zenon papyri, the

humble archaeological evidence best suited to assessing the impact that Ptolemaic rule had on

people’s everyday lives is in short supply.

Ptolemaic administration of both its Egyptian and foreign held territory is generally

thought to have been more tightly controlled than either their Achaemenid predecessors or their

Seleucid contemporaries and (in the southern Levant) successors.505 They adhered to a system of

land tenure that was traditional in Egypt, referred to as “King’s Land,” which meant that all land

that did not belong to priests belonged to the Pharaoh.506 In practice this was rather impractical

both within Ptolemaic Egypt itself and in Ptolemaic holdings outside of it, because the close

management of so much land would require a bureaucracy and communication network of

overwhelming size and complexity. Instead, the Ptolemaic kings granted the usufruct of land to a

variety of individuals and entities to manage on behalf of the king.507 The best known example of

such a “grantee” from the southern Levant is Ptolemaios, possibly a strategos of Coele-Syria

whose correspondence with Antiochus III (r. 222-187) about the status of his estates after the

Seleucid conquest is recorded on an inscription found at Hefzibah near Beth Shean-

Scythopolis.508 This evidence shows that the Ptolemies granted estates to maintain the loyalty of important people.509

505 For discussion see Rostovzeff (1937, 340-404). 506 Diod. 18.43.1 (Geer 1947, 132-133); Arav 1989, 124-125; Avi-Yonah 2002, 33; Bagnall 1976, 227; Cohen 2006, 32-33; Errington 2008, 149-150; Freyne 1980, 28-29; Holbl 2001, 28-29, 61; Smith 1990, 124; Tcherikover 1959, 13; Turner 1984, 135, 153. 507 Freyne 1980, 156-159; Tcherikover 1937, 30-31. 508 Landau 1966. 509 For discussion see Tcherikover (1937) and Rostovzeff (1937, 344-345).

113

Instead of delegating a single powerful official (the equivalent of a Persian satrap) to

administer the region,510 the Ptolemaic kings ruled their Levantine territory directly from

Alexandria, where a supervisor (referred to as a dioiketes) was in charge of the revenues of Syria and Phoenicia.511 In the interests of maintaining more direct control, they broke up the region

into smaller, more easily managed administrative units than the Persian provinces, and

incrementally removed local dynasties from roles of power in the coastal cities.512 These

administrative units were referred to as hyparchies, and were equivalent to the nomes of Egypt

itself. The hyparchies formed by the Ptolemies in the southern Levant were probably the Galilee,

constituting the land to the west of Sea of Galilee stretching north to Tyre (but probably not

including the coastal plain), Samaria in the northern Central Hills, Judaea constituting the

southern central Hills, Idumea, and perhaps Dor centered along the coast to the south of the

Carmel (see Fig. 1.2).513 It is likely that coastal cities were given some degree of autonomy. As such, the Ptolemaic hyparchies were not actually dramatically different in scale or distribution from the Persian or Neo-Assyrian subdivisions of the southern Levant.514

Each hyparchy had a number of officials, an arrangement that served to

compartmentalize administration and limit the power of ambitious individuals.515 Their governors (hyparchs) were royally appointed as were local financial ministers (oikonomoi), both of whom were under the authority of the dioiketes in Alexandria.516 Officials from Egypt were sent out from time to time to inspect the royal estates in the region, and the journey of Zenon in the Transjordan and Galilee (including Kedesh) may have been just such a tour of royal

510 Tcherikover 1937, 38-39. 511 Bagnall 1976, 228; Berlin 1997b, 4-5; Grainger 1991, 66; Tcherikover 1959, 12-13. 512 Grainger 1991, 58. 513 Since the “borders” of these hyparchies cannot be reconstructed precisely, I have referred only to their general extent. 514 Avi-Yonah 2002, 35-39. 515 Bagnall 1976, 246. 516 Avi-Yonah 2002, 34; Holbl 2001, 60.

114

estates.517 Taxation, mostly in the form of produce collected in kind, was assisted by tax farmers

(telonai) who were charged with filling quotas fixed by the dioiketes and could keep any surplus collected as a profit.518 Most of the officials we know about from the Ptolemaic period were royal appointees, which suggests that they would be Greeks or Macedonians, and in any case not necessarily local. However, locals were clearly given some role within the system, especially at the lower levels.519 The appointment of locals like the Tobiads of Ammanitis, a prominent

Judean family, as tax farmers, shows that the Ptolemies may have recognized the utility of

putting a local face on certain aspects of administration in the region, and especially its more

burdensome manifestations, such as taxation.

There is scant archaeological evidence for the infrastructure of Ptolemaic administration

in the southern Levant. The excavators of Tel Michal identified a 3rd century fortress that they

associated with the Ptolemaic central authority.520 Unfortunately the pottery found in association

was a mixture of 3rd and 2nd century material. The core of the fortress consists of a series of rooms (presumably for storage) grouped around a central court.521 In form it is similar to the

fortresses constructed in the region in the Persian period. The PHAB at Kedesh also remained in

use in the 3rd century, presumably as an administrative center or perhaps the central building of a royal estate or an estate granted by the Ptolemies to some favorite, as its inclusion on the itinerary of Zenon suggests.522 The reference on another papyrus in the Zenon archive to a large consignment of grain at the Kedesh523 and the great quantity of 3rd century storage and transport

517 Durand 1997, 55-72 (P. Cairo Zen. I 59.004); Edgar 1925, 7-10 (P. Cairo Zen. I 59.004); Tcherikover 1937, 48. 518 Bagnall 1976, 20-21; Errington 2008, 158; Freyne 1980, 184; Holbl 2001, 62; Tcherikover 1959, 13-14. Josephus (Ant. 12.154-185) relates the story of the Tobiads, who were given rights to underwrite the taxes for the entire province of Syria. They presumably commissioned their own subcontractors. 519 Chancey 2005, 29-30; Tcherikover 1937, 49-51. 520 Herzog 1989b, 173. 521 Herzog 1989b, 166-167, figs. 12.1-2. 522 See Tcherikover (1937, 48). 523 Durand 1997, 102-105 (P. L. Bat. 20, 32); Skeat 1974, 11-12 (Papyrus 1931).

115

vessels at the site suggest the regular collection and/or redistribution of produce and

commodities, activities appropriate both for a royal estate or an administrative center. In point of

fact, since the chief function of Ptolemaic “estates” was to collect goods for the king, it may be

that there was no functional distinction made at the time between a royal estate and an

administrative district meant to provide the royal house with goods and produce.

While there is not an abundance of epigraphic evidence dating to the 3rd century from the

southern Levant, the Hefzibah inscription mentioned above records correspondence between

Ptolemaios, the erstwhile Ptolemaic governor of the region and the Seleucid king Antiochus III

between 202-198.524 In addition to promising to limit disturbance of Ptolemaios’ estate by

Seleucid troops Antiochus affirmed (or reaffirmed) Ptolemaios’ power to structure economic affairs on his estate as he saw fit. I will discuss this correspondence in connection with the

Seleucid conquest below (see pages 183-185, below), but that Ptolemaios willingly defected to

Antiochus III, and that he felt he could ask for concessions in these letters, suggests that there may have been widespread dissatisfaction with Ptolemaic rule in the region.

The southern Levant produced a variety of goods that the Ptolemies coveted due to their scarcity in Egypt, such as oil, wine, timber, honey, slaves, and textiles dyed with murex, all in addition to grain, of which there was no shortage in Egypt.525 Many of these goods may have

been produced at royal estates interspersed at well-connected locales, such as the Shephelah, the

Jezreel Valley, and the Hula Valley.526 Additional products were transshipped to the coastal strip from the interior, most prominently incense from Arabia via the Jezreel Valley and possibly across the Negev to the southern Shephelah (see Fig. 1.2).527 Access to local produce and

524 Landau 1966. 525 Arav 1989, 124; Freyne 1980, 171-172; Tcherikover 1937, 16-24. 526 Avi-Yonah 2002, 37; Berlin 1997b, 13. 527 Cohen 2006, 33.

116

specialty goods would ensure a supply of materials necessary for the Ptolemaic court, armies,

and fleet.528

The Ptolemies utilized a set of economic policies designed to maximize the royal profit derived from transactions both within the Ptolemaic realm and beyond its borders.529 One of the

mechanisms for doing this was the adoption under Ptolemy I (305-285) of a unified standard of

currency distinct from the Attic standard that was in use throughout the eastern Mediterranean.530

It was also stipulated that only coins on the Ptolemaic standard from official Ptolemaic mints could be used within the Ptolemaic kingdom.531 Indeed, almost all coins of 3rd century date found in Israel are Ptolemaic coins issued on the Ptolemaic standard,532 indicating that this policy was

far reaching. As a result, merchants wishing to trade at ports in the Ptolemaic realm for the grain

of Egypt and the oil and wine of the Levant and Cyprus would need to exchange their foreign

currency in order to conduct transactions. The Ptolemies were apparently not absolutely insistent

that local standards correspond to changes introduced in Alexandria during the course of their

rule. When the standard at Alexandria was adjusted in the reign of Ptolemy III (c. 246-221), the

standards of the Phoenician mints did not change, suggesting that the authorities in Alexandria

took no pains to establish a standard between the two regions.533

The Zenon papyri indicate that the Ptolemies imposed substantial import/export tariffs on a variety of goods.534 The refounding of Akko as Akko-Ptolemais near the northwestern outlet of the Jezreel Valley by Ptolemy II Philadelphus in c. 261535 may have been intended to establish a

trading center where taxable goods would be regularly exchanged under the eyes of Ptolemaic

528 Cohen 2006, 32; Freyne 1980, 30; Holbl 2001, 61-62; Turner 1984, 133-134. 529 See Bagnall (1976, 224-229) for a summary. 530 Bagnall 1976, 176-177. 531 Bagnall 1976, 240. 532 Bagnall 1976, 182-183. 533 Lorber 2008, 20. 534 Berlin 1997c, 4; Bickerman 1988, 75-76; Freyne 1980, 171; Tcherikover 1937. 535 Cohen 2006, 213; Freyne 1980, 30, 105.

117

officials. Ptolemy II also founded Nysa-Scythopolis at the site of Beth Shean and Philoteira at

Beth Yerah, both positioned near the junction of the Jezreel valley that ran inland from Akko-

Ptolemais on the coast and the Jordan Valley, the only continuous inland route from southern

Palestine to Syria. The foundation of these cities in conjunction with Ptolemaic patronage of

Akko-Ptolemais may indicate that Ptolemy II took action to promote communication and

commerce in strategic zones in order to increase royal revenues through taxation.536

Archaeological evidence suggests that goods were regularly exchanged between Akko-Ptolemais

and the Ptolemaic foundations in the Jezreel Valley.537

Greek, and locally produced Greek-style, material culture continued to appear in the

southern Levant while it was under Ptolemaic rule, although it was not widespread. At Oumm el-

Amed, a Phoenician sanctuary south of Tyre, a Doric and Ionic portico was built with a

dedicatory inscription dating it to 222.538 The portico was erected in a sanctuary probably dedicated to a local Phoenician god, Milk’Astarte, and featured sculpture and architecture in

Levantine and Egyptian style in addition to Greek style, suggesting that the deployment of foreign art in traditional contexts continued from the Persian into the Hellenistic period at least at some sites on the coast. In the 3rd century ceramic imports from Athens all but ceased, as they

did throughout most of the eastern Mediterranean. But as I discuss below, coastal sites such as

Akko-Ptolemais and Dor received Aegean and Cypriote imports with some regularity, and Greek

style table and cooking vessels produced locally are the norm. Up until now there has been little

available archaeological evidence for how Ptolemaic rule did or did not influence people’s

lifestyles or cultural orientation. In this regard, the remains from Kedesh are very illuminating.

536 Freyne 1980, 108-109, 113. 537 Berlin 1997c, 13. 538 Dunand and Duru 1962; Nitschke 2007, 177-178.

118

THE 3RD CENTURY PHAB

If the PHAB was abandoned at the end of the Persian period, there is no indication that it was

done under any sort of duress. A coin of Alexander the Great (334-323) found at the site may

indicate use soon after his conquest.539 There is ceramic evidence for Hellenistic occupation of the PHAB as early as c. 300. Attic and Atticizing vessels of late 4th and 3rd century date include three spool saltcellars of the last quarter of the 4th century and perhaps the very beginning of the

3rd, two Attic skyphoi dated to the first quarter of the 3rd century, three Attic kantharoi datable from 290-260, and four Atticizing outturned rim bowls dated to the turn of or first quarter of the

3rd century. Several Ptolemaic coins have been recovered as well, including three of Ptolemy I (c.

305-285, one from within the PHAB, and two from the partially excavated house to the west of

the PHAB), nine dating broadly to the reign of Ptolemy II (285-246, two from within the PHAB,

six from the house to the west, and one from the surface of the tel), two coins of Ptolemy II dated

more narrowly to 274-261, one coin of Ptolemy III (246-221), and four unidentified Ptolemaic

coins dated from 300-200 (two from within the PHAB and two from the house to the west).

Interestingly, there is no notable concentration of 3rd century pottery from the house to the west of the PHAB, so the relatively large proportion of 3rd century coins from these trenches is a

mystery. No 3rd century coins from non-Ptolemaic mints are attested at Kedesh. Two stamped

Rhodian amphora handles (one from the house to the west of the PHAB and one from the step

trench in the saddle of the tel) dating to 236 and 235 have also been found.540 The preponderance

of coins dated to the reign of Ptolemy II (11 out of 18 3rd century coins) may indicate increased activity at the site during the reign of Ptolemy II. There is no evidence that the Ptolemaic

539 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 22, table 1. 540 I thank Donald Ariel of the IAA for sharing information on the coins and stamped amphora handles from Kedesh.

119

occupation ended before the Seleucid conquest of the region, and continuities in the ceramic

assemblage provide further evidence that there was not a break between the 3rd and 2nd centuries.

As I noted in the introduction, because the PHAB was built in the Persian period, and

used and heavily remodeled in the early to mid 2nd century under the Seleucids, it is impossible

to articulate a precise plan for the 3rd century PHAB. The quantity of coins found around the site

and the presence of datable 3rd century pottery all over the site, in conjunction with three sealed

floors dating to the 3rd century found in the PHAB, indicate that the entire building remained in use in the 3rd century (see Fig. 1.8). As such, it would have been the largest and most prominent building in its immediate environs. Combined with the reference in the Zenon papyri to a disbursement of flour at the site, this evidence suggests that the PHAB was reused in some official capacity, perhaps even as the center of a Ptolemaic royal estate.

As with the plan of the PHAB in the 3rd century, identifying the components of the 3rd century ceramic assemblage at Kedesh has been very challenging. The stratigraphic record and published comparanda do make it possible to identify and describe the range of household ceramic equipment used in the 3rd century. There are no Persian period primary deposits from the

end of the Persian period occupation that can be easily distinguished from the earliest 3rd century

material. Likewise, because the PHAB continued to be used without interruption in the 2nd

century, there are no primary or very good secondary deposits of 3rd century material. We are dependent instead on artifacts in stratified sequence that can act as a framework for identifying

3rd century remains at the site. Loci with pottery and other materials that need not date later than

the 3rd century and that do not overlie loci with material that is later or later features have been

found throughout the PHAB. These loci have been assigned to the earliest Hellenistic phase,

referred to as phase Hell 1, and the range of Hellenistic wares and forms represented in Hell 1

120

loci form the baseline for assigning vessels to the 3rd century. In addition, regional publications

of 3rd century pottery from well-studied sites in the southern Levant (primarily Tel Anafa, Akko-

Ptolemais, and Dor) furnish comparative evidence for the shapes and wares that were used

nearby in the 3rd century. Given the regional variability of Hellenistic pottery, I have limited myself to sites quite close to Kedesh. Although the stratigraphic evidence from Kedesh and comparative evidence from other sites make it possible to piece together a 3rd century assemblage from the site, it does not allow any further chronological division within the century.

Some forms that are absent at Tel Anafa in deposits associated with the early Hellenistic occupation of the site (referred to as phase Hell 1a, c. 300-250),541 but present in loci laid down

between the early and late Hellenistic occupation there (phase Hell 1b, c. 250-125) and in Hell 1

loci at Kedesh may have been introduced in the second half of the 3rd century. But since the total quantity of 3rd century material is so much smaller at Anafa, it cannot be assumed that forms that

do not appear until phase Hell 1b there did not occur at Kedesh earlier. At Akko-Ptolemais and

Dor, like Kedesh, there is not fine enough stratigraphic resolution to differentiate between forms

and wares used earlier and later in the 3rd century.

The bulk of the pottery used at Kedesh in the 3rd century occurs as secondary or tertiary debris in mixed fills of later date. But it is difficult to determine accurate total quantities of 3rd century vessels from the site because some Persian period wares and forms continued to be produced in the 3rd century, and some of the forms and wares used in the 3rd century were

brought to Kedesh for some portion of the 2nd century as well. Forms and wares that first appeared in the Persian period that were not superseded functionally by new vessels in Hell 1 loci are considered likely to have continued in use during the 3rd century. Close attention has also

541 For the occupation phases at Anafa see Herbert (1997, vi). For the relationship of ceramic material to the occupation phases see Berlin (1997a, 16-36).

121

been paid to the stratigraphic representation of vessels: regularly occuring forms and wares that

appear in roughly the same or a greater proportion of vessel fragments in Hell 1 loci compared to

Persian loci are also considered likely to have continued in use during the 3rd century.542 Forms and wares that first appear in Hell 1 loci and had obvious functional replacements and/or that declined substantially as a proportion of vessel fragments in Hell 2 loci are considered Hell 1 exclusives. Conversely, Hell 1 forms and wares that definitely occur in quantity in 2nd century contexts at other sites in the southern Levant and/or those that continued to make up a large proportion (i.e., roughly as great a proportion as in Hell 1 loci) of the recovered pottery in Hell 2 loci are considered likely to have remained in use into the 2nd century because broken pots were still entering the stratigraphic record. We can be fairly certain that most of the 3rd century forms and wares that continued to be used in the 2nd century had largely or completely gone out of use by the middle of the 2nd century since they do not occur amongst the reconstructable vessels left behind when the PHAB was abandoned in 143 (phase Hell 2b). Accordingly, I have noted whether reconstructable examples of Hell 1 shapes in Hell 1 wares occur in the Hell 2b abandonment. Despite the difficulty in determining precise numbers of 3rd century vessels, the

3rd century material recovered from Kedesh forms a large and coherent body of evidence that can

be used to draw general conclusions about the market connections and lifestyle of the residents

of Kedesh and staff of the PHAB.

In the rest of this chapter I describe and quantify the ceramic wares and forms used at

Kedesh in the 3rd century. I discuss contemporary assemblages in the eastern Mediterranean and compare the makeup of the Kedesh assemblage with them. I compare the assemblage used by the

3rd century staff of the PHAB with their Persian period predecessors. I also compare the functional makeup of the assemblage from the 3rd century PHAB with the nearby village or

542 For a similar approach towards defining ceramic phases see Berlin (2005, 31-32).

122

farmstead at Anafa. These comparisons are meant to show how Kedesh was linked to trade

networks in the eastern Mediterranean and the local market routes of the eastern Upper Galilee

and Hula Valley, how day-to-day operation of the 3rd century PHAB compares to the Persian period PHAB, and how the lifestyle of Kedesh’s residents and the PHAB’s staff compares to the population of a small nearby settlement.

3RD CENTURY WARES

Eight different wares were brought to Kedesh in the 3rd century: red-brown gritty ware, coarse

orange ware, spatter painted ware, sandy cooking ware, Phoenician SF, central coastal fine ware,

Attic/Atticizing tablewares, and Cypriote tablewares (see Table 3.1). Only two of these wares

(central coastal fine ware and Cypriote tablewares) appear for the first time in Hell 1 loci, the rest

were already attested in Persian loci at the site, although spatter painted ware was attested in

such small quantites in Persian loci that it is first described in this chapter. As in the Persian

period, most of the wares used at the PHAB during the 3rd century came from either the eastern

Upper Galilee/Hula Valley fabric region or the central Levantine coast fabric region. Imports

from further afield were rare; those that did arrive at the site came principally from Cyprus. In

this section I will discuss wares beginning with those originating in the vicinity of Kedesh and

moving outward to regional products and more exotic imports.

Local Wares of the Eastern Upper Galilee/Hula Valley Fabric Region: Red-brown gritty ware, Coarse Orange Ware, Spatter Painted Ware

White ware is the only local ware that went entirely out of use after the Persian period. The other

three local wares of the Persian period: red-brown gritty ware, coarse orange ware, and spatter

painted ware, were all still used in the 3rd century. No new local wares occur at Kedesh, attesting

123

to a degree of continuity in local industries and market routes from the Persian to Hellenistic

period. Red-brown gritty ware and coarse orange ware, the most common Persian period wares,

continued in use at Kedesh in the 3rd century. Red-brown gritty ware decreases only slightly as a proportion of known wares by weight in Hell 1 loci, and it first declines substantially as a proportion of identified sherd weight in Hell 2 loci signaling that red-brown gritty ware had probably gone out of use at Kedesh by the end of the 3rd century (see Table 3.2 for Hell 1 ware weights).543 Coarse orange ware also declined slightly as a proportion of identified pottery in

Hell 1 loci, but it actually increased as a percentage of the total in Hell 2 loci, indicating that coarse orange ware was used at Kedesh until the end of the 3rd century and perhaps into the early

2nd. As in the Persian period, red-brown gritty ware and coarse orange ware were used to produce jars in the 3rd century almost exclusively.

Spatter painted ware was first identified by Saul Weinberg at Anafa, and has been

described by Andrea Berlin in her publication of the coarse wares at that site.544 Spatter painted

ware is a moderately hard, extremely coarse fabric with a high frequency of inclusions, most of

which are angular and medium to large in size, and white, brown, gray, or red in color. The color

of both fabric and slip is highly variable, probably because firing conditions were not closely

controlled. Unslipped surfaces are fired anywhere from purplish brown (2.5YR 4/4, 5YR 5/6) to

pink (10R 8/4), orange (2.5YR 6/8), or pale yellow (10YR 8/4). There is often a wide gray core

(2.5/5YR 4/1-6/1). Spatter painted ware gets its name from the thick, sloppily applied slip that

ranges in color from red-brown (10R 5/1, 2.5YR 4/4, 5YR 4/4) to pink (2.5YR 6/6) and partially

coats many vessels in this ware. The very limited geographic distribution of spatter painted ware

543 The relative decrease in red-brown gritty ware weight is key to understanding its span of use at Kedesh. Red- brown gritty does continue to make up a significant portion of the ware weight from all loci, but this is due to its use over at least two centuries for very large jars that occur in abundance at the site, rather than its continued production and use. 544 Berlin 1997a, 7-8.

124

and the results of petrographic testing show that it was produced in the Hula Valley.545 Spatter painted ware is already attested in Persian loci at Kedesh, but is far better represented in Hell 1 and later loci (Table 3.2) and was used for a broader range of shapes. Whereas in the Persian period spatter painted ware was only used to produce mortaria, in the 3rd century mortaria, utility

jugs, cooking pots, bowls for use at the table, and kraters for service of drink all appeared.

Spatter painted ware was an all-purpose ware in the Hellenistic period with vessels serving

almost all basic household functions appearing in it. The hardness of the ware and its ability to

hold a slip well make spatter painted ware a sensible option for producing vessels serving a

variety of functions, even if many did not look as nice or function quite as well as specialty

vessels produced elsewhere.

Regional Wares of the Central Levantine Coast Fabric Region: Sandy Cooking Ware, Phoenician SF, Central Coastal Fine Ware

Three wares from the central Levantine coast fabric region were used at Kedesh in the 3rd century: sandy cooking ware, Phoenician SF, and central coastal fine ware. Sandy cooking ware and Phoenician SF were both attested in the Persian phase at Kedesh and continued to arrive regularly at the site in the 3rd century and later. Central coastal fine ware is the only new ware

from the central Levantine fabric region attested in the 3rd century. Sandy cooking ware makes

up approximately the same proportion of identified wares in Hell 1 loci as it had in Persian loci,

and increased further in Hell 2 loci (Table 3.2), attesting to its continued use. Phoenician SF

increased slightly as a proportion of sherd weight in Hell 1 loci, and even further in Hell 2 loci.

Almost all cooking vessels attested in Hell 1 loci at Kedesh, and attributable to the 3rd century,

545 Berlin 1997a, 9.

125

occur in sandy cooking ware. As in the Persian period, transport and service vessels in

Phoenician SF were used at Kedesh in the 3rd century, as well as very few toilet vessels.

A new and very abundant ware in the 3rd century was central coastal fine ware. Central

coastal fine ware is a soft and very granular, moderately well-levigated fabric with occasional

small to medium rounded white inclusions. It is generally fully fired a pale pink brown color

(5YR 6/8-7.5YR 8/3), and vessels are partially coated with a matte orange-red slip (10R 4/6-

2.5YR 5/8). Petrographic testing has shown that vessels in this ware were produced at Akko-

Ptolemais and Tyre.546 Central coastal fine ware is the principal fabric represented for 3rd century table vessels and continued to be brought to the site at least early in the 2nd century.

Imported Wares: Attic/Atticizing Tableware, Cypriote Tablewares

The only 3rd century imported wares that have been recognized at Kedesh are Attic/Atticizing tablewares and Cypriote tablewares. Attic and Atticizing vessels of late 4th and early 3rd century date have been recovered at Kedesh but are attested in very small quantity, and none derive from

Hell 1 loci. Bowls, spool saltcellars, skyphoi, kantharoi, and plates are the shapes represented.

The acquisition of Attic and Atticizing pottery by the residents of Kedesh had largely ceased by the middle of the 3rd century.

The most common imports that can be assigned to the 3rd century at Kedesh are two

Cypriote wares. These wares are identifiable as Cypriote due to their abundance on the island547 and their frequent appearance at central and southern Levantine coastal sites548 despite being

made of clays that do not correspond to the geology of the southern Levant. Their precise place

546 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 547 For discussion of Hellenistic Cypriote finewares see Berlin and Pilacinski (2005, 202-203); Burkhalter (1987, 354-356); Hayes (1991, 26-29); Salles (ed., 1993, 167-168, 175-177). 548 E.g., Akko-Ptolemais (Berlin and Stone forthcoming); Dor (Barak Monnickendam-Givon, personal communication, November 2009).

126

of origin on Cyprus remains somewhat a mystery, in part because good descriptions of fabric and

quantities of vessels in different wares are not available from most sites on the island, making it

difficult to isolate sites that have a great preponderance of any given ware. The most common of

these wares at Kedesh is gray-brown Cypriote fabric. This is a very hard, compact fabric with a

fine texture but frequent angular yellowish white inclusions. It is fully fired to a ruddy gray-

brown color (2.5/5YR 5/4-6/3) with a thick, well adhered, semi lustrous dark gray-brown or

purple slip (2.5/5YR 4/3). Vessels in fabrics that match this description are particularly common

in southern Cyprus, from Kition to Paphos, perhaps indicating they were a southern Cypriote

product.549 The other Cypriote ware, represented in smaller quantities, is similarly hard and

compact with well adhered slip, but is a paler pink-brown color (2.5YR 6/6) with slip ranging

from red (10R 4/4-2.5YR 4/8) to black in color. Petrographic testing suggests that this ware

originated in northeastern Cyprus,550 and comparanda published from Nicosia supports this suggestion.551 As such, it will be referred to here as northeast Cypriote fineware. Bowls, saucers, and skyphoi occur in both of these wares.

3RD CENTURY SHAPES AND FORMS

One thousand one hundred and twenty-four diagnostic vessel fragments were identified in Hell 1

loci. Of these, 230 fragments (20%) are of forms that were introduced in the 3rd century. In

addition, there are 424 fragments of forms (mostly jars and cooking pots) that may span both the

Persian period and the 3rd century. It is possible that many of these fragments are of residual

549 For Kition see Salles (1993a, 167-168, 176); for Amathus see Burkhalter (1987, 155); for Kourion see Connelly (1983, 278-279, fig. 6: 3-4); for Paphos see Hayes (1991, 26). This ware does not correspond to the description of the porous local fabric of the Larnaka area given by Salles, and thus seems more likely to be a product of south central or western Cyprus. John Hayes (1991, 26) describes it as the “standard early Hellenistic ware” of Paphos. 550 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 551 Berlin and Pilacinski 2005, 202-203.

127

Persian period vessels. Nonetheless, the potential total of fragmentary 3rd century vessels in Hell

1 loci is 654, accounting for 58% of the diagnostic vessel fragments in Hell 1 loci (see Table

3.3). Four hundred and seventy fragments of unknown form, and thus date, were also found in

Hell 1 loci. We can add 21 fragments of datable imported vessels from later strata to the total of

3rd century vessels found in Hell 1. Many vessels of forms and in wares that were present already

in Hell 1 loci and thus can possibly be attributed to the 3rd century have been recovered

residually in later loci as well.

Transport and Storage Vessels

The forms of locally produced jars found in Hell 1 loci are identical to those found in Persian

loci (see pages 54-57, above; Figs. 2.1; 2.3: 1-4), indicating that local potters continued to

manufacture most of the same forms in the 3rd century: holemouth jars, holemouth jars with thickened rims, and/or torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims.552 Because these jars

were used in both the Persian period and the 3rd century, it is impossible to say how many examples of them found in later loci were used at Kedesh in either period. Their sheer abundance on the site (and in loci of both phases) makes it safe to suppose that they were brought to the site regularly throughout both periods. Four hundred and sixty-one of the 505 fragmentary holemouth jars in Hell 1 or later loci occur in red-brown gritty ware and another 32 in coarse orange ware while 13 occur in unknown fabrics. Six hundred and sixty-five of 1245 holemouth jars with thickened rims in Hell 1 or later loci are in red-brown gritty ware, 531 in coarse orange ware, and 42 in unknown fabrics; 907 of 1918 jars with narrow necks and thickened rims are in red-brown gritty ware, 925 are in coarse orange ware, and 42 are in unknown fabrics.

552 It is conceivable that jars with high necks continued to be brought to the site as well, but given their small total quantity at Kedesh and the dramatic dropoff in their attestation in Hell 1 loci, this possibility seems remote.

128

Comparanda for these jars in 3rd century contexts are scarce. Jars (of uncertain precise form) in

coarse orange ware have been attributed to phase Hell 1a (c. 300-250) at Anafa553 and jars of similar form to holemouth jars with thickened rims are attested in 3rd century strata at Shechem,

though these are in a local ware that is different from the red-brown gritty ware and coarse

orange ware at Kedesh.554

The continued use of one or more of these jar forms during the 3rd century may help explain their ubiquity at Kedesh. Torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims are the most numerous vessels on the site overall, and holemouth jars with thickened rims are the third most common vessel identified.555 Altogether 4046 examples of torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims, holemouth jars, and holemouth jars with thickened rims have been recovered, accounting for 20% of the vessels identified at Kedesh. The percentage of all three of these jar forms declines substantially by stratigraphic phase only after Hell 1 (see Fig. 2.2). All three forms reach a low plateau in Hell 2 loci, where they remain in subsequent phases, suggesting that they became residual in that phase. A new form of storage jar that appears in Hell

2 loci (see pages 203-205, below) is the likely functional replacement.

Unlike the potters of the Upper Galilee, potters on the coast produced a different form of jar in the 3rd century than they had made in the Persian period. Phoenician SF baggy jars first

appear at Kedesh in Hell 1 loci (Fig. 3.1). These jars are medium sized, averaging about 50 cm in

height. They have a uniform, sack like overall shape terminating in a stubby toe, with a

thickened or slightly everted rim measuring 8-12 cm in diameter, and twisted handles attached

553 Berlin 1997a, 155, pls. 56, 87: PW478-479. 554E.g., N. Lapp 2008, 226, pl. 3.2:1-5. 555 Jars with narrow necks and thickened rims probably occur in greater numbers because they were obviously meant for transporting goods rather than merely storing them, as the holemouth jars and holemouth jars with thickened rims were.

129

just below the shoulder.556 They are suited for transporting liquid goods since their size would make them manageable when filled with liquid. Phoenician SF baggy jars were the functional successors of Persian period Phoenician SF and central coastal plain ware shouldered torpedo jars produced on the coast, and were also probably used for shipping oil or wine. Seven examples occur in Hell 1 loci out of 207 attested in all phases at Kedesh. Third and early 2nd century baggy

jars are more likely to be shouldered than examples of mid 2nd century or later date, as examples

found in 3rd century contexts at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor attest.557 But because few examples

from later loci at Kedesh are well enough preserved to tell if they are shouldered, it is impossible

to determine how many of the jars from later fills were brought to the site in the 3rd century.

The only imported jars to appear in the 3rd century at Kedesh are Rhodian amphoras.

These are limited to one example found within the building in a Hell 1 locus, and two stamped

handles from outside the PHAB found in later contexts. As with baggy jars, if only a small

fragment of rim or handle is preserved it is impossible to determine the date of Rhodian

amphoras on typological grounds, meaning that we cannot tell how many of the Rhodian

amphoras deposited in later fills were used at the site in the 3rd century. But given that only two

out of the 62 Rhodian stamps found at Kedesh are 3rd century, it seems safe to assume that most unstamped fragments also came from 2nd century amphoras. As such, it is clear that Rhodian wine was not regularly consumed at the PHAB in the 3rd century, even though Rhodian amphoras occurred in quantity at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor on the coast.558 Indeed, it seems that

wine and oil from the coast or further afield were as rare an indulgence in the 3rd century as they had been in the Persian period, if not more so (see Fig. 3.2). This fact may in part account for the

556 For discussion see Berlin 1997a, 155-156, pl. 57: PW481-483. 557 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.3: 2-6); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.38: 1-4). 558 For Akko-Ptolemais see Finkielsztejn (forthcoming); for Dor see Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, 202-203).

130

ubiquity of locally produced torpedo jars with narrow neck and thickened rim, which were

suitable for transporting wine or oil.

Utility Vessels

Four forms of utility vessels were brought to and used at Kedesh in the 3rd century: mortaria with

narrow rounded rims and mortaria with extended rims for grinding, and jugs with squared rims

and jars or jugs with ledge rims and ridged necks for fetching and carrying water. The principal

wares in which utility vessels occur shifted from red-brown gritty ware and white ware used in

the Persian period to spatter painted ware in the 3rd century.

Mortaria with narrow rounded rims (Fig. 3.3: 1) first appeared in the Persian period and remained in use in the 3rd century. At Anafa, mortaria with narrow rounded rims were assigned to phase Hell 1a, dating to the first half of the 3rd century, indicating that the form was used

nearby in the early Hellenistic period.559 At Kedesh, one example, in spatter painted ware, out of

the 67 found at the site was recovered in a Hell 1 locus, and 58 occur in later loci as Persian and

3rd century residuals.

Mortaria with narrow rounded rims were joined or replaced at some point in the 3rd

century by mortaria with extended rims (Fig. 4.9: 1). These are broad, moderately deep bowls

with flat bases and extended rims. At Anafa mortaria with extended rims are attested as early as

phase Hell 1a (c. 250-125), and the form continued in use there in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).560

A mortarium with extended rim in an unknown fabric is also attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a 3rd

century context.561 Only one example of the form, in hard mortarium fabric, out of 63 examples at Kedesh, has been recovered from a Hell 1 locus. Their use at Anafa in the 2nd century, and the

559 Berlin 1997a, 128-129, pl. 39: PW 358. 560 Berlin 1997a, 129, pl. 39: PW 360-364. 561 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.2: 15.

131

presence of a reconstructable example at Kedesh in the Hell 2b abandonment, confirms that

mortaria with extended rims continued in use well into the 2nd century. The evidence from Anafa

and Kedesh suggests that they were introduced rather late in the 3rd century. Only seven other

mortaria with extended rims are attested in hard mortarium fabric at Kedesh. Fifty-four examples

are attested in spatter painted ware and two in unidentified fabrics. It is possible that some of the

spatter painted ware examples were brought to Kedesh in the 3rd century as well, as the ware is already present at the site in Hell 1 loci.

Fetching and perhaps storing water was served by jugs with squared rims and jugs with ledge rims and ridged necks. Jugs with squared rims have somewhat elongated globular bodies and broad necks terminating in thickened squared rims (Figs. 3.3: 2; 4.10: 1). A broad strap handle, often with a central ridge, is attached at the rim and the shoulder. They measure 34-40 cm in height have a diameter of 11-13 cm at the rim. No 3rd century parallels for these jugs are

attested in the southern Levant. Three examples of jugs with squared rims in spatter painted ware

have been recovered from Hell 1 loci out of 159 spatter painted ware examples from Kedesh.

The small proportion of the total found in Hell 1 loci, and the presence of two reconstructable

examples in Hell 2b loci from the mid 2nd century abandonment of the building indicates that spatter painted ware jugs with squared rims continued to be brought to Kedesh and used for quite some time in the 2nd century, like mortaria with extended rims. Another jug or jar form probably

meant for fetching and storing water is spatter jars/jugs with ledge rims and ridged necks. No

complete examples are preserved at Kedesh, but the rim diameter of around 12-13 cm suggests

they were of a similar size to the jugs with squared rims discussed above. The closest

comparanda for these jugs come from Anafa, where they first appear in phase Hell 1 (no

132

subphase), dated from 300-125.562 At Anafa they are published as jars. However, since examples at neither Anafa nor Kedesh have both handles preserved, this remains conjecture. Their size and shape, well suited to pouring, suggest that they were utility (or even service) rather than storage vessels, whatever their handle configuration was. Only 10 examples of this form are attested at

Kedesh, and they first appear in Hell 2 loci, so it is possible that they were not used yet in the 3rd century. But given their small total number they were also clearly not a regular component of the early to mid 2nd century assemblage. I include them amongst the Hell 1 vessels because of the parallel from Anafa.

Cooking Vessels

Several varieties of deep, globular cooking pots for preparing soups and gruels were used at

Kedesh in the 3rd century: neckless cooking pots with triangular rims and necked cooking pots with pointed, concave, and flattened rims. Casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls and with angled rims and rounded walls were used as well. Almost all 3rd century cooking vessels found at

Kedesh were produced in sandy cooking ware from Akko-Ptolemais.

Neckless cooking pots with triangular rims (Fig. 3.4: 1), of the sort used in the Persian

period remained in use for at least part of the 3rd century, as they did at Anafa in the Hula

Valley563 and Akko-Ptolemais and Dor on the coast.564 At Kedesh 51 examples occurred in Hell

1 loci out of 473 total examples of the form recovered. Like the local jars discussed above,

neckless cooking pots with triangular rims make up a substantial proportion of the vessels

recovered in both Persian and Hell 1 loci (4% and 5% respectively), and first substantially

562 Berlin 1997a, 153, fig. 38. 563 Berlin 1997a, 87-88, pls. 20, 77: PW178-183 564 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.5: 2); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.18: 4-5, 8).

133

decrease as a proportion of recovered vessels in Hell 2, when they drop to 2%, the percentage in

which they occur in all subsequent phases (with the exception of Hell 2b) (see Fig. 2.6). Thus, it

seems that in Hell 2 and later loci, neckless cooking pots with triangular rims in sandy cooking

ware merely occur as Persian and 3rd century residuals.

The majority of the neckless cooking pots with triangular rims recovered at Kedesh (and in Hell 1 loci specifically) occur in sandy cooking ware. Two examples in Hell 1 loci occur in

Aegean cooking ware. These are most likely residual Persian period imports, as an Aegean example is attested already in a Persian locus. A spatter painted ware pot is also attested in a Hell

1 locus, indicating that potters in the Hula Valley began to produce this form sometime in the 3rd

century, an observation confirmed by the appearance of spatter neckless cooking pots in phase

Hell 1a (c. 300-250) at Tel Anafa.565 However, given that there are 59 total spatter painted ware examples at Kedesh, it is possible that the form continued to be produced in spatter painted ware in the 2nd century after it was superseded in sandy cooking ware by other forms of cooking pots.

The absence of spatter painted ware neckless cooking pots with triangular rims in Persian loci

suggests that in the 3rd century potters in the Hula Valley began making a form based upon the earlier sandy cooking ware template.

Three forms of globular cooking pots with their necks formed and attached separately, rather than simply being drawn up from the body, were introduced in the 3rd century: necked cooking pots with pointed, concave, and flattened rims. The typological differences that separate them do not obviously suit these different forms to different modes of food preparation, and catalogued examples of all forms range from 12-17 cm in diameter at the rim and measure from

15-22 cm in height. It seems then that the typological differences simply represent the idiosyncracies of different potters or workshops. It could also be that they represent subtle

565 Berlin 1997a, 87-88, pl. 20: PW179, 181, 183.

134

changes in how cooking pots were made over time, but if so, there is no way to tell at present.

Lids that correspond to the typical size range of these pots are scarce at Kedesh, so it seems that

they were not used with lids in cooking ware. It is possible that some of 3rd century saucer forms

described below were used as lids for cooking pots from time to time.

The most numerous of these necked cooking pots both in Hell 1 loci, and at Kedesh as a

whole, are necked cooking pots with pointed rims (Fig. 3.4: 2). Necked cooking pots with

pointed rims are attested in stratum Hell 1b at Anafa, dated to c. 250-125.566 Although they were not certainly present at Anafa in the 3rd century, several examples of necked cooking pots with

pointed rims are attested in 3rd century contexts at Dor.567 Out of 427 examples of this form at

Kedesh there are 16 in Hell 1 loci, all in sandy cooking ware. Of the pots found in subsequent

loci, 246 are also in sandy cooking ware, 39 are in spatter painted ware, two are in unknown

fabrics, and 124 are in gritty cooking ware, which is not attested at the site beneath Hell 2 loci

(see 169-170, below). Since only 16 of 262 sandy cooking ware examples occur in Hell 1 loci, it

seems that they continued to be used at Kedesh in the 2nd century. It is also possible that spatter painted ware examples arrived at Kedesh already in the 3rd century, bringing the potential 3rd

century total of the form to 303 examples. No reconstructable examples in sandy cooking ware

are attested in the Hell 2b abandonment at Kedesh, but one reconstructable example in spatter is

attested, as are two in gritty cooking ware, indicating that the form at any rate remained in use

until the middle of the 2nd century. Given the absence of necked cooking pots with pointed rims

in stratum Hell 1a at Anafa, and their continued use in the 2nd century at Kedesh, it seems likely that the form was introduced in the region sometime in the second half of the 3rd century.

566 Berlin 1997a, 88-89. 567 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, figs. 6.18: 10; 6.19: 11.

135

Only one necked cooking pot with concave rim (Fig. 3.4: 3), in sandy cooking ware, is

attested in a Hell 1 locus at Kedesh out of 19 sandy cooking ware examples at the site, and 25

total examples. Necked cooking pots with concave rims in sandy cooking ware are particularly

common in 3rd and early 2nd century contexts at Akko-Ptolemais and are attested at Dor as well.568 Likewise, one necked cooking pot with flattened rim is represented in a Hell 1 locus, out of 41 sandy cooking ware examples and 55 total examples of the form at Kedesh. Necked cooking pots with flattened rims first appear in stratum Hell 1b at Anafa (c. 250-125),569 perhaps indicating that these, like the variety with pointed rim, were introduced in the region sometime in the second half of the 3rd century.

Casseroles, broader and shallower than cooking pots, appeared for the first time at

Kedesh in the 3rd century, as did lids associated with them. Since casseroles have a greater diameter at the mouth and are not as deep as cooking pots, they are better suited to preparing recipes requiring large chunks of food, or simmering down to a thicker, stew-like consistency.570

Casseroles first appeared at coastal sites in the Levant in the Persian period.571 None have

certainly been attested at an inland site prior to the 3rd century, and even among sites where

casseroles are attested that definitely have 3rd century material (e.g., Beth Yerah and Samaria),

Kedesh is the only one at which their 3rd century occurrence is a stratigraphic certainty. Two casserole types appear at Kedesh in Hell 1 loci: casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls and casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls. All examples of both types are in sandy cooking ware from Akko-Ptolemais.

568 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.2: 3-4; 3.5: 3, 3.8: 8); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.19: 10, 12-14). 569 Berlin 1997a, 89, pls. 22, 78: PW191-196. 570 For discussion see Berlin 1997a, 94-96; Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 227-228. 571 E.g., Dor (Stern 1995b, fig. 2.4); Michal (Singer-Avitz 1989, fig. 9.2: 5).

136

Casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls (Fig. 3.4: 4) range from 14 to 23 cm in

diameter and from 5-8 cm in height. They are attested in 3rd century contexts at Akko-

Ptolemais.572 Four out of 57 examples of this form at Kedesh were found in Hell 1 loci, and as

with many of the shapes discussed here, they clearly continued to be used in the 2nd century, as reconstructable examples from Hell 2 and Hell 2b loci show. The other casserole type attested in

Hell 1 loci are sandy cooking ware casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls (Fig. 3.4: 6).

These are larger than the casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls, with rim diameter ranging from 21-28 cm. The only nearly complete example from Kedesh (Fig. 4.15: 2) measures just over 10 cm in height, and the fragmentary examples seem likely to have been about the same height. As such, these casseroles are substantially larger on average than the casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls, and it is possible that the two types were meant to prepare different dishes, or simply to make food for greater or smaller groups of people. Casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls are attested in 3rd century contexts at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor.573 One out of 57 examples from Kedesh is attested in a Hell 1 locus, and like the casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls they certainly continued to be used in the 2nd century as a reconstructable example in the Hell 2b abandonment demonstrates.

Lids meant for covering casseroles also made their first appearance at Kedesh in the 3rd century (Fig. 3.4: 5). All the lids in Hell 1 loci are in sandy cooking ware from Akko-Ptolemais and have plain rims that flare slightly and a central knob. Their association with casseroles rather than cooking pots is confirmed by their size, ranging from 20-30 cm in diameter. Identical lids

572 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.2: 8; 3.5: 5. 573 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.2: 5-7); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, figs. 6.20: 9; 6.21: 2).

137

are attested at Akko and Dor in the 3rd century.574 Three of 58 sandy cooking ware lids at Kedesh

were found in Hell 1 loci. These lids must have remained in use in the 2nd century along with the casserole types discussed above. It is a bit perplexing then that there are just over half as many sandy cooking ware lids at the site as the casseroles. It is possible that casseroles broke more often than lids, and were replaced without lids, although this requires that we assume that casseroles were sold without lids, at least on occasion. Since there are few lids that fit the normal size range for the smaller casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls, they may have been principally used for the casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls, with which they occur in almost the same quantity. The smaller and shallower casseroles may have been meant for cooking dishes that did not require a lid, or even baking dishes in an oven. Alternatively, they may have been covered by large saucers (see pages 140-141, below).

Table Vessels

Small bowls with incurved and everted rims and saucers with ledge and folded rims made up most of table assemblage. With the exception of some vessels in spatter painted ware and Attic and Cypriote imports, almost all of the 3rd century table vessels attested at Kedesh occur in central coastal fine ware, produced on the coast at Akko-Ptolemais and/or Tyre. This represents a change from the supply of the Persian period, when most table vessels were produced locally and were supplemented by Attic and Atticizing imports.

Regionally produced bowls with incurved rims, ring feet, and a partial slip coating made their first appearance at Kedesh in the 3rd century (Fig. 3.5: 1-2). These bowls range in rim

diameter from 8-12 cm, and measure 3.4-5 cm in height. Their shape and size is suitable for the

574 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.5: 4); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.24: 5-7).

138

consumption of individual servings of the soups or gruels prepared in the various deep cooking

pots used at the site in the 3rd century. Bowls with incurved rims were common throughout the eastern Mediterranean in the 3rd century, although the most reliable regional comparanda for

dating purposes are attested in 3rd century contexts at Tel Anafa,575 Akko-Ptolemais,576 and

Dor.577 Fifty-seven bowls with incurved rims occur in Hell 1 loci out of 1574 found at Kedesh;

51 in central coastal fine ware, three in spatter painted ware, one reconstructable example in

northeast Cypriote tableware (Fig. 3.5: 3), and two in unknown fabrics. In addition, some of the

82 bowls with incurved rims in gray-brown Cypriote fabric found in later strata may have been

imported in the 3rd century. Bowls with incurved rims in this ware are very common in 3rd century deposits at Akko-Ptolemais,578 Dor,579 and possibly Beth Yerah-Philoteira.580 If we

exclude bowls in wares that did not occur yet in Hell 1 loci, there are 1146 examples that could

have been used at Kedesh in the 3rd century. The Hell 1 bowls account for 5% of the examples of the form on the site that occur in 3rd century wares. Bowls with incurved rims in all of the wares attested in Hell 1 loci increased as a proportion of total vessels in Hell 2 loci (9%) before declining in Hell 2b loci (6%). It seems then that although many 3rd century bowls with incurved rims occur residually in later strata, bowls in central coastal fine ware and spatter painted ware continued to be used in the 2nd century. A reconstructable example in central coastal fine ware

and two in spatter painted ware are attested in Hell 2b loci. Since spatter painted ware bowls

increase greatly in number in Hell 2 and especially Hell 2b loci, it seems likely that they were

still being brought to Kedesh in the mid 2nd century. Central coastal fine ware bowls with

575 Berlin 1997a, 74, fig. 26. 576 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.4: 5; 3.6: 8. 577 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.1: 7, 11-12. 578 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.4: 4; 3.6: 6, 7; 3.8: 5. 579 Barak Monnickendam-Givon, personal communication, January 2010. 580 Oren Tal, personal communication, December 2009.

139

incurved rims, by contrast, declined precipitously in number in Hell 2b loci, suggesting that the

reconstructable example was just an old bowl that had remained in use.

Bowls with everted rims (Fig. 3.5: 4) also appeared regularly throughout the eastern

Mediterranean, and like bowls with incurved rims are attested in the 3rd century at Tel Anafa,581

Akko-Ptolemais,582 and Dor.583 Bowls with everted rims are less common at Kedesh than bowls with incurved rims. Two out of 155 examples from Kedesh are in Hell 1 loci, one in central coastal fine ware, and one in a fabric from the Aegean or western Asia Minor. Another Atticizing example dating to the 3rd century has been recovered from a Medieval-Modern locus. It is possible that some of the examples found in later contexts in spatter painted ware, gray-brown

Cypriote fabric, and unknown fabrics were brought to the PHAB in the 3rd century as well, since

these wares are all already present in Hell 1 loci. As with several of the forms discussed above,

many bowls with everted rims occurred in wares that are unattested prior to Hell 2 (e.g., northern

coastal fine ware, the black slipped predecessor of eastern sigillata A; see pages 196-198,

below), and thus were definitely not used at the building in the 3rd century. If we exclude bowls in these wares and fabrics, there is a total of 91 bowls with everted rims in wares and fabrics that were used in the 3rd century, although many of these too are likely to be associated with phase

Hell 2. Indeed, a reconstructable spatter painted ware example has been found in the Hell 2b abandonment of the site.

Saucers with ledge rims range from 12-18 cm in diameter, and 3-4 cm in height (Fig. 3.5:

5-8). Most examples have very small “fishplate” depressions in their central floor. These saucers are of appropriate shape and size for individual servings of soups and gruels. They would have been suited for the thicker dishes prepared in casseroles and solid food such as grapes, nuts,

581 Berlin 1997a, 74-75, fig. 26. 582 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.1:1; 3.4:3; 3.6:9-10. 583 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.2:10, 12, 14-15.

140

cheese, or grilled meat. Saucers with ledge rims are not attested at Anafa, but they are abundant

at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of 3rd century date584 and Dor in a context of 3rd and early 2nd

century date.585 Saucers with ledge rims are the most common table vessels in Hell 1 loci at

Kedesh. Eighty-nine examples are attested, all in central coastal fine ware. There are 989

examples from all phases, nine in wares that are not attested as early as Hell 1, 956 in central

coastal fine ware, five in unknown fabric, 16 in gray-brown Cypriote fabric (e.g., Fig. 3.5: 7),

and two in northeast Cypriote fabric. It is quite likely that some of the gray brown and northeast

Cypriote vessels were used at Kedesh in the 3rd century. Like the bowls with incurved rims discussed above, Cypriote imports of this form occur in the 3rd century at Akko-Ptolemais, Dor,

and possibly Beth Yerah-Philoteira.586 Given the quantity in which saucers with ledge rims occur in subsequent loci at Kedesh, it seems likely that they, like many 3rd century shapes, remained in

use early in the 2nd century. The absence of complete or reconstructable examples of them in

Hell 2b abandonment loci indicates that they had gone out of use by the middle of the 2nd century.

Saucers with folded rims also first appeared at Kedesh in Hell 1 loci (Fig. 3.5: 9). These saucers are comparable in size to the saucers with ledge rims, measuring 13-19 cm in diameter, and 2.8-4.2 cm in height. The folded rims and (usually) flat bases of these saucers may have suited them for use as a lid for cooking pots or casseroles in addition to being used as a saucer for individual servings of food of a liquid or solid consistency. Indeed, as mentioned above, there are not enough lids in sandy cooking ware for the casseroles found at Kedesh. Saucers with

584 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 2; 3.4: 6; 3.6: 5. 585 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.3: 27. 586 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 4; 3.8: 1); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (fig. 6.3: 22 (probably Cypriote, not labeled as such); (Barak Monnikendam-Givon, personal communication, November 2009); for Bet Yerah-Philoteira see Ben-Nahum and Getzov (2006, fig. 5.8: 9).

141

folded rims are attested in 3rd century contexts at Akko-Ptolemais587 and Dor.588 All 30 examples

in Hell 1 loci, and the vast majority, 637 of the 647 saucers at Kedesh, occur in central coastal

fine ware. There are only two examples in spatter painted ware, seven in Phoenician SF, and one

in an unknown fabric. Like most of the table shapes discussed here, saucers with folded rims

continued to be used in the first half of the 2nd century, as their ubiquity in Hell 2 loci, and the presence of a reconstructable example in the Hell 2b deposits associated with the abandonment of the building, demonstrate.

If we consider together the stratigraphic representation of the three principal central coastal fine ware table shapes that occur at Kedesh (bowls with incurved rims, saucers with ledge rims, and saucers with folded rims, Fig. 3.6) it is clear that they were used primarily in the 3rd

and early 2nd century. After peaking as a proportion of vessel fragments in Hell 2 loci, vessels in

central coastal fine ware fall off precipitously in Hell 2b loci (see e.g., Fig. 4.19). Furthermore,

only two of the 19 reconstructable table vessels in the Hell 2b abandonment are in central coastal

fine ware, despite the ubiquity of the ware at the site. When Kedesh was abandoned in 143,

central coastal fine ware had not been brought to the site for quite some time. Likely

replacements for central coastal fine ware vessels are northern Levantine imports such as

northern coastal fine ware and the black slipped predecessor of eastern sigillata A that began to

be brought to Kedesh in the 2nd century. As I will discuss below (see Chapter 4), the replacement of regional products with these imports attests to the expansion of trade between the northern and southern Levant after the Seleucid conquest of the region in the 2nd century. In addition, the greater quantity of spatter painted ware table vessels in Hell 2 and later loci

587 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.4: 10 (in imported fabric). 588 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.4: 4.

142

suggests that spatter painted ware table vessels were brought to and used at Kedesh more

frequently in the 2nd century than they had been in the 3rd.

Skyphoi with vertical handles (Fig. 3.7: 1-2) are the only vessels of 3rd century date

meant specifically for drinking that are represented with any regularity at Kedesh. These skyphoi

consist of simple hemispherical bowls on ring feet with plain or tapered rims, and two vertical

handles attached at or just beneath their rims and at mid body. No complete examples are

preserved at Kedesh, but published examples elsewhere range from 7-12 cm in height, and 10-12

cm in diameter at the rim. Similar skyphoi in local and imported wares are very common at sites

in Cyprus and along the Levantine coast in the 3rd century, especially Akko-Ptolemais and

Dor.589 Two out of 30 examples of skyphoi with vertical handles at Kedesh were found in Hell 1

loci, both in gray-brown Cypriote fabric. Out of this same total from Kedesh, 14 are in gray-

brown Cypriote fabric, six in central coastal fine ware, one in a ware imported from western Asia

Minor or the Aegean, five in unknown fabrics, and four in northern coastal fine ware. The only

other 3rd century drinking vessels recovered at Kedesh are four calyx cups. The only parallel in

the southern Levant for these is a central coastal fine ware example from Akko-Ptolemais in a 3rd century context.590 Of the examples at Kedesh, two are in central coastal fine ware, one is in gray-brown Cypriote fabric, and one is in an unknown imported black slipped ware. One of these calyx cups, in central coastal fine ware, is in a Hell 1 locus, the rest were found in later loci.

Independently datable 3rd century imported tablewares are scarce at Kedesh. Most of those that can be identified as clearly 3rd century are Attic or Atticizing. Included among these are three Attic or Atticizing spool saltcellars of the last quarter of the 4th or very early 3rd century and four Atticizing bowls with outturned rims dated to the early 3rd century, two found in Hell 2

589 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming figs. 3.1: 9; 3.6: 2); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.6: 3-4). 590 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.4: 1.

143

loci and one each in a Hell 3, Roman, and Byzantine-Islamic locus. The only vessels from

Kedesh for serving food at the table that may be 3rd century are two Atticizing rolled rim plates found in a Hell 2 locus and a medieval to modern locus, and dated on the basis of Attic parallels to c. 250-225.591 Two Attic skyphoi dated between 300-275 have been recovered from Medieval- modern loci. Three Attic kantharoi dated between 290-260 have been found; one in a Roman locus, and two in medieval-modern loci. Another body sherd of a west slope Kantharos from the

Aegean or western Asia Minor has been recovered from a Hell 2 locus, but it is not well-enough preserved to determine whether it was made in the 3rd or 2nd century. The scarcity of

independently datable 3rd century imports, like the scarcity of 3rd century stamped amphora

handles, is a strong indication that merchants bearing Mediterranean imports did not visit Kedesh

regularly in the 3rd century.

Service Vessels

The residents of Kedesh used three different vessel forms for serving liquids in the 3rd century:

spatter kraters with thickened rims, cylindrical olpai, and juglets with wide mouths. Most service

vessels occurred in Phoenician SF from the coast, but some examples occur in spatter painted

ware of the Hula Valley.

The only kraters that can certainly be attributed to the 3rd century are medium sized

spatter painted ware column kraters with thickened rims. The rim diameter of the catalogued

examples is 21 and 24 cm, and though no whole profiles are preserved, an example with only a

small break between the foot and wall found in a Hell 2 locus measures approximately 30 cm in

591 Rotroff 1997, fig. 47, pl. 53: 661. Attic dates for Atticizing pottery must be considered rather approximate, since Attic shapes produced elsewhere obviously need not correspond to their chronology in Athens. At the very least it is certain that the advent of regional versions of Attic vessels must at least slightly postdate the introduction of the Attic version. For discussion see Berlin and Lynch 2002, 174.

144

height (Fig. 4.27: 4). Generally similar kraters are attested at Akko-Ptolemais (in Phoenician SF)

and Dor in 3rd century contexts.592 All examples at Kedesh are slipped on the upper half of their

exterior. This surface treatment, in addition to their approximation to fine column kraters,

suggests that they were intended for service rather than household utility. Only one example out

of 20 at the site was found in a Hell 1 locus. Since several well-preserved examples occur in Hell

2 or later loci, they surely continued in use at Kedesh in the 2nd century.

Individual service of liquids would have been accomplished using cylindrical olpai of the

same general form as those of the Persian period (Fig. 3.7: 3) and juglets with wide mouths that

continued to be brought to Kedesh in the 2nd century. Cylindrical olpai continued to be produced in Cyprus and along the Levantine coast in the Hellenistic period.593 Since the overall sample is

small and most examples at Kedesh are extremely fragmentary, it is impossible to make

chronological distinctions on the basis of form. Three of the 54 olpai found at Kedesh occur in

Hell 1 loci.

Of the 48 cylindrical olpai found in post Persian loci at the site, 42 are in Phoenician SF,

three are in central coastal plain ware (likely Persian period residuals), one is in white ware (also

probably a Persian period residual), and one is in an unknown imported fabric (probably

Cypriote). Olpai were apparently even still in use when the PHAB was abandoned in the middle

of the 2nd century, as a reconstructable example from a Hell 2b locus attests. At some point in the

3rd century olpai were joined by Phoenican SF juglets with wide mouths. Their wide mouths and handle would have made them good for dipping and drinking out of kraters or jugs in addition to mixing portions of wine and water. The presence of an example in a Hell 1 locus at Kedesh is the earliest known occurrence, and the form is part of the 2nd century assemblage at Anafa and

592 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.1: 7 (imported); fig. 3.1: 8 (local); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.14: 1-2, 4, 6, 8). 593 E.g., Dor (Guz-Zilberstein fig. 6.28: 1-7); Nicosia (Berlin and Pilacinski 2005, fig. 6: 106-109).

145

Dor.594 It seems that these were used mostly in the 2nd century at Kedesh too (see Fig. 4.31: 3-4), as only one out of 123 examples at the site occurs in a Hell 1 locus, and the rest are in Hell 2 or later loci. Two intact examples occur in Hell 2b abandonment loci at Kedesh, attesting to their use in the middle of the 2nd century at the site.

Toilet Vessels

Few ceramic vessels for perfume, ointments, or medicines can be attributed to the 3rd century assemblage at Kedesh. A single Phoenician SF unguentarium with ledge rim (Fig. 3.7: 4), of a sort attested in phase Hell 1a (c. 300-250) at Anafa,595 and in a 3rd century context at Dor,596 is attested in a Hell 1 locus at Kedesh. It is the only example of the form at the site. Two fusiform unguentaria of uncertain form are attested in Hell 1 loci (Fig. 3.7: 5), as well as one in an imported gray unguentarium fabric. The only other ceramic toilet vessels of 3rd century date attested at the site are Phoenician SF juglets with flanged thickened rims. The narrow necks and slightly cupped rims of these would have made them perfect for storing liquid and dispensing it in a measured manner. One example is attested in a Hell 1 locus at Kedesh, and only four examples of the form are attested at the site, all in Phoenician SF.

Summary

The range of vessels brought to and used regularly at Kedesh in the 3rd century was rather limited

(see Fig. 3.8). As in the Persian period, stockpiling local agricultural produce and commodities

was clearly a priority. Three varieties of jars produced in local wares served most of the transport

and storage needs of the PHAB and were augmented only occasionally by jars that bore

594 For Anafa see Berlin (1997a, 52-53); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.28: 9-12). 595 Berlin 1997a, pl. 12: PW80. For Hellenistic unguentaria see Anderson-Stojanović (1987). 596 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.26: 34.

146

commodities from the coast or further afield. Most utility vessels occurred in spatter painted

ware produced in the Hula Valley and included two varieties each of mortaria and jugs. Much

cooking was done in globular cooking pots produced on the coast with the addition of a few local

spatter painted ware pots. Casseroles for preparing Greek-style dishes were brought to Kedesh

from the coast for the first time in the 3rd century. The table assemblage was constituted almost

entirely of central coastal fine ware bowls and saucers from the coast (see Fig. 3.6) with

occasional spatter painted ware vessels and imports from abroad. Ceramic vessels for serving

liquid formally were scarce at Kedesh in the 3rd century. Very few spatter painted ware kraters

were used along with cylindrical olpai from the coast of the same sort used in the Persian period.

Jugs of an intermediate size clearly meant for service were seemingly absent unless the jugs with

thickened slip banded rims of the Persian period remained in use or some of the 2nd century jug

forms discussed below in Chapter 4 were already introduced. Even if they were though, they are

represented in so few examples at the site (24) compared to 3rd century table vessels, that they cannot have been a standard feature of shared meals. It is also possible that vessels in metal or other materials were used to serve liquid at the PHAB in the 3rd century but if so, there is no

evidence for them at present. The small number of fine cups and dedicated serving vessels

demonstrates how infrequently formal drinking occurred at the PHAB. Likewise, ceramic toilet

vessels were extremely scarce, with only a few unguentaria and juglets from the coast

represented at the site.

The quantity of local jars drawn from the same suppliers as the Persian period suggests

that the PHAB of the 3rd century, whether it was a royal estate or some other sort of

administrative center, collected goods in kind from the Upper Galilee and/or Hula Valley in a

similar manner to the Persian period PHAB. Like their Persian period predecessors the staff of

147

the PHAB in the 3rd century used mostly local utility vessels, although they were now largely

produced in spatter painted ware rather than the white ware of the Persian period. Since there is

no evidence from other sites for the continued production and use of white ware vessels in the

Hula Valley, this indicates a change in the available supply of goods, and not necessarily a

preference on the part of the staff of the PHAB. The use of sandy cooking ware vessels produced

on the coast also demonstrates continuity with the Persian period in regional supply routes.

The reliance on coastal suppliers for table and service vessels in the 3rd century represents

a major change from the Persian period. Most vessels serving these functions in the Persian

period were produced in the white ware of the Hula Valley and were modeled on templates

native to the region (or perhaps Mesopotamia) whereas the central coastal fine ware products

used at the PHAB in the 3rd century were originally inspired by Greek prototypes in terms of shape and surface treatment, like the Attic vessels that appeared regularly but not in great number at Kedesh in the Persian period. As with the utility vessels then, the switch can be attributed partly to changes in local ceramic industries, although it is curious then that more spatter painted ware table vessels were not used at Kedesh, since bowls with incurved and everted rims comparable in style to central coastal fine ware products occurred in the former ware. It seems that the staff of the PHAB preferred coastal products in central coastal fine ware, perhaps because they occurred in a greater range of shapes. I will explore the possibility of a desire for a more complete functional range of table vessels and its possible cultural implications further (see pages 176-179, below) after describing ceramic assemblages from elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean.

COMPARATIVE 3RD CENTURY ASSEMBLAGES

148

In order to put the 3rd century ceramic assemblage from Kedesh into proper economic and cultural perspective, an overview of assemblages at other well published 3rd century sites in the

eastern Mediterranean will be instructive. In order to get a sense of the contrasts within the

broader region, I will describe the ceramic assemblages from sites in the northern Levant

(Tarsus), Cyprus (Kition), on the Levantine coast (Akko-Ptolemais and Dor), and the inland

Levant (Samaria, Shechem, and Tel Anafa) (Figs. 3.9-10). The sites I have chosen are those with

substantial publication of pottery and contexts that are secure or seem to be made up almost

exclusively of 3rd century material, a relatively rare circumstance in the Levant.597 After describing the assemblages from these other sites I will discuss the 3rd century assemblage at

Kedesh in relation to them. This will allow me to elucidate how Kedesh fit into regional trade

networks and how the preferences of the PHAB’s staff compared with those of people living at a

variety of eastern Mediterranean sites.

The Northern Levant: Tarsus

Tarsus is located in the southeast of modern Turkey, near where the Mediterranean coast turns

southward to form the Levantine coast. It was a prosperous city in the Hellenistic period.

Although the excavators claimed to have exposed only the impoverished outskirts of the

Hellenistic and Roman city,598 the early to middle Hellenistic houses uncovered featured

fragmentary pebble mosaic floors and dedicated dining rooms, courtyards, and even a bath.599 As such, the pottery represents the household equipment of people with at least some wherewithal and concern for contemporary trends in décor. Excavations of portions of houses revealed an early Hellenistic phase dating from the late 4th century perhaps to the mid 3rd century and a

597 See Stone (forthcoming). 598 Goldman 1950, 3. 599 Goldman 1950, 5-14.

149

middle Hellenistic phase dating from the mid 3rd century through the first quarter of the 2nd century.

The people of Tarsus regularly consumed imported wine in the 3rd century. At least 28 stamped Rhodian amphora handles dating to the 3rd century have been found, along with 27 more dating to the late 3rd or early 2nd century.600 Very few cooking vessels are published from the site,

so it is difficult to speak with confidence about the range of vessels used.601 Deep globular cooking pots were used in the 3rd century.602 A casserole is attested in a later context,603 as is a

pan in a context of uncertain date.604

The 3rd century table assemblage from Tarsus is much easier to reconstruct. Attic and

Atticizing imports of late 4th and early 3rd century date occurred regularly. The shapes include plates with rolled rims605 and bowls with incurved and outturned rims.606 Bowls with incurved

and everted rims were also produced locally or imported from other sources.607 Many saucers

with grooved or folded rims and fishplates with hanging rims are present at the site, though it is

not clear if they were present yet in the 3rd century.608 Saucers with ledge rims of the sort so abundant at Kedesh and Cypriote and southern Levantine coastal sites in the 3rd century are

conspicuously absent. Perhaps these saucers gained popularity to the south only after the

Ptolemies had consolidated their power, and as a result of limited exchange of goods between the

regions in the 3rd century, they never caught on in the northern Levant. The most common drinking vessels at Tarsus were locally produced skyphoi with vertical handles, a common 3rd

600 Grace 1950, 139-145. 601 Jones 1950, 170. 602 Jones, 1950, 229, fig. 187: 222. 603 Jones 1950, 229, fig. 187: 221. 604 Jones 1950, 226, fig. 184: 194. 605 Jones, 1950, 210, fig. 178: 1. 606 Jones 1950, 210, 214, figs. 178: 3-6; 179: 49. 607 Jones 1950, 213, 214-216, figs. 179: 41; 180. 608 Jones 1950, 212-213.

150

century shape throughout the eastern Mediterranean.609 Skyphoi with vertical handles and west

slope decoration,610 and one with a carinated wall are also present,611 again probably produced

locally. A black glazed krater with thickened rim and west slope decoration is attested as well.612

A variety of other local and imported vessels with west slope decoration, many undoubtedly of

3rd century date, have been recovered from the site.

Tarsus had a varied set of table vessels, and if the publication is representative, pottery

decorated with west slope technique seems to have been more common at Tarsus than the other

eastern Mediterranean sites surveyed here.613 The regular presence of local and imported pottery

decorated in west slope technique, and the absence of saucers with ledge rims is more akin to 3rd

century sites in western Asia Minor and the Aegean, such as Troy, Pergamon, and Mytilene614

than to sites on Cyprus or in the southern Levant.615

Eastern Cyprus: Kition

Kition was settled by Phoenicians in the 13th or 12th century, and continued to be a prosperous

Phoenician port in the Cypro-Classical period (contemporary with the Persian period in the

Levant). J.F. Salles has suggested on the basis of historical and archaeological evidence that the

city declined in prominence under Ptolemaic rule in the 3rd and 2nd centuries.616 However, the

city was the home of a Ptolemaic mint and a contingent of the Ptolemaic navy, suggesting that it

was still an important port. Excavation of possible taverns or ritual dining buildings at Kition

609 Jones 1950, 216-217, fig. 181: 83-85, A-C. 610 Jones 1950, 218, figs. 124, 182: 102, 107, 110. 611 Jones 1950, 218, figs. 124, 182: 96 612 Jones 1950, 221, fig. 128: 141. 613 Jones, 1950, 158-162, figs. 124-128. Despite the relative abundance when compared with other sites Jones (1950, 158) mentions that west slope constitutes an “exceedingly small” percentage of the pottery from Tarsus. 614For Troy see Berlin (1999b); for Pergamon see Schäfer (1968); Mytilene (personal study). 615 See Rotroff (2002) for discussion of the distribution of pottery with west slope decoration in the eastern Mediterranean. 616 Salles 1993b, 29-31.

151

dating to the 3rd century have uncovered several rich deposits of pottery,617 allowing us to

reconstruct the assemblage used by the city’s residents in the 3rd century.

Kition was well supplied with wine shipped in Rhodian and Cypriote amphoras.618

Thasian, Knidian, Koan,619 and Greco-Italic620 amphoras appear, though in smaller numbers, as

do baggy jars, probably in Phoenician SF.621 Both deep globular cooking pots and casseroles are

attested at Kition much as they had been in the Cypro-Classical period.622 These were surely

meant to prepare similar cuisine to their counterparts in the Levant, but their forms are distinct

from Levantine examples.

As in the Cypro-Classical period the people of Kition used a wide array of vessels for the

consumption and service of food. Attic and Atticizing bowls with incurved and outturned rims

were common at Kition early in the 3rd century.623 Small to medium bowls with incurved and everted rims produced on Cyprus appear as well,624 and by the end of the 3rd century they seem

to have entirely supplanted Attic and Atticizing imports. Imported Aegean bowls also appeared

during the 3rd century.625 Small to medium, locally produced saucers with ledge rims and small

fishplate depressions like those attested at Kedesh and Levantine coastal sites appear in

abundance at Kition. Although they were already present at the beginning of the 3rd century,626

they seem to have grown in popularity as the century progressed.627 Less common are saucers

617 Salles and Callot 1993, 105; Gatier 1993, 142-143. 618 Calvet 1993, 62, 73. 619 Calvet 1993, 62, 73-75. 620 Salles 1993c, 196, fig. 208: 304 621 Calvet, 75-76; Salles 1993c, 188 fig. 199: 233 622 Salles 1993c, 192, 199, figs. 203: 270; 210: 327. Salles and Rey 1993, fig. 224: 445-448, 450-456. 623 Salles 1993c, 187, 191, 193-194, 197, figs. 198: 223-224; 202: 260; 205: 278, 209: 310; 226; 228: 466-467. 624 E.g., Salles 1993c, 185-186, 194, 197, 200-201 figs. 196-197: 210-216; 205: 280; 209: 309, 311; 212-213, 216: 342-354; Salles and Rey 1993, 231, figs. 219-220: 394-397, 399, 405-417. 625 Salles and Rey 1993, 231, figs. 219-220: 393, 398. 626 Salles 1993c, 186, 188, 194, figs. 196-197: 217-218; 199, 201: 229-231; 205: 279 627 E.g., Salles 1993c, figs. 211-212: 339-340; Salles and Rey 1993, 251, figs. 217-218: 380-383, 387, 389-392.

152

with folded or grooved rims.628 As with several of the forms discussed here, it seems that these became more abundant toward the end of the 3rd century.629 The principal 3rd century food

service vessels are Attic/Atticizing plates with rolled rims and Attic/Atticizing fishplates with

hanging rims.630

The residents of Kition were also well equipped for drinking. Attic or Atticizing skyphoi and kantharoi of 3rd century date appear regularly.631 West slope kantharoi, possibly from the

Aegean, also appear.632 The most common 3rd century drinking vessels from Kition are skyphoi

with vertical handles, most of which were produced on Cyprus,633 although there are some

imported examples.634 A few calyx cups are attested as well.635 At least one carinated cup with pinched handles is attested in a 3rd century context at the site, either in local Cypriote fabric or

Hayes’ “color coated ware A,” probably from Rhodes.636 This form is most often attested in

contexts of second quarter or later in the 2nd century elsewhere.637 The evidence from Kition,

combined with that from Dor (see 133, below), suggests that carinated cups with pinched handles

may have already been circulating in the eastern Mediterranean in the late 3rd century. Several examples of kraters with thickened rims are attested at Kition.638 Jugs with grooved rims639 and cylindrical olpai are attested as well.640

628 Salles 1993c, 188, 191, 197, figs. 199, 201: 228; 202: 254; 209-210: 316; Salles and Rey 1993, 239, fig. 221: 422-423. 629 E.g., Salles 1993c, 200 fig. 211: 335-338 630 Salles 1993c, 189, fig. 201: 242; Salles and Rey 1993, 229, figs. 217-218: 376; Salles 1993d, 262, fig. 226: 465. 631 Salles 1993c, 197, 199, figs. 209-210: 320; 211: 328; Salles and Rey 1993, 235, 263-264, figs 221: 420; 226: 478, 480-481. 632 Salles 1993c, 191, fig. 202: 250. 633 Salles 1993c, 186, 192, 202, figs. 196-197: 219; 203: 268; 214: 360, 364. 634 Salles 1993c, 196-197, fig. 209: 321 635 Salles 1993c, 201, fig. 212: 355. 636 Salles 1993c, 198, fig. 209: 322. 637 E.g., Hayes, 1991, 23-24. 638 Salles 1993c, 191-192, figs. 202: 252; 203: 266; 208: 303 639 Salles 1993c, figs. 213, 215: 356 640 Salles 1993c, fig. 214: 359, 201-202.

153

The 3rd century residents of Kition were well connected with the Aegean and other sites

on Cyprus and enjoyed a varied cuisine and stylish table settings. It is significant that almost no

vessels from the southern Levant are attested at Kition, a traditionally Phoenician site on the

southeastern end of Cyprus. Despite the presence of Cypriote table vessels in the Levant, none of

the published vessels from Kition correspond to descriptions of central coastal fine ware or sandy

cooking ware, the wares produced in the area around Akko-Ptolemais and/or Tyre, and only one

(probably) Phoenician SF baggy jar is published. Levantine tablewares like central coastal fine

ware are softer and more granular than their Cypriote counterparts, and there would have been

little reason for people on Cyprus to acquire them.

The Southern/Central Levantine Coast: Akko Ptolemais and Dor641

As two of the best natural harbors between Egypt and Tyre, Akko and Dor were both large,

cosmopolitan port cities already before the conquest of the Levant by Alexander the Great. Both

cities were traditionally Phoenician, and in the Persian period Akko was overseen by Tyre and

Dor by Sidon. Both continued to flourish in the Hellenistic period. Akko was even refounded as

Ptolemais during the reign of Ptolemy II (r. 283-246),642 perhaps to act as a coastal outlet for goods that were sent up the Jezreel Valley, the only substantial natural route from the coast to the

Jordan Valley. Fortifications were built,643 and a mint644 was also established at Akko-Ptolemais in the 3rd century, further reflecting the wealth and strategic importance of the city. Indeed, the

Ptolemaic general Theodotus handed Akko-Ptolemais over to the Seleucids during the Fourth

641 Since I have studied pottery from Akko-Ptolemais for publication, I am in a position to make more detailed comments concerning the wares represented than at many of the other sites considered here. 642 Cohen 2006, 213. 643 Dothan 1976, 41. 644 Kadman 1961.

154

Syrian war, between c. 220-217.645 The ceramic assemblages of both sites also underscore their

economic importance and the eclectic tastes of their residents, especially when compared to

some inland sites in the Levant.

At Akko-Ptolemais, excavations beneath the Hospitaller compound have uncovered a

series of rich pottery deposits associated with a peristyle building, probably a lavish residence.646

There is some later intrusion in these deposits (e.g., Roman cooking ware), but aside from such obvious pieces there is nothing that need date later than the 3rd century.647 A small sealed 3rd century deposit has been excavated at the courthouse site as well, where there is evidence for both domestic and industrial use in the 3rd and 2nd centuries.648 The pottery published from Dor

comes from the same areas of housing and shops near the city wall and another section of

housing to the east as the Persian period material already described.649 Most of the material at

Dor comes from stratified fills deposited during the course of continuous occupation of the site.

Phoenician SF baggy jars were common at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor,650 and at Dor

elongated baggy jars with everted rims also appear regularly.651 Both sites received imported

Aegean (and especially Rhodian) amphoras in the 3rd century, as is indicated by substantial quantities of stamped handles.652 Deep, globular, neckless cooking pots with triangular rims653 and necked cooking pots with concave rims are attested at both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in 3rd

645 Polyb. Hist. 5.61.3-8 (Paton 2011, 162-165). 646 Eliezer Stern forthcoming. 647 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, note 3. 648 Hartal forthcoming. 649 Sharon 1995. See Stern (1995b, 38-44) for a summary of the stratigraphy and architecture. 650 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.3: 1-6); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.38: 1-4). 651 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.35: 1-3. 652 For Akko-Ptolemais see Finkielszteijn (forthcoming), for Dor see Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, 202-203). 653 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.5:2); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.18:2-5).

155

century contexts.654 Necked cooking pots with pointed rims appear at Dor in the 3rd century as well.655 Casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls are attested in the 3rd century at Akko-

Ptolemais.656 Casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls are present at both Akko-Ptolemais

and Dor657 as were the lids meant to be used with them. In addition, Aegean baking pans

appeared at both sites in the 3rd century.658 The cooking assemblage indicates that people at these

prominent Levantine coastal sites had a varied diet and a substantial repertoire of recipes

drawing on both local and Greek culinary traditions.

The assemblage of table vessels from Akko-Ptolemais and Dor is also quite varied. At the

beginning of the 3rd century, Attic and Atticizing bowls with incurved and outturned rims continued to be imported at Dor,659 and at least one example of the latter is attested at Akko-

Ptolemais as well.660 Small bowls with incurved661 and everted rims662 and saucers with ledge663

or folded664 rims were the mainstays of the table assemblage at both sites. These bowls and

saucers occur regularly in both local wares of the central (Akko) or southern (Dor) Levantine

coastal fabric region and with some regularity in imported wares from Cyprus and the Aegean.

As at Tarsus and Kition, plates with rolled, thickened, or rilled rims for serving food also appear

654 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.2: 3-4; 3.5: 3; 3.8: 8); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.19: 10, 12-14). 655 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, figs. 6.18: 10; 6.19: 11. 656 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.5: 5. 657 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig 3.2: 5-7); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, figs. 6.20: 9; 6.21: 2). 658 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.2: 10-12); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.23a: 4-69). 659 Marchese 1995, 172. 660 Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.4: 2). 661 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.4: 5; 3.6: 8); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.1: 7, 11-12). 662 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 1; 3.4: 3; 3.6: 9-10); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.2: 10, 12, 14-15). 663 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 2; 3.4: 6; 3.6: 5). For Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.3: 27). 664 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.4: 10 (in imported fabric); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.4: 4).

156

at Akko-Ptolemais in central coastal fine ware665 and in local and imported wares at Dor.666

Local667 and imported fishplates with hanging and flattened rims also occur at Dor.668 Several of the plates with rilled and rolled rims from Dor bear incised and painted west slope decoration, of the sort common in Greece and the Aegean, but relatively rare as one moves further to the east.669

Vessels for drinking and serving were also quite varied at Levantine coastal sites in the

3rd century. The most common 3rd century drinking vessels at both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor are

skyphoi with vertical handles produced in central coastal fine ware (at Akko-Ptolemais), on

Cyprus, or in the Aegean.670 Imported kantharoi from the Aegean, in some instances bearing

west slope decoration, appear at both sites.671 A mastos from western Asia Minor is also attested at Akko-Ptolemais,672 as is a calyx cup in central coastal fine ware.673 As at Kition, carinated cups with pinched handles were already present at Dor in the 3rd century. The description of their ware corresponds to Hayes’ description of color coated ware A, most likely from Rhodes.674

Examples of kraters with thickened rims in Phoenician SF or other local wares675 and in

imported wares from the Aegean or Cyprus are published from Akko-Ptolemais and Dor.676 A krater with ledge rim in northern coastal fine ware, a ware from the northern Levant (see 170-

665 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 5; 3.9: 3. 666 For imports see Rosenthal Heginbottom (1995, figs. 5.9: 11; 5.10: 1, 4). 667 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.8: 1-2. 668 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.3: 1-4, 6, 18. 669 Rotroff 2002, 102. 670 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 9; 3.6: 2; 3.9: 1; 3.27: 8); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.6: 3-4, 6-7). 671 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 10; 3.10: 1; 3.20: 1-2); for Dor see Rosenthal- Heginbottom (1995, fig. 5.8: 6-8). 672 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.6: 3. 673 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.4: 1. 674 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.7: 2-4. 675 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.1: 8); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.14: 4, 6). 676 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.1: 7); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.16b: 1); Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, fig. 5.11: 7).

157

171, below) is also attested from Akko-Ptolemais.677 Jugs with triangular rims and cylindrical olpai for serving liquid occur in Phoenician SF at Akko-Ptolemais, and the same shapes, possibly in Phoenician SF or similar wares, occur at Dor as well.678 Imported jugs with cupped or

grooved rims from Cyprus are attested at both sites;679 a Phoenician SF table amphora with

stepped rim similar to those produced at Pergamon is attested in the 3rd century at Akko-

Ptolemais.680 At Dor cylindrical olpai, often with red slip dribbled on their upper bodies, were

present in the 3rd century.681

Toilet vessels are not very abundant or varied at either site. Short fusiform unguentaria

with ledge or rolled rims are present at both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in the 3rd century.682 It is possible that unguents were conveyed to these sites in vessels made in other materials.

People living at coastal sites just to the west and south of Kedesh used a very similar range of shapes – and in the case of Akko-Ptolemais at least, wares – as the staff of the 3rd century PHAB at Kedesh. Plates and vessels for serving drink were more common, as they seem to have been at Tarsus and Kition as well. The people at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor also had access to imported vessels such as Aegean pans, Cypriote jugs, and Aegean kantharoi that were not used at Kedesh in the 3rd century.

The Northern Central Hills: Samaria

Samaria had an illustrious history as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel prior to the

Assyrian conquest in 722. In the Assyrian and Persian periods it was probably the seat of a local

677 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.6: 11. 678 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 14-15; 3.6: 12) 679 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 13; 3.27: 13); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.29: 1, 2). 680 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.8:6. For Pergamene examples see Schäfer 1968, pls. 17-20: 67-71. 681 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.28: 1, 3, 6-7. 682 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.26: 1-4, 6-7, 34-36.

158

governor.683 Alexander the Great established a military colony of Greco-Macedonian veterans at the site following the Samaritan revolt in 332/1.684 In the Hellenistic period Samaria retained a military function, as the impressive Hellenistic fortifications of the site attest.685 It was also a

prosperous and relatively well-connected city if we are to judge from the published 3rd century

ceramic remains. Eighty-four Ptolemaic coins of late 4th and 3rd century date have been found at

the site.686 Only two of the 3rd century coins at the site originated at mints outside the Ptolemaic realm, demonstrating the success of the Ptolemies’ attempts to control currency standards. In addition to coins, extensive deposits dating to the 3rd and early 2nd century were excavated near the Hellenistic fortification wall (hereafter HFW). Kathleen Kenyon suggested that this material was deposited in the middle of the 2nd century, but the absence of any mold made bowls or other

obviously 2nd century pottery in it suggests that the deposit consisted largely of earlier

material.687 The latest datable items in the HFW deposit are stamped amphora handles dated to the middle of the 2nd century, so nothing in the deposit need date later than c. 150. Given the ubiquity of shapes and forms that conform to those published at the other 3rd century sites in the region, it seems that at least a substantial proportion of the material in the HFW deposit is 3rd century.

Since few local jars and utility vessels were published from Samaria, I will not attempt to give an overview of them, and will focus instead on imported jars/amphoras, cooking vessels, table, and service vessels. Over 70 3rd century stamped Rhodian amphora handles recovered

from Samaria provide the best evidence for how well connected the city was with the

683 J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957, 1-4. 684 For discussion of Samaritan history under the successors and ancient sources for the history of the site see Cohen (2006, 274-277). 685 J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957, 4. 686 Kirkman 1957, 49-51, 65. 687 Kenyon 1957, 217-219.

159

Mediterranean in the 3rd century.688 Hellenistic residents of Samaria used neckless cooking pots

with plain rims689 as well as necked cooking pots with pointed and concave rims.690 Cooking pots with high splayed necks may also have appeared at Samaria in the 3rd century.691 Casseroles

with wavy rims and straight walls as well as larger casseroles with angled rims and rounded

walls are both present in the HFW deposit.692 A pan is attested as well, perhaps indicating that

some of the 3rd century residents of Samaria had a palate of comparable sophistication to people

living on the coast.693

Bowls with incurved rims, both with ring feet694 as at most other sites discussed here and with disk feet695 (a feature rarely seen at coastal or sites to the north of the Central Hills) are both attested in the HFW deposit. Bowls with everted rims are attested as well.696 Saucers with ledge

rims appear697 as do fishplates with hanging rims and plates with rolled or thickened rims.698 The absence of ware descriptions makes it difficult to determine which vessels were imported and which were local. Details of form and the fabric description of certain vessels suggest that they were imported, many probably from Cyprus.699 Imported kraters with ledge rims decorated in the

west slope technique700 and skyphoi with vertical handles of the sort common at coastal and

Cypriote sites also probably appeared at Samaria in the 3rd century.701

688 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 379. 689 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 3-5, 7 690 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 2, 12-13, 18 691 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 6. 692 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 8-10, 14, 19. 693 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 23. 694 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 1-5. 695 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 6-10. 696 Kenyon 1957, fig. 37: 14-16. 697 Kenyon 1957, fig. 37: 5-8, 11-13. 698 Kenyon 1957, fig. 37: 1-4, 9-10. 699 E.g., Kenyon 1957, fig. 37.1, 16; fig. 38: 5. 700 Kenyon 1957, fig. 39: 1. 701 Kenyon 1957, fig. 39: 4.

160

In addition to these vessels found in the HFW deposit, a number of fragments of Attic or

Atticizing vessels of late 4th and 3rd century date and west slope imports have been found at

Samaria. Included amongst these are Attic or Atticizing bowls with incurved and outturned rims,702 and plates with rolled703 and rilled704 rims. Late 4th or 3rd century Attic and Atticizing kantharoi705 are present too. Kraters and kantharoi with west slope decoration, some of probable

3rd century date, have been recovered from Samaria.706 These vessels would have been imported from Cyprus or the Aegean, as there is no evidence for the production of west slope style pottery in the southern Levant in the Hellenistic period.

The 3rd century ceramic assemblage from Samaria is almost as varied as southern

Levantine coastal sites, and the site received Mediterranean imports with some regularity. Its

position, as a northern gateway into the Central Hills from the Jezreel Valley to the north or the

Sharon plain to the west, may have facilitated access to goods. But it is clear that there was

substantial demand on the part of Samaria’s population as well.

The Northern Central Hills: Shechem

In the Hellenistic period, Shechem was a fortified agricultural village of simple, unadorned

houses in the hills just to the south of Samaria, and the site probably provided the people of

Samaria with much of their food. Hellenistic material has been excavated in the vicinity of the

fortifications as well as in several domestic areas of the site.707 No coins datable later than c. 190

have been found in strata IV-III in many areas of the site, providing a good stratigraphic basis for

702 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, figs. 48: 3-4; 49: 1-2. 703 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 51: 1-3. 704 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 47: 1-2. 705 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 46. 706 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, figs. 44-45. 707 N. Lapp 2008, 4, 6-15, table 1.1.

161

assigning remains from these strata to the 3rd century. Unlike their neighbors at Samaria, the

people of Shechem made do with an extremely pedestrian ceramic assemblage in the 3rd century.

No 3rd century amphoras or jars from the coast appear at Shechem. The principal jar form is an elongated baggy jar with a short neck and everted and thickened rim.708 Cooking was done

in neckless cooking pots with triangular or ledge rims.709 Casseroles of the sort seen at all of the sites discussed so far did not appear at Shechem at all, nor do pans. The table assemblage from

Shechem is similarly basic, consisting exclusively of small, unslipped bowls with incurved rim and disk feet.710 No imported tablewares or vessels obviously meant for formal service or consumption of drink are in evidence either. At least one fusiform unguentarium is attested in a

3rd century context at the site.711

Shechem represents a stark contrast to all of the sites surveyed so far, including its

neighbor just to the north at Samaria. The people living at Shechem were clearly content with

local oil and wine, traditional Levantine cuisine, and very basic table assemblages.

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Tel Anafa

Tel Anafa, located in the Hula Valley just 10 km to the east of Kedesh, was the site of a small

village or farmstead in the first half of the 3rd century,712 as it had been in the Persian period. It is

likely given its position in the fertile lowlands just to the east of Kedesh that Anafa supplied the

PHAB with much of the produce it collected in the 3rd century. As such, Anafa would have had

direct and regular contact with Kedesh. There are 17 coins from the site dating from the late 4th

708 E.g., N. Lapp 2008, pl. 3.2: 1-6. 709 N. Lapp 2008, pl. 3.37: 1-7, 10-11. 710 N. Lapp 2008, pl. 3.27: 1-2 711 N. Lapp 2008, pl. 3.25: 2. 712 Herbert 1994, 13-14.

162

through first half of the 3rd century.713 Little coherent architecture can be associated with this

period of occupation, but deposits sealed beneath 2nd century architectural features that are themselves sealed beneath a Late Hellenistic stuccoed building (see pg. -249-, below) at the site do not have material datable later than the 3rd century. The Hellenistic pottery in these deposits

(phase Hell 1a) and correlated material that appears residually in later strata, allows for a reconstruction of a 3rd century assemblage from the site.714

The ceramic assemblage at Anafa is similar to that of Shechem, despite the great distance

between the sites. Imported amphoras or coastal jars datable to the 3rd century are absent at

Anafa. Like Shechem, cooking was done entirely in neckless cooking pots with plain or

triangular rims produced exclusively in local fabrics. The only table shapes used were small

bowls with incurved or everted rims, and all examples were produced locally in the spatter

painted ware of the Hula Valley. No vessels specifically meant for the service of drink or

drinking appeared at Anafa in the 3rd century. The residents of Anafa did occasionally acquire squat fusiform unguentaria with rolled and ledge rims from the coast. On the whole, however, it seems that the 3rd century residents of Anafa, like those at Shechem, were content with the most

basic of household equipment, making the assemblage from coastal cities, and even Samaria and

Kedesh, seem rich by comparison.

Summary

The overview above allows for some generalizations about 3rd century ceramic assemblages in

the Levant and eastern Cyprus. Eastern Cyprus, the southern Levantine coast, and the city of

Samaria all have similar assemblages. Imported amphoras and transport jars from the Levantine

713 Meshorer 1994, 243-244. 714 See Berlin (1997a, 18-19, figs. 8-9) for an overview of the Hell 1a assemblage at Anafa.

163

coast occur at all these sites. Cooking pots, casseroles, and at least some pans were used at them

as well. Bowls with incurved and everted rims, saucers with ledge or folded rims, and skyphoi

with vertical handles are common at all of them. Plates and kraters, many of which were

imported from the Aegean appeared with some regularity as well, and all of these sites received

at least a few imported Atticizing and west slope vessels. The assemblage from Tarsus in the

northern Levant is essentially the same except that the saucers with ledge rims so ubiquitous to

the south are largely absent, and pottery decorated in the west slope technique seems to be more

common. The assemblages of pottery used at the inland rural sites of Anafa and Shechem consist

of a smaller subset of those of coastal sites and Samaria. Only local jars were used at these sites,

only globular cooking pots, and only small local bowls. Toilet vessels were rare.

Aside from well-connected sites on the coast and along major routes like the Jezreel

Valley, imports were quite rare in the 3rd century at inland sites such as Anafa,715 Shechem,716 and Gezer.717 While the absence of such goods is often seen as an indication that a site was

“poor,” some sites that lack varied assemblages of imports were clearly more than mere farmsteads, and wealth, rather than limited access or indifference, may have had very little to do with the pedestrian composition of the assemblages. Both Samaria718 (which was well supplied

with coastal and imported goods) and nearby Shechem (which was not) were fortified, and the

residents of Shechem had access to a fairly elaborate cult place on Mt. Gerizim. One would want

a larger sample of material deriving from settlement contexts to say anything with certainty, but

it seems that Ptolemaic economic policies contributed to a dichotomy between well connected

places along the coast (e.g., Akko-Ptolemais and Dor) and important routes inland from it (e.g.,

715 Berlin 1997a, 18-19, fig. 9. 716 N. Lapp 2008, 76-78, figs. 4.4-5. 717 Gitin 1979, 66-86, pls. 32-33. 718 Campbell 2002, 311-313.

164

Samaria) and their exact opposite at inland sites that were not on the coast or near these routes

(e.g., Tel Anafa, Shechem).

3RD CENTURY KEDESH IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT

When the 3rd century ceramic assemblage at Kedesh is compared to those from these other sites on Cyprus and in the Levant, it is apparent that its residents and the staff of the PHAB were neither particularly well connected to Mediterranean markets, like the coastal sites and possibly

Samaria, nor were they as isolated as the people of Shechem and Anafa. By reviewing the range of vessels used at Kedesh for cooking and setting the table in the context of other eastern

Mediterranean sites, we can also assess how cosmopolitan or traditional the cultural outlook of the PHAB’s staff was.

Most of the jars and utility vessels used at Kedesh in the 3rd century were acquired

locally, as they had been in the Persian period. Indeed, at least some of the Persian jar forms in

Persian period wares continued in use, demonstrating continuity in local industries and market

networks between the Persian period and the 3rd century. Alexander’s conquest and subsequent rule by the Ptolemies do not seem to have caused serious disruptions to the local economy of the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley and the circulation of locally made goods. A notable change is the use of spatter painted ware for almost all of the utility vessels attested at Kedesh, as opposed to white ware and red-brown gritty ware that had been the standard wares for vessels fulfilling these functions in the Persian period. Kedesh was supplied with pottery and presumably other goods by sites both in the eastern Upper Galilee and the Hula Valley, much as it had been in the Persian period. As I mentioned above, this shows that local market routes remained largely the same early in the Hellenistic period as they had been in the Persian period, and suggests that

165

the PHAB at Kedesh was integrated into the local environs and served a similar function to the

Persian period.

The 3rd century residents and/or administrators of Kedesh rarely received imported

amphoras and jars from the coast. Only seven Phoenician SF baggy jars from the coast and three

Rhodian amphoras (two from outside the building) can be assigned to the 3rd century at the site with certainty. Indeed, jars from outside the eastern Upper Galilee or Hula Valley are even less frequent in Hell 1 loci than they were in the Persian period (see Fig. 3.2). It is little surprise that the immediate environs of the site, one of the wettest and most temperate areas in the southern

Levant and the setting of many vineyards today, were able to furnish Kedesh with most of its food, oil, and wine. Indeed the collection and redistribution of such goods was surely one of the chief reasons for maintaining an official presence at Kedesh, as is demonstrated by the references in the Zenon papyri mentioned above. But it is significant that either export commodities such as

Aegean wine and oil from the coast were not generally available, or the residents and/or administrators of Kedesh did not choose or have the wherewithal to acquire them.

The assemblage of cooking, table, and service vessels demonstrates that the people living at Kedesh did communicate with the coast regularly, since most of these vessels are in wares of the central Levantine coast fabric region. Almost all 3rd century cooking vessels were produced

in sandy cooking ware at or near Akko-Ptolemais; only two out of 75 cooking vessels found in

Hell 1 loci were produced in spatter. Likewise, 172 of the table vessels recovered in Hell 1 loci

were produced in central coastal fine ware at Akko-Ptolemais or Tyre, compared to three in

spatter. Almost all vessels for serving liquid were produced in Phoenician SF at the same two

cities. Cooking, table, and service vessels produced locally in spatter painted ware of the Hula

Valley were rare by contrast (Fig. 3.11). Furthermore, the range of shapes – and the household

166

functions that they fulfilled – is much more akin to coastal sites and the military colony at

Samaria than it is to the assemblages of 3rd century sites at out of the way places, like Shechem and Anafa. The residents of the latter two sites used only deep globular cooking pots to prepare their meals and small bowls with incurved and (in the case of Anafa) everted rims to eat them, and did not use dedicated ceramic service or drinking vessels at all. Since Anafa is a site in the

Hula Valley and has a large body of spatter painted ware vessels that can be attributed to the 3rd century habitation of the site, it provides our best evidence for the range of table vessels produced in the ware in the 3rd century – bowls with incurved and everted rims. Perhaps the desire for saucers in addition to bowls was one of the reasons that the staff of the PHAB opted for central coastal fine ware vessels instead of local products in the 3rd century.

In contrast to small inland sites like Shechem and Anafa, people living on the coast, in

eastern Cyprus, at Samaria, and at Kedesh used cooking pots and casseroles (and their lids) for

cooking food in both the Levantine and the Greek culinary traditions. It is important to note that

the residents of Kedesh still used cooking pots more frequently than casseroles in the 3rd century.

Only five casseroles, as opposed to 68 cooking pots in 3rd century forms and fabrics,719 are attested in Hell 1 loci. It seems that Greek style cuisine was served in the 3rd century PHAB only

on occasion. The only cooking vessels attested at southern Levantine coastal sites and Samaria

that were not present at Kedesh in the 3rd century are Aegean style pans. All of the known 3rd century examples of these from the southern Levant were imported from the Aegean, indicating that demand in the region was not widespread enough to encourage local production, unlike the casseroles that were produced on the coast.

719 One of these forms, the neckless cooking pot with triangular rim, was also used in the Persian period, and some examples of these found in Hell 1 are undoubtedly residual.

167

Residents of coastal cities, Kition, Samaria, and Kedesh used bowls with incurved or

everted rims, and saucers with ledge or folded rims to serve individual portions of food or a

variety of small portions to be shared “meze” style amongst people in a group. Plates for serving

food to multiple individuals were common at Tarsus and Kition, and occur at least somewhat

regularly at coastal sites in the southern Levant and Samaria.720 At Kedesh, by contrast, there is

only one imported plate that can certainly be assigned to the 3rd century, and another plate that

may be 3rd century. People at Kedesh and the sites listed above used dedicated ceramic serving and drinking vessels at least on occasion, most often skyphoi with vertical handles, kraters with thickened rim, and cylindrical olpai. It is notable that many of the skyphoi with vertical handles found at Kedesh and coastal sites in the southern Levant originated on Cyprus. Perhaps there was not sufficient demand in the southern Levant for dedicated ceramic drinking vessels to warrant large-scale local production and circulation. It is also possible that metal plates and drinking vessels or vessels in other materials that do not survive were used at Kedesh.

The staff of the PHAB at Kedesh in the 3rd century shared with people living on the coast at least a limited interest in varied cuisine, including Greek-style dishes prepared in casseroles.

They also had some scruples about how food and drink were served, using several forms of

bowls and saucers to eat food, and drinking and service vessels for liquids at least on occasion.

Despite this they were probably not as well supplied with plates, drinking, and service vessels as

people living at Tarsus, Kition, Levantine coastal sites, and Samaria. The people of Kedesh had

access to vessels from the coast and a desire for foreign cuisine and eclectic table settings that

was apparently not shared by the people living nearby at Tel Anafa in the Hula Valley or other

inland sites off major trade routes, like Shechem. If we consider all of the 3rd century sites

720 Plates are rare at southern Levantine coastal sites in the 3rd century in comparison to the 2nd century (see pages 223-228, below).

168

discussed in this chapter together, it is evident that the assemblage at Kedesh matched coastal

sites far better in terms of function than it did most inland sites. The only exception is Samaria,

which was the site of a Greco-Macedonian military colony founded by Alexander, and located

near the Jezreel Valley. The residents of Kedesh and Samaria both had eclectic tastes that were

not the norm for inland sites in the southern Levant. This may be the result of their shared

official function. Both sites were likely to have been inhabited by people closely linked with the

Macedonian power structure (though in the case of Kedesh we have no evidence that they were

Greeks or Macedonians themselves), and thus perhaps more familiar with wider Mediterranean

cultural practices even if they were locals of the region. Their privileged position in the

Ptolemaic kingdom also may have facilitated access to goods produced on the coast or further

afield. Whatever the case, the closer correspondence between the cooking and table assemblages

of Kedesh and Samaria and the coastal cities indicates that the stark differences between the

lifestyle of people in coastal cities and inland sites that had marked the Persian period no longer

applied universally.

It is curious then that the relatively cosmopolitan and sophisticated tastes of the people

living at Kedesh, and their regular communication with the coast, did not translate into the

regular acquisition of imports from the Mediterranean. Very few 3rd century imports are attested at Kedesh in comparison to coastal sites in the eastern Mediterranean.721 There are only 26

imports from abroad in Hell 1 loci or that can be independently attributed to the 3rd century. As has been mentioned above, many imported examples of forms present already in Hell 1 loci but found in later loci (e.g., bowls and saucers in gray-brown Cypriote fabric) may have been brought to Kedesh in the 3rd century, but it is telling that out of 8346 vessels in Hell 1 forms and

721 Absolute quantities are not available from any Levantine coastal sites, but it is clear from both publications and firsthand inspection of material that imported pottery was significantly more common at them.

169

wares there are only 26 imports that can be certainly assigned to the 3rd century, and a total of

181 (or 2%) in forms and wares that could be 3rd century. If we take table vessels alone as a comparison, there are only 22 (11%) certainly 3rd century imported vessels compared to 175

locally or regionally produced table vessels found in Hell 1 loci (see Fig. 3.12) and 150 (5%) out

of 2900 possible 3rd century table vessels at the site as a whole. If such imports had been regularly available, it is likely that the people living at Kedesh would have had interest in purchasing them. At the same time, they largely eschewed the table and cooking vessels of the local spatter painted ware industry (see Fig. 3.11) even as they relied exclusively on it for utility vessels. This is all the more intriguing since there was some overlap in the shapes produced in coastal wares (sandy cooking ware, central coastal fine ware) and spatter painted ware (e.g., deep globular cooking pots, bowls with incurved rims) and spatter painted ware table vessels are not obviously inferior in quality to the soft, granular central coastal fine ware vessels. Clearly, the administrators and residents of Kedesh had some choice even if they could not get Mediterranean imports regularly, and they chose coastal products from the cities of Akko-Ptolemais or Tyre, perhaps indicating that products made in the nearest cosmopolitan centers were preferable. I have already mentioned that the production of a greater variety of shapes may have suited a corresponding desire for varied table settings. But it is also possible that the origin of central coastal fine ware vessels in cosmopolitan coastal cities augmented their appeal.

If we rule out a lack of interest in imported goods on the part of the people operating the

PHAB at Kedesh, then we must assume that the merchants or official caravans that visited the site were rarely supplied with goods from abroad themselves. This is puzzling if we consider the quantity of imports at Samaria, and probably Beth Yerah-Philoteira, both located well inland, like Kedesh. As was mentioned above, 70 stamped 3rd century Rhodian handles were recovered

170

from Samaria, and the site received at least a fair amount of west slope pottery as well. Beth

Yerah-Philoteira is less fully published, but the site was well supplied with vessels in gray-brown

Cypriote fabric in the 3rd and/or early 2nd century,722 and 3rd century stamped Rhodian handles

dating from the reign of Ptolemy II are also well-attested at the site.723 Beth Yerah-Philoteira is located near the junction of the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys, the primary E-W and N-S arteries across the southern Levant, respectively. As such, it would have had more ready access to goods shipped inland from the coast.

It is possible that only certain merchants (i.e., those who paid the duties on foreign goods) regularly got consignments of imported pottery from the same ships that they received other imported goods. These merchants would most likely focus their efforts along routes with concentrations of people who had goods to trade and who were themselves interested in

Mediterranean goods. Sites situated along and at the end of the Jezreel Valley, including Beth

Yerah-Philoteira, Scythopolis, and the Greco-Macedonian colony of Samaria, fit this description quite well. People living at these sites and in the Jezreel valley could exchange local produce and specialties of the Jordan Valley for goods from the Aegean. Perhaps trade with inland areas off of this route would not have been brisk enough for merchants who traded foreign goods to warrant the payment of heavy duties on goods and the substantial effort to travel far inland on a regular basis. The eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley were well watered and fertile, but they did not have large population centers, nor were they as easily linked to the coast as sites along the broad and flat Jezreel Valley. Merchants from Tyre and Akko-Ptolemais who had access to a wide range of Mediterranean imports may have chosen not to bring them to the Hula Valley. The

722 E.g., Ben-Nahum and Getzov, 2006 fig. 5.8: 4, 10. 723 Oren Tal, personal communication, November 2009.

171

result was that the people living at Kedesh were largely cut off from many Mediterranean

luxuries that their functional assemblage of pottery suggests they may have appreciated.

“HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY” AT KEDESH IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD AND 3RD CENTURY

The range of goods and the sources from which many of them derived differed substantially in the Persian period and 3rd century. One thing these respective assemblages have in common is a

great quantity of local storage and transport jars (see Figs. 3.13-14). Local transport and storage

jars make up 65% of the Persian assemblage and 33% of the Hell 1 vessels in Hell 1 loci and

there are 3666 in all loci, accounting for 44% of all potentially 3rd century vessels. Third century

storage jars in 3rd century loci account for 17% of the assemblage and transport jars account for

16%. In both phases the concentration of local produce and commodities was important. This

similarity in the function of the building across periods is interesting since completely

uninterrupted use of the PHAB from the Persian period to that of Ptolemaic rule is unlikely due

to the chaotic political and military situation in the Levant in the last quarter of the 4th century. If

local settlement patterns and market routes remained intact during the late 4th and early 3rd

century, then Kedesh would be just as well positioned to oversee and collect produce as it had

earlier. A large building of solid construction in a strategic location that was known to have had

an administrative function in the Persian period would have been a natural choice for a local

administrative center or the center of a large estate. As in the Persian period, there are some

coastal jars, and at least a couple of imported amphoras dating to the 3rd century, perhaps

representing the acquisition of nicer products for private consumption at the PHAB that was

distinct from the stockpiling of local goods.

172

Unlike in the Persian period, when utility (8%), cooking (11%), and table vessels (11%)

made up about the same proportion of the assemblage as each other, utility (4%) and cooking

vessels (12%) made up a smaller proportion of the 3rd century assemblage than table vessels

(35%) (see Fig. 3.14). This suggests a difference in the patterns of daily life or the activities conducted at the PHAB in each period. As in the Persian period most utility vessels were acquired locally and cooking vessels were acquired from the coast as they had been late in the

Persian period. The appearance of casseroles indicates that the some of the 3rd century staff of the PHAB had a familiarity with and taste for Greek style cuisine not evidenced at the site in the

Persian period.

The great increase in table vessels in the 3rd century (from 11% to 35% of the overall assemblage of vessels) and the increase in the proportion of cooking vessels in relation to utility vessels may indicate that large groups were hosted more often at the PHAB in the 3rd century

than they had been in the Persian period. Unlike the Persian period, when the table assemblage

consisted principally of small locally produced bowls with a moderate quantity of Attic imports,

in the 3rd century a great number of table vessels arrived from coastal producers at Akko-

Ptolemais and/or Tyre. Local and imported table vessels are both very rare (see Figs. 3.11-12), unlike in the Persian period when local vessels from the Hula Valley made up most of the table assemblage and were supplemented by Attic imports (see Fig. 2.13). The coastal table vessels used at Kedesh are in a ware that first appears in the Hellenistic period, central coastal fine ware, and was used principally to produce tablewares that, while they are not in direct imitation of any specific Greek wares and shapes, are Greek-style tablewares. The shapes produced have features of late Classical and Hellenistic Greek vessels such as bowls with incurved rims and saucers with ledge rims and fishplate depressions, and are mostly slipped on the interior and exterior in a

173

manner not done in the region prior to the 3rd century. Such vessels represent a change in the

Levantine tradition of tableware production, which in the Iron Age and Persian periods were

quite basic (e.g., unslipped bowls with plain rims), and with a few exceptions (e.g., Samaria

ware) unadorned. That demand for nicer vessels was sufficient for production on the scale of the

central coastal fine ware industry suggests that these were functional replacements for the Attic

and Atticizing imports that no longer arrived regularly by the middle of the 3rd century. The near

total reliance on coastal suppliers in the 3rd century for their table vessels shows that the staff of

the PHAB had a taste for Greek-style goods and functional sets from the coast that their Persian

period predecessors did not. Given the changes in regional modes of ceramic production and

market routes attested to by the advent of the central coastal fine ware industry and the

disappearance of the white ware industry in the Hula Valley, a direct functional comparison

between the Persian period and 3rd century dining assemblages is problematic. Suffice it to say that dining behavior was probably substantially different in the 3rd century than it had been in the

Persian period.

Vessels for the service of liquid made up a very small proportion of the assemblage in the

Persian period and the 3rd century (2% for both periods). It is possible that metal vessels were

used for this purpose in either or both periods. Toilet vessels were even less common than they

had been in the Persian period, indicating that the 3rd century staff of the PHAB were less

accustomed to personal luxuries or that they received perfumes and unguents in metal vessels, or

that they used such items elsewhere on the site.

Summary

174

It is likely that some memory of the PHAB’s role in the region in the Persian period persisted

after the Ptolemies took over the southern Levant, and the building was again in use as a center

for concentrating and quite probably redistributing agricultural produce and commodities of the

eastern Upper Galilee and the Hula Valley. Despite the functional continuity of the PHAB there

were nuanced changes in the market networks that brought different sorts of household goods to

Kedesh. Most utility vessels continued to be acquired locally, and most cooking vessels came

from the coast as they had in the Persian period. But whereas the Persian table assemblage

consisted principally of locally produced undecorated vessels supplemented by a smattering of

imported Attic pottery, in the 3rd century slipped vessels produced on the coast dominated, with

only a few local table vessels and imports. The great increase in table vessels also suggests a

change in dining behavior, perhaps the more frequent hosting of large groups, or alternatively a

more varied set of dishes set out at once to be shared amongst small groups, meze or tapas style.

Although the PHAB retained its Persian period function in the Hellenistic period, it was subject to changing supply routes and the people living there had a more varied palate and a correspondingly more elaborate mode of dining.

“HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY” AT KEDESH AND ANAFA IN THE 3RD CENTURY

The thorough publication of the pottery from the village or farmstead at Tel Anafa in the Hula

Valley provides a local point of comparison for the material from Kedesh. By considering the ratios of vessels used for different household tasks at each site, we can get a sense of similarities and differences in their rhythms of daily life. I will begin with an overview of the relative quantities of 3rd century jars, utility vessels, cooking vessels, table vessels, service vessels, and

toilet vessels at Kedesh.

175

As discussed above, jars are by far the best represented 3rd century vessels at Kedesh.

Three hundred and seventy-three in Hell 1 wares and forms are attested in Hell 1 loci, and there are 3943 from Hell 1 or later phases at the site as a whole, some of which must be Persian period residuals and some of which may be 2nd century jars (see Fig. 3.13). If we assume that a majority or even half of these jars in Hell 1 and later loci were not residual Persian period jars, their great quantity indicates that Kedesh received local produce regularly and much of it was stored at the site. Such extensive storage is consonant with a function as an administrative center with a redistributive role. It also accords well with the accounts (mentioned above) of Zenon receiving some flour at Kedesh before proceeding to the coast and another concerning a large consignment of grain and barley, presumably shipped from Kedesh to Akko-Ptolemais.

Vessels for accomplishing other basic household tasks are represented rather unevenly at the PHAB. Utility vessels for washing, grinding, and fetching water are represented by only five examples in Hell 1 loci, and only 296 utility vessels in 3rd century wares and forms are present at

the site as a whole, and some of these continued to be used well into the 2nd century. Service vessels are as scarce, with only five examples in Hell 1 loci and 217 in 3rd century wares and forms at the site as a whole. There are only four toilet vessels in Hell 1 loci, and 18 examples of

3rd century toilet vessels at the site. Cooking and table vessels, by contrast, are extremely well

represented at Kedesh. Seventy-six 3rd century cooking vessels are attested in Hell 1 loci and 981

are present at the site as a whole. Table vessels are even more abundant, with 181 in Hell 1 loci,

and 2900 potentially 3rd century examples in total. The relative proportions of vessels serving

different functions is roughly the same whether we consider 3rd century vessels found in Hell 1

loci or potentially 3rd century vessels found in all loci.

176

In isolation, it is difficult to use these data to draw conclusions about the scope of

domestic and industrial activities carried out at Kedesh, aside from the recognition that mass

storage seemed to be a major function of the site in the 3rd century. Fortunately, there is a

quantified data set from phase Hell 1a (c. 300-250) at Tel Anafa, that allows for a comparison

between Kedesh and a seemingly typical rural Levantine site (see Fig. 3.15).724 The most striking difference between the two sites is the much greater proportion of 3rd century jars for

both storage and transport at Kedesh (47%) than at Anafa (0.3%). Even if we accept that the

quantities of jars (both local and regional) at Kedesh must be somewhat inflated by the residual

occurrence of Persian jars in Hell 1 and later phases, it is clear that Kedesh received jar borne

goods more frequently, and that storing agricultural produce for extended periods of time was

done on a far greater scale than at the village or farmstead at Anafa. Vessels meant for onerous

daily tasks, by contrast, are better represented at Anafa, where 16 % of the vessels were for

general household utility, and cooking pots comprise 44% of the assemblage. At Kedesh utility

vessels only account for 4% of the assemblage, and cooking vessels 12%. Even if we leave aside

the jars at Kedesh (since they are all but unattested at Anafa), the proportions are still much

lower than at Anafa (7% and 22%, respectively). It would seem that purely domestic activities

were carried out with less regularity at Kedesh, perhaps because few (if any) people actually

lived at the PHAB.

It is interesting in this light that both sites have the same percentage of table vessels

(35%), and that at Kedesh is higher (66%) if we again remove the jars from consideration. The

(effectively) greater proportion of table vessels may reflect that individual table settings typically

consisted of multiple vessels (e.g., both a bowl and a saucer, and sometimes a drinking vessel),

whereas at Anafa settings were limited to bowls. An alternative, and not contradictory,

724 For the Hell 1A assemblage at Anafa see Berlin (1997a, 18-19, figs. 8-9).

177 possibility is that Kedesh was supplied with so many table vessels because large groups were occasionally hosted in the PHAB. Indeed, in such a situation, small dishes suited for holding foods of different consistencies (i.e., bowls and saucers) could have been shared among a group of individuals. The great quantities of central coastal fine ware bowls and saucers could even have been part of an official consignment of vessels for such use. One could object that if the great quantity of table vessels reflects group dining, there should be a similarly high proportion of cooking vessels. However, if there were a sufficient quantity of cooking vessels for large events and they were not otherwise used regularly, they would not have needed to be replaced as often as the full complement of pots in daily use at Anafa. Many of the cooking pots at Kedesh may have remained unused in the pantry for long stretches of time. Perhaps Kedesh acted as a way station where official caravans, or Ptolemaic soldiers, stopped from time to time, such that it was provisioned and equipped to feed them. The relatively small proportion of service vessels at

Kedesh (2%), would still probably have been insufficient for large groups. These (and the drinking vessels attested in small numbers) may have been for the personal use of the officials stationed at the PHAB.

Summary

The chief difference between the household assemblages of 3rd century PHAB at Kedesh and

Anafa are that Kedesh was better equipped for storing large amounts of local produce and commodities and entertaining large groups (though perhaps not in great style), whereas the assemblage at Anafa consists mostly of vessels intended for strictly domestic activities such as processing food, cooking, and fetching water. The assemblage of table vessels is also less varied at Anafa than at Kedesh, and service vessels were not used at all, indicating that less emphasis

178

(indeed perhaps none) was put on serving large groups at Anafa. Kedesh had an official and

public function and more style-conscious residents than Anafa. The differences in the household

goods at these two sites mirror those between Samaria (another site with an official function) and

nearby Shechem. In the 3rd century, it seems that the coastal goods and foreign-inspired habits

had a substantial inland reach, but only did so at sites with a population that had regular exposure

to them or who particularly wanted them.

3RD CENTURY SUMMARY

In this chapter I have established that under the Ptolemies the PHAB at Kedesh probably served

the same basic function of concentrating and perhaps redistributing local produce and

commodities as it had in the Persian period. It was also connected to the same routes of supply

for pottery as it had been in the Persian period, namely the local environs and the coast. Whether

or not this indicates that the same people (or people of the same background, at any rate)

continued to operate the PHAB remains an open question. But the continued collection of local

produce and reliance on local suppliers for utility vessels indicates that local supply networks

were little disrupted by the transition from Persian to Ptolemaic rule. The 3rd century staff of the

PHAB received regional cooking and table vessels made by coastal potters as well, including casseroles for preparing Greek-style cuisine, and slipped bowls and saucers generally corresponding to late Classical and early Hellenistic Greek models. The people who used the

PHAB in the 3rd century were thus more familiar with Greek-style cuisine and table settings than

the Persian period staff had been. In this, they matched residents of coastal cities in the southern

Levant and the city of Samaria. Unlike these places that were ports or near important inland trade

routes like the Jezreel Valley, Kedesh was not regularly supplied with imports from abroad. It is

179 difficult to say for certain if this indicates that the staff of the PHAB eschewed such goods or if they were simply unavailable in the eastern Upper Galilee. But the clear preference for a wider range of kitchen and table equipment than used at nearby Anafa, and for table vessels produced on the coast rather than local products of the Hula Valley, suggests that they would have been happy to purchase imports from Cyprus, the Aegean, or elsewhere if they were regularly available.

CHAPTER 4-THE EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

SELEUCID RULE IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Almost exactly a century after Ptolemy I (r. 305-282) had seized the southern Levant from his

erstwhile ally Seleukos I (r. 305-281) in 301, the Seleucids under Antiochus III (r. 222-187)

retook the southern Levant from the Ptolemies at the conclusion of the Fifth Syrian War (c. 202-

198). The region would remain in Seleucid hands for little more than half a century, during

which major changes in the circulation of goods and norms of daily life in the region occurred.

We do not have extensive documentary evidence comparable to the archives of papyri

recovered from Ptolemaic Egypt to inform us about the details of administration for the Seleucid

Empire. This lacuna has often led to the assumption that the Seleucid Empire was less

bureaucratic, although the extensive caches of document sealings recovered from Seleucia on the

Tigris725 and Kedesh itself726 suggest that there was in fact quite an elaborate bureaucracy, the papyrological remains of which simply do not survive.727 There is a greater body of literary

evidence for the period of Seleucid rule in the southern Levant than there was for the Ptolemaic,

chiefly deriving from the books of Maccabees and the writings of Josephus. There is also much

more archaeological evidence dating to the 2nd century from the southern Levant than there had

been for the 3rd, suggesting that this was a prosperous period of settlement and economic

expansion. The great quantities of archaeological evidence of 2nd century date found at sites all

725 Invernizzi 2004. 726 Ariel and Naveh 2003; Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 50-53. 727 Arav 1989, 137-138; Freyne 1980, 160-161; Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1993, 49-50, 166. Inscribed cuneiform tablets dating to the Hellenistic period also shed light on Seleucid administration (Grayson 1975; Van der Spek and Finkel). 181

over the southern Levant make it possible to reconstruct patterns of daily life and compare them

between different sites and regions in a detailed manner not possible for the 3rd century.

Initially, the Seleucid kings “owned” all of the land in their empire, though they allowed cities and settlements throughout it administer territory locally.728 Thus, all indications are that

they acted less as landowners than their predecessors. It was impractical for the Seleucids to keep

a close watch over the entirety of their massive kingdom, which at its greatest extent stretched

from Asia Minor to Bactria.729 Throughout most of the Seleucid realm, an administrative system

similar to that used by the Persians remained in place.730 The main divisions of the Seleucid

Empire (eparchies) were more like the large satrapies of the Persian Empire than the small districts (hyparchies) that the Ptolemies set up,731 although the Seleucid kings did subdivide several of the Persian satrapies to allow for tighter administrative control in important regions and over strategic routes.732 Each of these provinces was placed under the control of a strategos appointed by the Seleucid king, also in accord with Persian practice.733 The southern Levant was

divided into the eparchies of Samaria (which consisted of Galilee and Judea) in the north,

Idumea in the south, Paralia along the coast, and Galaaditis.734 Cities, including those in the

coastal region, were probably given varying degrees of independence, which included benefits

such as freedom from taxation on goods in kind.

As with the Ptolemies, centralized official oversight was built into Seleucid

administrative structures. Royal officials called epistates (superintendents) were active in all

728 Davies 1984, 296. 729 Avi Yonah 2002, 42; Freyne 1980, 33. 730 Bagnall 1976, 248; Davies 1984, 291. 731 Freyne 1980, 33. 732 Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1993, 44-45; Musti 1984, 184, 186-187. 733 Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1993, 42-43. 734 Freyne 1980, 33; Strabo Geogr. 16.2.4 (Leonard Jones 1930, vol. 7, 240-243).

182

major cities,735 even in the “old Greek” cities that were merely bound to the king by symmachia

(alliance).736 Because of the dearth of documentary papyrological evidence, we know less about the Seleucid system of taxation than the Ptolemaic, though it seems quite likely that they utilized tax farmers as well. The Seleucids did grant tax concessions to cities and specific groups, such as the temple staff in Jerusalem.737 Such measures could help promote settlement and trade in

certain regions and endear the royal regime to the local populace.

Remains of a few Seleucid administrative centers and outposts in the southern Levant are

known. The fortress and/or administrative center erected during the 3rd century at Michal

continued to be used under the Seleucids with only slight modification.738 At Tirat Yehuda a large building (measuring 87 x 45 m) was erected as part of what the excavators interpreted as a

“military farm” used from the beginning to the middle of the 2nd century.739 At Gezer there is a

block in secondary deposition with an inscription reading: “Greetings Antiochus,” coinciding

nicely with a reference in 1 Maccabees to a Seleucid stronghold at the site in the first half of the

2nd century.740 The discovery of the administrative building at Kedesh provides important new

evidence concerning the Seleucid administration in the region. In its final phase the PHAB

combined decorated facilities for entertaining guests in style, extensive administrative archives,

and ample storage for the concentration of local produce.

Despite differences between Ptolemaic and Seleucid priorities and their methods of

administering foreign territories, it seems that certain trade patterns established under the

Ptolemies continued uninterrupted in the first half of the 2nd century. At Akko-Ptolemais and

735 Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1993, 165-166. 736 Musti 1984, 206. 737 Freyne 1980, 184-185; Gruen 1993, 239-240. 738 Herzog 1989b, 172-173, fig. 12.7. 739 Yeivin and Edelstein 1970, 6, 57, fig. 2. This building is tantalizing as a potential comparison for Kedesh, however, it is published only in a summary manner at present, so it is difficult to assess how similar it may have been to the PHAB in function and character. 740 Gitin 1990, 24-25; 1 Macc. 4:6-15; 9:52 (Goldstein 1976, 257-258).

183

Beth Yerah-Philoteira in the Jezreel Valley Cypriote imports continued to arrive in the first half

of the 2nd century, even after Cyprus was divided from the southern Levant politically.741 The presence of these Cypriote vessels both on the coast and at the end of the Jezreel Valley also demonstrates the continuity of internal market routes from the 3rd to the early 2nd century. The

numismatic record shows that Cypriote coins on the Ptolemaic standard continued to be

circulated in the region after the Seleucid conquest as well,742 although most early to mid 2nd century coins found in the region came from Seleucid mints. This evidence indicates that the change in political circumstances and borders after the Seleucid conquest did not disrupt existing trade patterns between the southern Levant and other parts of the Ptolemaic kingdom, or internally within the southern Levant.743 As such, it suggests that the Seleucids were much less intrusive in the local economic system than their Ptolemaic predecessors had been.

The inscription found at Hefzibah, near the city of Bet Shean-Scythopolis re-founded by

Ptolemy II (r. 283-246), gives further insight into the flexibility of Seleucid economic policies and provincial administration. The inscription records a correspondence on official matters between Ptolemaios, the erstwhile Ptolemaic military governor of Coele-Syria who defected to the Seleucids, and Antiochus III between 202 and 195.744 In his letters, Ptolemaios asked that

Antiochus rein-in the depredations of Seleucid soldiers on villages belonging to him. Antiochus

fully obliged, and even granted additional villages to Ptolemaios. More significantly, Antiochus

guaranteed Ptolemaios’ right to structure the circulation of goods in villages belonging to him as

he saw fit. Unfortunately, we do not know if this was a departure from earlier Ptolemaic practice

741 E.g., Berlin and Stone forthcoming; Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006. 742 Barag 2008. 743 A similar situation can be seen in the final third of the 5th century, when fighting between Athens and Sparta and Corinth in the Peloponnese did little to curtail the circulation or Attic pottery in the Peloponnese. See MacDonald (1982), for discussion. The frequent appearance of Attic pottery at eastern Mediterranean sites under Persian rule in the 6th-4th centuries also shows that political and economic orientation do not always overlap seamlessly. 744 Landau 1966.

184

(indeed, perhaps an incentive for Ptolemaios to defect), or if it was simply a guarantee of the

established status of Ptolemaios’ estates. The defection of Ptolemaic officials and generals and

the lack of locally generated resistance to Antiochus in the Fourth (c. 221-217) or Fifth Syrian

wars (c. 202-198) suggests that Ptolemaios’ defection was part and parcel with a general distaste

for Ptolemaic policy in the region (see pages 185-187, 325-326, below).745 But whether or not

Antiochus III’s assurances indicate a change in policy from the Ptolemies, it shows that the

Seleucids were indeed sensitive to local conditions and willing to allow a substantial degree of local autonomy within their empire. They were also open to the notion of allowing locals a role in provincial administration.746

Like Antiochus’ generosity in the Hefzibah inscription, not all of the changes evident in the archaeological record necessarily indicate differences in Ptolemaic and Seleucid policy. For instance, the Seleucid conquest eliminated borders to the east and north of the southern Levant, connecting it (politically, at least) overland with Syria and the Seleucid east. The removal of these borders may have encouraged the expansion of settlement into zones that were previously sparsely occupied, such as the Golan Heights,747 independent of any economic or political strategy on the part of Ptolemaic or Seleucid rulers.748 Imported pottery from the northern Levant went from being a rare occurrence only seen occasionally at coastal sites to being a standard component at assemblages everywhere in the region but the Central Hills by the middle of the 2nd century.

Trade connections with the Aegean intensified along the coast in the 2nd century. By mid

century if not sooner, pottery from as far west as Italy began to appear in small quantities at both

745 Freyne 1980, 30-32, 159-160. 746 Chancey 2005, 30. 747 Hartal 2002; Myers 2007, 52-53. 748 Grainger 1991, 103, 111; Smith 1990, 126.

185

coastal and some inland sites. Pottery producers in the southern Levant continued to produce

shapes and utilize surface finishes and decoration ultimately related to Greek prototypes. But

some of these, such as bowls with incurved rims, had by this time been part of the local

repertoire for more than a century. Others that were produced locally such as fishplates with

hanging rims in spatter painted ware of the Hula Valley and in the local fabric of Maresha,749 were probably not immediately inspired by Greek originals, but by imports from the northern

Levant. It is probably safe to say that many of the people acquiring or even producing such vessels were not aware that they were particularly “Greek” in any way. They were by this time simply the most abundant products available from local, regional, and distant sources.

A parallel development to the influx of imported pottery and diversification of regional production (and consumption) can be seen in the distribution of Hellenistic art and monumental architecture in the southern Levant. As Adi Erlich has noted, art in the style of the major centers of the Hellenistic world is rare in the southern Levant,750 but the Hellenistic art that has been identified dates mostly from the 2nd century or later.751 In the 2nd century monumental marble sculpture from the region includes a larger than life sized head of Alexander from Beth Shean-

Scythopolis from a statue possibly erected by Antiochus III or IV (r. 175-164) to legitimate

Seleucid rule in the region, and a herm from Dor, both sculpted by foreign craftsmen.752 At Araq al-Amir in the Transjordan the Tobiads erected a monumental fortress, palace, or mausoleum around 175 that featured sculpted eagles and panthers.753 In the private sphere, there is an increase in the occurrence of Hellenistic-style interior décor after the Ptolemies had been ousted from the region. Particularly good examples are the 2nd century mosaic with theatrical mask

749 Levine 2003a, 87, fig. 6.3:49. 750 Erlich 2009, 105. 751 Erlich 2009, 109-110. 752 Erlich 2009, 10-11. 753 N. Lapp 1980; Larché 2005; Rosenberg 2006; Will and Larché 1991.

186

found at Dor754 and the late 2nd century mosaics found in conjunction with drafted and painted wall plaster in the bath at Anafa.755 Drafted and painted masonry style wall painting may have

been employed at the PHAB at Kedesh already in the 3rd century but was certainly used there in the 2nd century and examples of late 3rd or early 2nd century date are known from multiple

buildings Akko-Ptolemais.756 Many of the bullae found in the archive at Kedesh feature well

executed motifs drawn from the repertoire of Hellenistic art including Greek gods and

goddesses757 and veristic portraiture. At least some of the seals with this decoration must have

belonged to the administrators of the PHAB and/or their associates in the region.758 Likewise, most of the 700 or so figurines recovered from Maresha are of late Hellenistic (i.e., mid 2nd century and later) type, providing further evidence that people in the southern Levant had greater access to Greek-style art in the 2nd century than before.759

This increase in art and elaborate interior décor in the 2nd century may (like the numismatic and ceramic evidence summarized above) be an indication that under the Ptolemies economic and cultural horizons were more limited than they came to be after Antiochus III conquered the region. Perhaps individuals in the Ptolemaic administration, like the general

Theodotus who handed Tyre and Akko-Ptolemais to Antiochus III during the Fourth Syrian War

(c. 221-217) because he had not been shown proper gratitude by Ptolemy III (r. 246-221) or IV

(r. 221-205) for his services;760 or the governor Ptolemaios mentioned in the Hefzibah inscription

754 Stewart and Martin 2003, 132-144. 755 Herbert 1994, 14-19, 66-69, fig. 2.14. 756 Sharif forthcoming. Even if the walls at Akko-Ptolemais were decorated late in the 3rd century, they could be associated with the Seleucids, since Akko-Ptolemais was under Seleucid control for three to four years during the Fourth Syrian War. 757 See Cakmak (2010). 758 See Herbert (2003b) 759 Erlich and Kloner 2008, 104. 760 Polyb. Hist. 5.61.3-8 (Paton 2011, 162-165). Additional reasons for Theodotus’ defection according to Polybios were contempt for the reigning Ptolemy (presumably Ptolemy IV) and distrust for his court. Polybios records other officers who defected from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids. E.g., Polyb. Hist. 5.70.10-12 (Paton 2011, 188-189).

187

above; or even conceivably the staff of the PHAB at Kedesh in the late 3rd century (who clearly

liked Greek-style cuisine and table settings),761 were aware of the expanded economic and

cultural horizons that existed outside of a Ptolemaic province,762 where the Attic currency standards were used and import and export tariffs were not so great (see pages 115-117, above).

Participation in the elite culture of the Hellenistic world may have motivated these officials to defect. A detailed consideration of the early to mid 2nd century ceramic remains from the PHAB

in comparison with the 3rd century and in a regional context will shed light on this issue.

THE EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY PHAB

Numismatic, stratigraphic, and ceramic evidence all indicate that the PHAB continued to be

inhabited without interruption once the Seleucids took over the southern Levant following the

nearby battle of Paneion in 198. Seventy-four coins of late 3rd and/or 2nd century date have been

recovered at Kedesh. Twenty-three of these were Seleucid issues dating from 222-126. Eight

coins dating broadly to the reign of Antiochus III (222-187) have been found, as well as 12 dated

from 199-187, and one each dating to 199/8, 198/7, and 189/8. These coins of Antiochus III, in

conjunction with a gold octodrachm of Ptolemy V (r. 210-180) dated to 191/0,763 provide firm evidence for continued use of the PHAB early in the 2nd century. Fifteen Seleucid coins dating

from the 170s-140s have been found at Kedesh. Among these are six coins of Demetrius II

dating to 145/4-144/3. There is also a coin from a Phoenician mint dated 174-150 and a coin of

761 It is likely that the administrators who operated from the PHAB at the end of the 3rd century remained in place when the Seleucids took over. According to Polybios, the generals and officials who defected to Antiochus III continued to serve under him. Likewise, the correspondence in the Hefzibah inscription, indicates that Antiochus allowed an erstwhile Ptolemaic official (possibly the governor) from the region to retain his post and private estate. If we take these actions as indicative of trends in Seleucid policy, it seems plausible that they would have retained the staff of the PHAB after their victory at Paneion. 762 The Ptolemaic capital at Alexandria on the Egyptian delta was, of course, a major cultural center. The evidence from the southern Levant and from the rest of Egypt suggests that cultural vibrancy was concentrated there in the Hellenistic period. 763 Herbert 2010.

188

autonomous Akko-Ptolemais dated 169-164. Eight 2nd century Seleucid coins of uncertain date have been recovered as well. Aside from the gold octodrachm of Ptolemy V (a remarkable find in several respects), the Phoenician coin, and the coin of autonomous Akko-Ptolemais, all coins dating to the Seleucid phase at the site were Seleucid issues. This is a substantial difference from the 3rd century, when all coins from Kedesh originated at Ptolemaic mints. In addition to the

coins just listed, several bullae found in the building are inscribed with dates from 167-148.764

There are also many stamped amphora handles dating to the first three quarters of the 2nd century at Kedesh. The earliest closely datable handle is dated 198-190, with another dated to

188, providing further evidence for activity at the site within ten years of the Seleucid conquest of the region. Two handles can be dated within the 170s, and four more fall into the 160s. There is a notable concentration of closely datable stamps clustering in the middle of the century. Nine

stamps date to the 150s and 12 can be dated from 155-143/2. Following this there is a gap in

closely datable stamps until one dated to 140-138, and after that there is not another stamp until

132. Several of these handles were found in loci associated with phase Hell 2 and 2b. Of four

reconstructable amphoras found in association with the abandonment of the PHAB, one has

stamps of 170/168 (suggesting reuse), two have stamps dating to 151, and one has a stamp dating

to 146.

The gap in stamped amphora handles after 143/2 likely represents a period of

abandonment at Kedesh following the defeat of the Seleucid army at the hands of Jonathan

Maccabee at the battle of Hazor fought nearby in 143 (for discussion see page 26, 32-33, above).

After the battle, the remaining Seleucid forces fled to Kedesh, from whence they had marched,765 and presumably continued their flight north. At some point shortly after this abandonment, some

764 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 24. 765 1 Macc. 63-74 (Goldstein 1976, 441-443); Goldstein 1976, 161-174.

189

people came to Kedesh, blocked up the entrance to the archive room, and burned it.766 It is

uncertain if these people were returning administrators who sought to destroy incriminating

documents, locals who had been unhappy with the administration of the region conducted from

Kedesh, or the squatters who moved to the site of the PHAB sometime in the 130s (see Chapter

5, below). When the PHAB was abandoned several sizable primary deposits were left behind.

Several other deposits were slightly disturbed by Roman period wall robbing activities, resulting

in secondary deposits of well-preserved material that is not far from its final position in the

building.767 These assemblages permit a detailed reconstruction of the assemblage in use at the

site in 143.

Because of this abandonment and the limited nature of later disturbance of the building,

the plan of the early to mid 2nd century PHAB can be reconstructed in detail (see Fig. 1.10),

above). In the mid 2nd century, the PHAB included archives, an elaborate reception and dining complex, service rooms for cooking meals and household tasks, and rooms devoted entirely to storage. As such, the building was not only larger than any other structure known in the region, but also more elaborately decorated and specialized in terms of spatial arrangement. As in the

Persian period and the 3rd century, in the early to mid 2nd century, important people with

connections and probably some substantial wealth used the PHAB.

Loci that can be associated with this horizon of occupation at the site are fairly easy to

isolate due to the construction of walls and laying of floors that were preserved above floors

assigned to the Persian period and phase Hell 1 and left largely undisturbed when the building

was abandoned. Indeed, a coin of Antiochus III (dated 199-188) was found sealed between a

766 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 24 767 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 21-25, 27-29, 30-31. Primary material from three rooms of the PHAB were recovered prior to the publication of this article. Since then two more rooms with primary or only slightly disturbed secondary deposits have been uncovered.

190

Hell 1 and Hell 2 floor. In addition, there are far more regional ceramic comparanda for the 2nd century than for the 3rd, making it easier to identify than the 3rd century pottery. Still, most loci have been assigned to phase Hell 2 in the same manner as earlier loci: if they contain latest datable material that need not date later than the mid 2nd century and do not overlie any loci with later material or features assigned to later phases.

Since the PHAB was abandoned abruptly and later habitation and disturbance are limited in extent, there are five primary and/or good secondary deposits that contain reconstructable pottery left behind in the middle of the 2nd century. The function of the rooms in which this pottery was left in primary deposition or only slightly disturbed later can be more closely defined than other rooms. The function of two rooms in particular, the archive room (which contained over 2000 bullae that sealed papyrus documents) and the northwest storeroom (which contained a great quantity of storage jars), is rather certain. Two of the other three rooms are small spaces with an abundance of utility, cooking, and table vessels, located near drains and/or open areas with ovens. These rooms may have been used as kitchens, service rooms, or pantries. A third room, right inside the entrance of the building, contains several lamps, unguentaria, and small juglets as well as some cooking and table vessels. Its function is not altogether clear. Because study of the architecture and other finds from this phase is ongoing, and since there are no houses in the southern Levant with detailed publication of finds by room or palatial administrative centers elsewhere in the Seleucid realm with finds published by room, I will not give an in-depth analysis of the functional groups in these rooms of the PHAB here. However, in order to isolate the ceramic assemblage in use right when the PHAB was abandoned, I have made a distinction between loci containing the material clearly left behind in the abandonment and Hell 2 loci that contain pottery spanning the early and mid 2nd century. Loci containing reconstructable pottery

191

from the abandonment (and that do not have later material) have been grouped as Hell 2b.

Having done so, it is possible to assess what range of wares and vessels must have been used in

the mid 2nd century, and what pottery had in all likelihood gone out of use by the time the PHAB

was abandoned in 143.

Since there was no break in occupation between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid phases of the

PHAB (or in the wares and shapes manufactured in the region), many 3rd century forms and wares remained in use early in the 2nd century at Kedesh, as their great quantity in Hell 2 loci

attests. Those Hell 1 forms that have their peak as a proportion of vessel fragments in Hell 2 loci

and that would not have been wholly superseded functionally by a new form are considered to

have remained in production. A separate examination of the intact and reconstructable pottery

from loci associated with the abandonment shows that some wares and most forms that first

appeared in Hell 1 loci and that were still brought to the site early in the 2nd century had gone out of use by the time the PHAB was abandoned.

In addition to considering the stratigraphic evidence at Kedesh itself, I have searched for parallels in contexts of the first three quarters of the 2nd century in the region to help establish the

date range of different wares and forms that were used at Kedesh. I have only regularly cited

parallels from contexts of 2nd century date at nearby sites with reliable stratigraphy; namely

Akko-Ptolemais, Anafa, Dor, and Khirbet Zemel (hereafter Zemel).768 I have cited other parallels from sites that help illuminate the likely origin of imports at Kedesh, particularly in the northern

Levant and North Syria. Like the Persian and 3rd century material at the site, much material from

the Seleucid use of the PHAB between c. 200-143/2 occurs residually in later strata. In addition

some wares and forms used at Kedesh when it was abandoned were also used in the subsequent

768 At Akko-Ptolemais, Dor, and Anafa 2nd century pottery is deposited in stratigraphic sequence spanning earlier and later phases of these sites. Khirbet Zemel was a one period site in the Golan inhabited from c. 150-140.

192

phase of squatter (Hell 3) occupation. It is not always clear if these represent new acquisitions or

the reuse of vessels left behind when the building was abandoned.

I conclude this chapter, as I have the previous chapters, with a description of

contemporary ceramic assemblages from other sites in the eastern Mediterranean, a comparison

of the assemblage at Kedesh with these assemblages, a discussion of the similarities and

differences between the 3rd century assemblage (described above) and the early to mid 2nd

century assemblage at Kedesh, and a detailed comparison of the Kedesh assemblage with other

sites in the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley with the goal of elucidating patterns of

household organization. These comparisons allow for a consideration of how Kedesh fit into

wider economic trends in the region and local market routes of the eastern Upper Galilee and

Hula Valley, how the function of the PHAB and rhythms of life in it may have changed from the

3rd to the 2nd century, and whether the same sorts of day-to-day activities were conducted in the

PHAB at Kedesh as at sites in its immediate environs.

EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY WARES

Fifteen wares appeared often enough at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century for them to be

recognized: low-fired orange ware, low-fired brown ware, spatter painted ware, hard mortarium

fabric, sandy cooking ware, gritty cooking ware, Phoenician SF, central coastal fine ware,

northern coastal fine ware, the black slipped predecessor of eastern sigillata A, Cypriote

tablewares, tablewares from western Asia Minor, Aegean amphora fabric, Campana A, and

Mesopomian glazed ware (see Table 4.1). Five of these wares (gritty cooking ware, northern

coastal fine ware, the black slipped predecessor of ESA, Campana A, and Mesopotamian glazed

193

ware) make their first appearance stratigraphically in Hell 2 loci (see Table 4.2).769 Five other wares (hard mortarium fabric, tablewares from western Asia Minor, Aegean amphora fabrics, low-fired orange ware, and low-fired brown ware) are only attested in very small quantities in earlier loci, and as such are described here for the first time. A majority of vessels used at

Kedesh in the 2nd century continued to arrive from the eastern Upper Galilee/Hula Valley fabric

region or the central Levantine coast fabric region. However, a much higher proportion of

imports from outside the region occur, particularly among the table and transport vessels at the

site. Most of the 2nd century storage jars, utility vessels, and cooking vessels were still of local or regional origin.

Local Wares of the Eastern Upper Galilee/Hula Valley Fabric Region: Low-Fired Orange Ware, Low-Fired Brown Ware, Spatter Painted Ware, Hard Mortarium Fabric

Four wares from the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley were brought to Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century: low-fired orange ware, low-fired brown ware, spatter painted ware, and hard

mortarium fabric. Since there is a dramatic decrease in the percentage of red-brown gritty ware

fabric weight and fragmentary vessels in red-brown gritty ware and coarse orange ware in Hell 2

loci, and since no reconstructable vessels in these wares occur in Hell 2b abandonment loci, it

seems that they stopped being produced, or simply used at Kedesh, soon after the Seleucids took

over the region. It is possible that coarse orange ware jars continued to be used early in the 2nd century, since there is a modest increase in their proportional weight in Hell 2 loci, though this could simply represent garbage from the 3rd century (see Table 3.2). A switch to low-fired orange and low-fired brown wares for the large storage jars used in the early to mid 2nd century makes great sense if we consider that the jars that were the functional replacements of 3rd century

769 Wares that did not regularly register measurable weights in the field (e.g., fine table wares), or that could not be consistently recognized during field seasons (e.g., gritty cooking ware) are excluded from the weights on this chart.

194 jars were produced in low-fired orange ware and low-fired brown ware, both of which are in keeping with the geology in the immediate environs of Kedesh. Spatter painted ware and hard mortarium fabric, both present at the site already in the 3rd century, continued to be brought to

Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century.

Low-fired orange ware is a moderately hard, extremely coarse fabric with many medium angular gray and white and frequent large rounded dark brown inclusions as well as fired out straw tempers visible on the surface of the sherd. The ware is fired a bright orange red color on the surface (2.5YR 5/8-5YR 5/6) and has a dark red-brown core (5YR 5/2). Only large handmade storage jars occur in low-fired orange ware ware at Kedesh. A few low-fired orange ware sherds are first attested in Hell 1 loci, but no diagnostics are among them, and it is possible that these body sherds are intrusive or were misidentified. There is a much higher proportion of low-fired orange ware in Hell 2 loci, and a dramatic spike in Hell 2b loci representing several reconstructable jars found in storerooms at the site (see Table 4.2). Low-fired brown ware is also moderately hard and coarse, with medium to large angular gray or white inclusions, but no straw inclusions. The exterior surface is generally fired an orange-brown or even a gray-brown or yellow color (5 YR 6/6-10YR 7/4), and there is usually a wide gray core (5YR 5/1). Like low- fired orange ware, large handmade jars were the chief vessels produced in low-fired brown ware, though there are also a few large handmade basins in it as well. Also like low-fired orange ware, a few low-fired brown ware body sherds are attested in Hell 1 loci, though no diagnostic fragments are attested until Hell 2 loci and there is a dramatic spike in the ware in Hell 2b loci.

Petrographic testing has shown that low-fired brown ware most likely had its origin in the immediate environs of Kedesh.770 It is even possible that the jars were produced on-site, which would be more convenient than importing jars from manufacturers elsewhere. The only other site

770 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

195

at which either of these wares is attested is Khirbet esh Shuhara, located on the eastern Upper

Galilee plateau just a few kilometers west of Kedesh.771 Although petrographic testing has not been performed on low-fired orange ware sherds, the very limited distribution of the ware (only at Kedesh and Shuhara) indicates that it was a local product of the eastern Upper Galilee plateau as well.

Spatter painted ware of the Hula Valley continued to be the default ware for utility vessels at Kedesh in the first half and middle of the 2nd century. A minority of the site’s cooking, table, and service vessels also occur in spatter painted ware, indicating that the potters of the spatter painted ware industry produced a wide array of vessels in the 2nd century. Although

spatter painted ware cooking, table, and service vessels are not as abundant as vessels serving

these functions in other wares, they were more numerous at Kedesh than they had been in the 3rd century. The ware is best represented as a proportion of identified weight in Hell 2 and 2b loci

(see Table 4.2). The greater diversity of shapes and increase in the quantity of spatter painted ware at Kedesh suggests that the spatter painted ware industry was more robust in the 2nd century than in the 3rd century or that the 2nd century staff of the PHAB were more receptive to local table and cooking vessels, even as imports became more common at the site.

Hard mortarium fabric is very hard and coarse with frequent small to medium angular white inclusions. The ware first appears in small amounts in Hell 1 loci at Kedesh. It is fired a dark red-brown color (almost purple) (2.5YR 5/6-5YR 4/1) sometimes with a black core. This fabric corresponds to a ware described by Andrea Berlin at Tel Anafa that was used to make late

Hellenistic mortaria found there.772 At Kedesh, mortaria and large utility jugs are made in this

771 Aviam and Amitai 2002. 772 Berlin 1997a, 129.

196

fabric. The narrow distribution of hard mortarium fabric suggests that like spatter it was a

product of the Hula Valley or the eastern Upper Galilee.

Regional Wares of the Central Levantine Coast Fabric Region: Sandy Cooking Ware, Gritty Cooking Ware, Phoenician SF, Central Coastal Fine Ware

Four wares from the central Levantine coast were brought to Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century: sandy cooking ware, gritty cooking ware, Phoenician SF, and central coastal fine ware.

Sandy cooking ware and Phoenician SF, both of which were represented at Kedesh in the Persian period and the 3rd century, continued to be used in the first half of the 2nd century and increased substantially as a proportion of identified wares in Hell 2 loci (see Table 4.2). Cooking vessels were still the only shapes represented in sandy cooking ware. Likewise jars and service vessels were still the principal Phoenician SF vessels. However, a wider range and greater quantity of service vessels was used by the time the PHAB was abandoned, and Phoenician SF toilet vessels became more common in the 2nd century as well. There is a marked increase in the proportion of

Phoenician SF diagnostic vessel fragments and weight in Hell 2b loci (see Table 4.2), perhaps indicating that new Phoenician SF shapes were introduced around the middle of the 2nd century.

Central coastal fine ware table vessels remained common at least early in the 2nd century, but the paucity of reconstructable examples in the Hell 2b abandonment loci (only two out of 19 reconstructable table vessels) suggests that they were no longer regularly brought to the site in the middle of the century, and that the stray examples in the abandonment represent old vessels.

The incorporation of a great quantity of fragmentary central coastal fine ware vessels into Hell 2 sherd floors shows that an abundance of the ware was already present as debris on the site sometime in the first half of the 2nd century when these floors were laid down.

197

Gritty cooking ware is a hard but brittle, thin walled cooking fabric with occasional small to medium angular white inclusions. It has a bumpy surface texture and often a partially vitrified orange to dark gray self slip on the surface (2.5YR 4/6-5YR 6/8-7.5YR 4/1). The fabric is normally fired dark gray (7.5YR 4/1), and there is often a sharp black core from rapid firing

(5YR 3/1). Both cooking pots and casseroles were manufactured in gritty cooking ware, and almost all reconstructable cooking pots and some of the casseroles in the Hell 2b abandonment loci were in gritty cooking ware, suggesting either that it had replaced sandy cooking ware as the principal cooking ware used at Kedesh by the middle of the century or simply that the most recent shipment(s) of cooking vessels brought to the site happened to be from the gritty cooking ware workshop. The latter possibility seems more likely as sandy cooking ware vessels continued to be produced at Akko-Ptolemais and shipped inland to sites such as Anafa until at least the beginning of the 1st century.773 Petrographic testing has shown that gritty cooking ware, like sandy cooking ware, originated at or near Akko-Ptolemais.774 Because of difficulties in regularly differentiating gritty cooking ware from sandy cooking ware in the field reliable weights for the ware are unavailable.

Imported Wares of the Northern Levantine Fabric Region: Northern Coastal Fine Ware and the Black Slipped Predecessor (BSP) of Eastern Sigillata A (ESA)

Two wares that distribution suggests and petrographic testing demonstrates came from the northern Levant first appeared in quantity at Kedesh and other southern Levantine sites in the 2nd century: northern coastal fine ware, and the black slipped predecessor of eastern sigillata A

(hereafter BSP). Northern coastal fine ware is the earliest of these and the most abundant at

Kedesh. It is first attested at the site in Hell 2 loci. Northern coastal fine ware is a hard, fine, but

773 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming); for Anafa see Berlin (1997a). 774 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

198

slightly granular fabric with very few visible inclusions. It is fired a pale pink-brown or brown

color with no core (5YR 7/4-7.5YR 8/4). Vessels are partially or fully, but often rather

carelessly, slipped with a well-adhered, smooth, and semi lustrous orange-red slip. The slip is

sometimes brushed on and sometimes dipped. Most vessels in northern coastal fine ware

correspond to the description above, but some reconstructable vessels in this ware from the Hell

2b abandonment are fired harder and have a paler, yellower color in section. These features are

likely the result of hotter firing. The slip on reconstructable northern coastal fine ware vessels

from the Hell 2b abandonment is also applied more carefully and better adhered than on most

northern coastal fine ware vessels.775 In fact, the quality of clay and slips produced on these final

PHAB northern coastal fine ware vessels is much closer to that of BSP and ESA (see below)

than earlier examples, although the range of shapes does not mirror the BSP or earliest ESA

range. These changes in the appearance of northern coastal fine ware may indicate that the

potters who produced northern coastal fine ware were experimenting with firing temperature and

trying to improve their slips in much the same way as manufacturers of BSP. Northern coastal

fine ware is distributed broadly in the Levant, but is especially abundant in the northern Levant

at sites such as Gindaros776 and Kinet Höyuk.777

BSP, the black slipped predecessor of eastern sigillata A (hereafter ESA), also first

appears at Kedesh in Hell 2 loci. Kathleen Slane has described BSP in detail.778 It is a very hard

and fine, light pink or yellow-brown ware (5YR 7/4-7.5YR 8/4). The slip is smooth, evenly

applied over the entire vessel, and is either a black or maroon color, often mottled from one to

775 Frederick Waagé (1948, 15) noted this tendency for harder firing and better slips on local pottery at Antioch on the Orontes (one of the likely sources of northern coastal fine ware) in deposits dating to the 2nd century compared to earlier vessels. 776 Kramer 2004, 159-163. 777 Marie Henriette-Gates, personal communication, August 2009. 778 Slane 1997, 269-272.

199

the other. Some shapes, most notably hemispherical bowls with feet, are very often fired black

on the outside and red on the inside, probably as a result of stacking in the kiln, but also possibly

as a deliberate attempt to produce a two-tone effect, like color coated ware A (see pages 200-201

below, Figs. 4.20: 3, 6; 4.21: 4; 4.22: 4; 4.26: 3-4; for the coloration of color coated ware A see

Fig. 4.26: 1). However, since the firing techniques used rarely resulted in an even firing of black

on the exterior and red on the interior or vice-versa, potters in the workshops that produced BSP

may have decided to forego this attempt at two colors and transitioned to the smooth red slip of

ESA sometime in the third quarter of the 2nd century. Like northern coastal fine ware, BSP is distributed broadly in the Levant. A great number of possible BSP vessels are attested at Hama on the Orontes, but it is difficult to say if these vessels are certainly in BSP.779 Aside from Hama,

there is no known place at which it appears in great enough quantity to suggest local

production.780 If BSP was produced at Hama, it is possible that it reached Kedesh overland via the Orontes and Beqa’a valleys rather than from the coast. The ware could also have been transported northwards along the Orontes Valley and shipped further afield from Antioch.

Imported Wares: Cypriote Tablewares

Gray-brown Cypriote fabric and northeast Cypriote fabric continued to be attested in Hell 2b, and their quantity in that phase and later suggests that vessels in these wares were still imported at least early in the 2nd century. The presence of a nearly complete gray-brown Cypriote saucer in a sealed Hell 2 context provides some support for the continued appearance of Cypriote wares in the 2nd century. There is complementary evidence from other sites such as Akko-Ptolemais and

Beth Yerah-Philoteira where vessels in gray-brown Cypriote fabric continue to occur in contexts

779 Christensen 1971, 2-7, 10, 12-15, figs. 1: 5-20; 2-3; 4: 42-43; 6: 60-65, 67; 7: 60, 65, 67. 780 For discussion see Berlin, Herbert, and Stone (forthcoming); Slane (1997, 272).

200

dated to the 2nd century. Since no reconstructable vessels in these wares occur in Hell 2b loci, it is likely that they were no longer used at Kedesh by the middle of the 2nd century.

Imported Wares: The Aegean/Western Asia Minor

Aegean amphora fabrics, mostly from Rhodes, only occur in trace amounts in Persian loci and

Hell 1 loci, and it is not even certain that any Aegean amphoras of Persian date are represented at

Kedesh. If it were not for two stamped amphora handles dating to the 3rd century, and the rim of

a Rhodian amphora found in a Hell 1 locus, we might doubt the presence of Aegean amphoras at

Kedesh in the 3rd century as well. Aegean amphora fabrics are generally hard, slightly granular with a tan to pink-brown color and often mica. Aegean amphora fabric, most of it Rhodian, increased greatly as a proportion of identified wares in Hell 2 and 2b loci (see Table 4.2), which corresponds well to the greater quantity of stamped amphora handles dating to the early and

(especially) mid 2nd century than the 3rd century.

Several table vessels in wares from the Aegean or western Asia Minor have been identified at Kedesh as well. Because there are a limited number of examples of vessels in wares whose origin is relatively certain, and there are so many vessels in wares that could not be precisely located, I have counted examples of wares from the region together as wares from the

Aegean western Asia Minor. Such organization is also useful because wares from the region surely arrived at Kedesh via a common coastal source.

The only ware I have excepted from this lumping is color coated ware A, since it occurs in relatively substantial quantities and is limited to a single, distinctive shape, carinated cups with pinched handles (see Fig. 4.26: 1). Color coated ware A has been named and described by John

201

Hayes who suggested a southeastern Aegean origin, most likely Rhodes.781 It is a moderately hard fabric with few visible inclusions and occasional voids. It is fired a light pink-brown color

(5YR 6/4-7.5YR 7/3), sometimes more toward pink in the core. The upper two thirds of the exterior of the one regularly attested shape in color coated ware A is coated in a semi lustrous black slip, sometimes slightly metallic, and the interior is coated in a semi lustrous red slip (10R

4/6). It is unclear if other shapes in this ware were brought to the southern Levant.

Tablewares from the Aegean and Western Asia Minor were attested in the southern

Levant beginning in the 3rd century, but were largely limited to coastal sites or those with access

to trade routes. In the 2nd century, wares from the Aegean and western Asia Minor became more widespread. Drinking vessels (carinated cups with pinched handles and mold made bowls) were the most common vessels in wares from the Aegean and western Asia Minor. This is intriguing since the other regularly attested Aegean imports at Kedesh and many other southern Levantine sites are wine amphoras. Perhaps it seemed particularly fitting for potters on Rhodes, the greatest exporter of wine in the Hellenistic period, to market vessels used for drinking wine.

Imported Finewares: Campana A

Campana A and the shapes produced in it have been described in detail by Jean-Paul Morel.782 It is a very hard, fine fabric with occasional small white and black inclusions and/or mica. It is fired orange-red (2.5YR 5/6) and coated with a metallic black slip, sometimes fired red on the interior floor from stacking in the kiln. Campana A pottery was produced in workshops around the bay of Naples from the 4th to 1st centuries. In the 2nd century Campana A began to reach the

781 Hayes 1991, 23-24. 782 Morel 1981.

202

Eastern Mediterranean in modest quantities, probably via Delos.783 In the southern Levant

Campana A occurs principally at coastal sites and inland sites that received a variety of other imports. Campana A bowls and saucers are attested in small quantities at Kedesh, although more are known from the site than any other southern Levantine site published to date.

Imported Finewares: Mesopotamian Glazed Ware

Mesopotamian glazed ware is a hard but brittle pale-yellow fabric with few visible inclusions. It is covered with a characteristic thick, shiny turquoise or green lead glaze. Mesopotamian glazed ware is attested as early as the 3rd century in Mesopotamia and North Syria,784 and it was

probably produced at several centers there in the 2nd century. In the past this ware has been referred to as “Parthian glazed ware” because it was discovered in Parthian period strata at

Seleucia on the Tigris, Dura Europus, and Nimrud,785 but Heather Jackson notes that there are no

ethnic or cultural grounds for such a name, and I have opted for one that reflects its place of

origin. Mesopotamian glazed ware occurs only sporadically in the southern Levant, and its

earliest appearance there aside from Kedesh is at Anafa, where it is attested in phase Hell 1b (c.

250-125).786 The early date at which that Mesopotamian glazed ware (referred to there as “green-

glazed ware) occur at Jebel Khalid, located along the River Euphrates in North Syria, its relative

abundance there, and the great range of shapes compared to the southern Levant suggests that

there may have been a production center along the western reaches of the Euphrates, perhaps

located around Dura-Europus.787 This distribution also suggests that the River Euphrates served

783 See Morel 1986; Lund 2004; Handberg, Stone, and Hjarl-Petersen forthcoming. 784 Hannestad 1983; Jackson 2011b, 431; Oates 1968, 126. 785 For Seleucia on the Tigris see Debevoise (1934, 9); for Dura-Europus see Toll (1943, 5); for Nimrud see D. Oates. and J. Oates (1958, 138, no. 12). 786 Berlin 1997a, 176, pl. 72: PW574. 787 Jackson 2011b, 431-433.

203

as a corridor for communication and trade between Mesopotamia and North Syria and/or the

northern Levant. Given the extreme scarcity of the ware in the southern Levant, it seems that no

similar regular connection was made between Mesopotamia and the southern Levant in the 2nd century. The few Mesopotamian glazed ware vessels that appear at Kedesh must have reached the site as gifts, or personal possessions, or perhaps via the agency of specialty merchants.

EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY SHAPES AND FORMS

Two thousand seven hundred and eighty-four diagnostic vessel fragments were identified in Hell

2 loci, and an additional 544 in phase Hell 2b loci associated with the abandonment in 144/3.788

In total there are 3328 diagnostic vessel fragments from Hell 2 and 2b loci representing material deposited at Kedesh between c. 200-144/3. Two hundred and ninety-two (11%) of these fragments in Hell 2 loci are of forms that first appear in Hell 2 loci, as are one hundred and eighty-four (34%) of the fragments in Hell 2b loci. If we consider all possible Hell 2 diagnostic fragments there are 1233 (44%) in Hell 2 loci and 320 (59%) in Hell 2b loci (for a total of 1552)

(see Table 4.3). There is a spike in Hell 2 vessels in Hell 2b loci, which is to be expected since it represents deposits that contained reconstructable vessels left behind when the PHAB was abandoned, and thus includes much less residual material. As with all phases of Hellenistic occupation at Kedesh, a substantial quantity of material used at the site in the early or middle of the 2nd century was redeposited in later loci.

Transport and Storage Vessels

788 253 diagnostic vessel fragments represented in phase Hell 2b were clearly part of floor matrices that were partially or fully excavated along with the material deposited on them. These can be subtracted from the count of vessel fragments left in the PHAB when it was abandoned and considered part of Hell 2 (bringing the Hell 2 total to 2784 and the Hell 2b total to 544) since they certainly represent material that had gone out of use and been incorporated into surfaces before the abandonment of the building.

204

As mentioned above, jars in red-brown gritty ware and coarse orange ware decline precipitously

as a proportion of fragmentary vessels represented in Hell 2 loci, suggesting that they occur principally in Hell 2 loci as residuals (see Fig. 2.2). It is possible that some jars in coarse orange

ware were still used early in the 2nd century since the ware peaks as a proportion of fabric weight in Hell 2 loci, but there is no concrete evidence for this. We do know that by the middle of the

2nd century, the PHAB was equipped with large storage jars with everted rims. Transport jars

(that would have been useful reused for storage as well) include Phoenician SF baggy jars and

Rhodian amphoras. An abundance of amphoriskoi in Phoenician SF were found in the archive room, suggesting that these vessels stored some commodity for official, rather than personal, use.

For storage, the early and mid 2nd century staff of the PHAB used large storage jars with everted rims that are distinct in form and fabric from those brought to Kedesh in the 3rd century.

It is uncertain if these jars were introduced right at the beginning of the century, but since no other reconstructable storage jars are attested in Hell 2b abandonment loci they were the only vessels for bulk storage that had been brought to the site for quite some time when the PHAB was abandoned. Large jars with everted rims in low-fired orange ware (104 examples) and low- fired brown ware (39 examples) have ovoid bodies terminating in bulky toes, they have everted and thickened rims (in low-fired orange ware, see Fig. 4.2) or grooved rims (in low-fired brown ware, see Figs. 4.3-4). Two vertical strap handles are attached to the shoulder and body. On low- fired orange ware examples these handles are plain, on low-fired brown ware examples they have one or more broad grooves on their exterior surface. Large jars with everted rims measure approximately 1.5 m in height and have a capacity of approximately 130 l, making them considerably larger than jars and amphoras typically used for the transport of oil and wine (e.g.,

Fig. 4.34). Their dimensions and the thickness of their walls, typically 1.5 cm or more, make

205

these jars very heavy, even when empty. Accordingly, they probably served principally for on-

site storage in the manner of pithoi. Residue analysis has shown that several of these jars held

triticum aestivium, or bread wheat, indicating that they were used for the bulk storage of

foodstuffs.789 Jars of the same form and in the same wares are only known from Khirbet esh

Shuhara in contexts associated with an abandonment of the site around 140.790 Jars of the same

form but in the local coarse ware of the Golan (hereafter “Golan ware”) are attested in abundance

at Khirbet Zemel,791 which was inhabited only briefly in the middle of the 2nd century (see pages

292-295, below) and the Hell 2a (c. 125-110) residents of Anafa used jars of the same form in

spatter painted ware.792 An example of the same form has been found in the Parthian-Roman cemetery at Tel Sheikh Hamad in eastern Syria.793 The presence of jars so similar in form but in

different local wares at all of these sites in the Eastern Upper Galilee, Hula Valley, and Golan

plateau may indicate that itinerant potters made them on-site using local clays in each place.794

This would certainly make more sense than hauling their considerable bulk any distance from place of production to place of use. At Kedesh, 12 large jars with everted rims were found in

Hell 2 loci and another 15 in Hell 2b loci; of the latter, six were found crushed in a storeroom on the south side of the building, and nine were found in the northwest storeroom.795 One hundred

and sixteen examples occur in later loci at the site. Some jars of this form were certainly used by

the squatters who repurposed the PHAB in the 130s, who modified at least one jar to use as an

789 Berlin, Ball, Thompson, and Herbert 2003. 790 For the form in low-fired orange see Aviam and Amitai (2002, 126-127, fig. 13:2); for the form in low-fired brown see Aviam and Amitai (2002, 126-127, fig. 13:1) 791 Hartal 2002, 92-104, figs. 24-30. 792 Berlin 1997a, 156. 793 Römer-Strehl 2000, 129, 135. That there are parallels in eastern Syria may indicate that the template for this form, new to the southern Levant, came from the east after the Seleucid conquest c. 200, though one would want more examples from well dated contexts to confirm this. 794 Itinerant potters have been documented in modern Crete (Voyatoglou 1974). 795 See Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 27-29, figs. 12-13. These jars are described in the preliminary report as occurring in red-brown gritty ware. This ware identification was made before petrographic testing and stratigraphic study of material from Kedesh had been completed.

206

oven, but they were merely reusing jars that had been left behind at the site (see pages 333-334,

below).

No local jars suitable for transporting oil or wine replaced the torpedo jars with narrow

necks and thickened rims used at Kedesh in the Persian period and 3rd century. Unless containers of some other material were used, it seems that the residents of Kedesh and staff of the PHAB became more dependent on oil and wine from the coast or abroad in the 2nd century since jars

from these sources continued to arrive at the site. Phoenician SF baggy jars (Fig. 4.5) continued

to be brought to Kedesh from the coast in the early and mid 2nd century, and in greater quantity

than they had in the 3rd century, as there are 21 in Hell 2 loci and another eight are attested in

Hell 2b loci (two reconstructable), compared to seven in Hell 1 loci. Phoenician SF baggy jars

have been found at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd and mid to late 2nd century

date.796 At Anafa they are first attested in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).797 An example is attested from Dor in a context of late 3rd or early 2nd century date, and another from a context of the last quarter of the 2nd century or later.798 One hundred and seventy-two baggy jars were recovered at

Kedesh from loci deposited after the PHAB’s abandonment, and since they were used in the second half of the 2nd century and early 1st century at Anafa, Akko-Ptolemais, and Dor, it is

possible that they continued to be brought to Kedesh by the squatters.

Imported wine was much more common at Kedesh in the early and mid 2nd century than

it had been in the 3rd. Rhodian amphoras were the chief imports (Fig. 4.6). Ten fragmentary

examples were found in Hell 2 loci in Rhodian fabric, and one imitation in spatter painted ware.

Nine more examples (all in Rhodian fabric) were found in Hell 2b loci, four of which were

reconstructable. Of the 75 fragmentary Rhodian amphoras in post Hell 2/2b loci, three found in

796 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 9; 3.13: 1; 3.19: 1. 797 Berlin 1997a, 155. 798 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.38: 7, 9.

207

Roman loci are represented by stamped handles dating to 140-138, 132 and 129-123. If we

remove these from consideration, there are fragments of 72 potentially early or mid 2nd century

Rhodian amphoras in subsequent strata. Since the majority of the readable handles found at

Kedesh (27 out of 32) date from the beginning of the 2nd century down to 143/2, it is reasonable

to assume that most unstamped fragments in later deposits are of amphoras brought to the site

early or in the middle of the 2nd century. The concentration of handles dated to the 150s and 140s

suggests that there was increased consumption of Rhodian wine at Kedesh in the middle of the

2nd century. In addition to standard Rhodian amphoras, a fractional Rhodian amphora, a pseudo

Koan amphora, and two unknown imported amphoras were recovered in Hell 2 loci. Some or all of five Chian amphoras found in later strata may have brought to the site in the early or mid 2nd

century as well.

Phoenician SF amphoriskoi are a good deal smaller than the transport and storage vessels

just described. They are tall and narrow with bodies shaped like carrots that constrict to narrow

necks with plain or beveled rims. Two handles are attached at the neck and shoulder.

Amphoriskoi occur in two size ranges; one from 21-30 cm in height (Fig. 4.7: 2), and the other

measuring 37-40 cm in height and with a much greater volume (Fig. 4.7: 1). The smaller variety,

which tapers down to a flat or pointed toe, is more numerous at Kedesh, with 107 examples

represented. The larger variety has a narrow disk foot and a greater capacity; only seven of these

have been found at Kedesh. Phoenician SF amphoriskoi appear all along the Levantine coast, and

throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus, Athens, and even the Black Sea

region.799 Comparanda for the smaller variety of amphoriskoi are generally easier to find, dated examples appear in the southern Levant at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd and

799 For discussion see Berlin (1997a, 54-57); Rotroff (2006a 161-163).

208

mid to late 2nd century date,800 at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110),801 and at Dor they are present in contexts dating to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.802 An example is also

attested at the mid 2nd century settlement at Khirbet Zemel.803 Preliminary results of residue analysis from Kedesh suggest that these amphoriskoi held cedar infused oil.804 At Kedesh 12 of the smaller, tapered amphoriskoi are attested in Hell 2 loci, and another 29 (at least 13 reconstructable) in Hell 2b loci. Sixty-seven examples occur in later loci. One reconstructable example of the larger variety has been recovered from a Hell 2 locus, and another three reconstructable examples have been found in Hell 2b loci. Three more of the larger amphoriskoi have been found in later loci. Most of the reconstructable examples of both sizes (12 of the smaller tapered amphoriskoi and two of the larger footed amphoriskoi) were found in a group

(the unguentarium and amphoriskos deposit) in the archive room, along with fragments of at least 21 more of the smaller variety (derived from the handle count, divided by two), for a total of 33 amphoriskoi in the unguentarium and amphoriskos deposit. The great quantity of amphoriskoi kept in the archive room (Fig. 4.8) indicates that whatever commodity they held was probably being stockpiled at Kedesh. Since cedar keeps insects that devour organic materials at bay, the cedar infused oil in them may have been used to treat documents stored in the archive.805

Utility Vessels

800 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.9: 8; 3; 3.12: 9. 801 Berlin 1997a, 56-57, pl. 11: PW 70. 802 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.29: 2-5. 803 Hartal 2002, 91-92, fig. 23: 9. 804 Andrew Koh, personal communication, July 2009. 805 Andrea Berlin and Andrew Koh, personal communication, July 2009.

209

Five vessel forms meant for household utility were brought to and used at Kedesh in the early to

mid 2nd century: mortaria with extended rims, low-fired brown ware handmade basins, kraters

with overhanging rims, jugs with squared rims, and Phoenician SF flasks. As in the 3rd century,

spatter painted ware potters in the Hula valley produced almost all of the utility vessels used at

Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century.

Mortaria with extended rims (Fig. 4.9: 1) were still brought to Kedesh and used for

grinding in the early to mid 2nd century. Several examples of these are attested in phase Hell 2a

(c. 125-110) at Anafa in spatter painted ware.806 Additional examples are present in Golan ware

at Khirbet Zemel (c. 150-140).807 Ten examples in spatter painted ware occur in Hell 2 loci at

Kedesh, and two spatter painted ware examples (one reconstructable) are present in Hell 2b

abandonment loci. There are 51 examples in subsequent loci at Kedesh, 42 in spatter painted

ware, six in hard mortarium fabric, and two in unknown fabrics.

Two vessel forms suited for washing or mixing ingredients are first attested in Hell 2

loci: low-fired brown ware handmade basins and kraters with overhanging rims. Low-fired

brown ware handmade basins are broad (26-36 cm in diameter) and moderately deep (the only

whole profile is 13.6 cm high) (Fig. 4.9: 2). Their walls are also very thick and sturdy (0.9-1.7

cm in thickness), suggesting that they were suited for heavy use. Despite this, the lack of

abrasion on their interior suggests that they were not used for grinding. Perhaps these served as

broad washbasins or large scoops. The only parallel for these basins in form and fabric occurs at

the village at Khirbet esh Shuhara, just a few kilometers from Kedesh.808 Since Khirbet esh

Shuhara is the only excavated site aside from Kedesh supplied with vessels in low-fired brown

ware and low-fired orange ware, it seems that these basins were a thoroughly local product of the

806 Berlin 1997a, 129, pl. 39: PW 361-364. 807 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 16, 18-19. 808 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 13: 7.

210

eastern Upper Galilee that did not circulate more broadly. Only six examples of these distinctive

basins are attested at Kedesh, one each in Hell 2 and Hell 2b loci, the latter example is

reconstructable.

Kraters with overhanging rims (Fig. 4.9: 3) occur at Kedesh in sandy cooking ware

(seven examples), spatter painted ware (five examples), gritty cooking ware (two examples),

Phoenician SF (two examples), and hard mortarium fabric (one example), and in unknown

fabrics (four examples). Unlike the low-fired brown ware handmade basins, kraters with

overhanging rims are attested throughout the eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd and 1st centuries and were especially common at sites in mainland Greece.809 Regional parallels dating from the

mid to late 2nd century are attested at Akko-Ptolemais,810 from the first three quarters of the 2nd century at Dor,811 and from the middle of the 2nd century at Khirbet Zemel.812 Relatively few examples of kraters with overhanging rims are attested at Kedesh. It is possible that some of the examples attested in later loci were brought to the site in phase Hell 3, as the form continued to be used in the southern Levant throughout the late 2nd and 1st centuries, after the abandonment of

the PHAB.813 Kraters with overhanging rims were not abundant at Kedesh; only 21 examples are

attested; five examples were found in Hell 2 loci and none in Hell 2b loci.

Jugs with squared rims (Fig. 4.10: 1) continued to be used for fetching and/or storing

water at Kedesh at least until the abandonment of the PHAB in 143. Jugs of the same form are

attested in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110) at Anafa,814 and in the local fabric of the Golan from the

809 E.g., Rotroff 2006a, 109-110. 810 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.17: 12 811 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.11: 6-9, 11. 812 Hartal 2002, 88-89, fig. 22: 14. 813 E.g., Akko-Ptolemais (Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.22: 15; 3.24: 12); Anafa (Berlin 1997a, pl. 42: PW394). 814 Berlin 1997a, 147, pls. 53, 86: PW460.

211

mid 2nd century settlement at Khirbet Zemel.815 At Kedesh, 17 examples in spatter painted ware

(one reconstructable) and one in hard mortarium fabric occur in Hell 2 loci and another 12 (two

reconstructable) spatter examples were found in Hell 2b loci. One hundred and twenty-eight

examples in spatter painted ware, nine in hard mortarium fabric, and eight in unknown wares

occur in later loci. Spatter painted ware jugs or jars with ledge rims and ridged necks were also

probably still used at Kedesh in the first half of the 2nd century. Parallels in form and fabric are published from phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110) at Anafa, but examples occur as early as phase Hell

1b (c. 250-125).816 A jug of the same form is attested in the local ware of the Golan at the mid

2nd century settlement of Khirbet Zemel.817 Three examples out of ten at Kedesh appear in Hell 2 loci (one reconstructable). It is possible given the small quantity attested at Kedesh, and the fact that no reconstructable examples were left behind in the Hell 2b abandonment, that these vessels went out of use early in the 2nd century. In any case, the continued production of mortaria with extended rims and jugs with squared rims until the middle of the 2nd century demonstrates the

conservatism of local potting traditions in the Hula Valley, at least when it came to basic utility

vessels not intended for the table.

Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims (Fig. 4.10: 2) first appeared at Kedesh in the 2nd

century. These vessels have broad lentoid bodies, constricted necks made separately and inserted

into the body, thick folded rims, and two handles attached at the neck and shoulder. They

measure approximately 25-30 cm in height and have a rim diameter of approximately 7-7.5 cm.

Their shape suits them for carrying liquid around and pouring it out in measured quantities, but

would be very awkward if set on a table. As such it seems that these were meant to carry water

around on journeys away from the site, perhaps strapped to the side of pack animals. A parallel

815 Hartal 2002, 88-90, fig. 22:4-5. 816 Berlin 1997a, 153, pl. 55: PW 468-469. 817 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 11.

212

from Dor was found in a context dated to the 3rd century.818 At Anafa they are first attested in

phase Rom 1c, but are attributed to the Late Hellenistic period occupation (Hell 2a-c) of the site

(c. 125-75).819 At Kedesh one example is attested in a Hell 2 locus, and two in Hell 2b loci, one of which is partially reconstructable. In addition, a complete example was found in the abandonment of the house west of the PHAB, giving further evidence that they were in use when the PHAB was abandoned. Twenty-seven examples occur in subsequent strata.

In addition to these regularly occurring utility vessels, a complete squat jar with flat bottom, thickened rim and handles attached at the neck and shoulder was found in the Hell 2b abandonment (Fig. 4.11). It is in an unknown fabric. It measures 28.2 cm in height with a maximum diameter of 24 cm at the shoulder and a rim diameter of 9 cm. Given its relatively small size and shape, this jar would have been suitable either for the transport and storage of some commodity or for fetching and/or storing water.

Cooking Vessels: Cooking Pots

The most common cooking vessels at the PHAB from the beginning to the middle of the 2nd century continued to be deep globular cooking pots. The sharp decline in the number of neckless cooking pots with triangular rims in Hell 2 loci indicates that these had gone out of use by the beginning of the 2nd century (see Fig. 2.6). It seems that all of the necked cooking pot forms

introduced in the 3rd century continued to be used: pointed rim, concave rim, and flattened rim.

Parallels for all of these forms can be found in contexts of the first three quarters of the 2nd

century at other sites in the region. Necked cooking pots with pointed rims are attested at Akko-

818 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.34: 5. 819 Berlin 1997a, 141.

213

Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date,820 at Zemel in the mid 2nd century,821 at

Shuhara in a 2nd century context,822 and at Anafa in phases Hell 1b (c. 250-125) and Hell 2a (c.

125-110).823 Necked cooking pots with flattened rims are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context

of mid to late 2nd century date,824 at Beth Yerah-Philoteira in a context of 3rd through mid 2nd century date,825 at Khirbet Zemel in the mid 2nd century,826 and at Anafa in phases Hell 1b (c.

250-125) and Hell 2a (c. 125-110).827 Necked cooking pots with concave rims are attested at

Akko-Ptolemais in contexts dated from the late 3rd to mid 2nd century and from the mid to late

2nd century,828 at Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in a context dated from the 3rd through mid 2nd century,829 and at Beth Yerah-Philoteira in a context of 3rd to mid 2nd century date.830

Most of these forms continued to appear at Kedesh in sandy cooking ware, although there

is some increased variety in fabrics. Necked cooking pots with pointed rims first appeared in

spatter painted ware in the 2nd century (Fig. 4.12: 1). Eight examples occur in Hell 2 loci and five (one reconstructable) in Hell 2b loci, out of 39 total spatter painted ware examples. Necked cooking pots with pointed rims also first appeared at Kedesh in gritty cooking ware in Hell 2 loci

(Fig. 4.12: 2). More examples appear in gritty cooking ware (23 examples) than sandy cooking ware in Hell 2b loci (7 examples), and two Hell 2b examples in gritty cooking ware are reconstructable while only an unusually small sandy cooking ware example is reconstructable.

Despite their ample representation in abandonment loci, it seems that gritty cooking ware necked

820 Berlin and Stone forthcoming figs. 3.16: 2-3; 3.19: 8. 821 Hartal 2002, 84, 86-87, 89, fig. 21: 1-8. 822 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 12: 3. 823 Berlin 1997a, 88-89, pls. 21: PW188. 824 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.19: 7 825 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, fig. 5.11: 3. 826 Hartal 2002, 86-87, 89, fig. 21: 10-11. 827 Berlin 1997a, 89, pls. 22, 78: PW192-193, 195-196. 828 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 8; 3.13: 11 829 Młynarczyk 2009, fig. 3: 7-8. 830 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, 144-145, fig. 5.11: 2.

214

cooking pots with pointed rims were used at the site for a shorter span of time than sandy

cooking ware examples since they are less well represented than sandy cooking ware examples

as residuals in subsequent strata (198 sandy cooking ware compared to 88 in gritty cooking

ware). As mentioned above, their preponderance in Hell 2b loci may indicate that they had

simply arrived in the most recent shipment of cooking vessels brought to the site by regional

merchants. The presence of well-preserved examples of necked cooking pots with pointed rims

in gritty cooking ware found in Hell 3 and Roman loci that feature concentrations of well

preserved Hell 3 material suggests that they were used (and possibly acquired) by the squatters

who inhabited the building briefly after its abandonment. Necked cooking pots with pointed rims

in all wares decline precipitously as a proportion of vessel fragments after Hell 2b (see Fig.

4.13).

Necked cooking pots with flattened rims in sandy cooking ware continued to be used in

the 2nd century, as two reconstructable examples in Hell 2b loci demonstrate (Fig. 4.12: 3). Like

necked cooking pots with pointed rims, necked cooking pots with flattened rims first appeared in

spatter painted ware in Hell 2 loci, and two spatter examples occur in each of Hell 2 (one

reconstructable) and Hell 2b (one reconstructable, Fig. 4.12: 4) out of 12 spatter examples

recovered from the PHAB.831

Likewise, necked cooking pots with concave rims continued to appear in sandy cooking ware (four examples in each of Hell 2 and 2b, and ten in subsequent loci) and first appeared in spatter painted ware in the early or mid 2nd century. One out of four spatter painted ware

examples at the site occurs in a Hell 2 locus. An example of the form also occurs in an unknown

imported cooking ware (see Fig. 4.14: 4).

831 The illustrated example is preserved to its lower wall and shows no traces of burning, perhaps indicating that it (or necked “cooking” pots with flattened rims in spatter painted ware generally) was not used with heat. These pots could act as jugs or even chamber pots if need be.

215

It is curious that all of these cooking pot forms make their earliest appearance in spatter

painted ware at Kedesh in Hell 2 loci since they were already attested in the 3rd century in sandy cooking ware. Perhaps, in the 2nd century potters in the Hula Valley began making necked cooking pots based upon earlier sandy cooking ware templates. Such a “lag” in their production in the Hula Valley is similar to the 3rd century production of neckless cooking pots with

triangular rims in spatter painted ware, a form that had already appeared in sandy cooking ware

on the coast and Kedesh in the Persian period. This observation accords well with evidence from

Anafa located in the Hula Valley itself. Necked cooking pots with pointed rims are not attested

in phase Hell 1a at Anafa and thus were not necessarily present at all before the 2nd century, perhaps indicating that coastal forms that were common at Kedesh already in the 3rd century did

not arrive in the Hula Valley until the 2nd century.

Three new cooking pot forms were introduced in the early or mid 2nd century: necked

cooking pots with ledge rims, sandy cooking ware small cooking pots with everted rims, and

sandy cooking ware cooking pots with high splayed necks. Necked cooking pots with ledge rims

(Fig. 4.14: 1) have the same basic dimensions as the cooking pots already described. They find

parallels at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd century and mid to late 2nd century

date,832 at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110),833 and at Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in a context dating from the 3rd to mid 2nd century.834 Necked cooking pots with ledge rims occur exclusively in

sandy cooking ware. Four occur in Hell 2 loci and another two in Hell 2b loci out of 18 examples

at the site. Only three sandy cooking ware small cooking pots with everted rims have been

recovered from PHAB, but an intact example from the Hell 2b destruction of the house west of

the PHAB (Fig. 4.14: 2) indicates that they were used in the middle of the 2nd century. As their

832 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 7; 3.19: 9. 833 Berlin 1997a, 90. 834 Młynarczyk 2009, fig. 3: 3-5.

216

name implies they are smaller than the standard globular cooking pots used at Kedesh,

measuring only about 10 cm in height and 8-10 cm in rim diameter. Small cooking pots with

everted rims are handleless as well. These small pots may have been used for preparing

individual servings of food or concentrated seasonings to be dipped in bread or flavor dishes

cooked in other vessels. The only parallel for these small cooking pots with everted rims is

published from Khirbet esh Shuhara.835

Cooking pots with high splayed necks (Fig. 4.14: 3) have similar dimensions to the necked cooking pots already described. They are represented by five examples in sandy cooking ware from Hell 2 loci out of 20 sandy cooking ware examples recovered from Kedesh. In Hell 3 loci this same form appears in great quantity (39 examples) in basaltic cooking ware; a ware not attested in earlier loci. This increase in Hell 3 loci suggests that the form became particularly common at Kedesh in the phase immediately after the abandonment of the PHAB. Cooking pots with high splayed necks are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of 3rd century date, though

this example may be intrusive, and a context of mid to late 2nd century date;836 at Dor in a context

dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century;837 at Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in a context of 3rd through mid 2nd century date;838 and at Khirbet Zemel in the middle of the 2nd century.839

Cooking pots with high splayed necks were common at sites in the Central Hills and Shephelah such as Samaria,840 Shechem,841 Gezer,842 and Tirat Yehuda843 in the 3rd and early 2nd century.

835 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 12: 7. 836 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.5: 1; 3.13: 12; 3.16: 5. 837 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.17: 3. 838 Młynarczyk 2009, fig. 3: 1. 839 Hartal 2002, fig. 21: 12. 840 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41: 6. 841 N. Lapp 2008, 328-329, pl. 3.40: 5. 842 Gitin 1990, pls. 32: 21; 33: 21; 35: 15. 843 Yeivin and Edelstein 1970, fig. 8: 12.

217

Two imported cooking pots with very short ledge rims also appeared in Hell 2 loci (Fig.

4.14: 5), and are the only examples of such vessels found at the site. They are similar in form to

Hellenistic cooking pots attested in Egypt at Naukratis and they may have been imported from

Egypt.844 There are no published parallels from the southern Levant. The two examples found in

Hell 2 loci are the only ones attested at Kedesh.

Cooking Vessels: Casseroles, Baking Dishes/Pans, and Brazier

Sandy cooking ware casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls and angled rims and rounded walls continued to be brought to Kedesh in the first half of the 2nd century. Casseroles with wavy

rims and straight walls are attested in a context at Akko-Ptolemais of mid to late 2nd century

date,845 and at Dor in a context of late 2nd or 1st century date.846 Twelve casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls are attested in Hell 2 loci at Kedesh (one reconstructable, Fig. 4.14: 6), and one reconstructable example is attested in a Hell 2b locus, out of 52 Hell 2 or later examples at the site. Similar casseroles with angled rims and straight walls were first used at Kedesh in the early or mid 2nd century. Sixteen of the 17 casseroles with angled rims and straight walls at

Kedesh occur in sandy cooking ware, and one is in gritty cooking ware. Parallels for this form are attested in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110) at Anafa,847 in a context dated to the first three quarters

of the 2nd century at Dor,848 and in the middle of the 2nd century at Zemel.849 At Kedesh, three

examples of this form occur in Hell 2 loci and another two (one reconstructable, Fig. 4.14: 7) in

Hell 2b loci, out of 17 examples attested at the site.

844 Berlin 1998, fig. 2.16: 10-13. 845 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.12: 13. 846 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.21: 13. 847 Berlin 1997a, 98, pl. 28: PW237. 848 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.22: 4. 849 Hartal 2002, 86-87, 89, fig. 21: 14.

218

Casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls (Fig. 4.15: 2) are attested at Akko-

Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date,850 at Dor in contexts of mid 3rd to late 2nd

century and late 2nd to 1st century date,851 and at Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in a context of 3rd to mid 2nd century date.852 Four casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls are attested in Hell 2 loci

and another four (one reconstructable) are attested in Hell 2b loci, out of 56 examples found in

Hell 2 or later loci. A very large variant of this form measuring 40 cm or more in diameter first

appeared at Kedesh in the early or mid 2nd century, three examples occur in Hell 2 (one partially

reconstructable, Fig. 4.15: 3) and another four in later loci. These casseroles were used for

preparing meals for large groups. The absence of well preserved examples of any of these

casserole forms in Hell 3 loci and Roman loci with much distinct Hell 3 pottery suggests that

they were not brought to Kedesh after the abandonment of the PHAB in 143.

Casserole lids (Fig. 4.15: 1) continued to be used along with casseroles in the early to

mid 2nd century. Eleven examples occur in Hell 2 loci, and another six in Hell 2b loci, one of

which is in gritty cooking ware, the first appearance of the form in this ware. Parallels for these

lids are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd and mid to late 2nd century

date,853 at Dor in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century,854 at Beth Yerah-

Philoteira in a context of 3rd to mid 2nd century date,855 at Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in a context of 3rd

to mid 2nd century date,856 and at Zemel in the middle of the 2nd century.857

Baking dishes/pans are first attested at Kedesh in Hell 2 loci (Fig. 4.16: 1-2). All

examples at Kedesh correspond to Rotroff’s pan forms 1-2 (the difference between the forms

850 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.13: 15; 3.19: 11. 851 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.20: 7, 13. 852 Młynarczyk 2009, fig. 3: 9. 853 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 6; 3.13: 17-20. 854 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.24: 10. 855 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, fig. 5.10: 9. 856 Młynarczyk 2009, fig. 3: 10-11. 857 Hartal 2002, 86-87, 89, fig. 21: 15-17.

219

being the presence of handles, making it impossible to differentiate them when examples are

very fragmentary).858 These pans are broad (rim diameters of 30 cm or more) with flat bottoms and splayed walls that terminate in gently thickened rims. Fifteen examples found at Kedesh occur in Aegean cooking ware, and one example is attested in sandy cooking ware (Fig. 4.16: 2).

Pans of this form are distributed broadly in the eastern Mediterranean from the early 2nd to 1st

century. Aegean pans of various forms were already attested on the southern Levantine coast and

at Samaria in the 3rd and early 2nd centuries, indicating that some people at more cosmopolitan sites in the region were familiar with dishes that were prepared in them already by the beginning of the 2nd century. Regional parallels for these pans are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date,859 in Aegean cooking ware and spatter painted ware at Anafa in

phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110),860 at Dor in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century,861 and at Beth Yerah-Philoteira in a context of 3rd to mid 2nd century date.862 The presence of pans in sandy cooking ware at Akko-Ptolemais and Kedesh, and in spatter painted ware at Anafa, suggests that local demand for specialized cooking vessels in the region was sufficient in the mid to late 2nd century to make it worthwhile for local potters to make them, at

least on occasion. People on the coast, and eventually the Hula Valley, had integrated methods of

food preparation (and probably recipes) from a foreign tradition into their own culinary

repertoire. Unless the people living at all of these sites were settlers from the Aegean themselves,

this shows an interest in once exotic cultural practices. Of the 16 Aegean style pans recovered at

Kedesh, two occur in Hell 2 loci and the rest were found in later contexts.

858 Rotroff 2006, 188-190, figs. 86-87: 679-688, pls. 70-71: 679-680, 682-683, 686. 859 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.13: 16 (in sandy cooking ware). 860 Berlin 1997a, 110-111, pls. 34, 81: PW302. 861 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.23: 13-14. 862 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, fig. 5.10: 6.

220

One fragmentary Aegean brazier with molded face on the strut is attested in a Hell 2

locus at Kedesh (Fig. 4.17), the only example at the site. Such braziers are common at sites in the

Aegean and coastal sites in the eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd and 1st centuries, and were used for suspending vessels over a cooking fire held within the brazier.863 The decoration on the

Kedesh example conforms to Agora type III.1b, a Satyr with an onkos.864 A brazier with molded strut has been found at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date,865 and several

have been published from Dor.866 The brazier at Kedesh is the easternmost example reported to date in the Near East.

Table Vessels

The table assemblage at Kedesh became more varied between the beginning of the 2nd century

and the abandonment of the PHAB in 143.867 But as mentioned above, some of the wares used in

the 3rd century continued to be brought to Kedesh, at least early in the 2nd century. Notable

among these central coastal fine ware, spatter painted ware, and gray-brown Cypriote fabric.

Many of the same forms also continued to be used in these wares, especially bowls with incurved

and everted rims and saucers with ledge and folded rims. These continuities between the 3rd and

early 2nd centuries are intriguing for what they tell us about how the change from Ptolemaic to

Seleucid rule over the region affected economic patterns and lifestyles, but they make it difficult

to determine the precise quantities of table vessels used at the PHAB in the 3rd and first half of the 2nd century, respectively. Still, consideration of the Hell 2b abandonment contexts makes it clear that the central coastal fine ware vessels that had been the default table vessels in the 3rd

863 Rotroff 2006a, 200-204. 864 Rotroff 2006a, 208, 328, fig 93: 784; pl. 81: 784. 865 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.14: 1. 866 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, figs. 5.1-2. 867 For preliminary discussion see Berlin, Herbert, and Stone (forthcoming).

221

century were out of general use at Kedesh by the time the PHAB was abandoned in 143, as were

vessels in gray-brown and Northeast Cypriote fabrics. Very few reconstructable central coastal

fine ware vessels (two out of 19 reconstructable table vessels) occur in Hell 2b loci, suggesting

that by the time the PHAB was abandoned the few vessels that were used represented old vessels

(perhaps even debris picked up off of scrap heaps at the site) and not fresh acquisitions. The

central coastal fine ware vessels were replaced by the middle of the 2nd century by vessels in northern coastal fine ware and BSP from the northern Levant, and to a lesser degree by locally produced spatter painted ware vessels. In addition, imported table vessels from the

Aegean/western Asia Minor and Italy appeared with some regularity, and there were even sporadic imports from Mesopotamia.

Table Vessels: Bowls

Three forms of bowls were used regularly for consuming food at the PHAB in the early to mid

2nd century: bowls with incurved rims, bowls with everted rims, and footed hemispherical bowls.

Bowls with incurved rims (Fig. 4.18) remained in use at Kedesh until the PHAB was abandoned. Most examples in Hell 2 loci (238 out of 295 examples) and later loci are still in central coastal fine ware (918 out of 1505 examples in Hell 1-2 wares), indicating that bowls in the ware continued to be brought to Kedesh in the first half of the 2nd century. The occurrence of

several well-preserved central coastal fine ware bowls in contexts spanning the 2nd century at

Akko-Ptolemais suggests that bowls in this ware continued to be manufactured there even after

they stopped being shipped to Kedesh.868 It is telling that in Hell 2b loci at Kedesh the proportion of fragmentary bowls with incurved rim in central coastal fine ware is substantially lower than in

Hell 2 or other loci (25 out of 56, one of which is reconstructable, Fig. 4.18: 1), accounting for

868 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 4-5; 3.17: 4.

222

less than half of the total (see Fig. 4.19). Since the form was so popular for so long in the eastern

Mediterranean, the sharp decline in the proportion of bowls with incurved rims in central coastal

fine ware in Hell 2b loci and leveling off in subsequent loci constitutes strong evidence that

central coastal fine ware stopped being brought to Kedesh sometime in the early or mid 2nd

century. Furthermore, the incorporation of a great abundance of fragmentary central coastal fine

ware bowls and other vessels (see pages 31-32, above) into two Hell 2 floors indicates that

already at some point in the first half of the 2nd century there were great numbers of central coastal fine ware vessels lingering on the site as residual garbage.

Bowls with incurved rims in gray-brown Cypriote and northeast Cypriote fabrics also continued to be used in the early 2nd century. Eleven examples occur in Hell 2 loci, two in Hell

2b, and 69 in later loci. No reconstructable examples were recovered in the Hell 2b abandonment, indicating that they were probably no longer imported to the site by the 140s. A bowl in gray-brown Cypriote fabric is attested in a context of late 3rd to mid 2nd century date at

Akko-Ptolemais,869 and in a pit of 3rd to mid 2nd century date at Beth Yerah-Philoteira,870

suggesting that they continued to be brought to the region at least at the beginning of the 2nd

century.

Bowls with incurved rims in spatter painted ware (Fig. 4.18: 2) appear in greater quantity

than they had in Hell 1 loci, but they were still not abundant in the early and mid 2nd century; there are 10 examples in Hell 2 and another seven in Hell 2b loci. There are two reconstructable spatter painted ware bowls in Hell 2b loci, perhaps indicating that they had become more common at Kedesh shortly before the abandonment of the building. Since there are only 65

869 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 12. 870 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, fig. 5.8: 4.

223

spatter painted ware examples in Hell 2 and later loci though, it seems that the staff of the PHAB

never relied too heavily on the local spatter painted ware industry for table vessels.

Bowls with incurved rims in northern coastal fine ware (Fig. 4.18: 3-7) and BSP both appeared at Kedesh in the early or mid 2nd century. Their general form is the same as the central

coastal fine ware and spatter painted ware bowls already described, although their size range

includes larger bowls of up to 17 cm in diameter at the rim, and some examples are decorated

with stamping and/or rouletting on their interior floors. Some northern coastal fine ware and all

BSP bowls are fully slipped. All of these features distinguish bowls with incurved rims in these

wares from bowls in 3rd century wares. Northern coastal fine ware bowls with incurved rims are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of the 3rd century871 and there are several examples from the mid to late 2nd century as well.872 At Kedesh, 34 examples of bowls with incurved rims in

northern coastal fine ware are attested in Hell 2 loci and another 22 (two reconstructable) in Hell

2b loci out of 315 bowls with incurved rims in the ware at the site. Bowls with incurved rims in

BSP are attested in contexts dated to the mid and late 2nd century at Akko-Ptolemais,873 in phase

Hell 2a at Anafa (125-110),874 and at Khirbet Zemel in the middle of the 2nd century.875 There are

two bowls with incurved rims in BSP in Hell 2 loci and one in the Hell 2b abandonment out of

87 bowls at Kedesh. It is possible that BSP bowls continued to be brought to Kedesh when the

squatters reused parts of the PHAB, since these bowls occur in greater quantity in Hell 3 loci (21

examples) than in Hell 2/2b loci. But the stratigraphic ambiguity between the phases and the

absence of evidence for the use of any other BSP forms by the Hell 3 squatters makes this a

difficult claim to support. It seems that the difference in relative quantity between northern

871 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.4: 5; 3.6: 8. 872 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 3; 3.15: 6; 3.17: 2-3. 873 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 1-2; 3.17: 1. 874 Slane 1997, 278-279 pl. 3: FW 17-19, FW22. 875 Hartal 2002, 82, 84, 86, fig. 20: 4-5.

224

coastal fine ware and BSP bowls at Kedesh is in part due to the later introduction of BSP bowls,

and thus the longer span of use of northern coastal fine ware bowls before the abandonment of

the PHAB; rather than differences in availability or demand.

Bowls with everted rims (Fig. 4.20: 1-5) also continued to be brought to Kedesh until the

abandonment of the PHAB. There are 27 examples in all wares in Hell 2 loci and five in Hell 2b

loci, out of 153 examples in Hell 2 or later loci. As in the case of bowls with incurved rims, it is

possible that some still appeared in central coastal fine ware in the 2nd century (there are four central coastal fine ware examples in Hell 2 loci) though they had stopped being brought to the site by the time it was abandoned. Bowls with everted rims made their first appearance at the

PHAB in spatter painted ware in the early or mid 2nd century. There are nine spatter painted ware

examples in Hell 2 loci and three in Hell 2b loci (one reconstructable, Fig. 4.20: 1) out of 63

examples in the ware at the site. Like spatter painted ware bowls with incurved rims, spatter

painted ware bowls with everted rims were in use at the time of the PHAB’s abandonment. It is

also possible that some of the seven bowls with everted rims in gray-brown Cypriote fabric were

used in the early to mid 2nd century, but all examples occur in later loci. Bowls with everted rims

in gray-brown Cypriote fabric continued to occur at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts dating from the

late 3rd to mid 2nd and the mid to late 2nd century.876 One out of the six bowls in fabrics from western Asia Minor occurs in a Hell 2 locus.

Bowls with everted rims first appeared in northern coastal fine ware (Fig. 4.20: 2) and

BSP (Fig. 4.20: 3) in the 2nd century. Northern coastal fine ware bowls are attested at Akko-

Ptolemais in contexts dated from late 3rd to the mid 2nd century.877 At Kedesh there are four northern coastal fine ware examples in Hell 2 loci (one reconstructable) and none in Hell 2b loci

876 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 4 877 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.9: 2; 3.12: 11

225

out of 21 examples in the ware at Kedesh. BSP bowls with everted rims are attested in a context

of mid to late 2nd century date at Akko-Ptolemais.878 At Kedesh four BSP bowls appear in Hell 2

loci and one reconstructable bowl was found in a Hell 2b locus out of 29 total examples in BSP

at the site. Bowls with everted rims also appeared in more exotic wares in the 2nd century. Two out of eight Campana A bowls with everted rims (Fig. 4.20: 4) at Kedesh were found in Hell 2 loci as were two out of four examples in Mesopotamian glazed ware (Fig. 4.20: 5). All examples in both of these wares were probably brought to the site before the abandonment of the PHAB since the quantity of imports in general decreased during the squatter habitation (see Chapter 5, below), the last Hellenistic phase at the site.

Two completely new varieties of bowls are attested in Hell 2 loci: footed hemispherical bowls and Campana A bowls with thickened rims. Footed hemispherical bowls (Fig. 4.20: 6) consist of hemispherical bowls with tapered rims measuring 13-17 cm in diameter placed atop ring feet. They are relatively deep, measuring from 8-12 cm in height. At Kedesh they occurred in BSP and Campana A by the time the building was abandoned. Parallels for the form in BSP are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of the first half of the 1st century, though this example may be residual.879 At Anafa they first appear in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110),880 at Zemel they are

attested in the middle of the 2nd century.881 At Kedesh, one footed hemispherical bowl in BSP is

attested in a Hell 2 locus and another 16 in later loci. No Campana A bowls (Morel’s type

2952/2954) were found in Hell 2/2b loci at Kedesh, but since only five examples are attested at

Kedesh, this cannot be seen as proof that they were not yet used at the site. Morel assigns the

878 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 4-5. 879 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.21: 11. 880 Slane 1997, 279, pl. 37: FW25-26, 29. 881 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 7.

226

form in Campana A to the middle or third quarter of the 2nd century.882 The limited quantity of

Campana A examples at Kedesh indicates that they were not a regular component of the ceramic

assemblage of the site in the middle of the 2nd century. Perhaps as little as one set of them arrived at the site.

Bowls with thickened rims (Fig. 4.20: 7) occur only in Campana A. The type is similar to the bowls with everted rims discussed above, with the chief differences being that their upper walls are slightly more splayed outward and their rims are distinctly thickened. Bowls with thickened rims correspond to Morel’s type 2825, which he dates to the middle or third quarter of the 2nd century,883 like the hemispherical bowls discussed above. At Kedesh two examples are attested in Hell 2 loci and three were found in later loci. Like footed hemispherical bowls in

Campana A, bowls with thickened rims were not part of the standard table assemblage at

Kedesh, and arrived only sporadically, or perhaps as part of one set shortly before the building was abandoned. Kedesh is the only Levantine site from which Campana A bowls with thickened rims are known.

Six stray bowls found at Kedesh can be assigned to the Hell 2 occupation of the site on the basis of stratigraphic position and likely date. Two bowls with ledge rims in central coastal fine ware are attested at Kedesh, one in a Hell 2 locus and one in a Roman locus. A bowl of identical form in gray-brown Cypriote fabric is attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context dated from the late 3rd to mid 2nd century.884 A similar bowl or krater with ledge rim and traces of west

slope decoration in a ware from the Aegean or western Asia Minor has been recovered from a

Roman locus. A reconstructable bowl with an externally grooved rim (Fig. 4.20: 8) in spatter

882 Morel 1981, 238, pl. 81: 2952a, 2954a-b. For discussion of the date range of Campana A types represented in the southern Levant and datable contexts in which they appear see Handberg, Stone, and Hjarl-Petersen (forthcoming). 883 Morel 1981, 229. 884 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 5.

227

painted ware with Hellenistic parallels at Jebel Khalid in North Syria has been found in a Roman

locus alongside well preserved Hell 2 pottery.885 A bowl with externally thickened rim in northern coastal fine ware has been recovered from Kedesh in a Roman locus as well. The only parallels for this bowl are at Maresha in a context dated from the beginning of the 2nd century down to c. 112/111.886

Table Vessels: Saucers

Two forms of saucers that were used at Kedesh in the 3rd century continued to be used early in the 2nd century too: saucers with ledge rims (see Fig. 3.5: 5-8) and with folded rims. Many saucers with ledge rims in central coastal fine ware occur in Hell 2 loci (274 examples), though they are less well represented in Hell 2b loci (20 examples). At Akko-Ptolemais examples appear in contexts of mid to late 2nd century date,887 but are not as well represented as they had been in

3rd century contexts, suggesting that they may have gone out of production in central coastal fine

ware rather early in the 2nd century. There are no reconstructable saucers with ledge rims in Hell

2b abandonment loci at Kedesh. This fact and the small quantity of saucers with ledge rims in

Hell 2b loci after their ubiquity in Hell 1 and Hell 2 loci (like bowls with incurved rims in central

coastal fine ware) provides further evidence that central coastal fine ware vessels were no longer

brought to the PHAB by the time it was abandoned. In addition to the central coastal fine ware

saucers, six examples occur in gray-brown and/or northeast Cypriote fabric in Hell 2 loci out of

18 examples in these wares at Kedesh. One of these was largely intact in a sealed Hell 2 locus.

Northern coastal fine ware saucers with ledge rims appeared in Hell 2 loci as well, but since

there are only two in this phase and three at the site as a whole, it seems that they went out of

885 Jackson 2011a, 14-15, 25, figs. 12: 2, 4-5, 14-17; 17: 7-9. 886 Levine 2003a, 87-88, fig. 6.3: 53-55. 887 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 15; 3.17: 6.

228

production in northern coastal fine ware shortly after the ware started to be imported to Kedesh.

A northern coastal fine ware example is attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of early to late

3rd century date,888 suggesting that examples in that ware arrived at least sporadically on the

coast by the end of the 3rd century. Three saucers with ledge rims are also attested at Kedesh in a sealed Hell 2 locus in an extremely granular red slipped ware possibly made along the southern

Levantine coast from the Carmel to the south.

Saucers with folded rims also continued to be brought to and used at Kedesh in the first half of the 2nd century. There are 226 central coastal fine ware examples in Hell 2 loci and 23 in

Hell 2b loci (one reconstructable, Fig. 4.21: 1). Individual examples in spatter painted ware and

Phoenician SF also occur in Hell 2 loci. Parallels for the form (but in different wares) appear at

Akko-Ptolemais in a context of late 3rd to mid 2nd century date.889 Similar saucers (termed saucer-lids) are attested in Phoenician SF at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110),890 an example

is published from Dor in a context of late 3rd century date or later,891 and an example in central coastal fine ware is attested at Beth Yerah-Philoteira in a context dating from the 3rd through the mid 2nd century.892 Since these saucers first appeared at Kedesh in Phoenician SF in Hell 2 loci and since they appear at Anafa in Phoenician SF, it seems that their production began in

Phoenician SF sometime in the first half or middle of the 2nd century and continued at least until

the last quarter.

Three new saucer forms first appeared in the early or mid 2nd century: saucers with thickened rims, with grooved rims, and Campana A saucers with drooping rims. Saucers with thickened rims are shaped like saucers with ledge rims, and have the same size range, their only

888 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.6: 4. 889 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.10: 10; 3.12: 6. 890 Berlin 1997a, 81. 891 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.4: 9. 892 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, fig. 5.8: 16.

229

difference being that they have stubby, everted, and thickened rims and occur almost exclusively

in northern coastal fine ware. Parallels for the form are attested in northern coastal fine ware at

Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of early to late 3rd century date,893 at Dor in a context of 3rd century

or later date,894 and at Khirbet Zemel in the middle of the 2nd century in the local fabric of the

Golan.895 One northern coastal fine ware example out of 11 in that ware at Kedesh is attested in a

Hell 2 locus, and there is one example in fabric from western Asia Minor from a context of later

date. Several comparable saucers have been found at Antioch on the Orontes896 and Gindaros,897 a site in the northern Levant 40 km to the east of Antioch, indicating that these were a more regular part of table assemblages in the northern Levant and North Syria in the 3rd and 2nd

century than they were at sites to the south.

Saucers with grooved rims (Fig. 4.21: 2) are a bit larger than saucers with ledge or

thickened rims, and approximate more closely saucers with folded rims in dimension, measuring

between 15-18 cm in diameter at the rim. They are also quite shallow, with fully preserved

examples measuring 2.9 and 3 cm in height. They have carefully squared off ring feet, fishplate

depressions on their interior floors, and a single groove just inside their rims, perhaps to limit

spillage. At Kedesh, 112 out of 121 examples occur in northern coastal fine ware, four in spatter

painted ware, and five in unknown fabrics. Parallels for the form are attested at Akko-Ptolemais

in an unknown fabric in a context of early to late 3rd century date,898 and in northern coastal fine ware in a context of late 3rd to mid 2nd century date.899 At Dor an example is published in a

893 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 3; 3.4: 7 894 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.4: 5-6. 895 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 9. 896 Waagé 1948, pl. 1: 15a, f, k. 897 Kramer 2004, 166, taf. 67: 29-39. 898 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.4: 9. 899 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 11.

230

context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.900 Examples in spatter painted ware

occur at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).901 Twenty-three out of 120 examples at Kedesh occur in Hell 2 loci (one reconstructable, Fig. 4.21: 2) and another eight in Hell 2b loci. These saucers were also very common in the northern Levant and North Syria in the 2nd century as an

abundance in northern coastal fine ware at Kinet Höyük902 on the northern Levantine coast; possibly in northern coastal fine ware at Antioch on the Orontes903 and Gindaros approximately

40 km to the east of Antioch,904 and in local or regional wares (possibly including northern

coastal fine ware) and imported green-glazed ware at Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, attest.905

The regular use of these distinctive saucers in the 2nd century on both sides of the former border

between territory held by the Ptolemies and Seleucids may be an indication of increased trade

between zones in the 2nd century. Examples have been recovered from as far away as Failaka on the Persian Gulf, suggesting that this form was widespread in the Seleucid east.906 Because many examples occurred in green glazed wares there,907 and the earliest examples at Jebel Khalid

occur in Mesopotamian glazed wares, it is possible that the form has its origin in Mesopotamia

and inspired local versions in the northern Levant and North Syria in the late 3rd or early 2nd century. Since saucers with grooved rims are abundant at Kedesh, and no reconstructable examples occur in Hell 2b abandonment loci, it is possible that they had gone out of use by the time the building was abandoned. If so, the small and medium sized BSP/northern coastal fine ware fishplates with hanging rims (see below) would have made a good functional replacement for these saucers.

900 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.4: 21. 901 Berlin 1997a, 78-79, pl. 17: PW158. 902 Marie Henriette-Gates, personal communication, July 2009. 903 Waagé 1948, pls. 1: 16a, k, 17f, k, n; 2: 17p, u, f. 904 Kramer 2004, 166-167, taf. 68: KTU42-50; 69: KTU51-57. 905 Jackson 2011a 25-26, 33-34, figs. 18: 12-13, 15; 21: 6-14; Jackson 2011b, 442-444, fig. 140. 906 Hannestad 1983, pl. 20: 220-226. 907 Hannestad 1983, pls. 20: 220; 21: 242; 22: 244-245, 250.

231

Campana A plates or saucers with drooping rims (Fig. 4.21: 3) are first attested in Hell

2b loci at Kedesh, suggesting that they first arrived at the site around the middle of the 2nd century. Campana A saucers with drooping rims measure 17-20 cm in diameter at the rim and 4-

5 cm in height, which would suit them well for individual servings of food or for serving dishes to a small group. Their bodies are shallow bowls atop ring feet. There is often a red stacking circle on the interior floor. The form corresponds to Morel’s type 1312, which he dates to the 3rd

and 2nd centuries, although most examples of these saucers in his corpus of Campana A are placed in the 2nd century.908 Three reconstructable Campana A saucers with drooping rims are

attested in the Hell 2b abandonment (e.g., 4.21: 3), out of 19 examples at Kedesh. Like most

other Campana A vessels at the site these plates or saucers were not abundant; although there are

enough to indicate that at least one or two sizable batches of them arrived at the site. Saucers

with drooping rims are perhaps the most common shape in Campana A in the eastern

Mediterranean.909

Table Vessels: Plates and Platters

Plates and platters are greater in diameter on average and usually deeper than saucers and as such

are better suited for serving food to groups. They were much more common at Kedesh in the first

half of the 2nd century down to the abandonment in 144/3 than they had been in the 3rd century.

Four varieties of plates and platters were used at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century:

fishplates with hanging rims, spatter painted ware fishplates with ridged walls and ledge rims,

plates with rolled rims, and platters with offset rims.

908 Morel 1981, 164-165. 909 For discussion see Lund 2004; Handberg, Stone, and Hjarl-Petersen forthcoming.

232

Fishplates with hanging rims (Figs. 4.21: 4; 4.22-23: 1-2) conform in general form to

fishplates used in Athens and imported at least sporadically to the eastern Mediterranean in the

4th century and made in local versions in the Aegean throughout the 3rd and 2nd century.910

Regional versions with hanging rims are not certainly represented in the Levant prior to the 2nd century. Fishplates of 2nd century date occur in several wares at Kedesh, and examples in

different wares often exhibit differences in form as well. Most of the fishplates with hanging

rims (119 out of 154 2nd century examples) at Kedesh occur in BSP from the northern Levant, and an additional eight occur in northern coastal fine ware from the same general region. Eight occur in spatter painted ware, eight in wares from the Aegean or western Asia Minor, two in

Mesopotamian glazed ware, and seven in unknown wares.

Fishplates with hanging rims in BSP (Fig. 4.21: 4; 4.22: 1-2) and in northern coastal fine ware (Fig. 4.22: 3) correspond very closely to each other in typological details, attesting to the possible intercommunication of potters who made vessels in these wares. BSP/northern coastal fine ware fishplates with hanging rims consist of wide shallow bowls on broad ring feet, rims that hang nearly vertically, and characteristic fishplate depressions in the central floor.

BSP/northern coastal fine ware plates came in three sizes, with a diameter at the rim of 15-16 cm and depth of 3-4 cm, 20-24 cm with a depth of 3.5-6 cm, and 30-32 cm and a depth of approximately 8-9 cm (only one example of the latter is reconstructable; Fig. 4.22: 3). These discrete sizes suggest that the plates may have come in sets with smaller plates for individual servings, medium sized plates for sharing amongst small groups, and large platters for serving several people.911 Indeed, a small and a medium fishplate were found together (Fig. 4.22: 1-2, 4)

amongst Hell 2b debris in the same context, a small annex in the courtyard that may have served

910 For discussion see Rotroff 1997, 146-149. 911 Unfortunately, most examples were not well enough preserved to determine readily where they fell in this size range.

233

as a sort of pantry. In the southern Levant, BSP fishplates with hanging rims are attested at

Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of mid to late 2nd century date,912 at Anafa they appear in phase Hell

2a (c. 125-110),913 and at Khirbet Zemel several examples have been reported from the mid 2nd

century occupation of the site.914 At Dor, probable BSP fishplates are published from a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.915 Of the 119 examples in BSP at Kedesh, eight occur in Hell 2 loci (two reconstructable), and another five in Hell 2b loci (four reconstructable), indicating that they were in regular use when Kedesh was abandoned. Of the eight northern coastal fine ware examples recovered at Kedesh, two occur in Hell 2 loci (one reconstructable), and the rest come from later loci. The ubiquity of probable BSP fishplates

(which have an especially distinctive profile among shapes in the repertoire of BSP potters) at

Hama on the Orontes916 may indicate that BSP was produced there and shipped south via the

Orontes and Beqa’a Valleys, or shipped north along the Orontes Valley to Antioch and

distributed more broadly from there. It does not appear that these plates occur in comparable

quantities as Hama at other northern Levantine or North Syria917 with the possible exception of

Antioch on the Orontes.918

One out of eight spatter painted ware fishplates with hanging rims (Fig. 4.23: 1) occurs in

a Hell 2 locus and two are present in Hell 2b loci. One out of eight examples in fabric from the

Aegean or western Asia Minor occurs in a Hell 2 locus and has comparanda at Akko-Ptolemais

912 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 12-13; 3.15: 3-4; 3.17: 7-9. 913 Slane 1997, 275-276, pls. 1, 37: FW1-3. Fishplates with hanging rim are published as TA type 1. 914 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 13. 915 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.3: 11-12. 916 Christensen 1971, 2-7, figs. 1: 6-20; 2-3. 917 E.g., Gindaros (Kramer 2004, 127, taf. 47: SGK4-9); Jebel Khalid (Jackson 2011a). Since quantified data is only available from Jebel Khalid, this assessment is based upon a general impression from viewing the published sample of pottery from Hama, Gindaros, and Antioch. 918 Waagé 1948, pl. 1: 10a, f, k, p.

234

and Dor.919 One of the two Mesopotamian glazed ware fishplates from the PHAB is

reconstructable and occurs in a Hell 2 locus (Fig 4.23: 2). The nearest site with Mesopotamian

glazed ware fishplates from dated contexts is Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates in North Syria,

where they occur in the 3rd or first half of the 2nd century.920 The appearance of these plates at

Jebel Khalid suggests that Mesopotamian pottery traveled to North Syria via the River

Euphrates.

Spatter painted ware fishplates with ridged walls and ledge rims (Fig. 4.23: 3) are roughly the same in form as the BSP and northern coastal fine ware fishplates described above, the only significant difference being the presence of grooves on their mid to upper walls, and

ledge, rather than hanging, rims. They range in rim diameter from 17-19 cm and in height from

4-5 cm, which suggests that they were used for individual servings or for sharing food in small

groups. The only parallels in form and fabric are published from Anafa, where they first appear

in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).921 An example of the form in the local ware of the Golan is

published from the mid 2nd century settlement at Khirbet Zemel.922 Two out of 35 examples at

Kedesh were found in Hell 2 loci and another one in a Hell 2b locus.

Plates with rolled rims (Fig. 4.23: 4), like fishplates, first occurred in the eastern

Mediterranean as Attic and Atticizing imports in the 4th century.923 Local versions of plates with rolled rims were produced in the Aegean already in the 4th and 3rd century, and perhaps in

Cyprus and the Levant as well. At Kedesh plates with rolled rims occur in a variety of wares in

Hell 2 and later loci, including central coastal fine ware (four examples), northern coastal fine

919 One hanging rim fishplate in fabric from the Aegean or Western Asia Minor is attested in a context at Akko- Ptolemais dated from the late 3rd to mid 2nd century. Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 7. Imported fishplates from a variety of sources are published from Dor. See Guz-Zilberstein (1995, 291-292, fig. 6.3). 920 Jackson 2011b, 436-438, figs. 138; 143. 921 Berlin 1997a, 77-78, pls. 17, 77: PW150-151. 922 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 10. 923 For discussion see Rotroff 1997, 142-145.

235

ware (one example), Atticizing (one example), wares of the Aegean or western Asia Minor (four

examples, e.g., Fig. 4.23: 4), spatter painted ware (one example), Campana A (one example),

and in unknown fabrics (three examples). Plates with rolled rims in all wares are quite broad and

flat, with relatively broad and high ring feet and rims rolled upwards. Several examples are

decorated with stamping and/or rouletting. Kedesh was not regularly supplied with plates with

rolled rims from any one source, and the 14 (probable) 2nd century plates that arrived at the site are best considered stray acquisitions rather than a standard component of the table assemblage.

Central coastal fine ware plates with rolled rims are attested in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd

century and mid to late 2nd century date at Akko-Ptolemais.924 At Kedesh, one example in central

coastal fine ware, one in northern coastal fine ware, one in a ware from the Aegean or western

Asia Minor, and one in an unknown fabric occur in Hell 2 loci, and a single example in central

coastal fine ware occurs in the Hell 2b abandonment. Since no reconstructable examples were

found in Hell 2b loci, it is possible that the plates with rolled rims found at Kedesh were used

early in the 2nd century, before BSP or northern coastal fine ware fishplates with hanging rims

(clearly in use when the building was abandoned) were imported.

Large platters with offset rims (Fig. 4.23: 5) in BSP are first attested at Kedesh in Hell 3 loci, but since there are only 18 examples at the site, some of which occur in later loci with well preserved Hell 2 material, it is likely that some or all of them were used already before the abandonment of the PHAB. Their earliest secure attestation in the southern Levant aside from

Kedesh is in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110) at Anafa.925 They are very broad, measuring 25-34 cm in

diameter, and relatively shallow.

924 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.9: 3; 3.12: 7. 925 Slane 1997, 276, pls. 2, 37: FW10-11.

236

In addition to the regularly occurring plates discussed above, there are several imported

plates or platters of early to mid 2nd century date that occur in only one or a few examples at

Kedesh. Since most of these are imports, they attest to Kedesh’s connection with intricate trade

or social networks. Four Campana A plates with upturned rims (Morel type 2252; Fig. 4.24: 1)

are attested at Kedesh, all in later loci than Hell 2/2b. Like most other Campana A types attested

at Kedesh, these plates are dated by Morel to the third quarter of the 2nd century.926 It seems most

likely then that these arrived with the other Campana types discussed here in the middle of the

2nd century, shortly before the PHAB was abandoned in 143. A deep platter with downturned rim, possibly in a ware from the Aegean or western Asia Minor (Fig. 4.24: 2), was found in a

Hell 3 locus but among a group of well-preserved Hell 2 pottery. This vessel is heavily worn and was mended in antiquity, perhaps indicating that it was a valued possession.

The foot of an imported platter (Fig. 4.24: 3) with stamped decoration, rouletting, and fugitive west slope style painted decoration was found in a Roman locus. The foot of a similar platter has been published from Dor,927 and generally similar platters are published from contexts

at Tarsus dating to the late 3rd and 2nd centuries.928 A ridge preserved on the vessel suggests that

it may have had an offset wall. Just such a platter with offset wall was found among Hell 2b

abandonment debris in the archive room (Fig. 4.25: 1), in a ware from the Aegean, western Asia

Minor, or Cyprus. It is decorated with (now fugitive) west slope ribbons and bows on the rim and

rouletting and stamped leaves on the floor. A similar platter (albeit larger and with scrolls on the

rim) is published from a 3rd to mid 2nd century context at Beth Yerah-Philoteira,929 another is

926 Morel 1981, 153. 927 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.5: 13. 928 Jones 1950, 221, figs. 127, 183: 134-136. 929 Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006, 140, 142, fig. 5.9.

237

published from a 3rd to mid 2nd century context at Nicosia.930 Platters of similar design were imported to Gordion in central Anatolia in the late 3rd and early 2nd century, possibly from western Asia Minor.931 Examples of the form are present at Antioch on the Orontes,932

Gindaros933 in North Syria and slipped and stamped (but otherwise undecorated). Platters with

offset walls are abundant in local or regional wares at Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates in North

Syria in contexts dated from the middle of the 2nd century and later.934

A shallow handmade platter without a foot and with a stamp in the center was found in the same context in the archive room at Kedesh. It is likely to have come from south Italy, though no close parallels are published.935

Given that the forms of plates and platters just described are represented in only one or a

few examples each, it is clear that they were not standard equipment in the assemblage of the

PHAB. This conclusion is supported by the deposition of the last two vessels discussed in the

archive room, where at least some items of official importance were stored. However, even if

such exotic plates and platters were not used regularly, they are included in the count for each

phase since they do not greatly inflate the quantities of vessels serving different functions.

Indeed, the presence of exotic vessels for serving food to groups of people in the archive room

makes it tempting to suppose that they served as mementos of feasts shared with visiting

dignitaries. Thus, on at least one occasion these vessels would have been used for a meal in the

PHAB. The presence of an imported lagynos and table amphora in the same context (see pages

245-246, 249, below), lends some further support to this suggestion.

930 Berlin and Pilacinski 2005, 208, fig. 1:1. 931 Stewart 2010, 201-203; figs. 229-231. 932 Waagé 1948, pl. 2: 30, 33a, f. 933 Kramer 2004, 129, taf. 50: SGK 37-40. 934 Jackson 2011a, 35-36, figs. 22-23; 25; pls. 3: CW 162-164; 4: CW190, 193. 935 Herbert and Berlin (2003a, 23) cite Morel (1983) and Woolley (1911) for comparanda, but no object corresponding to this vessel is described or depicted in either publication.

238

Table Vessels: Drinking Cups and Bowls

Ceramic drinking vessels were both more abundant and varied at Kedesh in the first half of the

2nd century than they had been in the 3rd century. Skyphoi with vertical handles continued to be used for a time. Two northern coastal fine ware skyphoi were present in Hell 2 loci, and two more were found in later loci. It is likely that the form went out of use early in the 2nd century

since very few examples are present at Kedesh, and skyphoi with vertical handles are most often

found in 3rd or early 2nd century contexts in the region.

Five new drinking vessel forms were introduced in the early to mid 2nd century:

carinated cups with pinched handles, mold made bowls with Attic profiles, mold made bowls

with Ionian profiles, mastoi with plain rims, and mastoi with molded rims. Carinated cups with

pinched handles (Fig. 4.26: 1-2) consist of broad (rim diameter 13-16 cm) and deep bowls (the

heights of two fully preserved examples are 7.8 and 8.2 cm) placed upon relatively narrow ring

feet. Their upper walls curve in and terminate in rims that are thickened on the exterior. Two

horizontal handles that are pinched inwards are attached at the junction of the rim and upper

wall. Fifty-nine out of 79 examples at Kedesh are in color coated ware A, which is probably

from Rhodes;936 16 are in central coastal fine ware, one is in spatter painted ware, one is in a

fabric from the Aegean or western Asia Minor, and two are in northern coastal fine ware.

Parallels for carinated cups with pinched handles are cited as early as the 3rd century at Kition and Dor (see pages 152, 156, above), but most examples in the eastern Mediterranean occur in contexts of 2nd century date.937 Regional parallels are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of

936 Hayes 1991, 23-24. 937 For discussion see Hayes (1991, 23).

239

late 3rd to mid 2nd and mid to late 2nd century date,938 a spatter painted ware example is attested at

Anafa in phase Hell 1b (c. 250-125),939 and in an unknown ware at Dor in a context of the late 3rd or early 2nd century.940 At Kedesh, 17 carinated cups with pinched handles occur in Hell 2 loci

(one reconstructable, Fig. 4.26: 1) and another three (one reconstructable) (Fig. 4.26: 2) in Hell

2b loci, out of 79 found at the site. The presence of a reconstructable example in a Hell 2b locus suggests that the form was used at the site until it was abandoned. Since they make up a smaller proportion of diagnostic vessel fragments in Hell 3 loci, it seems likely that no new carinated cups with pinched handles were brought to Kedesh after the PHAB’s abandonment.

Mold made bowls with Attic profiles (Fig. 4.26: 3-4) are moderately broad (rim diameter

13-16 cm) and deep (7-9 cm) with slightly everted rims and walls that taper gently from upper to lower body. Molded decoration is usually applied in registers beneath their rims with floral motifs radiating from medallions at their feet, and other decorative elements often interspersed between leaves.941 Sixty-three out of 88 examples in Hell 2 wares at Kedesh are in BSP, another

16 are in northern coastal fine ware and nine are in unknown fabrics. Parallels for mold made

bowls with Attic profiles are widespread throughout the eastern Mediterranean, and generally do

not appear before the 2nd century. Indeed, they are relatively rare in deposits dating earlier than c.

180 even at Athens, where they were first produced.942 Regional parallels for bowls with Attic profiles are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of mid to late 2nd century date,943 and at Dor in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.944 At Anafa they appear in phase

938 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.10: 3; 3.12: 16; 3.15: 2. 939 Berlin 1997a, 76, pls. 17, 76: PW149. 940 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.7: 6. 941 See Rotroff (1982, 14-15). 942 Rotroff 2006b. 943 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 17; 3.18: 4, 6, 8, 10. 944 Rosenthal Heginbottom 1995, fig. 5.5: 18.

240

Hell 2a (c. 125-110).945 At Zemel two fragments of mold made bowls with Attic profiles were

found in the mid 2nd century abandonment deposit of the site.946 Fifteen mold made bowls with

Attic profiles appear in Hell 2 loci at Kedesh, and another two in Hell 2b loci (one reconstructable).

Mold made bowls with Ionian profiles (Fig. 4.26: 5-6) are more squat than bowls with

Attic profile and have rims, measuring 13-15cm, that jut inward above a bulge at mid wall.

Decoration of Ionian bowls is often divided into multiple registers on their bodies, though this is not always the case.947 These differences in form and arrangement of decoration show that they

were made on a different template from Attic style bowls. All of the 41 examples attested at

Kedesh were imported from the Aegean or western Asia Minor. Parallels are attested at Akko-

Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date,948 at Anafa they are present in phase Hell

2a (c. 125-110),949 and at Dor Ionian bowls are attested in contexts dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century and later.950 At Kedesh, three mold made bowls with Ionian profiles

are attested in Hell 2 loci and another one in a Hell 2b locus, out of 41 recovered at the site. It is

possible, given the chronology of these bowls, that some were brought to the site in the squatter

phase (Hell 3) as well, but since there are few examples and most are so fragmentary it is

difficult to say for certain.

Conical mastoi have plain rims and narrow to rounded, almost conical toes. Of 12

examples in Hell 2 wares at Kedesh, four occur in northern coastal fine ware, one in gray-brown

Cypriote fabric, two in BSP, four in an unknown extremely fine ware with red and black slip,

945 Cornell 1997, 414, pl. 1: MB1. 946 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 15. 947 See Laumonier (1977). 948 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.18: 1-2, 5, 7. 949 Cornell 1997, 415, pl. 4: MB057, 061. 950 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, fig. 5.4: 8, 18.

241

possibly Pergamene (Fig. 4.27: 1), and one in Campana A (Fig. 4.27: 2). Similar mastoi are rare

in the Levant, and there are no published parallels from secure contexts dating to the early or mid

2nd century. Two out of 11 examples at Kedesh occur in Hell 2 loci. Their scarcity indicates that

these were not a standard part of the assemblage at Kedesh in the first half or middle of the 2nd

century.

Conical mastoi with interior rim moldings (Fig. 4.27: 3) are also first attested at Kedesh

in Hell 2 loci. These are shaped like the conical mastoi above, the only difference being that their

rims are thickened toward the interior and molded with ridges and one or two rows of beading.

The latter detail is reminiscent of Hellenistic cast glass bowls. Fourteen examples at Kedesh are

in BSP. Regional parallels for the form occur at Khirbet Zemel in the middle of the 2nd

century,951 and at Dor examples are published from a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.952 One example out of 14 in BSP at Kedesh occurs in a Hell 2 locus and the rest occur in later loci.

Service Vessels

Vessels for serving liquids at the table, like the drinking vessels discussed above that they would have complemented, became more abundant and varied at Kedesh between the end of the 3rd century and the abandonment of the PHAB in 143. Serving vessels used regularly at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century include: spatter painted ware kraters with thickened rims, Phoenician

SF jugs with triangular rims, Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims, jugs with everted rims, table

amphoras with stepped rims, Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims, spatter painted

ware squat table amphoras, lagynoi, and Phoenician SF wide mouthed juglets. This impressive

951 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 6. 952 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, fig. 5.7: 3, 6.

242

array of shapes, which was supplemented by several sporadic acquisions, suggests that in the

early to mid 2nd century the staff of the PHAB entertained more frequently and with more style than their 3rd century (or Persian period) predecessors.

Spatter painted ware kraters with thickened rims (Fig. 4.27: 4) remained in use at Kedesh in the 2nd century. An example in another ware is attested at Dor in a context of the second

quarter of the 3rd century or later.953 Of the 19 examples of the type found in post Hell 1 loci at

Kedesh, four occur in Hell 2 loci (one reconstructable).

A variety of other kraters dating to the 2nd century are attested at Kedesh, but no

individual form occurs regularly. A locally produced krater in spatter painted ware with elaborate

painted decoration (Fig. 4.28: 1) appears in only three examples at Kedesh, one in a Hell 2 locus

and two in Roman loci. The form is a column krater with an everted rim angled outwards. On the

best-preserved example painted decoration consisting of diagonal lines and dots applied on top

of and just below the rim. Intersecting vertical and diagonal lines were applied at the neck,

possibly in an attempt to represent an architectural setting such as a stage. The decoration on the

body consists of a series of individual brush strokes and blobs with streamers flowing from them,

giving them the appearance of tadpoles. Similar decorative elements are present on the less

complete examples at Kedesh.954 No close parallels for these kraters exist, the examples at

Kedesh may even have been commissions specifically for use at the PHAB. If so, it could be a

sign that orders made by the residents of Kedesh had a part in shaping the output of the spatter

painted ware industry in the 2nd century.

953 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.14: 3. 954 The design and decoration of these kraters was so similarly idiosyncratic that all the recovered fragments were assumed to be from one vessel; however, the profiles and decorative schema of the rim sections clearly do not belong to the same vessel.

243

Several imported kraters of probable 2nd century date have also been found at Kedesh.

Among these are deep kraters with ledge rims in a ware from the Aegean or western Asia Minor,

one of which is attested in a Hell 2 locus and another from a modern locus. Parallels are attested

at Akko-Ptolemais in a ware from the Aegean, western Asia Minor, or Cyprus and in central

coastal fine ware in contexts of 3rd century date and mid to late 2nd century date.955 A krater with

grooved rim in a ware from the Aegean or western Asia Minor has been found deposited as a

residual in a Roman locus. A large krater with everted rim in BSP was recovered from a Roman

locus (Fig. 4.28: 2), and another three of the same in Medieval-modern loci. It seems that the

spatter painted ware kraters with thickened rims were the only kraters used regularly at Kedesh

in the 2nd century while the rest of those described here were isolated acquisitions, like the plates

with rolled rims and assorted imported platters described above.

Two forms of Phoenician SF jugs were regularly used for pouring liquids at the table in

the early to mid 2nd century: Phoenician SF jugs with triangular rims and Phoenician SF jugs

with folded rims. No complete profiles of Phoenician SF jugs with triangular rims (Fig. 4.29: 1)

are preserved at Kedesh, but comparable vessels at other sites measure about 18-25 cm in height

and 9-12 cm in rim diameter. There are examples of Phoenician SF jugs with triangular rims in

3rd century and late 3rd to mid 2nd century contexts at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor.956 Since

Phoenician SF jugs with triangular rims do not appear at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110), it seems that they had gone out of use by the last quarter of the 2nd century. Their stratigraphic representation at Kedesh provides complementary evidence. Three out of 27 examples at the site occur in Hell 2 loci, and two more in Hell 2b loci, neither of which are reconstructable. It is

955 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 7; 3.7: 11; 3.17: 10. 956 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 14; 3.8: 7; 3.11: 2; 3.21: 21-22.); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.31: 6).

244

likely then that they were used early in the 2nd century, and had been replaced by Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims by the middle of the century.

Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims (Fig. 4.29: 2-3) first appeared at Kedesh in the first two quarters of the 2nd century. They have pear shaped bodies on stubby, tapered ring feet, smoothly sloping necks and broad rims that are folded downwards. A single strap handle is attached at the neck and shoulder. Gently rounded horizontal wheel ridging covers their body but fades out at the neck. Complete examples measure from 18-22 cm in height and have a rim diameter of 8-12 cm. Dated parallels are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of mid to late 2nd century date.957 At Anafa they appear in phases Hell 1b (250-125 BCE) and Hell 2a (c. 125-

110),958 and residually in later phases. These jugs occur in the local ware of the Golan at the mid

2nd century settlement at Khirbet Zemel.959 Three out of 105 Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims at Kedesh occur in Hell 2 loci, and another five in Hell 2b loci (two reconstructable). Since two of the five in Hell 2b loci are reconstructable it seems that these jugs were introduced shortly before the abandonment of the PHAB in 143. It is possible that Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims were brought to, or at least used in the subsequent squatter occupation of Kedesh, since a great many of them occur in Hell 3 and later loci, including at least one partially reconstructable example in a Roman fill with a great abundance of well preserved Hell 3 material.

In addition to these regularly occurring jugs, six jugs with everted rims are attested at

Kedesh: two in Phoenician SF and four in spatter painted ware (Fig. 4.29: 4). Regional comparanda are attested at the mid 2nd century site of Khirbet Zemel.960 At Kedesh, two of the

Phoenician SF examples and one of the spatter painted ware examples occur in Hell 2 loci, one

957 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 11. 958 Berlin 1997a, 48-49, pl. 8: PW39. 959 Hartal 2002, 88-90, fig. 22: 7-8. 960 Hartal 2002, 88-90. Fig. 22: 15.

245

reconstructable spatter painted ware example is attested in a Hell 2b locus, and the other two

spatter painted ware examples occur in Roman loci.

Three varieties of table amphoras first appear in Hell 2 loci: table amphoras with stepped

rims, Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims, and spatter painted ware squat table

amphoras. Table amphoras with stepped rims (Fig. 4.29: 5) have a bulbous body – ribbed in the

case of some examples from the Aegean or western Asia Minor – with gently sloping necks, rims

in two steps, and two strap handles attached at the neck and shoulder. West slope decoration in

the form of necklaces on the neck and vine and ivy leaves are often painted or incised on the

shoulder on fine examples of Aegean manufacture. The ultimate templates for these table

amphoras are quite possibly Pergamene products of the 3rd and 2nd centuries.961 At Kedesh five examples out of nine are attested in wares from the Aegean or western Asia Minor, some or all of which could be from Pergamon. One of these was partially reconstructable and found in the archive room. In addition there is one example in spatter painted ware and three in Phoenician

SF, indicating that the form inspired at least limited local imitation in the Levant. At Akko-

Ptolemais an imported example is attested in a context of early to late 3rd century date,962 and

Phoenician SF examples are present in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd and mid to late 2nd century date.963 At Dor there is an imported example with west slope decoration in a context dated from

2nd quarter of the 3rd century to the 1st century CE,964 and an example in a regional ware in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.965 At Kedesh a spatter painted ware

example is attested in a Hell 2 locus, and a Phoenician SF example and another in a ware from

the Aegean or western Asia Minor (the latter partially reconstructable, Fig. 4.29: 5) are attested

961 E.g., Schäfer 1968, pls. 17-20: 67-71. 962 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.8: 6. 963 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.9: 4; 3.12: 14. 964 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, fig. 5.12: 2. 965 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.32: 6.

246

in Hell 2b loci; all other examples occur in later loci. Like many of the vessels discussed so far,

table amphoras with stepped rims arrived rather sporadically at the PHAB in the 2nd century. The appearance of an imported example from the Aegean or western Asia Minor in the archive room, along with the two exotic platters mentioned above, and an imported lagynos, may indicate that it was left behind as a memento of a commensal event featuring visitors from far away.966

Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims (Figs. 4.29: 6; 4.30: 1) were more common; 92 examples have been identified at Kedesh. These amphoras have pear shaped bodies with gentle wheel ridging like the Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims, except that the sloping necks of the table amphoras are offset from their bodies by exterior ridges, two strap handles are attached at neck and shoulder, and their necks terminate in everted rims (measuring 11-13 cm in diameter) that are angled downwards. The feet of Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims are broad and folded upwards on the exterior. As Andrea Berlin has pointed out, the form of these table amphoras is generally similar to Mesopotamian glazed table amphoras of Hellenistic date.967 Thus, they were made on a seemingly different, eastern template than table amphoras with stepped rims. However, both table amphoras with angled rims and with stepped rims were produced near Jebel Khalid in North Syria and used there regularly in the 2nd century if not

sooner.968 Perhaps inspiration for production on the Levantine coast actually came from this

more proximate zone of the Seleucid Empire. If so, the adoption of both these forms of table

amphoras demonstrates how convoluted transmission of style could be in the culturally

heterogeneous environment of the Hellenistic east. At Akko-Ptolemais Phoenician SF table

amphoras with angled rims are attested in contexts of late 3rd to mid 2nd century and mid to late

966 A patch of burning and antler found in the same context could also indicate that these vessels featured in some sort of ritual shortly before (or after?) the abandonment of the PHAB. See Herbert and Berlin (2003a, 23). 967 Berlin 1997a, 37-38; Hannestad 1983, 35-37, pls. 23: 266-267; 24: 270; 26: 273-275; 27: 282-285, 290; 28: 291. 968 Jackson 2011a, 64-65, figs. 54-55.

247

2nd century date.969 At Anafa they appear in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).970 At the mid 2nd century

settlement at Khirbet Zemel there is an example in the local ware of the Golan.971 At Dor a table amphora with angled rim is attested in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd

century.972 Of the 92 Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims at Kedesh, five are attested in Hell 2 loci (one reconstructable), and another 12 in Hell 2b loci (four reconstructable). Like

Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims, the high proportion of reconstructable table amphoras with angled rims in the Hell 2b abandonment suggests that they had perhaps just recently started to be used at the site when it was abandoned. It is quite possible that these table amphoras and the

Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims discussed above were part of standard sets meant for table service since they occur in about the same quantity. The jugs would be well-suited for pouring water into table amphoras partially filled with wine from a transport amphora. Also like the jugs discussed above, the quantity of Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims that occur in

Hell 3 and later strata may indicate that they were used by the Hell 3 inhabitants of Kedesh.

Three similar Phoenician SF table amphoras with thickened instead of angled rims are also attested. One of these three examples was reconstructable and came from a Hell 2b locus (Fig.

4.30: 2).

Thirty-three examples of spatter painted ware squat table amphoras (Fig. 4.30: 3) are attested at Kedesh. These amphoras exhibit significant variation in details of form. The unifying characteristic is a squat, almost spherical body. Feet range from false ring feet to pedestal ring feet attached to the lower body. Some largely complete examples have ridges separating their necks from their bodies, but others do not. Rims range from simply thickened to having a slight

969 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 3; 3.12: .20; 3.17: 11. 970 Berlin 1997a, 38-39, pl. 1: PW3-4. 971 Hartal 2002, 91-92, fig. 23: 10. 972 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.32: 5.

248

groove on their faces. The handle configuration is also varied. Two complete examples have one

horizontal and one vertical handle, while others have two vertical handles. It is clear that both the

potters in the Hula Valley who made these table amphoras, and the staff of the PHAB who used

them, were not too concerned that they be consistent in appearance. The only other site where

spatter painted ware squat table amphoras are attested is Tel Anafa, where one example is

attested in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).973 At Kedesh, five examples occur in Hell 2 loci and

another four in Hell 2b loci (three reconstructable) out of 33 total examples. As with the

Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims and table amphoras with angled rims, the high proportion of

reconstructable examples in Hell 2b loci suggests that the residents of Kedesh may have begun to

use them around the middle of the 2nd century, since few residuals had accumulated already. Like the Phoenician SF service vessels described here, this suggests that drinking parties had become more common at Kedesh around the middle of the 2nd century. One reconstructable spatter painted ware squat table amphora has also been found in a Roman locus that included an abundance of well-preserved Hell 3 material, which is somewhat surprising because spatter painted ware vessels are otherwise very rare among large well preserved groups of clearly Hell 3 material. This vessel may represent reuse of earlier household equipment by the late 2nd century

residents of the site, like the storage jars reused as ovens discussed above.

Lagynoi (Fig. 4.31: 1-2) were first used at Kedesh in the early and mid 2nd century. These

vessels have broad feet supporting broad bodies with carinated shoulders that constrict to narrow

vertical or slightly tapered necks. A single strap handle is attached to the neck and shoulder. Of

the 44 lagynoi found at Kedesh, 22 examples are in Phoenician SF, another 11 in Chian fabric,

and 11 in unknown fabrics. Several examples of Phoenician SF and Chian lagynoi at Kedesh are

decorated with horizontal bands of red slip around the exterior of their feet and/or on their

973 Berlin 1997a, 40-41, pls. 2, 73: PW11.

249

shoulders. The likely place of origin for the form was in Ptolemaic Alexandria, where it was used

for a festival event called the lagynophoria, a relay race involving wine jugs designed to prevent spillage.974 The shape of the lagynos would suit it very well to such use. A lagynos is attested in

Phoenician SF at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of late 3rd to mid 2nd century date,975 and in a ware

imported from the Aegean or western Asia Minor in a context of mid to late 2nd century date.976

At Dor imported lagynoi are published from a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd

century.977 At Kedesh eight examples are attested in Hell 2 loci and another three in Hell 2b loci

(two reconstructable) out of 44 total examples at the site. One of the reconstructable lagynoi is a

Chian import found in the archive room (Fig. 4.31: 1) along with the exotic imported plate, platter, and table amphora mentioned above.

Three forms of pouring vessel for individual service of liquid were regularly used at the

PHAB in the early and mid 2nd century: Phoenician SF cylindrical olpai, Phoenician SF juglets with wide mouths, and Phoenician SF juglets with angled rims. Cylindrical olpai continued to be used at Kedesh in the early and mid 2nd century, though only Phoenician SF examples were used at the site, as white ware and central coastal plain ware, the other two fabrics in which they had occurred in some quantity, were no longer being produced. Forty-one Phoenician SF examples from Hell 2 or later loci have been found at Kedesh. Cylindrical olpai are attested in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century at Dor,978 and at the mid 2nd century settlement

at Khirbet Zemel.979 Six examples occur in Hell 2 loci at Kedesh, and two (one reconstructable) in Hell 2b loci. There is no evidence that olpai were used at Kedesh after the abandonment of the

974 Ath. Deip. 7.276a-c (Gulick 1929, 240-243). For discussion see Berlin (1997a, 42-43). 975 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.9: 5. 976 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 8. 977 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.33: 7, 9. 978 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.28: 2. 979 Hartal 2002, 88-89, fig. 22: 16.

250

PHAB. Phoenician SF juglets with wide mouths (Fig. 4.31: 3-4) also continued to appear at

Kedesh, and there are 122 examples in Hell 2 or later loci. Parallels for the form in Phoenician

SF are attested at Anafa as early as phase Hell 1b (c. 250-125), but especially in Hell 2a (c. 125-

110) and later contexts.980 A juglet with wide mouth appears in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century at Dor,981 and examples also appear at Khirbet Zemel in Golan

ware.982 Four examples at Kedesh occur in Hell 2 loci and another six in Hell 2b loci (two intact), indicating that they were in use when the PHAB was abandoned.

Phoenician SF juglets with angled or flattened rims were also used at Kedesh sometime in the early or mid 2nd century (Fig. 4.31: 5). Although no examples are complete or nearly

complete, they presumably had pear shaped bodies and disk-shaped feet like juglets with wide

mouths. Their distinguishing features are rims angled downwards on the exterior. Parallels for

this form are attested at Maresha before the abandonment of the site in 112/111.983 Of the nine

examples at Kedesh, two occur in Hell 2 loci, and the rest were found in later loci.

One feeder juglet in Phoenician SF, probably brought to the site in the early or mid 2nd

century, was recovered in a Roman locus. It is squat with a strainer top. Similar juglets have been

recovered at Akko-Ptolemais (in sandy CW) in a context dated to the mid to late 2nd century.984

A strainer juglet in BSP has also been found at Maresha.985 In addition, a reconstructable guttus

in an unknown (burnt) imported fabric was found in a Hell 2b abandonment locus (Fig. 4.31: 6).

It is the only example of such a vessel at Kedesh and no parallels are known from the southern

Levant.

980 Berlin 1997a, 52-53, pls. 10, 74: PW54. 981 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.28: 10. 982 Hartal 2002, 91-92, fig. 23: 3, 5-6. 983 Levine 2003a, fig. 6.13: 134-137. 984 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 15. 985 Levine 2003a, fig. 6.13: 142.

251

Toilet Vessels

As with most of the functional categories that have been discussed above, in the early and mid

2nd century there were both greater quantities and a wider range of ceramic vessels for holding perfumes, unguents, and ointments than there had been at Kedesh in the 3rd century. Most of these vessels came from the Phoenician coast between the Carmel and Tyre, which had been the primary source of perfumes at Kedesh in the Persian period and the 3rd century. Seven vessel forms contained perfumes, medicines, and ointments: flanged rim juglets and jugs, unguentaria with domed mouths, elongated fusiform unguentaria, banded fusiform unguentaria, pared fusiform unguentaria, hollow stemmed unguentaria, ointment pots.

The most abundant of these were Phoenician SF juglets with flanged rims (Fig. 4.32: 1), which are represented by 210 examples at the site. These juglets appeared already in Hell 1 loci

(three examples), but are much better represented in Hell 2 (25 examples) and 2b loci (nine examples). Parallels for the type are known only from the nearby sites of Tel Anafa, where they appear in phases Hell 1b (c. 250-125) and Hell 2a (c. 125-110)986 and Khirbet esh Shuhara,

which was abandoned sometime shortly after 141,987 and Jebel Khalid in North Syria.988 It is interesting given how many of these juglets appear at Kedesh that few appear at other sites in the region. Residue analysis of these juglets show spectra that correspond to the styrax plant in some of them, which is mentioned by Pliny the Elder as a product of Syria and inland Phoenicia that produced an extract with aromatic and medicinal properties.989 Perhaps styrax was a specialty of

986 Berlin 1997a, 53, pls. 10, 74: PW59. 987 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 15:9. 988 Jackson 2011c, 61-62, fig. 53: 8-10. 989 Andrew Koh, personal communication, June 2010; November 2011; Pliny N.H. 12.55 (Rackham 1945, 86-87). Two out of three tested juglets show spectra that correspond to styrex, a third juglet had a random spectra that suggested it was refilled repeatedly with different liquids. I thank Andrew Koh for sharing the preliminary results of his analysis.

252 the hinterland of Kedesh itself. One of the juglets found in Hell 2 loci and two found in Hell 2b loci were reconstructable, in addition to seven intact or reconstructable examples found in the

Hell 2b abandonment of the house west of the PHAB, indicating that they were regularly brought to the site at the time of its abandonment. Several reconstructable examples were also found in

Hell 3 loci in the area of the PHAB. It is possible that these juglets were left over from the early to mid 2nd century habitation of the PHAB. Their use for the same commodity by the squatters seems unlikely since the PHAB was no longer functioning. Given the large quantity of juglets with flanged rims found at Kedesh compared to other sites it seems that they were not meant just for the personal use of staff of the PHAB, but rather that they were stockpiled at (and perhaps distributed from) the PHAB.

Six examples of jugs with the same form as juglets with flanged rims but on a greater scale (measuring around 20 cm in height) and with small trefoil spouts on their rims have also been found at Kedesh (Fig. 4.32: 2). It is quite possible that these were used to hold larger quantities of the same commodity as the smaller juglets with flanged rims, or were even meant to decant into them. If they served the latter function, it supports the possibility that juglets with flanged rims were used for a commodity specific to Kedesh. The close correspondence in overall appearance between the juglets and jugs would have been effective “branding” in such a scenario. One partially reconstructable jug has been recovered from a Hell 2 locus at Kedesh, and one intact example was found in a locus with Byzantine or Islamic material but was probably originally deposited in the Hell 2b abandonment. Since they appear in Phoenician SF fabric, it would seem that these jugs and juglets were produced on the coast and sent to Kedesh to be filled or that coastal clay was brought inland to Kedesh to make them.

253

Ten examples of Phoenician SF fusiform unguentaria of uncertain type have been

identified at Kedesh from Hell 2 or later loci. Of these, four occur in Hell 2 loci and another one

in a Hell 2b locus. In addition to these, four recognizable forms of unguentaria are attested at

Kedesh: with domed mouths, elongated fusiform, banded fusiform, pared fusiform, and with

hollow stems.

Phoenician SF unguentaria with domed mouths (Fig. 4.32: 3) are tall (17-20 cm) with

broadly splayed feet and squat bodies shaped like an inverted pear. They have long necks that

splay outwards and terminate in their domed rims, which are usually covered in red slip that

dribbles down the neck. Parallels are attested at Dor in a context dating to the first three quarters

of the 2nd century.990 Of the ten examples at Kedesh, one occurs in a Hell 1 locus, though this is

probably intrusive, another example occurs in a Hell 2 locus and two more in Hell 2b loci (both

reconstructable). The reconstructable examples from the Hell 2b abandonment were found in the

deposit of unguentaria and amphoriskoi (for the latter, see below) in the archive room, perhaps

indicating that they were part of an official cache of specialty goods, rather than for personal use.

Thirty-two Phoenician SF elongated fusiform unguentaria (Fig. 4.32: 4) are attested at

Kedesh. As their name implies, these are tall, narrow, spindle shaped vessels, measuring

approximately 13-17 cm in height. A Phoenician SF elongated fusiform unguentarium is attested

in a context of mid to late 2nd century date at Akko-Ptolemais.991 They appear at Anafa in phase

Hell 2a (c. 125-110),992 and an example is published from Dor in a context dating to the first

three quarters of the 2nd century.993 At Kedesh three examples are attested in Hell 2 loci, and another two in Hell 2b loci (both intact). Since no elongated fusiform unguentaria occur in the

990 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.27: 5-6. 991 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.20: 7. 992 Berlin 1997a, 65. 993 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.26: 24.

254

archive room deposit of unguentaria and amphoriskoi, it seems that the examples found at

Kedesh were for the personal use of the staff of the PHAB.

Six Phoenician SF banded fusiform unguentaria (Fig. 4.32: 5) have been found at

Kedesh. These have spindle shaped bodies typical of fusiform unguentaria with one or two

horizontal bands applied at mid body and/or shoulder. Parallels for Phoenician SF banded

fusiform unguentaria have been published from Akko-Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd

century date,994 and from phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110) at Anafa.995 One example was attested at

Kedesh in a Hell 2 locus, and five in later loci. None are attested amongst the toilet vessels in the archive room abandonment. Like the elongated unguentaria discussed above, banded fusiform unguentaria were probably personal possessions.

Two Phoenician SF pared fusiform unguentaria have been found at Kedesh. Both Kedesh examples were recovered from the Hell 2b unguentarium and amphoriskos deposit in the archive room. Parallels appear at Anafa in phase Hell 2b (c. 110-100).996 Only one Phoenician SF

unguentarium with short rolled rim was recovered at Kedesh, it also came from the

unguentarium and amphoriskos deposit in the archive room. The only regional parallels for this

unguentarium come from Anafa where they occur in phase Hell 1a (c. 300-250) and are assigned

to that phase at the site.997

Seven fusiform unguentaria with hollow stems (Fig. 4.32: 6) in an imported gray ware

have been recovered from Kedesh. Parallels for these are scattered broadly in the eastern

Mediterranean. At Akko-Ptolemais an example is published from a mid to late 2nd century

994 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 18. 995 Berlin 1997a, 64, pl. 13: PW90. 996 Berlin 1997a, 65, pls. 13, 75: PW94-98. 997 Berlin 1997a, 63, pls. 12, 75: PW83-84.

255

context.998 At Dor examples are published from 3rd to 2nd century contexts.999 At Kedesh one example is attested in a Hell 2 locus and another three in Hell 2b loci. One of the Hell 2b examples was partially reconstructable and found in the deposit of unguentaria and amphoriskoi in the archive room.

Five Phoenician SF squat ointment pots (Fig. 4.32: 7) appear at Kedesh in Hell 2 and later loci. These pots are squat (height from 3.4-4cm) with disk feet and simple everted rims.

Their opening is just small enough to accommodate a finger, and it is likely that they held creams or ointment, which ancient written sources refer to as a Phoenician specialty.1000 An ointment pot is attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date,1001 at Anafa in phase

Hell 2a (c. 125-110),1002 and at Dor examples are attested in contexts dated from the mid 3rd to the third quarter of the 2nd century and to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.1003 Three

Phoenician SF ointment pots are attested at the mid 2nd century site at Khirbet Zemel.1004 At

Kedesh, one example occurs in a Hell 2 locus and the rest were recovered residually in later loci.

In addition, one example was found in a Hell 2b abandonment locus in the house the west of the

PHAB. Clearly, the staff of the PHAB did not regularly use or stockpile the ointment held in these containers.

In addition to these regularly occurring toilet vessels, one miniature Phoenician SF baggy jar (Fig. 4.33: 1), presumably for holding perfumed oil, and one juglet with the appearance of a squat fusiform unguentarium with a handle (Fig. 4.33: 2) in unknown fabric were found in Hell

2b loci (both reconstructable). There are no published parallels for either vessel.

998 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 19. 999 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.27: 2-4. 1000 For discussion see Berlin (1997a, 69). 1001 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.20: 8. 1002 Berlin 1997a, 70-71, pl. 15: PW128-129. 1003 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.25: 6, 9, 11. 1004 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 2.

256

Summary

The early to mid 2nd century ceramic assemblage from Kedesh is varied in terms of both function

and the sources from which vessels arrived (see Figs. 4.34-37). Local storage jars in low-fired

orange ware and low-fired brown ware from one or two sources were used at the site, as well as

coastal transport jars and Rhodian and a handful of other Aegean amphoras (Fig. 4.34).

Phoenician SF amphoriskoi from the coast, probably filled with cedar infused oil, were

stockpiled in the archive room as well. Spatter painted ware from the Hula Valley remained the

default ware for utility vessels at the site, one mortarium form and two utility jugs regularly

occurred in the ware. In addition kraters with overhanging rims in a variety of wares and large

handmade basins in low-fired brown ware were used on occasion, as were Phoenician SF flasks

(Fig. 4.35: 1). Globular cooking pots were still the most commonly used cooking vessels in the

early and mid 2nd century Fig. 4.35: 2). Most were in sandy and gritty cooking wares from the coast, although spatter painted ware cooking pots became common as well. Casseroles in sandy cooking ware appeared more regularly than they had in the 3rd century, and Aegean/Aegean style

pans appeared for the first time (Fig. 4.35: 3). Table vessels (Fig. 4.36: 1) included central

coastal fine ware bowls and saucers early in the century, as well as some bowls and saucers in

gray-brown and northeast Cypriote fabric. Northern coastal fine ware vessels from the northern

Levant joined or replaced these soon after the century began, and by the time the PHAB was

abandoned, BSP bowls, plates, and mold made bowls were in regular use at the site. Imported

cups and mold made bowls from western Asia Minor appeared with some regularity as well (Fig.

4.36: 2), and a handful of table vessels from Italy in the west and Parthia in the east occurred

(Fig. 4.37: 3). Spatter painted ware kraters and table amphoras and phoenician SF jugs and

257

juglets were used regularly to serve liquid at the table, and seem to have increased in abundance

towards the middle of the 2nd century (Fig. 4.36: 3), as they are particularly abundant in Hell 2b abandonment loci (see Fig. 4.50). A range of Phoenician SF toilet vessels is also attested at the site (Fig. 4.37: 1-2), though some of them, like the amphoriskoi, were filled or stockpiled at the site (Fig. 4.37: 1) rather than used by individuals.

This range of vessels demonstrates that storage of agricultural produce was carried out on a substantial scale at the PHAB. Local commodities like oil or wine did not arrive on the site or did so in organic containers. Imported and coastal jars for wine and oil and amphoriskoi for cedar infused oil are represented though. The residents of Kedesh still drew upon local sources for utility vessels almost exclusively, demonstrating continuity in local market routes and industries, especially the spatter painted ware industry. Cooking vessels continued to come from the coast and include cooking pots and casseroles for both local and Greek-style cuisines. Pans, and a brazier, make their first appearance, demonstrating continued curiosity about the culinary traditions of the Aegean world.

The assemblage of table and service vessels used at Kedesh shows that there was an interest in varied table settings and in imported goods and it was relatively easy for the staff of

the PHAB to acquire them. This attests to both their tastes and the expanded reach of market

routes that circulated goods from outside the southern Levant, when compared to the 3rd century.

The regular presence of plates suggests that food was served to groups of people on a regular basis. Correspondingly, the range of jugs, table amphoras, and juglets supplied from the coast shows that service of wine to groups occurred regularly. The presence together of four exotic imported vessels for serving food and wine in the archive room (see Fig. 4.37: 4) may be an indication that commensal “events” occurred from time to time in the PHAB and may have

258

featured visitors who left behind keepsakes. Alternatively, these imports could have held the

status of “fine China” used for special occasions. If so, they do not constitute a set, as they are all

from different sources and do not match in terms of surface treatment or other decoration.

The assemblage of vessels used at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century shows a desire

for, and the ability to, acquire a wide range of cooking, table, and service vessels and bespeaks a

group of people with refined tastes and an interest in entertaining.

COMPARATIVE 2ND CENTURY ASSEMBLAGES

There are more published 2nd than 3rd century sites with which we can compare the assemblage

from Kedesh, particularly from the southern Levant itself. For purposes of consistency and

clarity, I have limited discussion to sites that were already considered in Chapter 3, those that

are particularly well published, and/or those that are very close to Kedesh (see Figs. 4.38-4.39). I

have chosen sites in North Syria (Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates) the northern Levant (Tarsus), in

eastern Cyprus (Kition), along the southern Levantine coast (Akko-Ptolemais and Dor), in the

inland Levant (Samaria, Shechem, and Maresha), and in the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula

Valley (Khirbet Zemel, Khirbet esh Shuhara, and Tel Anafa). Although there are other sites with

substantial published 2nd century ceramic remains (e.g., Michal,1005 Gezer,1006 Shiqmona1007), the ones discussed here are sufficient for illustrating trends throughout the region. After the description of assemblages from other sites in the region I will situate the Kedesh assemblage vis-à-vis them.

North Syria: Jebel Khalid

1005 Fischer 1989. 1006 Gitin 1979; 1990. 1007 Elgavish 1974.

259

The site of Jebel Khalid is located on and around a high limestone outcrop on the western bank

of the River Euphrates in North Syria, approximately 150 km to the east of Antioch on the

Orontes. Similarities between the assemblage of tablewares at Jebel Khalid and at Gindaros, a

settlement located approximately 40 km east of Antioch on a likely route inland,1008 suggests that

Jebel Khalid was regularly supplied with goods from the environs of Antioch. The site was

founded early in the Hellenistic period, as coins dating from the late 4th or early 3rd century attest,

and was inhabited until the first half of the 1st century BCE.1009 Excavations since 1986 have

uncovered the remains of fortifications that apparently surrounded the entire settlement,1010 a

palace on the acropolis overlooking the river (for a summary of the palace see pages 34-35,

above),1011 a temple built on a Near Eastern plan but featuring Greek-style architectural

decoration, portions of a large domestic insula to the north of the acropolis,1012 and several

graves from a nearby Hellenistic necropolis.1013 As I discussed in the introduction, the palace on the acropolis of Jebel Khalid is comparable in plan, dimensions, and decoration to the Hellenistic

PHAB at Kedesh. The pottery from the palace is still undergoing study, so it cannot be compared to material from the PHAB.

The finewares from Jebel Khalid and the coarse pottery from the housing insula, located approximately a kilometer to the north of the acropolis, have been published. The insula, like the rest of the site, was inhabited from the late 4th or early 3rd century. It is laid out on a grid and measures approximately 35 by 90 meters and consists of seven or eight large houses that feature painted masonry-style wall decoration, and a painted frieze in one instance.1014 At least five

1008 See Kramer 2004. 1009 Nixon 2002, 293-297. 1010 Clarke 2002. 1011 Clarke 2001; 2002. 1012 Jackson 2011a, 1-2. 1013 Jackson 2002. 1014 Jackson 2011a, 1-2.

260

insulae of similar size were present at Jebel Khalid. It is clear that the residents of the excavated

insula, and quite probably the surrounding ones, were wealthy and interested in decorating their

houses in the latest manner.

The pottery relevant for comparison with the early to mid 2nd century assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh was found associated with floors laid just over bedrock of the housing insula and dated from 280-150 (phase A).1015 Although this pottery spans the 3rd century as well,

the excavators note that the bulk of this pottery dates to the first half of the 2nd century. In

addition to the phase A floor, there is a fill (fill L) deposited just beneath the phase B (c. 150-

75/60) floors in the middle of the 2nd century. Finewares from Jebel Khalid as a whole are

published, and examples outside of the insula come from contexts of uncertain date found in and

around the acropolis palace. Because Jebel Khalid is the site of the only 2nd century site with a

palatial administrative center comparable to that at Kedesh and a body of pottery published in

such detail (albeit not from the palace itself), I will accord more in-depth description of the site’s

ceramic assemblage than I do for most other sites.

Most of the storage and transport vessels used at Jebel Khalid were produced locally.

Pithoi with thickened rims for bulk storage were used in the housing insula at Jebel Khalid.1016

These pithoi are comparable in scale, if not rim form, with the large storage jars used at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century. In addition, local storage and transport jars with thickened rims

somewhat similar to torpedo jars with narrow necks and thickened rims used at Kedesh in the

Persian period and 3rd century are very common at the site in phase A contexts.1017 These jars

came in a range of sizes and may have been used for storing water as often as they were for food

1015 Jackson 2011a, 3-4. 1016 Jackson 2011a, 84-85, figs. 78-80, pl. 16: CW627. 1017 Since the jars at Jebel Khalid are local and are very fragmentary it is difficult to get an accurate estimate of their capacity and thus assess whether they would be suited primarily for transport or storage.

261

since cisterns are only attested in two of the houses in the insula. Their quantity indicates storage

of local agricultural produce and/or commodities or perhaps water in the houses at Jebel Khalid.

Like the continued use of similar jars at Kedesh, the use of these jars at Jebel Khalid in the 3rd and possibly 2nd century demonstrates continuity in potting traditions from the Persian period

until at least early in the Hellenistic period. Some torpedo jars with grooved rims in a local

Syrian ceramic tradition have been recovered as well.1018 Twenty-three stamped Rhodian amphora handles have been found in the housing insula as well as at least two Koan or Pseudo-

Koan amphoras and fragments of a variety of other imported amphoras,1019 indicating that its residents received imported wine with some regularity. Most stamps date to the 3rd or first half of

the 2nd century, indicating that Rhodian wine arrived less regularly at the site late in the

Hellenistic period.1020

Utility vessels at Jebel Khalid include a variety of bowls or mortaria with projecting and

extended rims similar to those used at Kedesh in the 3rd and 2nd century.1021 Mortaria or bowls

with thickened rims1022 are present, as well as mortaria or bowls with rims thickened towards the

interior,1023 or jutting from interior to exterior.1024 Mortaria with narrow rounded rims like those used at the PHAB in the 3rd century are also present.1025 A spouted mortarium, a form popular in

Greece in the Hellenistic period but not attested at Kedesh or most sites in the southern Levant, is present at Jebel Khalid.1026 The presence of such a specific feature on a coarse vessel may be the

1018 Jackson 2011a, 71-72, figs. 62: 1; 63. 1019 Jackson 2011a, 79-82, figs. 74-75. Final study of the amphoras from Jebel Khalid has not taken place so the precise dates of the stamped amphora handles and the identification of non-Rhodian fragments has not been finished. 1020 Jackson 2011c, 497. 1021 Jackson 2011a, 43-44, figs. 31-33. 1022 Jackson 2011a, 49, fig. 39: 1-3 1023 Jackson 2011a, 49-50, fig. 39: 4-8. 1024 Jackson 2011a, 50, fig. 40. 1025 Jackson 2011a, 51, fig. 42: 1-5. 1026 Jackson 2011a, 52, fig. 43: 10.

262

result of the hypothesized presence of a colony of Greeks or Macedonians at the site. Deep bowls

with projecting rims are also attested.1027 Kraters with overhanging rims also appear, though they

are not attested in phase A contexts or fill L, perhaps indicating that they were not used at Jebel

Khalid until after the middle of the 2nd century.1028 The only jugs that are suited principally for utility rather than service of liquids are jugs with squared rims and round bottoms that first appear in fill L, or around the middle of the 2nd century.1029 It is possible that jugs of earlier date were too fragmentary to be recognized as such and/or that some of the jars discussed above were used for fetching or pouring water as well. As at Kedesh, and sites in the southern Levant generally, the residents of Jebel Khalid were supplied with most or all of their utility vessels from local sources.

Unlike Kedesh and most of the sites discussed here, the only ceramic cooking vessels in the Jebel Khalid housing insula are deep globular cooking pots, and neither casseroles nor pans appear. The most common and earliest of the cooking pots were neckless cooking pots with rolled rims that approximate the neckless cooking pots with triangular rims used at Kedesh in the

3rd century.1030 The other cooking pot form attested in phase A and A/B floors is a cooking pot

with flaring rim and vertical handles attached at the shoulder,1031 which does not find parallels in the southern Levant or Cyprus. Necked cooking pots with ledge rims like those used at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century appear in phase B, after the middle of the 2nd century.1032 A single casserole was found in an upper fill in a commercial area some distance from the insula, and was probably not a local product.1033 No cooking lids have been found at Jebel Khalid, suggesting

1027 Jackson 2011a, 45, figs. 34; 41. 1028 Jackson 2011a, 45-46, fig. 35: 3-6. 1029 Jackson 2011a, 57, 71, figs. 48: 6-7; fig. 61; pl. 12: CW485-487. 1030 Jackson 2011a, 86-87, fig. 81; pl. 17: CW637, CW639. 1031 Jackson 2011a, 87-88, fig. 82; pl. 17: CW 640, CW 642. 1032 Jackson 2011a, 88, fig. 83: 1-2; pl. 17: CW643. 1033 Jackson 2011a, 89, fig. 83: 7.

263

that where these appeared in the Hellenistic east (e.g., at Kedesh), it was generally for use with

casseroles rather than pots. The monotonous cooking assemblage at the Jebel Khalid housing

insula is seemingly at odds with the lavish interior décor of the site and the site’s possible

foundation as a Greco-Macedonian military colony.1034 The absence of casseroles for preparing

Greek-style cuisine is particularly striking in this regard. Heather Jackson suggests that this may

be an indication that rather than being colonists from Greece or Macedonia, the residents of the

insula were local Syrians who were very receptive superficially to Greek culture, but drew the

line at consuming Greek-style cuisine.1035 If so, it constitutes a fascinating case study in the

variability and dissonance between outward appearances and culturally charged practices,

especially if we consider the range of table vessels used at the insula.

The table vessels at Jebel Khalid have been divided into a number of local, regional, and

imported wares. The most abundant are fine to medium wares that are partially coated with a red

(or occasionally black or mottled) slip and that were presumably produced locally or regionally,

and fine wares that are entirely covered with black or red slip and were imported or produced in

the northern Levant or north Syria.1036 Among the black-slipped wares, two of the most common

(“black-glazed wares 2-3”) probably came from around Antioch on the Orontes, and based upon their description and the range of vessels produced in them, one or both may correspond to the

BSP recovered at Kedesh. ESA is the most abundant of the red-slipped wares. A gray burnished ware has been identified at the site that is probably another local or regional product.1037 Green- glazed ware corresponding to the “Parthian glazed ware” found at many sites in the Hellenistic

1034 It is of course possible that they grilled or used other preparations to break up the monotony, but it is still curious that they did not use the full range of ceramic kitchen equipment that people at many sites in the eastern Mediterranean did. 1035 Jackson 2011a, 92. 1036 For black glazed wares at Jebel Khalid see Tidmarsh (2011, 283-285). 1037 Tidmarsh 2011, 311-313.

264

east occurs regularly, though not in abundance. Green-glazed wares were produced at several

sites in Mesopotamia. Heather Jackson suggests that most examples found at Jebel Khalid may

have been made at Dura Europus, located on the Euphrates approximately 250 km to the east,

since the ware occurs in abundance there. At Jebel Khalid, green-glazed ware is found at the very

earliest levels of the insula, indicating that it was already brought to the site in the middle of the

3rd century.1038 Its appeared at Jebel Khalid much earlier than it did in the southern Levant, which

makes sense given Jebel Khalid’s closer geographic proximity to Mesopotamia and the fact that

the site was within the borders of the Seleucid Empire in the 3rd century, while the southern

Levant was not.

The most common table vessels at Jebel Khalid were bowls with incurved rims. These occurred in both local or regional wares,1039 gray burnished ware,1040 “black glazed wares 2-3,”

1041 and in imported wares including Attic (the latter dating to the late 4th and 3rd centuries),1042 and green-glazed ware.1043 Examples in all of these wares occurred in phase A, indicating that

bowls with incurved rims in a variety of wares were in use at Jebel Khalid in the 3rd and early 2nd century. Similar bowls with upturned rims are attested in gray burnished ware and appear as early as phase A.1044 Bowls with outturned rims occurred in imported black-glazed wares, including Attic, though these were probably used at the site during the late 4th and 3rd century, rather than in the 2nd century.1045 Bowls with everted rims occurred as early in phase A contexts

in local and regional wares,1046 gray burnished ware,1047 as well as “black-glazed wares 2-3,”1048

1038 Jackson 2011b, 431-432. 1039 Jackson 2011a, 12-14, table 4; fig. 11; pls. 1-2. 1040 Tidmarsh 2011, 318-319, fig. 111: FW187-192. 1041 Tidmarsh 2011, 299-301, fig. 104: FW74-83. 1042 Tidmarsh 2011, 298-299, fig. 104: FW72-73. 1043 Jackson 2011b, 433-435, fig. 137, pl. 35: GG6. 1044 Tidmarsh 2011, 319-320, fig. 111: FW193-199; pl. 22: FW195, 199. 1045 Tidmarsh 2011, 295-296, fig. 102: FW46, 49, 51, 53. 1046 Jackson 2011a, 20-21, fig. 16: 1-13.

265

and possibly Campana A.1049 Bowls with everted and plain rims are also attested in green-glazed wares, and first appeared at the site in phase A.1050 Several bowls with exterior rim grooves like

the example found at Kedesh in local or regional wares are published from the housing insula,

most found in phase A contexts.1051 Two local or regional footed hemispherical bowls occur in

phase A of the housing insula1052 and another example in phase B,1053 but more examples occur in mid 2nd century or later contexts and in ESA.1054 Bowls with rims thickened on the exterior occur regularly in local or regional wares and make their earliest appearance in transitional phase

A/B contexts,1055 suggesting that they were used at the site from the middle of the 2nd century.

These bowls are not similar to vessels published at other Hellenistic sites in the eastern

Mediterranean, though they are similar to earlier bowls found in the Near East and Anatolia and

Heather Jackson suggests that they may have been the model for similar bowls produced in

Cypriote sigillata in the 1st century BCE.

Plates and saucers were a major component of the table assemblage at Jebel Khalid, which is somewhat surprising considering that the only cooking vessels regularly represented were deep cooking pots for preparing soups and gruels. The saucers and plates found at the site were deep enough to have contained these. Alternatively plates may have acted as platters for bread, and smaller saucers could have held well grilled meat, fish, nuts, cheese, etc.

1047 Tidmarsh 2011, 317-318, figs. 110: 176-181; 111: 182-186. 1048 Tidmarsh 2011, 296-297, fig. 103: FW57-63. 1049 Tidmarsh 2011, 295, fig. 102: FW47. The author identifies this vessel as an Attic outturned rim bowl, but the profile, the grooves on the interior wall, the metallic slip, and the red clay of the bowl all suggest that an Italian origin is more likely. 1050 Jackson 2011b, 439-442, fig. 139. 1051 Jackson 2011a, 14-15, 25, figs. 12: 2, 4-5, 14-17; 17: 7-9. 1052 Jackson 2011a, 14-15, fig. 12: 1, 3. 1053 Jackson 2011a, 14-15, fig. 12: 8; pl. 1: PW28. 1054 Tidmarsh 2011, 345-349, figs. 120-122: FW328-362 1055 Jackson 2011a, 19-20, fig. 15.

266

Saucers with ledge rims appeared in local and regional wares,1056 burnished gray

ware,1057 and “black-glazed wares 2-3.”1058 Saucers with folded rims in local and regional wares first occur in phase A contexts.1059 Plates and saucers with grooved rims are very abundant at

Jebel Khalid and occur in local or regional wares in transitional phase A/B and fill L contexts, suggesting that they were introduced shortly before the middle of the 2nd century.1060 These

plates and saucers appear in phase A and later contexts in Mesopotamian glazed ware as well.1061

As mentioned above, this form appears earlier in Mesopotamian glazed ware than local or regional wares at Jebel Khalid. As such, it is possible that plates and saucers with grooved rims may have originated to the east in Mesopotamia and inspired local versions in North Syria and the Northern Levant. All of the saucers from Jebel Khalid are comparable to saucers found at

Kedesh.

Most plates with rolled rims at Jebel Khalid occur in burnished gray ware and are dated to the 3rd or early 2nd century.1062 Examples of 3rd century date also occur in Attic1063 and

examples of 3rd or early 2nd century date occur in “black glazed wares 2-3.”1064 An imported

rilled-rim plate with west-slope decoration has been found near the gate in the fortifications at

the site.1065 Fishplates with hanging rims occur in local or regional wares as early as phase A, and continued in use in phase B.1066 Late 4th or early 3rd century examples occur in Attic,1067 and

1056 Jackson 2011a, 25-26, fig. 18: 3-9, 11. 1057 Tidmarsh 2011, 316-317, fig. 110: 167-175. 1058 Tidmarsh 2011, 293-294, fig. 102: FW39-42; pl. 20: FW42. 1059 Jackson 2011a, 25-26, fig. 18: 2. 1060 Jackson 2011 25-26, 33-34, figs. 18: 12-13, 15; 21: 6-14. 1061 Jackson 2011b, 442-444, fig. 140. 1062 Tidmarsh 2011 314-315, fig. 109: FW151-165; pl. 22: FW158. 1063 Tidmarsh 2011 289, fig. 100: FW16-19; pl. 20: FW18. 1064 Tidmarsh 2011 289, fig. 100: FW 20-22, 25. 1065 Tidmarsh 2011, 386, fig. 130: FW606; pl. 33: FW606. 1066 Jackson 2011a, 30-31, fig. 20. 1067 Tidmarsh 2011, 286-287, fig. 99: FW1-4; pl. 20: FW4.

267

3rd or 2nd century examples occur in “black glazed wares 2-3.”1068 Green-glazed ware fishplates with hanging rims are attested in phase A and later contexts.1069 Plates or platters with offset

walls and overhanging rims in local or regional wares identical in form to the imported example

from the archive room at Kedesh are common in the housing insula at Jebel Khalid. They first

appear in transitional Phase A/B contexts and fill L, indicating that they were introduced at Jebel

Khalid shortly before the middle of the 2nd century.1070 A few examples of these plates or platters are also attested in “black-glazed ware 2” and other black-glazed wares.1071 Plates with upturned

rims in local and regional wares first appear at Jebel Khalid in fill L, although most examples

were found in phase B contexts or a late fill on the site,1072 suggesting that they were used at the

site principally after the mid 2nd century. Two examples of plates with upturned rims are attested in Campana B from the acropolis palace1073 and an example in green-glazed ware was recovered

from a phase B context in the housing insula.1074 ESA examples of late 2nd century date are very common at the site, and particularly in and around the acropolis palace.1075 ESA plates or platters with offset rims also appeared at the site, although like the ESA plates with upturned rims, most examples were found on the acropolis.1076

Like Kedesh and most of the sites discussed here, ceramic drinking vessels were less

numerous and varied than vessels for food at Jebel Khalid in the Hellenistic period, although it is

important to note that glass drinking vessels were used regularly at the site from the late 3rd or

1068 Tidmarsh 2011, 288-289, fig. 99: FW5-12. 1069 Jackson 2011b, 436-438, figs. 138; 143. 1070 Jackson 2011a, 35-36, figs. 22-23; 25; pls. 3: CW 162-164; 4: CW190, 193. 1071 Tidmarsh 2011, 291-292, fig. 101: FW 27-30; pl. 20: FW27. 1072 Jackson 2011a, 36-37, fig. 24; pl. 3: CW188. 1073 Tidmarsh 2011, 292, fig. 101: FW31-32 1074 Jackson 2011b, 446-447, fig. 141: 4. 1075 Tidmarsh 2011, 329-331, figs. 114-115: FW231-243; pl. 24: FW241, 243. 1076 Tidmarsh 2011, 336-337, figs. 117-118: FW278-283; pl. 25: FW278, 282-283.

268

early 2nd century.1077 A few examples of carinated “Achaemenid” bowls have been found in both

local and regional wares1078 and imported wares.1079 Since the site was not founded until the late

4th or early 3rd century the presence of these bowls indicates that in north Syria they did not

immediately fall out of favor after Alexander the Great’s conquest.1080 Three Attic kantharoi

dated to the early 3rd century have been recovered near the temple.1081 Since none were recovered

from the housing insula or acropolis, it seems that these especially nice vessels were used as

dedications. Several examples of kantharoi with west-slope decoration of 3rd century date are scattered around the site, and are probably imports from western Asia Minor or Cyprus.1082 Only

three examples of skyphoi with vertical handles of the sort so common at Cypriote and Levantine

coastal sites in the 3rd century were found at Jebel Khalid, all were in local or regional wares, and

the earliest was found in a phase A context.1083 Hemispherical bowls and conical mastoi in local and regional wares,1084 in imported west-slope ware,1085 in “black-glazed ware 2,”1086 and in

ESA1087 first appear in transitional phase A/B contexts and fill L, suggesting that they were first

brought to the site around the middle of the 2nd century. Conical mastoi with interior rim molding

also occur as early as transitional phase A/B contexts and fill L in local or regional wares,1088 in

“black-glazed ware 3” and other fine wares,1089 and in ESA.1090 Mold made bowls with Attic

profile are common at Jebel Khalid and first occur in transitional phase A/B contexts. Most

1077 Jackson 2011c, 499. 1078 Jackson 2011a, 23, fig. 17: 1-5. 1079 Tidmarsh 2011, 305-306, fig. 107: 120-122; pl. 21: 122. 1080 Similarly, they did not go out of use at Sardis in the Hellenistic period. See Dusinberre (1999, 78); Rotroff and Oliver (2003, 61-63, pl. 34: 215-219). 1081 Tidmarsh 2011, 304, fig. 106: FW116; pl. 21: FW116. 1082 Tidmarsh 2011, 378-381, fig. 129: FW557-572; pl. 33: FW567, 569. 1083 Jackson 2011a, fig. 14: 2-4; pl. 2: CW54. 1084 Jackson 2011a, 14-17, figs. 12: 9-11; 14: 9-16; pls. I: CW 31; 1: CW28-29, 31; 2: CW65. 1085 Tidmarsh 2011, 378-379, 382, fig. 129: FW573, 576-577; pl. 33: FW576-577. 1086 Tidmarsh 2011, 305, fig. 107: FW117-119. 1087 Tidmarsh 2011, 341-342, fig. 119: FW304-313; pls. 26: FW304, 307, 311; 27: FW313. 1088 Jackson 2011a, 18-19, fig. 13: 3-13. 1089 Tidmarsh 2011, 307-308, fig. 107: FW126-134. 1090 Tidmarsh 2011, 339-340, figs. 118-119: FW291-302; pl. 26: FW300.

269

examples are in “black glazed wares 2-3” and only one bowl occurs in ESA1091 aside from several fluted, “long-petal” bowls.1092 In addition there are five bowls with Ionian profiles.1093 A

few ESA conical cups of late 2nd or early 1st century date are attested as well, and first appear in transitional phase A/B contexts.1094

The assemblage of service vessels at Jebel Khalid consists mostly of local or regional table amphoras and jugs and juglets with rather fewer kraters, whether imported or local/regional. The only imported kraters are a west slope krater1095 and a krater with ledge

rim.1096 It is uncertain if local or regional kraters were used prior to the mid 2nd century, since

only one possible krater foot has been found in a phase A context,1097 but several local or regional kraters with thickened rims and incised decoration (and occasional slip) are attested in

Phase B contexts.1098 Table amphoras with stepped rims of probable 3rd and early 2nd century date occur local and regional wares1099 in addition to a few imported examples of the same form, probably from Pergamon.1100 Local and regional table amphoras with projecting rims1101 along

with a few green-glazed ware examples1102 that are comparable in form to the table amphoras with angled rims from Kedesh, appear in fill L and phase B contexts, suggesting that they were introduced around the middle of the 2nd century, as were similar table amphoras in the Levant.

Squat jars or table amphoras with everted rims also first appear in fill L.1103 Jugs with everted triangular or squared rims and high vertical handles occur in phase A and later contexts in

1091 Tidmarsh 2011, 359-378, figs. 125-128: FW407-434, 436-475, 477-505, 508-553. 1092 Tidmarsh 2011, 342-344, fig. 120: FW314-326; pl. 27: FW314, FW318, FW322, FW326. 1093 Tidmarsh 2011, 365, 369, 372, figs. 126: FW435; 127: FW476; 128: 506-507. 1094 Tidmarsh 2011, 349-350, fig. 122: FW363-371. 1095 Tidmarsh 2011, 386, fig. 131: FW608. 1096 Tidmarsh 2011, 302, fig. 106: FW101. 1097 Jackson 2011a, 48-49, fig. 38: 8. 1098 Jackson 2011a, 41-42, 46-48, 52-53, figs. 36-37; 44; pl. 6: CW259. 1099 Jackson 2011a, 63-65, fig. 55: 3-12; pls. I: CW434; 10: CW434. 1100 Tidmarsh 2011, 378, 384, fig. 130: FW589-596; pl. 33: FW590-591. 1101 Jackson 2011a, 64, fig. 54; pl. 10: CW12. 1102 Jackson 2011b, 463-467, figs. 147; 148: 1-7; pl. 35: GG125. 1103 Jackson 2011a, 66, fig. 56: 3-6.

270

burnished gray-ware1104 and in other regional or local wares.1105 Local and regional jugs with

grooved echinus rims first occur in phase A and transitional phase A/B contexts.1106 Squat jugs with simple everted rims1107 and with thickened rims first occur in fill L.1108 Jugs with cupped1109 and with grooved rims1110 occurred regularly, though not in great quantities in phase B contexts, indicating that they were introduced after the middle of the 2nd century. Only a few very

fragmentary lagynoi are attested at Jebel Khalid. They are attested in phase A and later

contexts.1111 Small juglets for table use were less well represented than table amphoras and jugs, and while most were wide-mouthed, they are a typological hodge-podge.1112 It seems that at

Jebel Khalid, like at Kedesh and other sites in the southern Levant, there may have been an increase in the use of vessels for serving liquid formally around the middle of the 2nd century. If so, it suggests a common trend in hosting practices from the northern to southern Levant. Such a trend would not have spread were these areas not in contact.

The only regularly attested toilet vessels at Jebel Khalid are local or regional1113 and

imported1114 fusiform unguentaria that are present already in phase A contexts, and these do not occur in great number. Three juglets with flanged rims are attested at Jebel Khalid, two in a fine pale brown fabric that is thought to be an import,1115 it is possible that these juglets were filled at

1104 Tidmarsh 2011, 322-323, fig. 112: FW212-217. 1105 Jackson 2011a, 54-56, fig. 45: 1-11; pl. 7: CW317-318. 1106 Jackson 2011a, 56, fig. 46; pls. 7: CW328; 8: CW329-330. 1107 Jackson 2011a, 56, fig. 47 1108 Jackson 2011a, 56-57, fig. 48: 1-5; pl. 8: CW350-351. 1109 Jackson 2011a, 57-58, figs. 49; 50: 1-4; pl. 8: CW354, 357, 360. 1110 Jackson 2011a, 58, fig. 50: 6-11. 1111 Jackson 2011a, 59-62, fig. 53: 1-7. 1112 Jackson 2011a, 58-59, fig. 51; pl. 9: CW372, 374-375, 377, 380. 1113 Jackson 2011a, 95-96, fig. 86. 1114 Jackson 2011,a 93-96, figs. 84-85; pls. I: CW650; 18: CW651-653 1115 Jackson 2011a, 61-62; fig. 53: 8-10.

271

Kedesh, although a comparison of their ware with examples from Kedesh would be illuminating.

Two ointment pots have been found at the site as well.1116

As mentioned above, there are no stratigraphic grounds for distinguishing between a 3rd

century and 2nd century assemblage at Jebel Khalid, nor did the excavators find any obvious

reason to distinguish the material. The residents of Jebel Khalid received most of their pottery for

all household functions from local sources, but they were connected with regional producers of

tablewares around the area of Antioch to the west. Imports from further afield arrived from the

Aegean and Asia Minor in the west and Mesopotamia to the east and south from the 3rd century on.1117 There is no evidence that they received vessels from Cyprus or the southern Levant in the

3rd or 2nd century. This is perhaps because trade networks between the two regions were not

established in the 3rd century due to either policies of the Ptolemies or Seleucids or, perhaps

more likely, because of the instability caused by the five Syrian Wars during the 3rd century. In the 2nd century, the superior quality of vessels from the northern Levant probably assured that

they were traded to the south, rather than vice versa. Indeed, at Kedesh northern coastal fine

ware and BSP quickly overtook regionally produced central coastal fine ware in the table

assemblage in the 2nd century. This suggests that once they were aware of them, the residents of

Kedesh and other people in the Upper Galilee enthusiastically requested northern Levantine pots from merchants, who in turn made sure to circulate them regularly.

Local jars for storage and transport made up a large proportion of the corpus (around

17%) used in the insula from the 3rd through mid 2nd century, indicating that individual families stored agricultural produce and water, and may have received regional wine and oil in addition to

1116 Jackson 2011a, 98, fig. 87: 2-3. 1117 Jackson 2011c, 497-498, 505, figs. 153-155.

272

Rhodian wine.1118 Like all of the sites discussed here, Jebel Khalid was supplied with local mortaria and jugs for general utility throughout the Hellenistic period. The cooking assemblage was limited almost exclusively to two varieties of locally produced deep globular cooking pots in the 3rd and early to mid 2nd century, casseroles and pans for cooking Greek-style cuisine are not attested. This suggests that they ate dull meals, unless the residents of the insula grilled meat or used some other form of preparation that did not make use of a ceramic vessel.1119 The apparent difference in cooking equipment seen between Jebel Khalid and most sites in the southern

Levant is strange given the similar range of table vessels at Jebel Khalid and many southern

Levantine sites in the the 2nd century. At Jebel Khalid these table vessels include multiple forms of bowls and saucers, most produced locally or imported from regional suppliers of gray burnished ware and “black-glazed wares” (possibly BSP) produced near Antioch. In addition they were supplied with imported Mesopotamian glazed ware and occasional imports from the

Aegean or western Asia Minor. Regional and imported plates with rolled rims and fishplates with hanging rims also occur.1120 Whether or not the residents of Jebel Khalid eschewed specific

foods, they certainly did not use the full range of recipes and methods of food preparation that

were typical of Hellenistic sites in the Aegean, Cyprus, the Levantine coast, and many inland

sites such as Samaria and Kedesh itself. Although the residents of the housing insula at Jebel

Khalid appreciated interior décor and Greek-style tablewares, perhaps they did not have a taste

for Greek-style cuisine. They must have used their plates and saucers for meals that were often

quite different from those consumed at Kedesh, on Cyprus, and at all coastal, and many inland,

sites in the southern Levant. It seems then that the residents may not have been Greeks or

Macedonians themselves. An alternative is that cooking was done by local servants who were

1118 Jackson 2011c, 501-503. 1119 Jackson 2011c, 501, fig. 157: 6-7. 1120 Jackson 2011c, 499, fig. 156: 1-11.

273

unfamiliar with the Greek culinary tradition.1121 But if this were the case, the primary residents of the housing insula must not have been too eager for Greek-style meals. Drinking vessels for individuals were used regularly from the 3rd to mid 2nd century, as were jugs and table amphoras

for serving liquid, though the latter are not abundant.1122 Unguentaria and other toilet vessels appeared infrequently, indicating that the residents of the insula at Jebel Khalid did not stockpile them.

The overall composition of the ceramic assemblage used at Jebel Khalid changed little from the mid 2nd century until the end of the Hellenistic occupation in the first half of the 1st

century.1123 The assemblage of locally and regionally produced transport and storage and utility vessels remained the same in character. Plain kraters with overhanging rims and jugs with squared rims are the principal additions to the assemblage. The only change in the cooking assemblage of note is the introduction of necked cooking pots with ledge rims, which were the same functionally as the earlier globular cooking pots at the site. The table assemblage shows the most marked changes, but even these generally correspond to regional or pan-Mediterranean trends. It is likely that regionally produced gray burnished ware stopped being imported, as did imported tablewares and amphoras from western Asia Minor and the Aegean. Green-glazed wares from Mesopotamia still arrived regularly. The greatest change was the introduction of

ESA, a regional product of the northern Levant, and a corresponding increase in the variety and quantity of plates. Local versions of distinctive ESA shapes such as plates with upturned rims appeared as well. Service vessels were somewhat more abundant too, perhaps indicating along with the increased number of plates, that larger entertainments were more frequent at Jebel

Khalid from the middle of the 2nd century on. Aside from the dropoff in imports from western

1121 Jackson 2011c. 518. 1122 Jackson 2011c, 499. 1123 Jackson 2011c, 514-518, figs. 167-168.

274

Asia Minor and the Aegean (perhaps related to declining Seleucid influence there) and the

introduction of ESA, a ware that was popular throughout the eastern Mediterranean late in the

Hellenistic period, the ceramic assemblage used in the Jebel Khalid housing insula demonstrates

remarkable continuity in cultural practices and market connections in North Syria from the 3rd

through early 1st century BCE.

The Northern Levant: Tarsus

Tarsus was inhabited continuously until the Roman period, and continued to be an important

commercial city in the 2nd century (for description of the 3rd century remains from the site see

pages 148-150, above). The “Late Hellenistic Unit” (hereafter LHU) is a layer of debris

deposited over the 3rd and early 2nd century “Middle Hellenistic Unit” with material of early to

mid 2nd century date in an area of domestic habitation at the site.1124 The “Hellenistic-Roman

Unit” (hereafter HRU) consists of fill deposited on top of the LHU in the mid 2nd century and later, and is defined by the appearance of “Roman” red wares (most probably ESA).1125 The

published excavations exposed 2nd century remains from the LHU and HRU. This material came

from the same area of decorated houses as had the 3rd century material already discussed.

Rhodian wine continued to arrive regularly at Tarsus in the 2nd century. Seventeen

stamped Rhodian amphora handles dated from 220-180 and another 22 dating after 180 have

been found at the site.1126 Likewise, cooking continued to be done in globular cooking pots,1127

casseroles,1128 and pans.1129 Second century table vessels attested at Tarsus include bowls with

1124 Goldman 1950, 14, 31. 1125 Goldman 1950, 15-16, 31-32. 1126 Grace 1950, 141-144. 1127 Jones 1950, 240, fig. 191: 363-364. 1128 Jones 1950, 229, fig. 187: 221. 1129 Jones 1950, 240, fig. 191: F.

275

incurved rims1130 and footed hemispherical bowls.1131 Saucers with ledge,1132 knob,1133 folded,1134 and grooved rims1135 are all attested at Tarsus as are fishplates with hanging rims1136 and platters with offset grooved rims.1137 ESA plates with upturned rims1138 and platters with

offset rims1139 were both used as well. Undecorated skyphoi with vertical handles may have

continued to be used in the 2nd century1140 in addition to examples decorated in the west slope

style.1141 A BSP or Pergamene mastos with interior rim molding is attested,1142 and several examples of mold made bowls with both Attic1143 and Ionian1144 profiles are published from the site. Kraters1145 and Pergamene style table amphoras with stepped rims decorated in the west slope technique are also attested at Tarsus.1146 Toilet vessels in the LHU and RHU at Tarsus include fusiform unguentaria1147 and Phoenician SF amphoriskoi.1148

In the 2nd century Tarsus was a prosperous city with a population accustomed to a wide

range of Mediterranean goods. The people of Tarsus had a palate for varied cuisine, much like

the residents of Kedesh, with some standards for entertaining and the means and desire to acquire

imported goods from a variety of sources. The only new ceramic forms and wares represented at

the site in the 2nd century are ones that became common at other sites in the eastern

1130 Jones 1950, 215-216, figs. 122, 180: 70, H-N. 1131 Jones 1950, 217, fig. 181: D. 1132 Jones 1950, 213, fig. 179: C. 1133 Jones 1950, 213, fig. 179: D. 1134 Jones 1950, 213, fig. 179: G. 1135 Jones 1950, 213, fig. 179: E-F. 1136 Jones 1950, 212, fig. 178: B-C. 1137 Jones 1950, 221, fig. 183: 136. 1138 Jones 1950, 231, fig. 188: A. 1139 Jones 1950, 231, fig. 188: 252-253. 1140 Jones 1950, 217, fig. 181: 85, B-C. 1141 Jones 1950, 218, figs. 124: 106-107; 125: E. 1142 Jones 1950, 219, fig. 181: 114. 1143 Jones 1950, 222, figs. 129, 183: 152, 159. 1144 Jones 1950, 222, 235, figs 128: 146-148; 129: 158; 138, 189: 305-309. 1145 Jones 1950, 219, fig. 126: 120. 1146 Jones 1950, 219, figs. 125: 118; 126: B-C. 1147 Jones 1950, 230, figs. 135, 187: 234-237, 239. 1148 Jones 1950, 239-240, fig. 191: 358-359.

276

Mediterranean such as mold made bowls, vessels in ESA, and Phoenician SF amphoriskoi. In

short, life in the 2nd century was much the same as it had been in the 3rd century at Tarsus. The

2nd century ceramic assemblage from Tarsus has more in common with sites in the southern

Levant than the 3rd century assemblage had. It is possible that this is a reflection of increased

trade between the northern and southern Levant after the Seleucid victory in the Fifth Syrian War

that removed the border between them and marked the end of hostilities that may have disrupted

communication.

Eastern Cyprus: Kition

In the first half of the 2nd century Kition continued to be a prosperous port. Its strategic

importance was heightened by the Ptolemaic loss of the southern Levant. Deposits of pottery

have been found in the same areas of taverns and/or ritual dining buildings as the 3rd century

material described above. Much less securely datable 2nd century material has been published from Kition when compared to the large quantities of 3rd century material at the site.1149 It is

quite possible that the dearth of obviously 2nd century material is the result of the continued use

of 3rd century wares and forms.

Imported Rhodian amphoras were still common at Kition in the 2nd century,1150 indicating

that eastern Cyprus was still well connected with the Aegean. Cooking continued to be done in

deep globular cooking pots1151 and casseroles. Bowls with incurved rims produced on Cyprus

were still used for dining,1152 as well as saucers with ledge1153 and grooved rims.1154 Two footed

1149 The only certain 2nd century group of material from Kition comes from “Le remplissage du puits 175.” Salles 1993c, 183-185, 206, fig. 195. Other vessels that are independently datable to the 2nd century appear sporadically throughout the publication. 1150 Calvet 1993, 78. 1151 Salles 1993c, 185, 206, fig. 195: 209. 1152 Salles 1993c, 185, 206, fig. 195: 204. 1153 Salles 1993c, 184, 206, fig. 195: 200.

277

hemispherical bowls in ESA are attested at the site, though these could be later in date than the

mid 2nd century.1155 The most common 2nd century drinking vessels at the site were tall skyphoi with horizontal handles,1156 also known as “aradippou” cups. At least one conical mastos,1157 probably from the Aegean or Western Asia Minor and one mastos with interior rim molding in

BSP or ESA is attested.1158 Mold made bowls do not appear in quantity at the site. Only a single bowl with Ionian profile,1159 probably from the Aegean or western Asia Minor, is attested.

The small sample of 2nd century pottery from Kition makes it clear that there was continuity between the 3rd and 2nd centuries in eastern Cyprus. It seems that imports from the

northern Levant and mold made bowls in general rarely reached the site. The latter would

certainly be better represented in the publication if they were imported regularly. This dearth of

northern Levantine finewares and mold made bowls is in contrast to Tarsus and most sites in the

southern Levant. The absence of these vessels is in keeping with other sites on Cyprus (e.g.,

Amathus, Kourion, Nicosia)1160 with the possible exception of Paphos.1161 It may be that the

absence of these vessels so common in the Levant is evidence for a disruption in trade between

the region in the wake of the Seleucid conquest of the southern Levant. However, ceramic

products of the Levantine coast were scarce at Kition in the 3rd century as well. Also, it seems

that at the beginning of the 2nd century at least, Cypriote vessels continued to be imported in the

Levant. As sites on the southern Levantine coast became more thoroughly enmeshed in trade

routes coming from the Aegean in the west and the northern Levant in the early 2nd century,

1154 Salles 1993c, 184, 206, fig. 195: 199. 1155 Salles 1993d, 274, 284, fig. 235: 574-575. 1156 Salles 1993c, 184, 206: fig. 195: 201-202. 1157 Salles 1993c, 184, 206, fig. 195: 203. 1158 Salles 1993c, 185, 206, fig. 195: 208. Salles notes that this type is generally rare on Cyprus. 1159Salles 1993c, 185, 206, fig. 195: 206. 1160 For Amathus see Burkhalter (1987); for Kourion see Connely (1984); for Nicosia see Berlin and Pilacinski (2005). 1161 For Paphos see Hayes (1991).

278

Cyprus (perhaps with the exception of Paphos) remained isolated from the northern Levant, and

only had rather limited contact with the Aegean. The difference in economic orientation of these

two regions can perhaps be attributed to the changed political reality. The southern Levant now

part of a Seleucid Empire that stretched further to the north and west and Cyprus was still held

by the Ptolemies from Egypt and perhaps subject to restrictive policies of trade and taxation.

The Southern/Central Levantine Coast: Akko-Ptolemais and Dor 1162

Second century ceramic remains can be identified from more coastal sites in the southern Levant than was possible for 3rd century material. As such we can isolate definitely 2nd century material from Keisan, Sha’ar Ha’Amakim, Shiqmona, and Michal. However, the most extensive corpora of stratified pottery still derive from Akko-Ptolemais and Dor (for description of 3rd century

remains from these sites, see pages 153-157, above), and the range of shapes and wares from

these two sites is largely representative of the material published from other coastal sites.

Both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor remained prosperous port cities in the 2nd century under

the Seleucids. Indeed, Akko-Ptolemais received preferable treatment from the reign of Antiochus

IV (r. 175-163) on and even housed a garrison.1163 At Akko-Ptolemais, stratified pottery dating from the late 3rd to the mid 2nd century and from the mid to late 2nd century has been unearthed in

areas of housing and light industrial activity at the courthouse site. The presence of fragments of

drafted and painted plaster in these same deposits similar to the plaster that decorated the dining

and reception rooms at Kedesh, indicates that some of the people living in the city had an interest

in Greek-style décor and had the resources to decorate their houses in such a manner.1164 As in

1162 Since I have studied the pottery from Akko-Ptolemais for publication, I am in a position to make more detailed comments concerning the wares represented than at many of the other sites considered here. 1163 Kasher 1990, 56. 1164 Sharif forthcoming.

279

the Persian period and 3rd century, stratified 2nd century material from Dor comes from areas of

housing and shops near the fortifications of the site, especially area C0, where deposits dating to

the first three quarters of the 2nd century have been excavated. Like Akko-Ptolemais, fragments

of drafted and painted plaster have been found at Dor, along with fragments of 2nd century decorated mosaics, testifying to the eclectic tastes and relative prosperity of its 2nd century

residents.1165

The sources of transport vessels and forms used at coastal sites stayed the same between

the 3rd and 2nd centuries. Phoenician SF baggy jars continued to be imported to and/or produced at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in the 2nd century.1166 Wine shipped in Rhodian amphoras arrived in

even greater quantity than it had in the 3rd century.1167 Elongated baggy jars with everted rims of

the sort used at Dor and many other southern Levantine sites in the 3rd century also continued to

be used at Dor, and appeared at Akko-Ptolemais for the first time.1168

As they had in the 3rd century, residents of southern Levantine coastal sites in the 2nd century used a variety of cooking vessels for preparing both Levantine and Greek-style cuisine.

Necked cooking pots with pointed, concave, flattened, and ledge rims were all used at Akko-

Ptolemais in the 2nd century.1169 Cooking pots with high splayed necks are attested at both Akko-

Ptolemais (in sandy cooking ware) and Dor in 2nd century contexts.1170 Casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls1171 and with wavy rims and straight walls1172 are attested at both sites as

1165 Stewart and Martin 2003 1166 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 9; 3.13: 1; 3.19: 1); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.38: 7, 9). 1167 For Akko-Ptolemais see Finkielstejn (forthcoming); for Dor see Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, 202-203). 1168 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.13: 2; 3.19: 2); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, figs. 6.35: 8-10; 6.36: 1). 1169 Berlin and Stone forthcoming figs. 3.11: 7-8; 3.13:11; 3.16: 2-3; 3.19: 7-9. 1170 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, 3.13:12; 3.16:5); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.17: 3). 1171 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.13: 15; 3.19: 11); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.20:7, 13).

280

well in the 2nd century. A casserole with angled rim and straight wall is also present at Dor in a

2nd century context.1173 Aegean style pans are attested in 2nd century contexts at both Akko-

Ptolemais (in sandy cooking ware) and Dor,1174 as are Aegean braziers with molded

decoration.1175 The early to mid 2nd century kitchen equipment of these large coastal cities mirrors that of Kedesh almost exactly.

The 2nd century assemblages of table vessels at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor were varied in

terms of both shape and fabric. Bowls with incurved1176 and everted rims1177 continued to be used at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in the 2nd century. At Akko-Ptolemais, examples of bowls with

incurved rims are attested in 2nd century contexts in central coastal fine ware, gray brown

Cypriote, northern coastal fine ware, and BSP. Bowls with everted rims in gray brown Cypriote fabric, northern coastal fine ware, BSP, and Campana A are all attested at Akko-Ptolemais as well. A footed hemispherical bowl in Campana A1178 and one in BSP1179 are attested at Akko-

Ptolemais. Saucers with ledge rims in central coastal fine ware occur at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of 2nd century date 1180 and saucers with folded rims occur in late 3rd or early 2nd century

contexts at Akko-Ptolemais (in central coastal fine ware) and Dor.1181 Saucers with grooved rims have also been recovered from 2nd century contexts at both Akko-Ptolemais (in northern coastal

1172 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.12: 13); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.21: 13). 1173 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.22:4. 1174 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.13: 16); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.23: 13-14). 1175 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.14: 1); for Dor see Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, figs. 5.1-2). 1176For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.10: 12; 3.12: 1-5; 3.15: 6; 3.17: 1-4); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.1: 18, 35). 1177 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming figs. 3.9: 2; 3.10:4; 3.12: 11; 3.15: 4-5; 3.27: 1); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.2: 9, 15). 1178 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.18: 9. 1179 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.21:11. 1180 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 15; 3.17: 6. 1181 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.10: 10; 3.12: 6); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.4:9).

281

fine ware) and Dor.1182 Fishplates with hanging rims in BSP were used at both sites in the 2nd century, and seem to have been particularly abundant at Akko-Ptolemais.1183 Fishplates with

hanging rims imported from other sources appear at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor as well.1184 Plates with rolled rims are attested at both sites in 2nd century contexts.1185 The example from Dor is

imported, and those from Akko-Ptolemais are in central coastal fine ware. Plates with rilled rims

and west slope decoration of probable 2nd century date are also attested at Dor.1186 Several examples of plates or platters with stamped decoration, probably of Aegean origin, and most in

2nd century or later contexts, are attested at Dor as well.1187 Carinated cups with pinched handles were common at both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in the 2nd century.1188 At Akko-Ptolemais they

occur both in local central coastal fine ware and in color coated ware A, which probably came

from Rhodes. Mold made bowls with Attic profile in BSP and ESA1189 and bowls with Ionian profile1190 in wares of the Aegean or western Asia Minor were regularly imported to both sites in

the 2nd century. Conical mastoi with interior rim moldings were also brought to Dor in the 2nd century.1191 At Akko-Ptolemais three imported calyx cups from western Asia Minor or the

1182 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 11); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.4: 21). 1183 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 12-13; 3.15: 3-4; 3.17: 7-9); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.3: 11-12). 1184 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.10: 7); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.13: 10). 1185 For Akko see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.9:3; 3.12: 7); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.4: 20). 1186 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 226, nos. 34, 37. 1187 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.5: 8-11, 13-15. 1188For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.10: 3; 3.12: 16; 3.15:2); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.7:6). 1189For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.12: 17; 3.18: 4, 6, 8, 10); for Dor see Rosenthal- Heginbottom (1995 fig. 5.5: 18). 1190For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.18: 1-2, 5, 7); for Dor see Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, fig. 5.4: 8, 18). 1191 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, fig. 5.7:3, 6.

282

northern Levant with west slope decoration are attested, two of these occur in a 2nd century

context and the other may also have been brought to the site in the 2nd century.1192

Several forms of kraters, jugs, and juglets for serving liquid at the table are attested at

Akko-Ptolemais and Dor. At Dor, kraters with thickened rims similar to those found at Kedesh are attested.1193 Imported kraters with thickened ledge rims are also attested at both sites.1194

Phoenician SF jugs with triangular rims are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in 2nd century contexts.1195 Table amphoras with stepped rims, both locally produced and imported, are attested at both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor.1196 Table amphoras with angled rims are present at both sites as

well1197 and at Akko-Ptolemais they occur in Phoenician SF. Local and imported lagynoi were

used at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor.1198 One cylindrical olpe has been published from a 2nd century

context at Dor,1199 as has a table juglet with wide mouth in Phoenician SF or another regional ware.1200 At Akko-Ptolemais a small imported juglet with net pattern is attested as is a jug or

juglet with ridged rim.1201

The 2nd century residents of the southern Levantine coast used a wider array of ceramic

toilet vessels than they had in the 3rd century. Unguentaria with domed mouths were present at

Dor in the 2nd century.1202 Banded unguentaria were used at Akko-Ptolemais in the 2nd

1192 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.15:1; 3.20: 1; 3.27: 9. 1193 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.14: 3. 1194 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.17: 10). 1195 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, figs. 3.11:2; 3.1: 21-22. 1196 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.9: 4; 3.12: 14; 3.27: 11-12); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.32:6); and Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1995, fig. 5.12:2). 1197 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 3; 3.12: .20; 3.17: 11); for Dor see Guz- Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.32:5). 1198 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.9:5; 3.15:8); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.33: 7, 9). 1199 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.28:2. 1200 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.28: 10. 1201 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.20: 4-5. 1202 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.27: 5-6.

283

century,1203 and elongated,1204 and imported unguentaria with hollow stems were brought to both

Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in the 2nd century.1205 Phoenician SF amphoriskoi1206 and ointment

pots1207 were also used at Akko-Ptolemais and Dor in the 2nd century.

The varied assemblages of both Akko-Ptolemais and Dor attest to the continued

prosperity and eclecticism of their residents in the 2nd century. Imported wine from the Aegean and oil and perfumes manufactured along the Levantine coast were regular occurrences, and imported perfumes even appeared on occasion. People living at both sites enjoyed Levantine and

Greek-style cuisine. Desire for meals prepared in Aegean style pans was sufficient that there was at least limited local production of them in sandy cooking ware. The table assemblages at both sites included local and imported bowls, saucers, and plates/platters for serving. At the beginning of the 2nd century ceramic imports from Cyprus and west slope vessels from the Aegean and

Western Asia Minor still appeared, although they were joined by products from the northern

Levant. By the middle of the 2nd century imported bowls, saucers and plates from the northern

Levant were particularly common, as were mold made bowls from the northern Levant and the

Aegean western Asia Minor. Like Kedesh, these coastal sites became more closely connected

with the northern Levant and perhaps more prosperous as the 2nd century progressed.

The Northern Central Hills: Samaria

1203 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 18. 1204 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.20: 7); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.26: 24). 1205 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.15: 19); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.27:2-4). 1206 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, figs. 3.9:8; 3; 3.12: 9); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.29: 2-5). 1207 For Akko-Ptolemais see Berlin and Stone (forthcoming, fig. 3.20: 8); for Dor see Guz-Zilberstein (1995, fig. 6.25: 6, 9, 11).

284

Samaria continued to be inhabited until the late 2nd century when it was thoroughly destroyed by the Hasmoneans (for description of the 3rd century remains from the site see pages 157-160, above).1208 Little architecture that can be attributed to the 2nd century has been excavated, but

Samaria continued to be a fortified city. No 2nd century coins from Ptolemaic mints are attested at the site, a marked change from the 3rd century that mirrors the numismatic situation of Kedesh.

Instead there are 18 coins of Antiochus III (222-187), 82 Seleucid coins of 2nd century date, and

28 2nd century city coins (most issued at Akko-Ptolemais).1209 The ceramic remains from the site attest to its residents’ continued prosperity and eclectic tastes. Indeed, wine from Rhodes remained common at Samaria. There are 103 stamped Rhodian handles at the site dating from

220-180 and another 150 to 180-110.1210

The Hellenistic Fort Wall deposit (HFW), with latest datable material in the form of stamped Rhodian amphora handles of 180-150, has already been discussed since the majority of the pottery found in it corresponds to material from assemblages of 3rd century date in the Levant and Cyprus. Despite this, some of the non-amphora material in the deposit no doubt dates to the first two decades of the 2nd century as well. Thus, it is likely that many of the vessel forms represented in the deposit remained in use in the 2nd century. Necked cooking pots with pointed and concave rims and with high splayed necks all probably remained in use along with casseroles with wavy rims and straight walls and angled rims and rounded walls. Aegean pans may have continued in use as well.1211 Bowls with incurved and everted rims, saucers with ledge rims, and fishplates with hanging rims all probably continued to be used to set the table early in

1208 J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957, 4-5. 1209 Kirkman 1957, 51-53, 65-66. 1210 J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957, 379. 1211 Kenyon 1957, 228-233, fig. 41.

285

the 2nd century.1212 As Kathleen Kenyon notes, mold made bowls are absent in the HFW

deposit,1213 as are carinated cups with recurved handles, conical mastoi, and other drinking

vessels generally thought to be typical in the 2nd century Levant. The evidence discussed here only applies to Samaria, but it may be that such vessels were not yet widely used early in the 2nd century.

There is no other deposit comparable to the mass of stratified material in the Hellenistic

Fort Wall deposit dating to the second quarter of the 2nd century or later at Samaria. A modest-

sized group of pottery found above the HFW deposit included saucers with grooved rims,1214

BSP fishplates with hanging rims,1215 and BSP1216 and possibly northern coastal fine ware1217 bowls with everted rims. Among unstratified material a carinated cup with pinched handles,1218 an imported conical mastos1219 a BSP footed hemispherical bowl,1220 and a mastos with interior

rim molding are published.1221 In addition, well more than a hundred fragments of mold made bowls were recovered at the site during the two excavation campaigns.1222 Bowls with Attic profiles,1223 most probably in BSP or ESA, are more common than those with Ionian profiles,1224 which surely derived from sources in the Aegean and/or western Asia Minor.

The people of Samaria in the 2nd century continued to enjoy varied cuisine and table

settings much as they had in the 3rd century. Early in the 2nd century (like at Akko-Ptolemais,

Dor, and Kedesh) the residents of Samaria used forms and wares introduced in the 3rd century. In

1212 Kenyon 1957, 220-225, figs. 37-38. 1213 Kenyon 1957, 218. 1214 Kenyon 1957, 233-234, fig. 43: 8-9. 1215 Kenyon 1957, 233-234, fig. 43: 1-2. 1216 Kenyon 1957, 233-234, fig. 43: 4-5. 1217 Kenyon 1957, 233-234, fig. 43: 6. 1218 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 266-267, fig. 57: 1. 1219 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 259-260, fig. 53: 1. 1220 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 259-260, fig. 53: 3. 1221 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 259-260, fig. 53: 5. 1222 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 272. 1223 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 275-277, fig. 62: 5-15. 1224 G.M. Crowfoot 1957, 274-275, figs. 61; 62: 1-4.

286

the mid and late 2nd century Samaria continued to be well supplied with imports from the Aegean

(mostly in the form of Rhodian amphoras) and increasingly the northern Levant.

The Northern Central Hills: Shechem

In the 2nd century Shechem had essentially the same character that it had in the 3rd. It was a modest sized, fortified town of unadorned houses. As in the 3rd century, Shechem formed a stark

contrast with the nearby cosmopolitan city of Samaria, whose residents continued to receive a

wide range of regional and imported ceramic goods in the 2nd century. Coins dating to c. 190 or

later have been found at Shechem in strata II-I above earlier floors, providing good evidence for

a distinct 2nd century phase at the site. 2nd century remains have been recovered from around the fortifications and in areas of domestic use at Shechem.1225

Locally produced elongated baggy jars with everted rims continued to be the standard vessels for transport and storage of bulk goods in the 2nd century.1226 Large storage jars with

similar rim treatment to the large jars with everted rims present at Kedesh and other sites in the

eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley are attested as well, although the jars from Shechem were

produced in local wares of the Central Hills.1227 Very few Rhodian amphoras were brought to

Shechem compared to the sites surveyed so far, and only two stamped handles are published.1228

This meager evidence still marks the earliest Hellenistic appearance of imported jars to the site.

Few utility vessels that can be securely dated to the 2nd century are published from

Shechem. The site’s residents used jugs with squared rims and rounded bottoms for fetching

1225 N. Lapp 2008, 1-15. 1226 N. Lapp 2008, 238-239, 244-247, pls. 3.5: 2-5; 3.8: 7-11; 3.9: 9-14. 1227 N. Lapp 2008, 248-249, pl. 3.10: 6-13. 1228 N. Lapp 2008, 258-259, pl. 3.14: 3-9.

287

water.1229 Cooking was done in cooking pots with high splayed necks1230 and with thickened concave rims.1231 Casseroles first appeared at Shechem in the 2nd century. The casseroles used at

Shechem are deeper than casseroles at most other sites surveyed and have short, sharply angled rims and round walls that bulge broadly.1232

The table assemblage at Shechem remained very basic in the 2nd century. Small, unslipped bowls with incurved rims and flat feet continued to be the standard table vessels.1233

These bowls were joined by a few locally or regionally produced saucers with ledge rims

covered with matte red slip1234 as well as sporadic occurrences of saucers with grooved and thickened rims1235 and one plate with rolled rim.1236 The only imported tablewares from 2nd

century Shechem are a possible BSP bowl foot,1237 the foot of an ESA plate,1238 and a fragment of a mold made bowl with Ionian profile in a ware from the Aegean or western Asia Minor.1239

No other drinking vessels are attested at the site, and there are no vessels obviously suited to the service of drink. Several fusiform unguentaria were brought to Shechem in the 2nd century.1240

Although people at several inland southern Levantine sites (e.g., Kedesh, Anafa) began to use wider range of household goods during the 2nd century than they had in the 3rd, the residents of Shechem shared little interest in such luxuries. They continued to use a very basic assemblage that changed rather little between the 3rd and 2nd centuries. The most significant difference seems to have been the addition of casseroles and saucers to the cooking and dining repertoire. Still,

1229 N. Lapp 2008, 270-273, pls. 3.18: 9-11; 3.19: 4-6. 1230 N. Lapp 2008, 326-329, pls. 3.39: 6-9; 3.40: 1-2, 4-5. 1231 N. Lapp 2008, 328-329, pl. 3.40: 11-14. 1232 N. Lapp 2008, 330-331, pl. 3.41: 4-13. 1233 N. Lapp 2008, 292-293, pl. 3.28: 1-9. 1234 N. Lapp 2008, 293-294, pl. 3.28: 16-21. 1235 N. Lapp 2008, 293-294, pl. 3.28: 22-26. 1236 N. Lapp 2008, 293-294, pl. 3.28: 27. 1237 N. Lapp 2008, 296-297, pl. 3.29: 4. 1238 N. Lapp 2008, 300-301, pl. 3.30: 10. 1239 N. Lapp 2008, 300-301, pl. 3.30: 11. 1240 N. Lapp 2008, 284-285, pl. 3.25: 3-11.

288

most vessels were produced and acquired locally, table settings were informal, and imported

commodities were rare. That their Spartan lifestyle was a choice of the residents rather than the

unavailability of a wider range of goods is suggested by the proximity of Shechem to Samaria,

which continued to receive a wide range of regional and imported goods in the 2nd century.

The Shephelah: Maresha

Maresha was a prominent town in the Hellenistic period, located in the Judean Shephelah

approximately 35 km east of the coast at Ashkelon. It is along the best route from the Dead Sea

to the coast, making it an ideal way station for caravans carrying dates, incense and other goods

from Arabia and the Jordan Valley to the coast. As such, its position was similar to that of

Samaria, Scythopolis, and Beth Yerah-Philoteira near the junction of the Jezreel and Jordan

valleys to the north. Epigraphic and historical evidence suggest that in the 2nd century Maresha

was a Seleucid stronghold inhabited by a mixed population of Idumaeans and Phoenicians until it

was sacked by John Hyrcanus I in 112/111.1241 Coins found at the site are consonant with

habitation lasting from the 3rd to the late 2nd century.1242 The Hellenistic town was fortified and

organized roughly into blocks, and many houses had rock-cut underground chambers for storage

and industrial activities. Painted and drafted plaster recovered at the site, comparable to that at

Jebel Khalid, Akko-Ptolemais, Dor, and Kedesh itself, and Greek architectural elements such as

Doric and Ionic capitals, attest to the cosmopolitan outlook of Maresha’s residents.1243 This impression is strengthened by the decoration of a particularly elaborate tomb in the town’s necropolis, which features painted Nilotic scenes with animals labeled in Greek and panathenaic

1241 Jos. War 1.63 (Thackeray 1927, 32-33); Kloner 2003, 5. 1242 Kloner 2003, 10. 1243 Kloner 2003, 11.

289

amphorai.1244 An inscription in this same tomb identifies one of its occupants as Apollophanes, head of the Sidonian colony at the site, indicating that some of the residents of this prosperous town were Phoenicians.1245 Clearly the population of Maresha was settled permanently and familiar with wider trends in the Hellenistic world. The 2nd century ceramic material found at

Maresha provides further evidence for the tastes and possibly the cultural background of its residents. Unfortunately, the material published so far is not well stratified. Instead, it is an accumulation of debris deposited in the subterranean basement complexes of houses during or shortly after the destruction of the site in 112/111.

Two varieties of locally produced storage jars were used at Maresha. One is the elongated baggy jar with everted thickened rim,1246 of the sort attested at Dor and Shechem already in the

3rd century, and at Akko-Ptolemais by the early or mid 2nd century. The other is a high

shouldered jar with elongated thickened rim.1247 Many 2nd century Rhodian, Aegean, and some

Italian amphoras are attested at Maresha, indicating that people living at the site consumed imported wine regularly.1248

The principal utility vessels attested at Maresha are deep bowls with ledge rims1249 and large jugs with thickened, ledge, or angled rims.1250 Ceramic mortaria are absent; perhaps stone

vessels were used instead. Cooking was done mostly in necked cooking pots with thickened

rims1251 and one casserole with angled rim and rounded wall has been published from the site.1252

Aegean style pans are absent.

1244 Jacobson 2007. 1245 Peters and Thiersch 1905, 37-38. 1246 Levine 2003a, 95-96, figs. 6.7: 78-80; 6.8: 81. 1247 Levine 2003a, 95, 97-98, fig. 6.8: 82-83. 1248 Ariel and Finkielsztejn 2003. 1249 Levine 2003a, 88-89, fig. 6.4: 57-58. 1250 Levine 2003a, 100-101, fig. 6.10: 92-99. 1251 Levine 2003a, 92-94, fig. 6.6: 69-76. 1252 Levine 2003a, 92-94, fig. 6.6: 77.

290

The tables of Maresha were set more elaborately than those at Shechem. Locally

produced bowls with incurved rims are common1253 as are bowls with incurved rims and flat feet

(slipped and unslipped)1254 like those attested at Samaria and Shechem. Locally produced bowls with upturned rims not paralleled at the other sites discussed here were used as well.1255

Residents of Maresha also used locally produced saucers with thickened or ledge rims and flat feet.1256 Imported BSP and ESA bowls with incurved rims are attested,1257 as are locally produced,1258 ESA, and Campana A footed hemispherical bowls,1259 and a Campana A bowl with

everted rim.1260 Bowls with externally thickened rims in local fabric1261 and in ESA were used as

well.1262 Local or regional fishplates with hanging rims that generally approximate the form of

those produced in BSP and northern coastal fine ware appear in some number.1263 Campana A saucers with drooping rims1264 and Campana A and ESA plates with offset rims were brought to the site.1265 Plates with upturned rims in ESA were also used at the site by the time it was abandoned.1266 For drinking the 2nd century residents of Maresha used carinated cups with

pinched handles in local or regional fabrics1267 and in the color coated ware A of Rhodes.1268

Conical mastoi with interior rim moldings in BSP and ESA1269 and mold made bowls with Attic profile in BSP, northern coastal fine ware, or ESA and at least one Ionian example in a ware

1253 Levine 2003a, 80-85, fig. 6.2: 34-38. 1254 Levine 2003a, 80-85, fig. 6.2: 31-33, 39-40 1255 Levine 2003a, 80-85, fig. 6.2: 41-44. 1256 Levine 2003a, 80-85, fig. 6.2: 28-30. 1257 Levine 2003a, 75-78, fig. 6.1: 5, 10. 1258 Levine 2003a, 86-88, fig. 6.3: 56. 1259 Levine 2003a, 76-79, fig. 6.1: 8, 19. 1260 Levine 2003a, 77, 79, fig. 6.1: 18. 1261 Levine 2003a, 86-88, fig. 6.3: 53-55. 1262 Levine 2003a, 76-78, fig. 6.1: 7. 1263 Levine 2003a, 86-87, fig. 6.3: 46-49. 1264 Levine 2003a, 77, 79, fig. 6.1: 16. 1265 Levine 2003a, 77-79, fig. 6.1: 17, 11-12. 1266 Levine 2003a, 77-79, fig. 6.1: 13-15. 1267 Levine 2003a, 86-87, fig. 6.3: 50-52. 1268 Levine 2003a, 75-77, fig. 6.1: 3-4. 1269 Levine 2003a, 76-78, fig. 6.1: 6, 9.

291

from the Aegean or western Asia Minor were brought to the site.1270 The people of Maresha served drink to groups in locally produced column kraters with ledge or thickened rims1271 and

jugs with thickened,1272 angled,1273 and overhanging rims1274 (the bodies of the latter approximate

those of squat spatter table amphoras). Table amphoras with angled (like those at Kedesh),1275 overhanging,1276 and ledge rims1277 in a local or regional fabric have been published as well. The

people of Maresha also used local and imported lagynoi and decanters with narrow ridged necks

for serving drink.1278 Individual service of drink was accomplished using small juglets with wide mouths,1279 and pear shaped “Maresha” juglets with angled or thickened rims.1280

The range of toilet vessels attested at Maresha very closely mirrors that seen at Kedesh.

Juglets with cupped rims that appear in some quantity at Maresha would be well suited to filling

and measured pouring1281 much like the juglets with flanged rims at Kedesh. They were probably meant to carry some sort of perfumed oil, like the Kedesh juglets. Elongated fusiform unguentaria and imported unguentaria with hollow stems are both attested at Maresha as well.1282

A Phoenician SF amphoriskos has also been published from the site.1283

The people of Maresha had regular access to the coast, and were desirous of eclectic table settings and imported luxury goods. Perhaps more interesting is how generally similar the assemblage of 2nd century table and service vessels are to those of 2nd century Akko-Ptolemais

1270 Levine 2003a, 80-82, fig. 6.2: 20-26. 1271 Levine 2003a, 88-90, fig. 6.4: 63-64. 1272 Levine 2003a, 103-105, fig. 6.11: 100-101, 103-104. 1273 Levine 2003a, 103-105, fig. 6.11: 105-106. 1274 Levine 2003a, 103-105, fig. 6.11: 107, 109, 111. 1275 Levine 2003a, 98-99, fig. 6.9: 86. 1276 Levine 2003a, 98-99, fig. 6.9: 87. 1277 Levine 2003a, 98-99, fig. 6.9: 88. 1278 Levine 2003a, 106-107, fig. 6.12: 114-119. 1279 Levine 2003a, 109-111, fig. 6.13: 129-132. 1280 Levine 2003a, 110-112, fig. 6.13: 133-138. 1281 Levine 2003a, 108-111, fig. 6.13: 122-128. 1282 Levine 2003a, 113-115, fig. 6.14: 144-150. 1283 Levine 2003a, 98-100, fig. 6.9: 89.

292

and Dor, late 2nd century Anafa, and the early to mid 2nd century PHAB at Kedesh, all

Phoenician sites in the 2nd century. Northern Levantine tablewares are common at all of these

sites, as are a sampling of imported tablewares from the Aegean and Italy. Medium sized jugs

and table amphoras and small juglets closely corresponding to each other in form abound at all of

these sites as well. The presence of a very similar assemblage of table and service vessels at all

of these sites (including specific vessel forms and combinations not attested at other major sites

like Samaria) suggests a shared emphasis on entertaining and an understanding of the proper way

to do so amongst Phoenicians living at sites quite far apart from each other.1284

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Khirbet Zemel

A simple and unadorned house has been excavated at Khirbet Zemel (hereafter Zemel), the site

of a small village or farmstead inhabited in the middle of the 2nd century across the Hula Valley from Kedesh in the foothills of the Hermon Massif.1285 Nine readable coins found at the site indicate that Zemel was occupied from the 150s until at least 144/3, and abandoned shortly thereafter,1286 perhaps as a result of the fighting between the Seleucids and Maccabbees that precipitated the abandonment of the PHAB at Kedesh. As such, the remains at the site are contemporary with the last few years of the PHAB’s use as an administrative center. The site was also abandoned hastily, like Kedesh, leaving behind much well-preserved ceramic material.

Comparison of the Hell 2b assemblage at Kedesh and the assemblage from Khirbet Zemel allows us to see how the lifestyle of the administrators at the PHAB was similar to or distinct from a rural site in the same general region with a markedly pedestrian architectural character.

1284 For discussion of Phoenicia in the Hellenistic period see Millar (1983); Grainger (1991); Herbert (1994); Berlin (1997b); and Herbert (2003a). 1285 Hartal 2002, 111, 114-115. 1286 Ariel 2002.

293

The strongest similarity between the mid 2nd century assemblage at Kedesh and that from

Zemel is the presence of many large jars with everted rims at both sites. Fragments of as many as

97 of these jars have been recovered from Khirbet Zemel,1287 all in Golan ware local to the northern Golan plateau. It seems that the storage of foodstuffs was a very important function of the site, and it may have even been an official storage depot of some sort. Several of the jars are inscribed with Greek names and one with a Syrian name.1288 Moshe Hartal has speculated that these names represent the names of officials, perhaps indicating some oversight of storage or that some of the goods at the site were state property. If Hartal is correct, it is tempting to see Zemel as a site charged with collecting produce at the behest of the administrators at Kedesh or stockpiling it for passing caravans on the road from the coast to Damascus or for Seleucid armies active in the area. Since no Rhodian amphoras or Phoenician SF baggy jars were found at Zemel, it seems that the residents, or perhaps simply staff, of the site were reliant on local wine and oil.

There are no obvious locally made vessels for these commodities at the site either, unless the large unwieldy jars with everted rims were filled with liquid and transported short distances. An alternative is that wine or oil was transported to Zemel in skins or other organic containers or stored en masse in an unexcavated portion of the site.

The residents of Zemel used a similar range of utility and cooking vessels to those used at

Kedesh and at Anafa in the last quarter of the 2nd century. Chief among these are mortaria with

extended rims and jugs with squared rims, both of which were produced in a coarse ware local to

the Golan (hereafter Golan ware).1289 A jug with ledge rim and (probably) ridged neck is also

attested at Zemel in Golan ware.1290 Necked cooking pots with pointed and flattened rims similar

1287 Hartal 2002, 93-107. 1288 Hartal 2002, 98,101, 103, fig. 29: 1-5. 1289 For the mortaria see Hartal (2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 16-19); for the jugs see (Hartal 2002, 88-90, fig. 22: 4-5). 1290 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 11.

294

in form to those used at Kedesh were the principal cooking vessels used at Zemel, either in

Golan ware or a gritty cooking fabric of unknown origin.1291 In addition, two high cooking pots

with high splayed necks like the sandy cooking ware examples found at Kedesh are published

from Zemel, as well as a necked cooking pot with grooved rim.1292 Casseroles were not common at Zemel, as only two fragmentary examples were identified (compared to 57 cooking pots). It seems that the residents of the site generally preferred food prepared in the Levantine tradition.

Pans are not attested at all at Zemel.

The table assemblage at Zemel includes bowls with incurved rims in Golan ware and

BSP and/or northern coastal fine ware,1293 bowls with everted rims in Golan ware,1294 and a BSP footed hemispherical bowl.1295 Also present is a saucer with thickened rim (and perhaps others

with thickened or ledge rims),1296 fishplates with ridged walls in Golan ware and with hanging rims (in BSP).1297 Saucers with short hanging rims of a sort not attested at any of the other sites

surveyed here are attested in Golan ware and perhaps spatter painted ware.1298 The only drinking vessels present at Zemel are a mastos with interior rim molding in unknown fabric,1299 and fragments of two (probable) BSP mold made bowls with Attic profile.1300

The most common service vessels at Zemel were jugs with triangular or folded rims of

the same forms as the Phoenician SF examples at Kedesh, but produced in Golan ware.1301 Jugs

1291 Hartal 2002, 85-88, fig. 21: 1-11. 1292 Hartal 2002, 86-88, fig. 21: 12-13. 1293 Hartal 2002, 83, 85-86, fig. 20: 1-5. The slip has been worn off of most table vessels from Zemel, making it difficult to distinguish between these two wares. 1294 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 8. 1295 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 7. 1296 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 9. 1297 For ridged wall see (Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 10, 14); for hanging rim see (Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 13). 1298 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 11-13. 1299 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 6. 1300 Hartal 2002, 84-86, fig. 20: 15. 1301 Hartal 2002, 88-89, fig. 22: 7-13.

295

with everted rims appear as well,1302 as do juglets with wide mouths,1303 and an olpe;1304 all three

forms are in Golan ware. There is also at least one angled rim table amphora in Golan ware at

Zemel.1305

The only toilet vessels attested at Zemel are a possible fusiform unguentarium,1306 two SF and one Golan ware ointment pots,1307 and a Phoenician SF amphoriskos.1308 In addition, two

wheelmade bottles with pinecone decoration were found at Zemel.1309 The intact example has a small perforation in the bottom, suggesting some very specialized function.

The mid 2nd century residents of Zemel had a similar basic assemblage of storage, utility, cooking, table, and service vessels in terms of forms represented as Kedesh and many of the sites discussed here, but fewer Mediterranean imports than Kedesh and sites on the coast. If Zemel was an official depot for the collection and distribution of agricultural produce, it was a less ostentatious and well-equipped one than the PHAB at Kedesh. They clearly did not have regular access to suppliers carrying coastal goods, though their household equipment was by no means as monotonous as that of 2nd century Shechem. Given that many of the Golan ware vessels they used were produced on the same basic visual template as coastal vessels produced in Phoenician

SF and spatter painted ware signals that they shared with their neighbors to the west a notion of how to stock their cupboards at the least. As such, it is possible that they were culturally affiliated with the Phoenician coast.

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Khirbet esh Shuhara

1302 Hartal 2002, 88-91, fig. 22: 2-3. 1303 Hartal 2002, 91-92, fig. 23: 3, 5-6. 1304 Hartal 2002, 88-90, fig. 22: 16. 1305 Hartal 2002, 91-92, fig. 23: 10. 1306 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 1. 1307 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 2. 1308 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 9. 1309 Hartal 2002, 90-92, fig. 23: 7-8.

296

Little pottery has been excavated from the early to mid 2nd century settlement at Khirbet esh

Shuhara (hereafter Shuhara), but since the site is the only other excavated and published site of

this date on the eastern Upper Galilee plateau overlooking the Hula Valley, it provides an

important point of comparison for Tel Kedesh. Shuhara was a small settlement inhabited in the

Persian and Hellenistic period,1310 and small portions of two buildings (probably houses) have been excavated.1311 Several coins dating to the first half of the 2nd century have been found at the site, and a hoard of 22 coins includes issues of Alexander Balas (148-145), Tryphon (141), and

19 of Demetrius II (145-139). Following this there is a gap in the coin sequence until the last quarter of the 2nd century, indicating that the site was abandoned in 141 or shortly thereafter.1312

Thus, like Zemel, and Kedesh itself, Shuhara was abandoned shortly after the battle in the Hula

Valley between the forces under Demetrius II and Jonathan in 143. Since the coin sequence at

the site runs a bit later though (i.e., to 141), Danny Syon has suggested that the proximate cause

was fighting between Antiochus VII and Tryphon in the region in 139.1313 Perhaps the instability of the region in general caused the abandonment of Shuhara around 140.

Large storage jars with everted rims identical to those found at Kedesh in both low-fired orange ware and low-fired brown ware are attested at Shuhara.1314 Two Phoenician SF baggy jars

have also been published from the site.1315 Imported amphoras are not attested. Early to mid 2nd century utility vessels at the site include an extended rim mortarium1316 and a low-fired brown

1310 No strata or pottery of obvious 3rd century date have been excavated at Shuhara, rendering it useless as a point of comparison for the 3rd century PHAB. 1311 Aviam and Amitai 2002. 1312 Syon 2002, 124-125. 1313 Syon 2002, 125-126. 1314 For the form in low-fired orange see Aviam and Amitai (2002, 126-127, fig. 13: 2); for the form in low-fired brown see Aviam and Amitai (2002, 126-127, fig. 13: 1) 1315 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 14: 9-10. 1316 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 11: 6.

297

ware handmade basin.1317 Cooking vessels include necked cooking pots with pointed and

concave rims and small cooking pots with everted rims. No casseroles or pans are attested.1318

The range of table vessels used at Shuhara was rather limited, if we take the excavated

remains to be truly representative of the site. A bowl with incurved rim is attested in northern

coastal fine ware,1319 in addition to bowls with everted rims in northern coastal fine ware and spatter painted ware.1320 A northern coastal fine ware saucer with ledge rim is attested as

well.1321 A BSP mold made bowl with Attic profile, and two mold made bowls with Ionian

profiles in wares from the Aegean or western Asia Minor are the only drinking vessels attested at

Shuhara.1322 Service vessels at Shuhara include a Phoenician SF jug with triangular rim,1323 a

Phoenician SF lagynos,1324 and a jug or table amphora with ridged rim of a sort unparalleled elsewhere.1325 The only toilet vessels published from Shuhara are a Phoenician SF juglet with flanged rim and a Phoenician SF banded fusiform unguentarium.1326

Given the limited excavation and small total sample of pottery recovered from Shuhara

one must be cautious when using it to generalize about the lifestyle of the site’s residents. Much

of their equipment for storage, utility, and cooking clearly matched Kedesh, although spatter

painted ware products were rare at the site. It also seems that they did not, or only very rarely,

prepared meals in casseroles. Phoenician SF baggy jars, jugs, juglets, and amphoriskoi, and table

vessels in northern coastal fine ware, BSP, and wares from the Aegean or western Asia Minor

attest to at least limited contact with the coast. On the whole, the early to mid 2nd century

1317 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 13: 7. 1318 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 12: 1, 3, 7. 1319 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 11: 9. 1320 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 11: 10, 12. 1321 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 11: 11. 1322 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 11: 13-15. 1323 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 15: 7. 1324 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 15: 2. 1325 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 15: 6. 1326 Aviam and Amitai 2002, fig. 15: 9-10.

298

assemblage at Shuhara closely approximates that of Zemel. It does not seem that it was as well

connected with the Mediterranean as coastal cities, or Kedesh itself, though like Zemel its

residents used the same basic range of goods. The similarities in storage jars, and the fact that it

was abandoned shortly after Kedesh, suggests that Shuhara (like Zemel) may have been one of

the sites that furnished the 2nd century PHAB with produce.

In the Hinterland of Kedesh: Tel Anafa

There is ceramic evidence for at least sporadic habitation of Anafa between c. 250 and 125

(phase Hell 1b), but very little architecture or other remains can be attributed to this phase. As a result, it is difficult to characterize the site in the early and mid 2nd century; it presumably continued to be inhabited as a farmstead as it had been in the first half of the 3rd century (for description of the 3rd century remains at Anafa see pages 161-162, above). The only forms that can definitely be assigned to this phase are spatter painted ware mortaria with extended rims, necked cooking pots with pointed and flattened rims, spatter painted ware bowls with everted rims, a spatter painted ware saucer with ledge rim, a spatter carinated cup with recurved handles, a Phoenician SF painted krater with thickened rim, Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims,

Phoenician SF juglets with wide mouths, Phoenician SF juglets with flanged rims, and a miniature Phoenician SF perfume bottle.1327 The only imports definitely used at the site in phase

Hell 1b are bowls with incurved and everted rims classed as “fabric A,” which could correspond

to northern coastal fine ware or northeast Cypriote fabric.1328 It is likely that some of the BSP

vessels found at Anafa were used late in this phase, since they were already used at Kedesh by

1327 Berlin 1997a, 20, fig. 10. 1328 Slane 1997, 359-361, pls. 31, 53: FW510-517. Although most examples occurred in later loci than Hell 1b, I consider them part of the early or middle 2nd century assemblage because their closest comparanda occur in contexts at Akko-Ptolemais and Kedesh of that date, and the import of BSP and ESA would have obviated the import of wares so sloppily decorated by comparison.

299

the middle of the 2nd century. Such meager evidence from the late 3rd and first three quarters of the 2nd century makes it hard to characterize the assemblage at Anafa, although it is clear that many of the same local/regional vessels were used at Anafa as at Kedesh.

Shortly after 130, a large and well-appointed villa was erected at Anafa. Even though it was founded approximately 15 years after the abandonment of the PHAB and the change in political circumstances in the Upper Galilee, its relative proximity in space and time make it a valuable point of comparison for the PHAB in its final phase. The Anafa villa featured a bath with mosaic floors and several rooms with drafted and painted wall decoration. Such decoration caused the excavators to term the building the Late Hellenistic Stucco Building (hereafter

LHSB).1329 The residents of the LHSB were clearly accustomed to the sort of accommodations

familiar to residents of such sites such as Delos, Tarsus, Jebel Khalid, Akko-Ptolemais, and the

PHAB at Kedesh itself. The Hell 2a (c. 125-110) assemblage at Anafa is similarly comparable to

that that used at Kedesh when it was abandoned,1330 the major difference in the ceramic

assemblage being that ESA had appeared in the region in the intervening years and was used in

great quantity at Anafa. Because of the overall similarity, I will compare the Hell 2A assemblage

(c. 125-110) at Anafa with the mid 2nd century remains left behind in the abandonment of the

PHAB at Kedesh. Since the squatter settlement at Kedesh overlaps with this phase of occupation at Anafa chronologically, I will also compare the squatter assemblage with that of the LHSB in

Chapter 5.

Foodstuffs were stored at Anafa in the late 2nd century in large jars with everted rims in spatter painted ware1331 that are identical in form (if not in fabric) to those used at Zemel,

1329 Herbert 1994, 15-19. 1330 For an overview of the plainware assemblage from Hell 2a Anafa and counts of vessel forms see Berlin (1997a, 20-28, figs. 11-15). 1331 Berlin 1997a, 156, pls. 58, 90: PW484-487.

300

Shuhara, and Kedesh. Oil was brought to the site in Phoenician SF baggy jars,1332 and Rhodian amphoras appeared regularly as well.1333 People at Anafa used spatter painted ware mortaria with

extended rims and mortaria with curled rims for grinding,1334 and spatter painted ware jars/jugs with ledge rims,1335 jugs with squared rims1336 like those at Kedesh, and jugs with long necks of a sort not seen at Kedesh, for fetching water. The residents of Anafa also used Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims for carrying liquid on journeys away from the site.1337

Soups were prepared at Anafa in necked cooking pots with pointed rims in spatter painted

ware or gritty/bricky cooking ware;1338 necked cooking pots with flattened rims in gritty/bricky cooking ware, spatter painted ware, and perhaps sandy cooking ware;1339 necked cooking pots with grooved rims in gritty cooking ware;1340 and necked cooking pots with ledge rims in sandy cooking ware, gritty cooking ware, and spatter painted ware.1341 Casseroles with grooved rims and rounded walls and angled rims with straight walls were also used, both forms occur in spatter painted ware or bricky cooking fabrics.1342 Aegean pans in Aegean cooking ware and in spatter painted ware, were used already in phase Hell 2a.1343 An Italian Orlo Bifido pan is present in Hell 2a, and it is likely that some of the other examples at the site, as well as an example in spatter painted ware were part of the original equipment of the LHSB.1344 The presence of pans in spatter painted ware demonstrates significant local demand in the Hula

Valley for foreign style cuisine requiring special vessels for preparation.

1332 Berlin 1997a, 155-156, pls. 57, 88: PW480-483. 1333 Ariel and Finkielsztejn 1994, 186. 1334 Berlin 1997a, 129-130, pls. 39, 83: PW360-PW371. 1335 Berlin 1997a, 153, pl. 55: PW468-469. 1336 Berlin 1997a, 147, pls. 53, 86: PW458-460. 1337 Berlin 1997a, 141, pls. 47-48, 85: PW424-426. 1338 Berlin 1997a, 88-89, pls. 21, 78: PW187-PW189. 1339 Berlin 1997a, 89, pls. 22, 78: PW191-196. 1340 Berlin 1997a, 89-90, pls. 24, 78: PW197-200. 1341 Berlin 1997a, 90, pls. 23, 78: PW201-206. 1342 Berlin 1997a, 97-98, pls. 28, 80: PW229-240. 1343 Berlin 1997a, 110-111, pls. 34, 81: PW302. 1344 Berlin 1997a, 106-107, pls. 32, 81: PW278-282.

301

The table assemblage used at Anafa soon after the construction of LHSB is varied both

typologically and functionally, like the cooking vessels. Bowls with incurved and everted rims in

Phoenician SF, spatter painted ware,1345 BSP,1346 ESA1347 (bowls with everted rims only in BSP) were used in the LHSB. A bowl with everted rim in Campana A is also present.1348 Footed hemispherical bowls in BSP and ESA were abundant as well.1349 Spatter painted ware saucers with grooved rims1350 and Phoenician SF saucer lids with folded rims were used.1351 A Campana

A saucer with drooping rim is also attested at the site.1352 Food was served to groups from spatter painted ware fishplates with ledge rims and ridged walls;1353 BSP and (probably) northern coastal fine ware fishplates with hanging rims;1354 BSP and ESA platters with offset rims;1355

BSP,1356 ESA,1357 and Campana A plates with offset and upturned rims;1358 and plates with knob

rims from the Aegean or western Asia Minor.1359 Drinking was done from carinated cups with recurved handles, published as BSP but possibly in color coated ware A of Rhodes;1360 conical mastoi with interior rim moldings in BSP1361 and ESA,1362 conical cups in ESA,1363 mold made

bowls with Attic profiles in BSP and ESA,1364 and mold made bowls with Ionian profiles in

1345 Berlin 1997a 74-75, pls. 16, 76: PW133-144. 1346 Slane 1997, 278, 280, pls. 3: FW17-21; 4: FW35. 1347 Slane 1997, 309, pls. 17, 43: FW176-178. 1348 Slane 1997, 347-348, pl. 28: FW455. 1349 Slane 1997, 279, 309-312, pls. 3, 37: FW25-29; 17-18: FW179-193. 1350 Berlin 1997a, 78-79, pls. 17, 77: PW156-159. 1351 Berlin 1997a, 80-81, pl. 18: FW162. 1352 Slane 1997, 347-348, pl. 28: FW457. 1353 Berlin 1997a, 77-78, pls. 17, 77: PW150-155. 1354 Slane 1997, 275-276, 283, pls. 1, 37: FW1-9; 5: FW 47-48. 1355 Slane 1997, 276, 283-284, pls. 2, 37: FW10-11; 5: FW 49-53. 1356 Slane 1997, 277, pl. 2: FW12-16. 1357 Slane 1997, 285-287, pl. 6: FW55-62. 1358 Slane 1997, 347-349, pls. 28, 52: FW 457-460, 462. 1359 Slane 1997, 362-363, pl. 31: FW520-521. 1360 Slane 1997, 280-281, pl. 4: FW38-39. 1361 Slane 1997, 279-280, pl. 3: FW30-31. 1362 Slane 1997, 314-315, pl. 21: FW217-219. 1363 Slane 1997, 318-319, pls. 22: FW236-245. 1364 Cornell 1997, 407-412, pls. 1-3: MB1-51.

302

wares from the Aegean or western Asia Minor.1365 In addition to these ceramic drinking vessels, a prodigious quantity of cast glass drinking vessels (up to 1116) was recovered at Anafa.1366 The presence at Anafa of so many glass drinking vessels, which are not part of the Kedesh assemblage, may in part explain the absence of locally or regionally produced drinking vessels at

Anafa. In addition to these table vessels, ten fragmentary vessels of uncertain form (probably for table use) in Mesopotamian glazed ware are attested,1367 indicating that Anafa was connected at

least sporadically with the inland east. Service of drink was accomplished with SF Phoenician

jugs with folded rims,1368 Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims,1369 at least one spatter painted ware squat table amphora,1370 and possibly Phoenician SF lagynoi and imported lagynoi

(although no lagynoi appear as early as Hell 2a).1371 Phoenician SF juglets with wide mouths for

individual service are particularly numerous at the site.1372

The assemblage of toilet vessels recovered from Anafa is very similar to that at Kedesh.

A small number of Phoenician SF juglets with flanged rims is attested at the site as early as phase Hell 1b (c. 250-125),1373 and it is possible that some or all of them were used before the

LHSB was built. Phoenician SF banded and elongated fusiform unguentaria were used in Hell

2a,1374 as was (probably) an unguentarium with hollow stem in imported gray unguentarium

1365 Cornell 1997, 412-413, pl. 4: MB52-69. 1366 Grose forthcoming. 1367 Berlin 1997a, 169-171. 1368 Berlin 1997a, 48-49, pls. 8, 74: PW38-42. 1369 Berlin 1997a, 37-38, pls. 1, 73: PW1-5. 1370 Berlin 1997a, 40-41, pls. 2, 73: PW11. 1371 Berlin 1997a, 42-45, pls. 4, 73: PW18-23. 1372 Berlin 1997a, 52-53, pls. 10, 74: PW53-58. 1373 Berlin 1997a, 53, pls. 10, 74: PW59-62. 1374 Berlin 1997a, 64-65, pls. 13, 75: PW85-93; 14, 76: PW99-106.

303

fabric.1375 A handful of Phoenician SF squat and globular ointment pots were brought to Anafa

as well.1376

The architecture and ceramic assemblage of Anafa show that the residents of the site in

the final quarter of the 2nd century lived a more settled life and had a higher standard of luxury

than people at small villages or farmsteads such as Zemel and Shuhara in the 140s. In this they

approximated more closely the lifestyle of the staff of the PHAB at Kedesh. Indeed, the

architectural and ceramic evidence from Anafa suggests that its residents were Phoenicians, most

likely from the city of Tyre.1377 However similar they were to the administrators at Kedesh in

cultural background and outlook, they were not actual contemporaries. The PHAB had been

abandoned for approximately 15 years by the time the LHSB at Anafa was erected. That the

people of Anafa chose to erect such an elaborate villa is interesting considering the conflict

between the Hasmoneans and Seleucids that had caused the administrators to flee Kedesh, and

the uncertain status of the region after the Seleucids ceded control of it. Once the Seleucids had

left the Upper Galilee, there was no further campaigning by Hasmonean forces in the area until

the late 2nd century, and apparently the disintegration of Seleucid authority apparently did not

disrupt connections with the wider Hellenistic world. The late 2nd century remains at Anafa attest

to continuities in local market routes and standards of living at some sites in the Upper Galilee

and Hula Valley from the mid to late 2nd century. As we will see in the discussion of the assemblage used by the squatters at Kedesh (see Chapter 5, below), use of such market routes was not universal in the area in the final decades of the 2nd century.

Summary

1375 Berlin 1997a, 66-67, pl. 15: PW109. 1376 Berlin 1997a, 70-71, pls. 15, 76: PW 123-129. 1377 Berlin 1997a, 10, 22-23, 29; 1997b; Herbert 2003a.

304

The remains from Tarsus and from Jebel Khalid demonstrate that in the northern Levant there

was substantial continuity in the functional composition of ceramic assemblages and sources of

pottery between the 3rd and first half of the 2nd century in the northern Levant and North Syria.

The assemblage of cooking pots at Jebel Khalid is as monotonous as sites such as Shechem in

the Central Hills of the southern Levant or 3rd century Anafa, even as the people living there used a wide array of stylish tableware. At Kition on Cyprus, the assemblage remained the same as that used in the 3rd century. Moldmade bowls and northern Levantine finewares of the sorts that became so common in the Levant did not occur with any regularity at the site. For the most part, people living in southern and eastern Cyprus received the same range of imports from the

Aegean and used the same range of household goods in the early to mid 2nd century as they had

in the 3rd century. At many southern Levantine sites, by contrast, ceramic assemblages became more varied in the first half of the 2nd century than they had been in the 3rd, both in terms of the

range of shapes used, and the sources of vessels.

This change in economic orientation in the southern Levant did not happen overnight, as

the continued import of Cypriote vessels at least early in the 2nd century and the persistence of

the central coastal fine ware industry at Akko-Ptolemais, attest. During the course of the first half

of the 2nd century, imports from the northern Levant became common at sites on the coast as well as many inland sites, such as Anafa and Maresha. Likewise imported Aegean amphoras, tablewares, and locally produced and imported casseroles and pans continued to appear on the coast and became common at many inland sites. Italian imports even appeared sporadically at coastal sites and particularly well connected inland sites, like Maresha, Anafa, and Kedesh.

Differences in the availability of goods and in lifestyles diminished markedly in the 2nd century compared to the 3rd century or the Persian period.

305

Indeed, sites in the Central Hills of the country, such as Shechem, are the only ones in the

southern Levant to have remained as materially impoverished as many smaller inland sites in the

region such as Anafa and Shechem itself had been in the 3rd century. It is intriguing that the assemblage at Shechem remained so basic while people at other inland sites such as Samaria

(very near to Shechem), Maresha, Zemel, Anafa, and Kedesh enjoyed frequent imports and an

(often) increasingly varied assemblage. This discrepancy suggests that the people of Shechem were not prevented from acquiring a wider range of household pottery and imported commodities only because of limitations of inland market routes, but rather that they could not afford or did not want such goods.

This overview shows that the range of goods available to and acquired by the residents of most sites in the southern Levant gradually, but substantially, diversified after the transition from

Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule in the region. A corresponding change is not in evidence in the northern Levant, North Syria, or Cyprus – regions that did not change hands at the turn of the century. The shift in the economic outlook of the southern Levant may in part be explained by changed political circumstances, the end of Ptolemaic currency control, the elimination of borders between the southern and northern Levant, and perhaps greater local autonomy. There also would have been easier access to cities in Syria to the northeast. Merchants at cities such as

Sidon, Tyre, and Akko-Ptolemais on the coast, and Damascus in Syria would have had an easier time acquiring goods from abroad, and merchants from abroad had an easier time accessing the southern Levant to peddle their wares.

In the early and mid 2nd century inland sites in the eastern Upper Galilee, the Hula

Valley, and the northern Golan plateau – those close to Kedesh – had similar assemblages of

pottery to each other and to Kedesh itself. People at these sites did not receive as many imports

306

as the residents of coastal sites or the PHAB, but they clearly did not live the austere life of the

people at the Anafa farmstead in the 3rd century, or of 2nd century towns in the Central Hills, such as Shechem. In the last quarter of the 2nd century a group of Phoenicians erected a large and

elaborate residence in the Hula Valley at Tel Anafa, and enjoyed a standard of living on par with

the mid 2nd century staff of the PHAB at Kedesh.

EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY KEDESH IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT

Comparison with other 2nd century sites in the eastern Mediterranean shows that Kedesh had a particularly varied assemblage of household goods, drawn from a wide range of sources. Unlike the 3rd century when residents of Kedesh clearly had an interest in eclectic cuisine and table

settings but little ability to acquire actual Mediterranean imports, the people at Kedesh in the 2nd century had access to everything that was available at coastal cities and the means to acquire such goods. Indeed, a simple survey of the wares and shapes attested at Kedesh shows that a truly dizzying variety of goods were brought to the PHAB in the early and mid 2nd century (see

Figs. 4.2-12, 14-18, 20-37; Table A5). However, we must keep a few points in mind. First,

Kedesh is a very pottery rich site. At few other sites in the southern Levant has so much well- preserved pottery of the early and mid 2nd century been excavated, let alone fully quantified. A

related issue is that recent publications of pottery, both from the southern Levant, and the eastern

Mediterranean in general, has made it possible to identify many specific forms and wares that

were not recognizable even as recently as a decade ago. Lastly, and most importantly, the actual

range of vessels that occurred regularly at Kedesh (see Figs. 4.34-37: 1-2; 4.40-46), rather than

in a few examples (e.g., Figs. 4.11; 4.28; 4.37: 3-4), is not nearly so dizzying.

307

Kedesh was supplied locally with most of its storage vessels (see Figs. 4.2-4; 4.34), as

were most sites surveyed here, meaning that they are distinct in details of form from sites outside

its immediate environs. The residents of the site did receive regional imports of olive oil, wine

and possibly cedar infused oil, as well as Rhodian wine. Coastal sites in the southern Levant

were similarly supplied in the 2nd century, as were several inland sites, such as Samaria and

Anafa. With the exception of a single Rhodian-style amphora in spatter painted ware, there are no locally produced jars of a suitable size and shape for shipping wine and oil. This lacuna is somewhat puzzling given the fertility of the Upper Galilee, the abundance of jars suitable for carrying such local commodities in the Persian period and 3rd century, and the depiction of a

cluster of grapes on one of the bullae from Kedesh. It is possible that coastal and imported jars

and amphoras were reused or that organic containers such as skins were used. Alternatively, the

greater quantity of coastal and imported transport vessels dating to the early and mid 2nd century

compared to earlier phases of the site may indicate that supply from the coast was sufficient for

the staff of the PHAB and residents of Kedesh generally. Utility vessels were also drawn almost

exclusively from local sources, as the preponderance of vessels in spatter painted ware from the

Hula Valley demonstrates.

Almost all of the early to mid 2nd century vessels for household utility at Kedesh were in

local wares (see Figs. 4.35: 1; 4.40).1378 Spatter painted ware, low-fired brown ware, and hard

mortarium fabric vessels account for 248 of the 304 (82%) early to mid 2nd century utility vessels

at the site. Of the rest, 15 are in unknown wares and 41 are in sandy cooking ware, gritty cooking

ware, and Phoenician SF from the coast. The majority of these utility vessels from the coast (30)

are one shape, Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims. Local acquisition of utility vessels is in

1378 The assemblage photos in the figures are made up of vessels that represent “typical” equipment within each functional category.

308

keeping with all of the sites surveyed here and corresponds to the 3rd century practice both at

Kedesh and in the southern Levant generally. As such, it demonstrates that while some local

workshops and local networks of supply changed (i.e., those that produced and circulated storage

jars and containers for wine or oil) between the period of Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule, others

continued much as they had before.

The assemblage of cooking vessels used at Kedesh (see Figs. 4.35: 2-3; 4.41) consists

largely of vessels produced on the coast in sandy cooking ware, and its functional makeup

closely matches early to mid 2nd century cities on and near the coast, inland cities like Samaria,

and the LHSB at Anafa built after Kedesh was abandoned. As in the 3rd century, in the 2nd century most cooking at Kedesh was done in globular necked cooking pots in sandy cooking ware and gritty cooking ware, and casseroles in sandy cooking ware, all of which came from the coast. Spatter painted ware necked cooking pots of the same varieties as those in sandy cooking ware are attested in smaller quantities. Since most of these cooking pot forms (e.g., necked pointed rim, necked flattened rim, necked concave rim) were already attested in sandy cooking ware in the 3rd century, it seems that potters in the Hula Valley began to make pots on the template of coastal cooking pots. This “lag” in spatter painted ware production of coastal cooking vessels mirrors that seen in the 3rd century, when potters in the Hula Valley began making neckless cooking pots of the sort that had appeared already in the Persian period on the coast and at Kedesh in sandy cooking ware. Similarly, casseroles were not yet produced in spatter painted ware by the time the PHAB was abandoned, but potters in the Hula Valley had begun making them by the last quarter of the 2nd century, during which they appear at Anafa. It is possible that people in the Hula Valley began to acquire more sandy cooking ware vessels in the

2nd century, so that they were used to them by the time the PHAB was abandoned. Aegean style

309

pans, in both Aegean cooking ware and in sandy cooking ware, made their first appearance at

Kedesh in the early or mid 2nd century and occurred regularly, though not in abundance. The

appearance of pans demonstrates (along with the greater number of casseroles) the familiarity

that the staff of the PHAB had with varied cuisine of the sort enjoyed already at sites on the

southern Levantine coast in the 3rd century.

Early in the 2nd century tables at the PHAB continued to be set with central coastal fine ware, Cypriote, and spatter painted ware bowls and saucers that were joined by northern coastal fine ware bowls and saucers and cups from the Aegean/western Asia Minor (probably Rhodes)

(see Fig. 4.42). In this, the Kedesh assemblage matches the coastal cities surveyed above and the town or city of Beth Yerah-Philoteira near the Sea of Galilee. The functional makeup of the table assemblage in the early years of the 2nd century – bowls and saucers, but few plates – also

remained much the same as it had been in the 3rd century. The transition from Ptolemaic to

Seleucid rule in the region did not precipitate immediate, drastic changes in what potters on the

coast or in the Hula Valley produced, in how household pottery circulated, or in what people

used to set their tables. It seems that such changes occurred gradually and that the change in

imperial regime was not their direct cause.

The regular appearance of vessels from the northern Levant and the increasing variety in

the range of table shapes used at Kedesh show that a significant change in import patterns and

standards of entertaining occurred in the first or second quarter of the 2nd century. Northern

Levantine imports were scarce in the southern Levant as a whole prior to the 2nd century, and the standard household assemblage of table vessels was substantially different. The situation in the

3rd century may have been the result of limited communication the northern and southern Levant

were divided between the Seleucids in the north and Ptolemies to the south. Even if no official

310

efforts were made to cut off trade between the southern and northern Levantine coast, the

recurring hostilities may have made it difficult to establish and maintain trade routes between the

regions. Once the southern Levant had come under Seleucid control, merchants may have felt

more comfortable trading up and down the coast and/or overland using the Orontes and Beqa’a

valleys.1379 The removal of a political border on the east would also have placed Kedesh along a route between the coast and the major city of Damascus to the northeast in the 2nd century, and

possibly at the southern end of a route that followed the Orontes and Beqa’a valleys (see Figs.

4.38-39). In this scenario, the administrators at the PHAB would no longer be merely managing

agricultural production and sending produce to the coast as was likely in the Persian period and

3rd century, but would also be positioned along a caravan stop for merchants heading inland to

Damascus to the east, or to and from settlements along the Beqa’a and Orontes valleys to the

north, thus accounting in part for the greater quantity and wider array of imported goods in the

2nd century. If merchants did head east towards Damascus and goods were traded in both directions, those coming from the inland east generally were not ceramic themselves, nor were they shipped in ceramic containers. The one distinctive ceramic product from Mesopotamia,

Mesopotamian glazed ware, seems to have been shipped northwest along the Tigris and

Euphrates River valleys, rather than directly west across the plateau of Syria.

By the middle of the 2nd century spatter painted ware, northern coastal fine ware, and

BSP bowls and plates, as well as mold made bowls in northern coastal fine ware and BSP, were in regular use at Kedesh and had completely replaced central coastal fine ware table vessels that had been so abundant in the 3rd century. Plates/platters and drinking vessels are both represented

at Kedesh almost exclusively as imports. This shows both the strength of trade routes between

1379 A similar development can be seen following the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world, which may have had a factor in the long distance exchange of fine tablewares produced on a vast scale. For discussion see Slane (2003).

311

the southern and northern Levant (and in the case of drinking vessels, the Aegean) and the

priority that the staff of the PHAB placed on their acquisition. It was important enough to them

that they have vessels for drinking and serving food to small groups, even though such vessels

were not produced in quantity locally or regionally.1380 Merchants conveying imported goods

from the coast stopped at Kedesh regularly, and the residents of the site wanted to acquire well-

made imported tablewares that would better facilitate serving groups (see e.g., Fig. 4.22). BSP

and northern coastal fine ware vessels were common enough that by the time the PHAB was

abandoned they were at the heart of a rich table assemblage with fishplates and offset rim platters

for serving food, small bowls for eating, imported cups and mold made bowls for drinking, and

sets of vessels for serving liquid (see Figs. 4.43-44). As such, it corresponds not only to

assemblages seen on the coast, but also to the equipment of the housing insula at Jebel Khalid in

North Syria. The staff of the PHAB shared a predilection for vessels for eating, drinking, and

serving with well-to-do inhabitants of the Seleucid heartland.

In this regard, the housing insula at Jebel Khalid is an especially interesting point of

comparison for how vessels of similar design and style were used in different regions in the 2nd

century. The houses in the insula there were similarly, if not more elaborately decorated, than the

early to mid 2nd century PHAB. The table assemblages at Jebel Khalid and Kedesh featured a similar range of vessels in terms of function, style, and in many cases Northern Levantine source.

But the meals prepared at Jebel Khalid were clearly different from those at Kedesh and many other southern Levantine sites since casseroles and pans are absent. It seems that their menu was less varied and not heavily influenced by Greek culinary traditions. This discrepancy makes it emphatic that we cannot make a simple checklist of practices or objects that signal an eclectic or

1380 There is little evidence from Anafa that the spatter painted ware industry of the Hula Valley ever made full sized plates regularly. Likewise, there is little evidence from Akko-Ptolemais for the local production of plates.

312

cosmopolitan attitude applicable to the Hellenistic Levant and North Syria, let alone the

Hellenistic world as a whole. Different habits persisted or took hold in different regions after

Alexander the Great’s conquest. If we are to judge by the vessels meant to prepare and serve

food, pots of specific design and style could be employed to serve rather different specific

functions by people who shared a similar aesthetic.

The increase in imported tablewares from the northern Levant seen at Kedesh is also

evident at cities on the southern Levantine coast such as Akko-Ptolemais and Dor, and other

well-connected sites on the interior such as Maresha and Anafa. Plates, a rarity at sites in the

southern Levant early in the Hellenistic period, were more common in the 3rd century northern

Levant and North Syria, and indeed throughout the eastern reaches of the Seleucid Empire.1381

Thus, the regular appearance of plates and platters in the southern Levant in the 2nd century, after

the elimination of borders with the Seleucid Empire to the north and east tells us that foreign

goods and regional products circulated more broadly.1382 But it also indicates a change in habits of food presentation that can be explained by greater intercommunication between zones that had formerly been separate politically. The great increase in regional production of vessels for serving liquid in the southern Levant has similar significance. The most common form of service vessel produced in Phoenician SF, the table amphora with angled rim, is clearly derived from vessels used in Mesopotamia and North Syria throughout the Hellenistic period. Once a greater range of goods for entertaining was available at many sites in the southern Levant, including

Kedesh, people chose to entertain their guests in more style than had been typical in the region in the 3rd century.

1381 E.g., Aï Khanoum (Bernard 1973, pl. 127); Failaka-Ikaros/Mesopotamia (Hannestad 1983, 28-35; pls. 18-23). 1382 Contra Chancey 2005, 20.

313

Spatter painted ware kraters and Phoenician SF and spatter painted ware table amphoras,

and Phoenician SF jugs, lagynoi, and juglets were the principal vessels for formal service of

liquids in the PHAB (see Figs. 4.36: 3; 4.44). Imported kraters, table amphoras, and lagynoi

from the Aegean or western Asia Minor were used on occasion as well. The appearance of so

many reconstructable Phoenician SF service vessels in the Hell 2b abandonment (11; see Fig.

4.51), but in small quantities in earlier Hell 2 loci suggests that shortly before the PHAB was

abandoned sets of vessels for drink service began to arrive at the site from Akko-Ptolemais

and/or Tyre. It seems that the standard makeup of these sets around the middle of the 2nd century

would be one jug with folded rim (105 of which are preserved, see Table A5) and one table

amphora with angled rim or squat table amphora (125 of which are preserved), perhaps with the

addition of one juglet (123 of which are preserved).1383 There are about twice as many Hell 2 drinking vessels (231) compared to these individual sets of serving vessels. If we assume entertainments were usually served from one set, a typical drinking party in the PHAB would only consist of two people. This seems a rather small party for sets of such large jugs and table amphoras (holding between 1.5-4 liters). This may be an instance in which the consistently greater rim diameter of jugs and table amphoras means that they were overcounted somewhat

(for discussion of procedures for quantification see pages 426-428, below). Large groups were perhaps entertained less frequently with larger kraters or multiple sets of table amphoras and jugs. The Phoenician SF service assemblage at the PHAB is mirrored by that of Hell 2a Anafa, and is very similar in general composition to that used at Maresha.

The limited distribution at other sites in the region of some of the finewares and service vessels attested at Kedesh can give us an even more intimate view of the social milieu of the

1383 The juglets are best suited to use for individual mixing, which would make 3-5 juglets per table amphora or jug a more sensible ratio.

314

people who operated the PHAB. The staff of the PHAB at Kedesh and the residents of several

other sites in the southern Levant such as Akko-Ptolemais, Maresha, and the LHSB at Anafa

received more exotic imported tablewares from the Aegean and Italy on occasion. They also

regularly consumed Aegean wine and utilized casseroles and pans (with the exception of

Maresha) for preparing Greek-style cuisine. All of these sites had houses featuring dining rooms

with elaborate decoration in the form of painted and drafted masonry style plaster, demonstrating

an interest in entertaining in style. Indeed, at all of them a wide array of table and service vessels

was attested as well. It seems then that only truly well-connected people with an interest in and

the wherewithal to entertain in style acquired exotic imports from specialty merchants, or as

mementos or gifts. The administrators at Kedesh certainly fit such a description, and it is

possible that imports from the Aegean and Italy were reserved for hosting in the decorated dining

rooms of the PHAB. The presence of several such vessels in the archive room, rather than a

common pantry, could even suggest that they had been brought by a visiting dignitary or were

reserved for special meals, like fine china at state dinners. But even so, while these more exotic

imports were not “standard” at sites in the Levant, and were marketed to, and/or preferred by,

certain well-connected groups, their presence at the PHAB at Kedesh is not unique, but part of a

pattern among sophisticated consumers in the eastern Mediterranean in the middle of the 2nd century.1384

Toilet vessels are better represented in the early to mid 2nd century PHAB than they had been in the 3rd century (see Figs. 4.32-33; 4.37: 1-2; 4.45), and in greater quantity than at most comparable sites in the southern Levant or Jebel Khalid in North Syria. The most common vessels are Phoenician SF juglets with flanged rims, though these may have been filled at Kedesh itself, rather than used by individuals in the building on a regular basis. However, aside from this

1384 See Handberg, Stone, and Hjarl-Petersen (forthcoming).

315

circumstantial ceramic evidence, there is nothing at Kedesh to indicate the production of perfume

specifically. Phoenician SF elongated fusiform unguentaria. Phoenician SF banded and pared

fusiform unguentaria, Phoenician SF domed mouth unguentaria, imported unguentaria with

hollow stems occur more sporadically at Kedesh.

The overview above shows that most of the pottery used at Kedesh in the early and mid

2nd century still derived from local (spatter painted ware, low-fired orange ware, and low-fired

brown ware) or regional (sandy cooking ware, gritty cooking ware, Phoenician SF, and central

coastal fine ware) sources (Fig. 4.47). In fact, the quantity and range of spatter painted ware

vessels used at Kedesh seems to have increased dramatically, suggesting that the spatter painted

ware industry in the Hula Valley produced a wider array of vessels in the 3rd century and that the

early and mid 2nd century residents of Kedesh were more receptive to spatter cooking and table vessels than their 3rd century predecessors, who used them very rarely. It is even possible that patronage of the spatter painted ware industry by the staff of the PHAB and residents of Kedesh

generally encouraged increased production and diversification of cooking and table vessels. The

appearance in spatter painted ware of a few examples of a wide range of shapes derived from

specific coastal or imported prototypes that themselves occur in greater number suggests that at

Kedesh spatter painted ware cooking and table vessels served as “fill ins” in the assemblage as

vessels broke, or a sudden need arose (compare Figs. 4.42-43 with Fig. 4.46; see also Fig. 4.30:

1, 3). If so, orders from Kedesh had a role in expanding the repertoire of potters in the Hula

Valley. The evidence from Anafa shows that the range of coastal and imported shapes produced

in spatter painted ware diversified even more after the abandonment of the PHAB, indicating the

continued presence of people with tastes similar to those of the PHAB’s staff in the region after

it was abandoned.

316

“HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY” AT THE PHAB IN THE 3RD CENTURY AND EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY

There are differences in the assemblage of the 3rd century and early to mid 2nd century PHAB

that may reflect changes in the function of the building and that certainly reflect changes in local

market routes and the lifestyle of the administrators living there. Large storage jars were less

abundant at Kedesh in the 2nd century than they had been in the 3rd century or the Persian period.

Only 17 out of 1547 (1%) fragmentary Hell 2 vessels in Hell 2 and 2b loci and 143 out of 6186

(2%) Hell 2 vessels at the site as a whole were locally produced storage jars, and aside from one imitation Rhodian amphora in spatter, no early or mid 2nd century local jars of a suitable size for

transporting goods any distance have been identified. By contrast local jars for storage and

transport accounted for up to 65% of the Persian period assemblage and up to 44% of the 3rd century assemblage at the site (see Fig. 4.49 for comparisons between the phases). It is possible that bulk storage of foodstuffs was a more important aspect of the PHAB’s function in the

Persian period and 3rd century, or that non ceramic containers (such as sacks or skins) were used for storage and transport of local commodities in the 2nd century. However, the 15 jars that lined two rooms of the PHAB when it was abandoned argue that such bulk storage was still done there. Alternatively, it is possible given the much thicker walls (averaging 1.3 cm) of the early to mid 2nd century local jars that they were more durable and replaced less often and/or that they

were larger than jars of the Persian period and 3rd century, meaning that fewer were required.

Since so many of the low-fired brown ware and low-fired orange jars were found in Hell 2b loci, it could be that they were introduced soon before the building was abandoned and that red-brown gritty ware or coarse orange ware jars continued to be brought to the site early in the 2nd century.

317

In addition to grain, it seems that specialty products were stockpiled and/or stored at the

PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century 2nd century. Such stockpiling or production is suggested by the presence of Phoenician SF amphoriskoi that may have held cedar infused oil in the archive room. Likewise, the large number of Phoenician SF juglets with flanged rims (a form found in far smaller quantities at other sites) suggest that the aromatic and/or medicinal styrax may have been produced at or distributed from the PHAB.

Transport jars from the coast and the Mediterranean were more common in the 2nd century than they had been in the 3rd century or Persian period. Some of these jars were certainly

reused for storage, as the reconstructable amphora with stamps dating to 170/168 found in the

Hell 2b destruction debris indicates. Forty-eight coastal and imported transport jars have been

found in Hell 2/2b loci (3%) and 296 examples (5%) at Kedesh as a whole, some of which may

be 3rd century residuals or squatter (Hell 3) acquisitions. If we include the 115 Phoenician SF

amphoriskoi found in all loci in the account of coastal jars meant for bearing commodities, there

is an even greater increase in the proportion of transport vessels at Kedesh from the early to mid

2nd century (to 7%) (see Fig. 4.49). Contact with the coast was more sustained in the early to mid

2nd century and the supply of goods stocked for (apparently) official use at the PHAB had diversified.

Utility vessels continued to make up a small proportion of the Kedesh assemblage in the early and mid 2nd century, with 54 examples in Hell 2/2b loci (3%) and 304 (5%) at the site as a whole, marking only a slight increase over the 3rd century when they accounted for 4% of the assemblage.

One hundred eighty-six cooking vessels (12%) were found in Hell 2/2b loci, and 744

(12%) total examples at the site, and they occur in the same proportion as they had in the 3rd

318

century. One thousand thirty-three (67%) early to mid 2nd century table vessels were found in

Hell 2/2b loci, and 3751 (61%) at the site as a whole compared to 35% of the 3rd century

assemblage. Of course since some wares and forms continued in use between the 3rd and early

2nd century, these numbers must be somewhat inflated by residual 3rd century vessels that appear in Hell 2 or later loci, like the local jars that were used in both the Persian period and 3rd century.

But if we discount the local jars which were more abundant in the 3rd century the proportions of

table vessels in the two phases is more similar.

The table assemblage became more varied functionally and was drawn from a much

wider range of sources in the early to mid 2nd century than it had been in the 3rd. Many more plates and platters for serving food to small groups can be attributed to the early and mid 2nd century than the 3rd century, from which we only have one plate. Since plates measuring from

20-30 cm occur regularly, it seems that diners were generally served in groups of four or five,1385

with saucers and/or bowls for each individual. Indeed there are 834 bowls and saucers in wares

that were in use when the building was abandoned, compared to 186 plates, a ratio of about

1:4.5. It is of course possible that groups of more than four or five individuals were served from

multiple plates. Similarly, 233 drinking vessels can be attributed the early to mid 2nd century and

only 28 to the 3rd century. A similar situation pertains for service vessels. Eighty-five (5.5%) early to mid 2nd century service vessels are attested in Hell 2/2b loci and 516 (8%) at the site as a whole, marking a substantial increase in proportion over the 3rd century when they made up 2%

of the assemblage. It is possible that vessels in metal or another material were used for serving

liquids in the 3rd century, but if so, we have no evidence for them at present.

There are 60 (4%) early to mid 2nd century toilet vessels in Hell 2/2b loci, and 283 (5%) at Kedesh as a whole. This marks an increase over the 3rd century, when toilet vessels only made

1385 Jackson (2011c, 499) suggests that plates measuring 23-28 cm would fit a “family-sized” serving of shared food.

319 up 0.2% of the ceramic assemblage. The increase in toilet vessels suggests that personal luxuries were more common at the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century than they had been previously.

However, it is worth noting that some of the toilet vessels in the Hell 2b abandonment were found in the archive room, suggesting that they were being stockpiled at the site rather than used by individuals. Many of the rest of the toilet vessels were the Phoenician SF juglets with flanged rims, which seem to have been stockpiled, and perhaps filled, in the building as well. As a result many of the toilet vessels found in the final phase of the PHAB may be related to the official function of the building.

Summary

Although there is a decrease in the quantity of storage vessels represented in the early to mid 2nd century, storage of produce was still evidently important, as the two rooms left lined with large jars when the site was abandoned demonstrate. It is even possible that the storage jars in use when the Seleucids conquered the region remained in use for some time, like the PHAB itself.

The concentration of amphoriskoi in the archive room shows that specialty products of a sort not evidenced in the 3rd century were stockpiled in the PHAB.1386 The particular product in the amphoriskoi, cedar infused oil, may have been used to treat documents in the archive. Imported and coastal commodities such as wine, oil, and perfume were brought to Kedesh more often in the early to mid 2nd century, as were imported table vessels. Nevertheless, the PHAB was similarly equipped for household tasks in the 3rd and 2nd centuries. In both phases there were enough utility and cooking vessels to serve the day-to-day needs of a few staff or residents, and enough table vessels to entertain larger groups from time to time. But the table would have had a

1386 While this interpretation rests in part upon a degree of contextual resolution that is unavailable for the Persian period or Hell 1, it still stands because no functional equivalent to the amphoriskoi appears regularly in either phase.

320

different, more lively, appearance, with greater functional, stylistic, and chromatic variety

(compare Fig. 3.6 with Figs. 4.43-44). The regular occurrence in the early to mid 2nd century of

plates and platters, drinking vessels, and the greater number of vessels for serving liquid suggests

(along with the more frequent occurrence of fine imports) that table settings had become more

sophisticated at the PHAB than they had been in the 3rd. The PHAB may have been the scene of elaborate functions in the early to mid 2nd century that were not the norm in the 3rd century. If the decorated dining/reception rooms were added to the PHAB in the 2nd century,1387 it corresponds well with a ceramic assemblage that includes a wider array and greater quantity of vessels for entertaining in style. The pottery, at least, suggests that formal entertainment was practiced at the

PHAB more often in the early and mid 2nd century than it had been in the 3rd century.

“HOUSEHOLD” ECONOMY AT KEDESH, ZEMEL, AND ANAFA IN THE EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY

Zemel and Anafa both have quantified ceramic remains published that allow for detailed

comparison of the ratios of vessels used for various household functions. Zemel was abandoned

at almost the exact same time as the PHAB, meaning that assemblages from Hell 2b Kedesh and

Zemel can be considered truly contemporary. The Hell 1b (c. 250-125) assemblage at Anafa is

too spread out chronologically, and too small to be useful as a comparison with Kedesh. The

later Hell 2a (c. 125-110) assemblage at Anafa, although it postdates the abandoment of the

PHAB, provides a better point of comparison owing to the large quantity of material from this

phase. Considering these sites allows us to examine how daily life at Kedesh compared with both

a humble village or farmstead and a luxurious private villa in the region.

1387 At present, it is only certain that the dining rooms were added subsequent to the Persian occupation of the building (i.e., sometime in the Hellenistic period). But the precise date at which they were added is uncertain. Excavation in the summer of 2012 is planned to help resolve this issue.

321

One hundred and forty-three large jars with everted rims are attested at Kedesh in low-

fired orange ware and low-fired brown ware, 45 are present at Anafa in spatter and other

wares,1388 and as many as 97 at Zemel in Golan ware. Although there are fewer storage jars at

Zemel than at Kedesh, they make up a much greater proportion (28%) of the mid 2nd century assemblage at this small site than they do in phases Hell 2/2b at Kedesh (2%) or Anafa (1%) (see

Fig. 4.50 for comparisons between the three sites). This may indicate that Zemel had a special function as a storage depot of some sort. Perhaps it was a way-station for caravans travelling to or from Damascus, a regional subcenter for collecting produce from the northern Golan Plateau, and/or a supply depot for Seleucid military forces. The inscribed Greek names on several jars already mentioned lend some support to the latter two possibilities. If so, it was positioned conveniently about a day’s journey (c. 25 km) east of the PHAB at Kedesh, and just south of the

Hermon Massif, so that from Zemel travelers could either proceed east across the Syrian plateau towards Damascus or north into the upland Beqa’a Valley (see Fig. 4.39). Jars for transporting wine or oil are abundant at Kedesh at Anafa. At least 411 examples of Phoenician SF baggy jars and amphoriskoi from the coast and imported amphoras are attested at Kedesh in Hell 2 or later loci, and at least 116 at Anafa.1389 No recognizable jars for transporting liquid commodities in bulk have been recovered from Zemel. Clearly the residents of Kedesh and Anafa were more accustomed to commodities brought from some distance than were those at Zemel. If Zemel did act as a caravan stop, it seems that its residents or staff did not regularly purchase commodities from the coast as they passed through, unlike the staff of the PHAB.

Residents of all three sites used the same range of utility vessels. The principal shapes were locally produced mortaria with extended rims (in addition to curled rims at Anafa), jugs

1388 Berlin 1997a, 153, 156, fig. 38. 1389 Berlin 1997a, 153, 155-156, 161, fig. 38.

322

with squared rims (in addition to jugs with long necks at Anafa), and jugs/jars with ledge rims

and ridged necks. Utility vessels make up a larger proportion of the assemblage at Anafa (11%)

and Zemel (13%) than they do at Kedesh (5%). Similarly, cooking vessels made up more of the

assemblage at Anafa (31%) and Zemel (19%) than they did at Kedesh (12%). These

discrepancies suggest that regular household tasks were a larger part of the daily rhythm of these

sites than at Kedesh. Given the public function of the PHAB, and the (seemingly) residential

nature of Zemel and Anafa, it is not so strange that this should be the case. Kedesh had a higher

proportion (61%) of table vessels than either Anafa (25%) or Zemel (30%).1390 As has already been discussed, the great number of table vessels at Kedesh may be an indication that large numbers of diners were regularly hosted at the PHAB.

Service vessels were represented in approximately the same proportion at Kedesh and

Zemel (8%), but in much higher quantity at Anafa (24%). It is somewhat surprising given the great quantity of table vessels represented at Kedesh that more service vessels were used at

Anafa. In fact, Hell 2a service vessels at Anafa (24% of the assemblage) almost equal the number of vessels for serving and eating food and drinking (25% of the assemblage).

Interestingly, although there are many more table than service vessels at Kedesh in Hell 2 and 2b loci, among the reconstructable vessels in Hell 2b loci there are an almost equal number of service vessels (18) and table vessels (19) (see Fig. 4.51). Perhaps Kedesh was abandoned shortly after a change in local dining and drinking behavior that placed greater emphasis on service of drink, and a corresponding increase in the production of service vessels in Phoenician

SF. Even if so, it seems that the drinking groups, like the dining groups, generally consisted of three to five people served out of a modest sized table amphora of wine and and jug of water.

1390 The Anafa assemblage of table vessels would have been augmented by numerous cast glass drinking vessels found at the site. See Grose forthcoming.

323

Larger groups could have been accommodated by additional sets of service vessels. The greater

number of service vessels than table vessels used 15-20 years later at Anafa could be an

indication of the same trend.1391 As already discussed, Rhodian wine amphoras were more abundant in the early and mid 2nd century at Kedesh than they had been in the 3rd century, and stamped amphora handles at the site have their greatest concentration in the years just preceding the abandonment of the PHAB (see page 188, above). It is possible that with increased circulation of imported wine in inland areas in the mid to late 2nd century came an increased desire for serving it in a formal manner.1392 Table amphoras and jugs were a standard feature of

assemblages in the Aegean throughout the Hellenistic period, and would complement the

Rhodian wine nicely. The increased production of them in the Levant in the 2nd century may indicate increased cultural, as well as economic, exchange between the regions in the 2nd century.

However, as Andrea Berlin has noted, the most abundant table amphoras at Kedesh, find close

parallels with Mesopotamian glazed ware vessels,1393 suggesting that the actual visual template that Phoenician potters drew upon was from the Seleucid east. Indeed, table amphoras in

Mesopotamian green-glazed ware and vessels patterned on them occur in some quantity around the middle of the 2nd century at Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates in North Syria. The people living at the PHAB drank Aegean wine regularly in the middle of the 2nd century and took part in

entertainments that were in keeping with contemporary habits in the Aegean. But they mostly

used vessels of the sort produced in Mesopotamia and North Syria in the Hellenistic period and

quite possibly got the idea for such entertainments from people living in Seleucid-held territory

to the north and east. The increased use of service vessels at Kedesh and other southern

1391 Berlin 1997a, 20-21. See Hannestad (1983, 35-37, pls. 23: 266-267; 24: 270; 26: 273-275; 27: 282-285, 290; 28: 291). 1392 Berlin 1997a, 21 Rotroff 1997, 14-15. 1393 Berlin 1997a, 37-38.

324

Levantine sites like Anafa in the 2nd century shows integration with koine of commensal behavior prevalent in the Aegean and the northern Levant/North Syria throughout the Hellenistic period.

Toilet vessels are better represented at Kedesh (5%) and Anafa (6%) than they were at

Zemel (2%). It is likely that the difference between Anafa and Zemel is a result of a greater desire for and ability to acquire luxuries on the part of the residents of the LHSB Anafa than those living at Zemel. In the case of Kedesh, it seems that many toilet vessels were stockpiled at the site early or in the middle of the 2nd century, thus accounting for their greater representation at Kedesh compared to Zemel. Of course if this is the case, it also suggests that the staff of the

PHAB were less concerned with personal luxuries than those of the LHSB at Anafa and/or is a further reflection that the PHAB was not primarily a residence.

Summary

As mentioned above, the large number of storage jars at Zemel may indicate that the site was used primarily as a storage depot. Storage was clearly a concern at Kedesh as well, but the large number of other vessels, and table vessels in particular, obscures the great number of storage vessels when considered proportionally. The assemblages of Anafa and Zemel are both more obviously suited to the regular completion of daily household tasks than the Kedesh assemblage.

The greater quantity of table and service vessels at Kedesh suggests that formal entertaining at

Kedesh was done more often or on a larger scale than at Anafa or Zemel. The people living at

Anafa seem the most concerned with personal luxury, as many of the toilet vessels recovered from Kedesh were clearly stored or redistributed from the PHAB. The residents of the PHAB at

Kedesh and LHSB Anafa had a similar standard of living, despite the chronological gap between

325

their habitation. The differences in their assemblages reflect the different functions of the two

sites, the PHAB as an administrative center with public functions, and LHSB as a lavish private

residence.

EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY SUMMARY

The evidence discussed in this chapter shows that while the basic function of the PHAB as an

administrative center that concentrated at least some local produce continued once the Seleucids

took over the region, the economic outlook of the Kedesh’s residents broadened and their

lifestyle changed greatly. It is tempting to assume that this means that people with a different

cultural background and more refined tastes were installed as staff of the building. But increased

availability of imports and diversification of local and regional production of table and cooking

vessels would have made it easier for people living at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century to express their particular tastes than their 3rd century predecessors. In other words, the people who operated the PHAB in the 3rd century may well have been eager to acquire the same range of

goods that the 2nd century residents of Kedesh did, had it been available in the 3rd century. By the middle of the 2nd century, great changes had occurred in the range of household goods used at

Kedesh. Some of these changes are clearly related to wider regional trends, and some perhaps

attest to the particular tastes and social connections of the staff of the PHAB.

In the early or mid 2nd century, storage vessels were drawn from new local sources but the staff of the PHAB continued to rely on the spatter painted ware industry for most of their utility vessels. Most of their cooking and table vessels came from the coast, and in the case of the cooking wares, from the same sandy cooking ware industry as the 3rd century. Initially, table vessels probably came from the same central coastal fine ware workshops that supplied the

326

PHAB with small bowls and saucers in the 3rd century. These were soon replaced by northern

Levantine imports (probably shipped via the ports of Tyre and Akko-Ptolemais, that were the most common table vessels at the PHAB when it was abandoned, supplemented by spatter painted ware table vessels, which were not regularly used in the 3rd century. Plates for serving

food to groups and vessels for drinking and serving wine were used more often in the 2nd century, showing a greater interest in entertaining. An increased range and quantity of toilet vessels at the PHAB, and the presence of a concentration of them alongside amphoriskoi in the archive room when the building was abandoned suggest that specialty aromatics, medicines, and/or preservatives were produced or stockpiled there.

All of these changes suggest that the PHAB had a more diversified function in the 2nd century than it had in the 3rd and that its staff had a more cosmopolitan outlook than their predecessors. While there is quite likely some truth to this latter suggestion, it is clear from consideration of the assemblages at other sites in the southern Levant, many of which also show increased variety in their assemblages of cooking, table, and service vessels, that some of the changes that occurred at Kedesh correspond to wider trends. Furthermore, it seems that the removal of the border with the Seleucid holdings to the north resulted in more than just increased opportunities for trade. The plates and service vessels common in the southern Levant in the middle of the 2nd century are similar to vessels used in the northern Levant and North Syria

already in the 3rd century. Perhaps increased communication with people to the north who had a

longer tradition of table settings suited for serving groups of people in style contributed to the

adoption of these practices (along with their ceramic analogues) in the southern Levant.

In light of this detailed evidence from Kedesh, it may be productive to consider again the

defection of Ptolemaios implied in the Hefzibah inscription and other Ptolemaic officials to the

327

Seleucids during the Fourth and Fifth Syrian wars of the late 3rd century. As I discussed in the

introduction to this chapter (see pages 183-187, above), in the 2nd century material culture that we might associate with elite status in the Hellenistic period became more common in the southern Levant than it had been in the 3rd century. The most striking examples of this are the larger than life marble head of Alexander the Great from Beth Shean-Scythopolis (admittedly probably not a personal possession), the mosaic with a theatrical mask commissioned at Dor,1394

and the elaborate palace or mausoleum erected by the Tobiads at Araq al-Amir in the

Transjordan around 175.1395 The eclectic ceramic assemblage from Kedesh, considered in the

context of the lavish early to mid 2nd century PHAB, suggests that under the Seleucids the elite – the governors, generals, tax collectors, and merchants who held local authority and influence – were able to express their privileged status and their cosmopolitan tastes more easily than had been possible under Ptolemaic rule. The decline of Seleucid rule in the region in 140s did little to curtail this economic and cultural flourit, as the well appointed LHSB erected at Anafa c. 125 shows. But as we will see in Chapter 5, not everyone in the region had the means or desire to participate in this eclectic milieu.

1394 Stewart and Martin 2003, 132-144. 1395 N. Lapp 1980; Larché 2005; Rosenberg 2006; Will and Larché 1991.

CHAPTER 5-THE SQUATTER CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

THE SOUTHERN LEVANT AFTER THE SELEUCIDS

As Seleucid authority in the southern Levant waned from the middle of the 2nd century on, a variety of semi-independent entities came to exercise power locally while swearing at least periodic fealty to the Seleucid kings. In such a confusing and insecure political environment we might expect there to have been a good deal of fighting that would hinder the normal circulation of goods and cause people to prefer small fortified settlements to towns and unfortified farmsteads positioned in plains. Interestingly, despite the political fragmentation of the region, such a settlement pattern did not develop on a broad scale in the late Hellenistic Levant.

Aside from the kingdom of the Maccabees and their Hasmonean successors, for which there are detailed (although certainly biased) accounts in the books of Maccabees and the writings of Josephus, we have very little information about how the small independent political entities of the southern Levant administered their small holdings.1396 The disintegration of

Seleucid power in the southern Levant created a dynamic situation with independent, or nearly so, cities on the coast and a variety of settlements (villages, cities, farmsteads, and private estates) of uncertain political orientation on the interior in the north and a growing Jewish kingdom based in the Central Hills to the south.

Archaeological evidence from the southern Levant suggests that the last four decades of the 2nd century were both as peaceful and prosperous in the region as the first half of the 2nd

1396 For events in the region between the Maccabean revolt in 169/168 BCE and Roman intervention under Pompey in 64 BCE see Josephus, Ant. 13 (Marcus 1933, 229-447); War, 1.31-130 (Thackeray 1927, 17-63); 1 Macc. (Goldstein 1976); 2 Macc. (Goldstein 1983). For discussion see Chancey (2005, 33-38); Goldstein (1989); Goodman (1998); Gruen (1993); S. Schwartz (1998). 329

century had been.1397 Indeed, there was an increase in the number of settlements. The distribution of Phoenician SF pottery attests to continued trade up and down the coast and between the coast and the Upper Galilee.1398 Eastern Sigillata A pottery appeared on the coast and at most inland

sites. The luxurious LHSB (for discussion see pages 298-303, above) built at Anafa in the Hula

Valley around 130-125 suggests that the period after Seleucid rule was sufficiently peaceful and

prosperous to encourage settlement in the countryside by people of some means.1399

The demographic composition of the Galilee in the Late Hellenistic period has been a

topic of debate, and in particular the question of how “Jewish” or “Greek” it was.1400 For a long time scholarly consensus was that there was an influx of Jewish settlers in the Galilee in the second half of the 2nd century accompanied by a rapid conversion or expulsion of many, if not most, of the region’s gentile inhabitants.1401 The historical basis for this was Josephus’ account of Judas Aristobulos’ (c. 104-103) conquest of Iturea and forcible conversion (i.e., circumcision) of its inhabitants,1402 presumably as a culmination of several Jewish campaigns against gentile settlements.1403 However, the literary record provides scant details for the history of the region

after about 135. Many scholars are now wary of applying this meager evidence to the entire

Galilee, since much of the population of the region may already have been Jewish,1404 and because we have no mention of a coherent resettlement or deportation policy of the

1397 Berlin 1997c, 25-27. 1398 Berlin 1997b. 1399 Herbert 1994, 31-36. 1400 E.g., Cappelletti 2007; Chancey 2005; Freyne 2001; 2007; Zangenberg, Attridge, and Martins 2007. 1401 E.g., Aviam 2004, 11-13; Avi Yonah 2002, 61; Schürer 1897-1898; Tcherikover 1959, 247. 1402 Jos. Ant. 13.318 (Marcus 1933, 386-387). 1403 Avi-Yonah 2002, 61-67. Alexander Jannaeus also led campaigns intended to convert or expel gentiles from the Decapolis cities of the Transjordan and the Golan Heights. Jos. Ant. 13.397 (Marcus 1933, 426-427); War 1.104 (Thackeray 1927, 51-52). 1404 Horsley 1996.

330

Hasmoneans.1405 Indeed, we have almost no literary evidence for Hasmonean policy regarding,

or activities in, the Galilee.1406

Recently, archaeologists have argued that the replacement of vessels produced in a fabric called Galilean coarse ware found at many sites known or thought to have had gentile populations in the Persian, early, and middle Hellenistic periods with vessels in a different tradition indicates an influx of Judean Jews into the Galilee late in the 2nd century.1407 Galilean

coarseware is largely confined to the central and western Upper Galilee though, and seems to

have been used primarily to manufacture large jars on or near individual sites. As such, Galilean

coarse ware probably merely represents a regional production, and its use as an ethnic marker

rather than a sign of local economic conditions for any given site is dubious. A similar argument

has been made about a distinctive coarse fabric found in the Golan, referred to as “Golan ware”

and thought because of its distribution to be a marker of Iturean presence. The most distinctive

shape in Golan ware is a pithos similar in shape to Galilean coarse ware pithoi and the large jars

with everted rims used at the PHAB in the middle of the 2nd century. A wide repertoire of cooking and table vessels were also produced in Golan ware,1408 with a range of shapes very

similar to that of spatter painted ware produced in the Hula Valley, suggesting that Golan ware is

comparable to other local ceramic industries of the 2nd century, and its presence at any given site should not be seen as a sure indication of the presence of any specific ethnic group. Indeed, the one site with an abundance of “Golan ware” that has a full assemblage published is Khirbet

Zemel, whose residents or staff used several shapes modeled on imported tablewares common at

1405 E.g., Freyne 1980, 44-45; Moreland 2007, 142. 1406 Cappelletti 2007, 81. 1407 Aviam 2007, 116-117, map 1. For very general descriptions of Galilean coarse ware see Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani (2001, 61), Aviam (2004, 46). The fabric described as Galilean coarseware actually appears to consist of several distinct but related fabrics distributed only in the Upper Galilee. For discussion see Berlin and Frankel (forthcoming). 1408 Hartal 2002.

331

coastal sites, Kedesh, and Anafa, and service vessels imitating or derived from the same template

as Phoenician SF service vessels.

Galilean coarse ware and Golan ware as currently understood are better indices of

patterns of production and trade than they are of ethnic, religious, or cultural affiliation in the

Hellenistic period. Still, as emphasized in Chapter 1, pottery can give us into a window into the

cultural background of its users if it is considered in regional context and as part of a total

assemblage of household goods. Assemblages of pottery can demonstrate distinctive patterns of

daily life and tastes for a range of goods of specific function and style that individual wares or

forms do not reveal in isolation. In my discussion of the squatter assemblage at Kedesh below I

will consider how the syntax of the late 2nd century assemblage from Kedesh reflects upon the

origins of the Late Hellenistic squatters who made use of parts of the abandoned PHAB.

Internal economic patterns changed in the later 2nd century Levant, but the diminished

Seleucid political influence did not actually cause destabilization on a broad scale if we are to

judge from the archaeological record of the late 2nd century. Most of the region remained quite prosperous, and populations representing several different cultural, ethnic, and religious groups coexisted, especially along the coast and in the Galilee. It was within this political and economic environment that a small group of people reused portions of the PHAB at Kedesh for their own purposes. In this chapter I will describe their assemblage and contrast it with other sites in the region and the final phase of the PHAB as an administrative center. I will then consider how their ceramic assemblage reflects preferences for specific material goods that are distinct from those at the PHAB and other sites in the Upper Galilee in the late 2nd century, and more in

keeping with Hellenistic sites in the Central Hills to the south. Lastly, I will attempt to account

for these preferences by considering them in historical context.

332

KEDESH AFTER THE PHAB

The primary deposits left behind in the PHAB, and the blocking up and burning of the archive

room, provide a vivid testament to its sudden abandonment and “decommissioning” as an

administrative center.1409 The gap in stamped Rhodian amphora handles postdating 143/2 after

an abundance dating to the 150s and 140s gives archaeological evidence for a period of

abandonment.1410 The numismatic record strengthens this impression, as there is a gap at the site after six coins of Demetrius II dated from 145-143 until 138/7. A likely historical circumstance for the abandonment is furnished by the account in 1 Maccabees and Josephus’ Antiquities of

Jonathan Maccabee’s victory over the Seleucid army in the nearby plain of Hazor. In this battle

Jonathan’s army killed 2000 Seleucid soldiers (according to Josephus) or 3000 (according to the author of 1 Macc.).1411 Both sources record that after pursuing the remaining Seleucid forces on

their flight to Kedesh, Jonathan returned to Jerusalem. The PHAB at Kedesh was not thoroughly

sacked, but even if the number of casualties in the battle is exaggerated, it is reasonable to

suppose that the defeated and traumatized army of Demetrius would want to head northwards,

out of reach of Jonathan’s army. The gap in datable items after 143 suggests that the Seleucid

army and the administrators did not linger at the PHAB for long or continue to use it as they had

before. Vessels were left behind in the PHAB and the house to the west, soil began to

accumulate on the floors,1412 and a couple years later the archive room was blocked up and

burned. Although Jonathan’s army did not remain in the area, the staff of the PHAB and people

1409 Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 24. 1410 The “gap” is not that long, lasting only from 142/3 until 140-138, but the 130s and 120s are only represented by three stamped amphora handles, a dramatic decrease that suggests at least a major change in patterns of acquisition. It is even possible that these amphoras arrived at the site secondarily and were used for storing water or some commodity on the site. 1411 1 Macc. 11.63-74 (Goldstein 1976, 471-473); Jos. Ant. 13.154-163 (Marcus 1933, 300-307). 1412 E.g., Herbert and Berlin 2003a, 21, 24.

333

who lived in at least one of the houses around it no longer felt comfortable and may have feared

another attack.

Fifty-five coins (and three stamped amphora handles) have been found in and around the

PHAB dating from the 130s-110s, attesting to significant activity in the area of the PHAB a few years after its abandonment. Of the coins, one is an autonomous issue of Akko-Ptolemais dated from 140-123, 30 are issues of Antiochus VII, the earliest dating to 138/7, and the latest to 134/3,

12 are issues of Demetrius II dated from 129-126, and seven are issues of Cleopatra and

Antiochus VIII dated from 126/5 with another five dated to 126-123, and one dated 123/2. There is a gap after this until a coin of Ptolemy IX or X dated from 116-103 and two coins of

Antiochus IX dated to 114-112. Three stamped Rhodian amphora handles from this same horizon, one dating to 140-138, one to 132, another to 129-123, have been found at Kedesh.

Given the gap in the coin sequence between 123 and 116 after such a concentration dating from

138-123, it is possible that the later coins of Ptolemy IX/X and Antiochus IX were brought to the site after the horizon of activity indicated by the other coins and stamped amphora handles. It seems then that this occupation lasted from at least 138 (or somewhat later) until 123 and may have lasted as long as 140-116 or even slightly later.

The scant architectural remains that can be associated with the occupation of the site from c. 140-123 attest to a habitation of very different character from that of the early and mid 2nd

century PHAB. Partition walls were erected in the PHAB’s dining/reception rooms, the north

corridor, and the eastern suite of rooms. In addition, ovens were constructed in the former

dining/reception rooms of the PHAB, the courtyard, the north corridor, the east corridor, and

possibly the western corridor (see Fig. 5.1).1413 At least one of these ovens was an upended and

modified low-fired orange ware storage jar, almost certainly recovered from the abandoned

1413 Justin Winger, personal communication, November 2011.

334

debris in the PHAB. The people who moved into the PHAB in the 130s did not have much

regard for the lavish facilities of the building. They repurposed it as true squatters. In other

words, the squatters neither repaired the building so that it might function as it had under the

Seleucids nor did they demolish it to build an entirely new structure that better suited their needs.

Since they reused portions of the PHAB so soon after its abandonment and only thin

layers of soil accumulated on its floors before their reuse,1414 identifying squatter loci is difficult on stratigraphic grounds alone. The areas of the building used by the squatters are devoid of Hell

2b vessels in primary deposition because they would have disturbed any that remained in place.

It seems that by the time they moved in, the roofs of several rooms of the PHAB had collapsed and partially covered some of the Hell 2b material left behind on floors of the PHAB, possibly limiting further disturbance. No large primary deposits of squatter material have been recovered, suggesting that they left the site under no duress and took most of their useful belongings with them. Two squatter ovens with cooking pots inside them have been excavated, but the squatters apparently cleaned out most of their usable items when they in turn abandoned the partially ruined PHAB in the 120s. Areas of squatter occupation were especially disturbed by wall robbing by people who lived elsewhere at the site from the mid or late 1st century BCE on.1415

Despite these challenges, the distinctiveness of the vessels that first arrived with the squatters,

and their clear clusters at the site (see Figs. 5.2-4), make it possible to piece together a coherent,

though incomplete, assemblage.

Wares and forms with Hellenistic parallels at other sites make their first appearance with

the squatters. Even though some of these wares and forms are attested at an earlier date at other

1414 Justin Winger, personal communication, November 2011. 1415 This robbing can be dated chiefly on the basis of very fragmentary Kfar Hananya vessels, distinctive products of a workshop that began supplying much of the Galilee with cooking vessels in the middle or late 1st century BCE. See Adan-Bayewitz (1993). It is not clear at present where the building stone taken from the ruined PHAB and squatter house(s) was used at the site.

335

sites in the southern Levant, at Kedesh they do not appear in Hell 1 or 2/2b loci or beneath the

final floors of the PHAB, and they were not among the pottery abandoned with the PHAB in 143

(see Table a6). Thus it is logical to assume that these new vessels were brought to the site by the

squatters in the 130s and 120s, and together with the modification of the building attest to a third

archaeologically distinct horizon of activity at Kedesh during the Hellenistic period (hereafter

Hell 3). Accordingly, loci in which these wares or other Hellenistic material dating post c. 140

are the latest datable material and that do not overlie later loci or features have been assigned to

phase Hell 3. Only one of the new Hell 3 wares is closely datable, eastern sigillata A (hereafter

ESA; see Fig. 5.2 for its distribution in the area of the PHAB). ESA is generally acknowledged

to have appeared at Levantine and Cypriote sites in the second half of the 2nd century.1416

Distribution of the earliest and latest ESA types in the northern Levant and the results of

petrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis suggest that the ware was produced in the

northern Levant, possibly around Tarsus and/or Antioch.1417 Excavations at Shiqmona demonstrate that ESA was present in the southern Levant by the time the site was abandoned in

135-132.1418 The excavations at Kedesh furnish corresponding evidence, since the squatters used

ESA vessels with some regularity between 140-123. The other wares that first appear in Hell 3

loci are basaltic cooking ware and tan-gray marl ware (see Figs. 5.3-4, for their distribution in

the area of the PHAB). For dating purposes, I have drawn upon comparanda from well-published

sites near Kedesh: Anafa, Shuhara, Gamla, Akko-Ptolemais, and Dor. Since the squatter phase

follows so closely on the Hell 2 occupation of Kedesh, I include many comparanda from the

same contexts at these sites as I have in the previous chapter.

1416 For discussion see Berlin, Herbert, and Stone forthcoming; Hayes 1985a; Kenyon 1957; Lund, Malfatina, and Poblome 2006; Slane 1997; Tidmarsh 2011. 1417 Slane 1997, 272. 1418 Elgavish 1974.

336

As in all of the phases already discussed, some wares and forms from the previous period

of occupation remained in use. The squatters reused at least one low-fired orange ware large

storage jar with everted rim from the PHAB as an oven, and it is likely that they reused other

vessels left at the site when it was abandoned. It is more difficult to determine whether the

squatters continued to acquire vessels in the same wares and of the same forms as the final (i.e.,

mid 2nd century) staff of the PHAB. The presence of ESA and three stamped amphora handles dating to the squatter phase proves that they drew on the same coastal supply networks as

Kedesh had earlier at least occasionally.

Despite the absence of extensive squatter phase primary deposits there is much well preserved ESA, basaltic cooking ware, and tan-gray marl ware in secondary deposition in two loci (CB35010 and CB35011) disturbed by Roman wall robbing in the former dining/reception rooms of the PHAB (see Table 5.3). Well-preserved vessels in Phoenician SF and gritty cooking ware found preserved in these same loci were probably also used by the squatters and help establish the range of vessels brought to and used at Kedesh by them. In these loci, there is a far higher percentage of squatter wares and Phoenician SF than in most Roman loci.

In this chapter I describe the ceramic wares and forms used by the squatters and the quantities in which they occur. I discuss contemporary assemblages in the eastern Mediterranean and situate the squatter assemblage at Kedesh among these. I then compare the squatter assemblage and the early to mid 2nd century assemblage from the PHAB at Kedesh (described above), and offer a detailed comparison between the assemblages of squatter Kedesh, Anafa, and

Gamla in the Golan Heights. My goals in making these comparisons are the same as they have been in previous chapters: to show how Kedesh was connected to larger economic patterns in the

Levant, to show how the function of Kedesh changed between the abandonment of the PHAB

337

and the squatter habitation, and to see how the patterns of daily life at squatter Kedesh compared

to nearby sites. Addressing these questions will reveal that the squatters were almost certainly from the Central Hills, who used a particular range of goods corresponding closely to what they had been used to there and who did not acquire many of the goods that had been used in the

PHAB or at other sites in the region, like Anafa. In other words, people of substantially different cultural outlook, even if their identity is uncertain.

SQUATTER WARES

The squatters made use of seven distinct wares (see Table 5.1). Four of these: hard mortarium

fabric, Phoenician SF, gritty cooking ware, and Aegean amphora fabric, were already

represented at Kedesh in Hell 2 loci. Another three: tan-gray marl ware, basaltic cooking ware,

and ESA were first used at Kedesh during the squatter phase, and attest to changing trade

patterns in the region and the distinct nature of the squatter habitation at Kedesh.

Vessels from the eastern Upper Galilee were regularly brought to Kedesh and used by the

squatters. Vessels from the Hula Valley were much less common during the squatter phase than

they had been in any of the earlier phases discussed, since spatter painted ware vessels were no

longer brought to the site. It is significant that spatter painted ware vessels from the Hula Valley

were not acquired by the squatters, since the ware was still produced and used very regularly at

the LHSB at Anafa. It seems then that the squatters had little interest in the products of the Hula

Valley, or that merchants from there no longer visited the eastern edge of the Upper Galilee

plateau. Vessels from the central Levantine coast fabric region still arrived at least sporadically.

Vessels from the Golan plateau also made a regular appearance. The only imports from outside

338 of the region to occur in any quantity came from the northern Levantine coast fabric region, presumably via coastal outlets like Tyre and Akko-Ptolemais.

Local Wares of the Eastern Upper Galilee/Hula Valley Fabric Region: Hard Mortarium Fabric, Tan-Gray Marl Ware

The squatters acquired vessels produced in two local wares: hard mortarium fabric, probably from the Hula Valley, and tan-gray marl ware probably produced near Kedesh itself. While it seems that some individual spatter painted ware vessels from the final phase of the PHAB were reused by the squatters the appearance of functional replacements for spatter painted ware utility and cooking vessels and the decline in proportion of spatter fabric weight and diagnostic vessel fragments in Hell 3 loci suggests that new spatter painted ware vessels were not brought to

Kedesh during the squatter occupation (see Tables 4.2; 5.3). One ware with a possible origin in the Hula Valley that did continue to be brought to the site was hard mortarium fabric, which was used to produce the mortaria with curled rims that first appear in Hell 3 loci.

Tan-gray marl ware first appears in Hell 3 loci. It is a fairly soft fabric with few visible inclusions, often fired a tan or pinkish color on the surface (5YR 6/4-5YR 7/4) with a broad, gray core that fades out gently towards its edges (5YR 5/1-7.5YR 5/1). The most common shapes attested in tan-gray marl ware at Kedesh are transport/storage jars and utility jugs, though some bowls for use at the table, flasks, and juglets are also represented. A few sherds of tan-gray marl ware are attested in Hell 2 loci, but no diagnostic sherds are present, suggesting that these may be intrusive sherds or misidentified. Tan-gray marl ware first appears in substantial quantities in

Hell 3 loci (see Table 5.2; for its distribution in the area of the PHAB see Fig. 5.3). The defining petrographic characteristic of tan-gray marl ware is the presence taqiya marl, which is found all over the Mediterranean including the eastern Upper Galilee plateau and the environs of Kedesh

339

itself.1419 It is most likely then that tan-gray marl ware was a local product. The shapes produced

in the ware served the same utility and table functions as spatter painted ware vessels had in the

3rd and early to mid 2nd century, with the exception of grinding.

Regional Ware of the Golan/Chorazim Plateau Fabric Region: Basaltic Cooking Ware

Many cooking vessels in a previously unattested basaltic cooking ware first appear in Hell 3 loci

(see Table 5.2; for its distribution in the area of the PHAB see Fig. 5.4). This ware is very hard, with a dark red-brown surface (2.5YR 4/6-5YR 5/6) and often a lighter red core (2.5R 6/6). It contains an abundance of small white crushed calcite inclusions as well as occasional small basaltic inclusions, from whence it gets its name. Most of the vessels attested in basaltic cooking ware at Kedesh are cooking pots, although a few casseroles, cooking lids, and jugs are attested as well. Vessels in basaltic cooking ware or similar wares are attested at Gamla in the Golan,1420

Karm er Ras in the Lower Galilee,1421 and Shuhara in the eastern Upper Galilee.1422 As such, the producer or producers of this ware had a rather broad circulation in the Golan and Galilee in the late 2nd and 1st centuries. It is interesting then that basaltic cooking ware vessels did not reach Tel

Anafa or Dan in the Hula Valley,1423 both of which were near Kedesh and occupied in the late

2nd century as well. This pattern suggests that different market routes may have served the Hula

Valley than those that served the eastern Upper Galilee in the final third of the 2nd century.

The basalt in the ware indicates that it originated either on the Golan or Chorazim plateau overlooking the Sea of Galilee because these are the only proximate sources of basalt.1424 The

1419 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 1420 Berlin 2006, 17. 1421 Yardenna Alexandre, personal communication, January 2010. 1422 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 12: 2, 6. 1423 Malka Hershkovitz, personal communication, January 2010. 1424 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

340

abundance of calcite in basaltic cooking ware is curious, because despite improving the plasticity

of cooking vessels, its explosive properties limit the maximum firing temperature of the ware to

around 700-750 degrees centigrade.1425 Calcite had not been used as an inclusion in cooking vessels in the Galilee or the central coastal region since the Iron Age or Persian period. However, calcite was used as a temper in cooking vessels throughout the Hellenistic period at sites in the

Central Hills.1426 The production of cooking vessels using a temper with specific qualities that were both beneficial for the function of vessels but which required specialized knowledge of firing properties to avoid destruction in the kiln suggests the movement of potters from the

Central Hills to the Golan or Chorazim plateau and/or the dissemination of particular potting practices (for discussion see pages 348-349, 384-385, below).

Wares of the Central Levantine Coast Fabric Region: Phoenician SF, Gritty Cooking Ware

Phoenician SF and gritty cooking ware were both used at Kedesh already in the early to mid 2nd century (and in the case of Phoenician SF as early as the Persian period). These are the only wares from the central Levantine coast fabric region that were used by the squatters.

Phoenician SF decreases as a proportion of identified fabric weight from Hell 2 and 2b loci. But the quantity of the ware in squatter and later loci and the presence of some partially reconstructable Phoenician SF vessels amongst groups of similarly well-preserved squatter material in Roman loci in and around the former dining room of the PHAB (see Tables 5.2-3), suggests that some Phoenician SF service and transport vessels were brought to Kedesh from the coast in the 130s and 120s. A new form in gritty cooking ware, necked cooking pots with grooved rims, are first attested in Hell 3 loci, indicating, along with the presence of necked

1425 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 1426 E.g., Gezer: Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pl. 33: 19-21; Jerusalem: Geva 2003, 133; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003, 180; Shechem: N. Lapp 2008, 322-326, 330-331, pls. 3.38: 1-2, 6, 8-9; 3.39: 3-4; 3.41: 3, 7, 12.

341 cooking pots with pointed rims in gritty cooking ware in two squatter tabuns (e.g., see Fig. 5.8:

1), that they acquired vessels in this ware too.

Imported Wares of the Northern Levantine Fabric Region: Eastern Sigillata A

ESA is the only imported ware regularly acquired by the squatters. Hellenistic ESA shapes are first attested in loci above Hell 2 floors, and not in Hell 2b abandonment loci, indicating that the ware must be associated with the squatter occupation at the site (for its distribution in the area of the PHAB see Fig. 5.2). ESA, like BSP, is a hard and very fine pale pink-brown fabric (5YR 7/4-

7.5YR 8/4) with no visible inclusions. ESA vessels are covered with a smooth, semi-lustrous red slip on interior and exterior, applied by double dipping. Bowls, cups, and plates/platters are the principal shapes attested at Kedesh in ESA. Distribution of vessels in ESA, along with NAA and petrographic testing, shows that it originated in the northern Levant.1427 At Jebel Khalid in north

Syria, the regular occurrence of ESA vessels in contexts dated around 150, and appearance of early ESA forms in coarser local and/or regional wares in contexts of the same date, furnish especially strong evidence that the northern Levant and/or North Syria is where the ware was first produced.1428 John Tidmarsh has proposed, on the basis of neutron activation analysis results from both Pella in the Jordan Valley and Jebel Khalid, that ESA’s most likely place of origin was Antioch. The squatter phase at Kedesh is the earliest closely datable occurrence of the ware in the southern Levant. Prior to the excavations at Kedesh, the earliest documented appearance of the ware in the region was at Shiqmona, where it occurs in an abandonment horizon dated from 135-132. ESA was imported less frequently than the staff of the PHAB had imported northern coastal fine ware or BSP, also from the northern Levant. A sherd count of

1427 Slane 1997, 272. 1428 Jackson 2011a, c; Tidmarsh 2011.

342

finewares from all seasons gives a figure of 1071 northern coastal fine ware sherds and/or

vessels, 842 BSP sherds and/or vessels, and 363 ESA sherds and/or vessels. These totals do not

include other imported wares used in the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century such as wares of western Asia Minor, Cypriote fabrics, and Campana A, nor does it include the central coastal fine ware still brought to Kedesh early in the 2nd century. Tablewares from outside the immediate environs of Kedesh were both more abundant and varied in the final phase of the PHAB than they were when the squatters reused portions of the building. Although the shorter period of squatter occupation must in part account for the smaller quantity of fine tablewares, table vessels

(most of which are in ESA) do make up a smaller proportion of the ceramic assemblage from the squatter phase than they had in the Hellenistic PHAB.

Aegean Amphora Fabric

The presence of stamped Rhodian amphora handles of squatter date discussed above indicates that Rhodian and possibly other Aegean amphoras arrived at the site after the abandonment of the PHAB. However there is a marked decline in the proportional weight of identified wares constituted by Aegean amphora sherds in Hell 3 loci (see Table 5.2), indicating that imported amphoras arrived with less frequency, a conclusion supported by the lower number of stamped amphora handles dated to the squatter phase. The squatters either consumed less imported wine than the staff of the PHAB had, or perhaps even acquired the Rhodian amphoras happenstance as used jars.

SQUATTER SHAPES AND FORMS

343

Two thousand four hundred and eighty-eight diagnostic vessel fragments were found in Hell 3 loci. Eighty-two (3%) of these are forms or vessels in wares that make their first appearance in

Hell 3, and thus are certainly part of the squatter assemblage (see Table 5.4). If we include forms and wares that may have continued to be brought to the site (Rhodian amphoras without earlier stamps, Phoenician SF baggy jars, kraters with overhanging rims in gritty cooking ware,

Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims, gritty cooking ware lids, Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims, Phoenician SF table amphoras with angled rims, Phoenician SF amphoriskoi, Phoenician

SF elongated and banded fusiform unguentaria) there are up to 183 (7%) fragmentary Hell 3 vessels in Hell 3 loci. In fact, the proportion of Hell 3 pottery in Hell 3 loci is smaller than in any other phase (Fig. 5.5). The extremely low ratio of squatter pottery among total diagnostic fragments recovered from Hell 3 loci is due in part to the fact that each additional phase increases the amount of accumulated residual noise in the identified pottery. But it is also a reflection of the more ephemeral nature of the squatter occupation at Kedesh. Not much material was deposited in phase Hell 3 compared to the earlier phases of occupation at Kedesh, probably because a small group of people with more limited resources than the staff of the PHAB lived in part of the abandoned building for a brief period of time. The site of the PHAB no longer had any official or public function that might call for a concentration of goods or formal entertainments.

Transport and Storage Vessels

Because large storage jars in low-fired orange ware and low-fired brown ware decrease as a proportion of vessel fragments in Hell 3 loci, and since the only evidence of their use by the squatters is as ad-hoc ovens, it is most likely that they were not brought to or made at Kedesh in

344

the 130s or 120s. There is no exact functional replacement for these jars at the site. The only

local jars associated with the squatter habitation are elongated baggy jars with everted rims (Fig.

5.6), which would have been suited for both transport and storage. Forty-two examples occur in

tan-gray marl ware, and there are seven jars in unknown fabric(s). As their name implies these

jars have short necks terminating in an everted rim and long, sack shaped bodies with rounded

bottoms. Two vertical handles are attached at the shoulder and the body. No complete examples

of elongated baggy jars with everted rims are preserved at Kedesh, but comparanda from other

sites generally measure from 40-50 cm in height, and have a rim measuring 8-11 cm in diameter.

As such, they would have had a smaller capacity and weighed much less (empty or filled) than

the large local jars used in the final phase of the PHAB as an administrative center, suiting them

for both transport and storage. Similar jars were widespread at sites further to the south

throughout the Hellenistic period, including Shechem, Gezer,1429 Maresha, Dor, and Pella. But they were not common at sites to the north of Dor along the coast, or the lower Galilee inland, prior to the late 2nd century, when they appeared at Kedesh, the nearby village of Shuhara,1430 and Yodefat, a Jewish village in the lower Galilee.1431 Their appearance at Kedesh, Shuhara, and

Yodefat and not at other nearby sites like Anafa, suggests that these jars circulated only among

certain sites in the Upper Galilee that were settled by newcomers from the south. In the 1st century similar jars were used at Gamla in the Golan.1432 Six elongated baggy jars with everted rims have been found in Hell 3 loci at Kedesh, and another 43 in later loci at the site. Six tan- gray marl ware lids found in later loci, four with folded rims and two with squared rims, were perhaps used to cover some of these jars.

1429 Gitin 1990, vol. 2, pls. 32: 1-4, 6, 9; 33: 1-6. 1430 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 128, fig. 14: 3-4, 6. 1431 Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov 2002, 76-77, fig. 5.1: 1-3. 1432 Berlin 2006, 48-53, 64-99, figs. 2.22-25; 3.1: 3-6; 3.3; 3.4: 6; 3.8: 31-33, 38; 3.9; 3.12; 3.13: 17-20; 3.14; 3.15: 7-8; 3.16; 3.18; 3.20: 20; 3.21: 4; 3.24; tables 3.1-13; 3.16.

345

It is likely that some Phoenician SF baggy jars (see Fig. 4.5) were brought to Kedesh

during the squatter occupation as well, since they make up the same proportion of diagnostic

fragments in Hell 3 loci as they had previously and partially reconstructable examples have been

found alongside well-preserved Hell 3 material in Roman loci. Phoenician SF baggy jars were

common at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts of late 2nd century date and at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c.

125-110).1433 Eighteen fragmentary Phoenician SF baggy jars have been found in Hell 3 loci and

another 153 in later loci at Kedesh, many of which are surely Hell 1 and Hell 2 residuals. At least

three Rhodian amphoras arrived at Kedesh between 140 and 129, and it is possible that some of

the other 46 fragmentary amphoras that do not preserve stamps in Hell 3 and later loci were also

brought to the site while the squatters lived there. However, the relative quantity of amphoras

represented by stamps in Hell 3 and later loci (26 dating to 143/2 or earlier as compared with

three dating to 140-123) suggests that most unstamped fragments in Hell 3 and later loci are also

Hell 2/2b residuals. Rhodian amphoras were imported regularly to other sites in the region in the

final third of the 2nd century, and examples are known from Akko-Ptolemais,1434 Dor,1435 and

Anafa.1436

Utility Vessels

The squatters used three forms of utility vessels: mortaria with curled rims, kraters with overhanging rims, and jugs with squared rims and rounded bottoms.

A new form of grinding vessel, mortaria with curled rims (Fig. 5.7: 1), first appears in

Hell 3 loci. These mortaria consisted of broad, sturdy bowls with flat bases and projecting rims

1433 Berlin 1997a, 155-156, pls. 57, 88: PW 480-483. 1434 Finkielsztejn forthcoming. 1435 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995, 202-203. 1436 Ariel and Finkielsztejn 1994, 186.

346

that are curled downwards. At Kedesh 19 examples occur in hard mortarium fabric, one occurs

in spatter painted ware, and two in unknown fabrics.1437 Mortaria with curled rims are attested at

Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110).1438 Two out of 22 examples at Kedesh occur in Hell 3 loci and the rest are in later loci.

Kraters with overhanging rims (Fig. 5.7: 2) may have been brought to the site and used for mixing and washing by the squatters.1439 Parallels for the form are attested at Akko-Ptolemais

in contexts of mid to late 2nd century date,1440 at Anafa in phase Hell 2c (c. 98-75),1441 and at Dor

in contexts dating to the first three quarters of the 2nd century.1442 One example in sandy cooking ware and one in an unknown fabric are attested in Hell 3 loci, and 14 occur in later loci at

Kedesh.

The squatters used jugs with squared rims and rounded bottoms for fetching and transporting water (Fig. 5.7: 3). These jugs have rounded bottoms, elongated bodies and moderately wide necks and mouths terminating in squared rims. A vertical strap handle is attached at rim and shoulder. A nearly complete reconstructable example at Kedesh measures 34 cm in height and 9.9 cm in diameter at the rim, which is comparable to published examples of the same or similar forms at other sites. Most examples at Kedesh (53) are in tan-gray marl ware and another eight are in unknown ware(s). In general appearance they resemble the tan-gray marl ware elongated baggy jars with everted rims discussed above. Like those jars the distribution of this form is limited to sites well to the south of Kedesh for most of the Hellenistic period, and

1437 The spatter painted ware example is the only evidence for the acquisition of that ware at Kedesh during the squatter phase. 1438 Berlin 1997a, 129-130, pls. 39, 83: PW366, 368-369. 1439 These vessels are generally referred to as “kraters” though they were perhaps more likely to be all purpose utility bowls. I have retained the word “krater” here to avoid confusion. 1440 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.17: 12 1441 Berlin 1997a, 135, pls. 42, 83: PW394, PW396-398. 1442 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.11: 6-9, 11.

347

examples appear at Shechem throughout the Hellenistic period,1443 at Dor in a context dated to the first three quarters of the 2nd century,1444 Pella in levels associated with the final occupation and destruction of the site by Jannaeus in 83/2,1445 and at the late 2nd and early 1st century

settlement at Shuhara.1446 The only exception to this pattern is the appearance of jugs with squared rims and rounded bottoms at Jebel Khalid in North Syria from the mid to late 2nd

century.1447 It is possible that this jug is derived from a tradition long common at inland Near

Eastern sites. It seems that in the southern Levant it is limited to areas south of the Galilee prior to the late Hellenistic period. Like the elongated baggy jars with everted rims, these jugs do not appear at Anafa in the nearby Hula Valley and thus serve as more evidence that the squatters moved to Kedesh from the south. At Kedesh ten jugs with squared rims and round bottoms are attested in Hell 3 loci, and 51 occur in subsequent loci.

It is possible that Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims (Fig. 4.10: 2) were used by the squatters for carrying water on journeys away from the site since partially reconstructable examples occur alongside well-preserved Hell 3 material in Roman loci. At Anafa Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims are assigned to the Hell 2a-c assemblage (c. 125-75), although all examples found at the site appear in later loci.1448 At Kedesh there are two examples in Hell 3

loci and another 25 in later loci.

Cooking Vessels

1443 N. Lapp 2008, 46-49, pls. 3.15: 5-17; 3.16: 1-15; 3.17: 1-13; 3.18: 8-9, 11. 1444 Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.30: 1. 1445 Tidmarsh 2000, 225, figs. 42: 407 (published as a jar); 47: 487 (published as a jar); 53: 576. 1446 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 128, fig. 14: 5, 7. 1447 Jackson 2011a, 57, 71, figs. 48: 6-7; fig. 61; pl. 12: CW485-487. 1448 Berlin 1997a, 140-141, pls. 47-48, 85: PW424-426.

348

Two new cooking pot types appeared with the squatters: gritty cooking ware necked cooking

pots with grooved rims and basaltic cooking ware cooking pots with high splayed necks. Necked

cooking pots with pointed rims in gritty cooking ware remained in use as well, although it is

uncertain if more were acquired by the squatters or if they simply reused pots that had been left

behind in the abandonment of the PHAB. Two reconstructable examples were found in Hell 3

ovens (e.g., Fig. 5.8: 1). Necked cooking pots with pointed rims make up a smaller proportion of

recovered Hell 3 vessel fragments, but in light of the examples recovered from the ovens and the

fact that another form in gritty cooking ware appeared in Hell 3 loci, I include gritty cooking

ware necked cooking pots with pointed rims as part of the squatter assemblage. Necked cooking

pots with pointed rims are attested at Anafa already in phase Hell 1b, and were most popular

there in phase Hell 2a.1449 At Kedesh, 11 examples occur in Hell 3 loci and another 77 in later

loci. Many of the examples in Hell 3 and later loci are surely Hell 2 residuals.

Gritty cooking ware necked cooking pots with grooved rims (Fig. 5.8: 2) are similar in

appearance and dimensions to the several varieties of necked cooking pots already discussed.

They have short vertical rims that terminate in short ledges with a groove on the top.

Comparanda for these pots are attested in phase Hell 2a at Anafa (c. 125-110).1450 Five examples occur in Hell 3 loci at Kedesh and 36 in later loci.

Basaltic cooking ware cooking pots with high splayed necks (Figs. 5.8: 3; 5.9: 1-2) also have the same globular form as the necked cooking pots already described. As such, they would have been interchangeable with such pots functionally. Cooking pots with high splayed necks already appeared at Kedesh in sandy cooking ware in Hell 2 loci, but they first appear in basaltic cooking ware and increase greatly in quantity in Hell 3 loci. The form’s defining characteristic is

1449 Berlin 1997a, 88-89, pl. 21: PW188. 1450 Berlin 1997a, 89-90, pl. 24: PW199-200.

349

a tall neck that is angled more sharply outward than other cooking pots. They measure 9-14 cm

at the rim and around 20 cm in height. Two handles are attached at rim and shoulder.

Comparanda for these pots are attested throughout the Hellenistic period at inland sites to the

south such as Shechem,1451 Gezer,1452 Tirat Yehuda,1453 Samaria,1454 and Pella.1455 Parallels in the vicinity of Kedesh are attested at the late 2nd to early 1st century settlement at Shuhara,1456 and generally similar cooking pots in the same fabric or a visually indistinguishable one were used at Gamla in the 1st century.1457 Like some of the other forms that appeared at Kedesh in Hell

3 loci, cooking pots with high splayed necks are not attested at nearby Anafa at all. Like the jars

and jugs in tan-gray marl ware discussed above, it seems that the appearance of these cooking

pots with high splayed necks in basaltic cooking ware is an indication of an economic, and

perhaps cultural, orientation towards the south. At Kedesh, 39 examples have been identified in

Hell 3 loci and another 257 in subsequent loci. Basaltic cooking ware cooking pots with high

splayed necks are the most abundant squatter vessels at Kedesh.

In addition to the vessels listed above there are some basaltic cooking ware cooking pots

that occur in only a few examples at Kedesh but were certainly used during the squatter

habitation of the site. Among these are five basaltic cooking ware cooking pots with splayed

necks and thickened rims (Fig. 5.9: 3) in Roman loci that have parallels in the late 2nd and early

1451 N. Lapp 2008, 326-329, pls. 3.39: 6-9; 3.40: 1-2, 4-5. 1452 Gitin 1990, pls. 32: 21; 33: 21; 35: 15. 1453 Yeivin and Edelstein 1970, fig. 8:12. 1454 Kenyon 1957, fig. 41:6. 1455 Tidmarsh 2000, figs. 33: 304; 34: 323-325; 35: 326-330. 1456 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 12: 2, 6. 1457 Berlin 2006, 70, 72, 74-75, 77, 79-81, 83, 86, 88-89, 91-94, 96-97, figs. 3.5; 3.7: 19-23; 3.9; 3.11: 12-15; 3.12; 3.14; 3.15: 4-5; 3.20: 16; 3.22; 3.23:12; 3.25: 25-31; tables 3.4-6; 3.10; 3.12-13.

350

1st century at Jerusalem.1458 A basaltic cooking ware cooking pot with a high splayed neck and flattened rim was also found in a medieval-modern locus (Fig. 5.9: 4).

A new type of casserole is attested in Hell 3 loci at Kedesh: basaltic cooking ware casseroles with short sharply angled rims (Fig. 5.10: 1, 3). These casseroles are generally similar to 3rd and early to mid 2nd century casseroles with angled rims and rounded walls. The chief differences are that they do not have a pronounced interior flange offsetting the rim, the rim is slightly shorter and angled more sharply upwards, and they are generally substantially deeper.

No complete examples are preserved at Kedesh, but fragmentary examples have an estimated rim diameter of 22-25 cm, and published examples at other sites have a similar rim diameter and measure 13-16 cm in depth. Their greater depth may indicate that they were used to cook different sorts of meals than the casseroles already described, and comparative analyses of faunal assemblages and residues might prove illuminating. All examples at Kedesh occur in basaltic cooking ware rather than the sandy cooking ware of earlier casseroles. Similar casseroles appeared at Shechem in the 2nd century,1459 and Jerusalem in the late 2nd and 1st century.1460

Nearer to Kedesh, examples are known from the late 2nd and early 1st century settlement at

Shuhara,1461 and 1st century (and perhaps earlier) Gamla.1462 Casseroles of this same form would

be produced from the mid 1st century BCE to the early first century CE in Kfar Hananya cooking ware in the Galilee, and have been classified by David Adan-Bayewitz as Kfar Hananya form

3a.1463 At Kedesh, one casserole with short sharply angled rim occurs in a Hell 3 locus, and ten more examples in basaltic cooking ware occur in later loci. One basaltic cooking ware lid is

1458 Geva 2003, 133-134, pls. 5.1: 21, 23-24; 5.3: 1-3, 7, 9-11, 14-15; 5.4: 11, 28-29; Tushingham 1985, 39-40, fig. 18: 22-29, 33-34, 36-37. 1459 N. Lapp 2008, 330-331, pl. 3.41: 4-13. 1460 Geva 2003, 135-136, pls. 5.1: 30; 5.3: 16-17; 5.7: 2-3; 5.8: 37-38. 1461 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 12: 4. 1462 Berlin 2006, 70, 72, 74, 80-81, 83, 85, 86, 88-89, 91-93, 94, 96-97, figs. 3.7: 27-30; 3.14; 3.15: 6; 3.17; 3.20: 18- 19; 3.23: 14-15; 3.24; 3.26: 32-34; tables 3.4; 3.6; 3.9-10; 3.12-13. 1463 Adan-Bayewitz 1993, 111-119, pl. 3a.

351

attested in a Hell 3 locus (Fig. 5.10: 2) in addition to three in gritty cooking ware. Eleven lids in these wares are attested in later loci and may have been brought during the squatter occupation and used with the casseroles described above.

A handful of jugs have been found in basaltic cooking ware are attested at Kedesh. A jug with flanged neck (Fig. 5.10: 4) has been recovered in a Hell 3 locus and three more in Roman loci. Parallels for these jugs in basaltic cooking ware are attested at Karm er Ras in the

Galilee.1464 One basaltic cooking ware jug with ledge rim (Fig. 5.10: 6) is attested in a Hell 3 locus and two more in Roman loci, in addition to two jugs with grooved rims (Fig. 5.10: 5) in

Byzantine-Islamic loci. The shape of these jugs and their manufacture in basaltic cooking ware suggests that they would have been used to boil water, though they may have been used for fetching it or serving liquids at the table as well.

Table Vessels

Like the cooking assemblage, the table assemblage used by the squatters is dramatically different from that used at the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century. The squatters regularly used five forms of table vessels: tan-gray marl ware unfooted bowls with plain or incurved rims, bowls with incurved rims, footed hemispherical bowls, ESA plates with upturned rims, and mold made bowls with Attic profiles.1465

The only locally produced table vessels that appear in any number are small unfooted and

unslipped bowls with plain or incurved rims in tan-gray marl ware (Fig. 5.11: 1-2). These bowls

measure 10-12 cm in diameter at the rim, and 4-5.5 cm in height. Similarly plain bowls were

common in the Central Hills throughout the Hellenistic period, as is well evidenced at

1464 Yardenna Alexandre, personal communication, January 2010. 1465 By contrast, the early to mid 2nd century residents of the PHAB used 12 forms of table vessels regularly, in addition to several more sporadic acquisitions.

352

Shechem.1466 The only sites near Kedesh where such bowls are attested are at the late 2nd and early 1st century settlement at Shuhara1467 and at Gamla in the 1st century BCE.1468 They do not

appear at Anafa. Like many of the shapes and wares already discussed, these bowls are typical of

earlier Hellenistic household assemblages at sites to the south, particularly inland. At Kedesh,

two examples occur in Hell 3 loci, and another eight in later loci. The only other local table

vessels that can be assigned to the Hell 3 assemblage are a small bowl in tan-gray marl ware with

flattened rim, and a tan-gray marl flat-bottomed saucer with a fishplate depression (Fig. 5.11: 3),

which also finds parallels at Shechem and Gamla.1469

Bowls with incurved rims in ESA (12 examples, none in Hell 3 loci; Fig. 5.11: 4-5) and

Cypriote sigillata (two examples, one in a Hell 3 locus), were used on occasion by the squatters.

ESA bowls with incurved rims appear at Anafa in Hell 2a (c. 125-110) contexts.1470 The most

common bowls at Kedesh in the 130s and 120s were ESA footed hemispherical bowls (Fig.

5.11: 6-8) of the same form and dimensions as their predecessors in BSP. Parallels for these are

attested at Akko-Ptolemais in contexts dating to the first half of the 1st century1471 and at Anafa in stratum Hell 2a (c. 125-110).1472 At Kedesh six examples occur in Hell 3 loci and another 41

in later loci.

ESA plates with upturned rims (Fig. 5.12: 1) were used for serving food to small groups.

These plates were very abundant at Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110) and later,1473 they are

1466 N. Lapp 2008, 292-293, pl. 3.28: 1-9. 1467 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 11: 7. 1468 Berlin 2006, 64, 66-71, 74, 86-87, 91-95, 97-98, figs. 3.1: 1; 3.4: 2-5; 3.6: 11-12, 14; 3.19: 4; 3.22; 3.23: 5-6; 3.24; 3.25: 9-24; tables 3.1; 3.3-4; 3.10; 3.12-13. 1469 Berlin 2006, 70-71, 74, 91-95, 97-98, figs. 3.5; 3.6: 9-10, 13; 3.23: 4; 3.24; 3.25: 1-8; tables 3.4; 3.12-14. 1470 Slane 1997, 309, pl. 17: FW 176. 1471 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.21: 12. 1472 Slane 1997, 309-311, pl. 17: FW179-184. 1473 Slane 1997, 285-289, pls. 6-7: FW55-56, FW60, FW67.

353

attested in a context dating to the first half of the 1st century at Akko-Ptolemais,1474 an example is attested at the late 2nd or early 1st century settlement at Shuhara,1475 and several were used at

Gamla in the 1st century.1476 No ESA plates with upturned rims were found in Hell 3 loci at

Kedesh, though only 22 were recovered from the site as a whole. Since they are a late Hellenistic form, the plates found at Kedesh were certainly used by the squatters. One platter with offset rim is also attested in ESA, in a Byzantine-Islamic locus. The plates and platters occur in a ratio of roughly 1:3 (if we count only ESA bowls) or 1:4 (if we count bowls and saucers in all wares) to vessels for eating food, perhaps indicating that a typical table setting in the house(s) erected in the area of the former PHAB consisted of one plate for serving three or four individuals who ate out of bowls.1477

Mold made bowls with Attic profiles in ESA are attested at Kedesh, one example appears in a Hell 3 locus and seven in later loci. Parallels are attested at Akko-Ptolemais in a context of mid to late 2nd century date and early 1st century date.1478 One reconstructable conical mastos is

attested in a Hell 3 locus and another two are in Byzantine-Islamic loci. Eight fragmentary ESA

conical mastoi with interior rim moldings identical in form to BSP examples are attested at

Kedesh, all in Roman or later loci. Parallels for both forms are sealed beneath Hell 2c (c. 98-75)

floors at Anafa, meaning that they must date earlier than c. 98.1479 Six ESA conical cups are also attested at Kedesh, four in Hell 3 loci and two in later loci. At Anafa these cups are attested already in phase Hell 2a.1480 In addition to these ESA drinking vessels, cast glass bowls were

1474 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.21: 2-3. 1475 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 11: 8. 1476 Berlin 2006, 68-71, 74-76, 79, 86-87, 91-93, 98, figs. 3.3; 3.6: 1-3; 3.9; 3.10: 1; 3.19: 1-3; 3.23: 1-3; tables 3.3- 5; 3.10; 3.12; 3.14. 1477 Andrea Berlin (2006, 138) has noticed a similar pattern in the use of ESA plates and local and ESA bowls at 1st century BCE Gamla. 1478 Berlin and Stone forthcoming, fig. 3.18: 3; 3.21: 10. 1479 Slane 1997, pl. 21: FW 217. 1480 Slane 1997, 319, pl. 22: FW236.

354

probably used for drinking. Thirty-four examples of these have been found at Kedesh and they

first occur in Hell 3 loci. Many more cast glass drinking vessels are attested at nearby Anafa (up

to 1116) in the last quarter of the 2nd century and first quarter of the 1st century.1481 The squatter

table assemblage was much more basic than that used in the final phase of the PHAB, despite the

fact that the bulk of it consisted of ESA imports.

Service Vessels

No new vessels for serving liquid appear in Hell 3 loci. Although Phoenician SF decreases as a

proportion of weight in Hell 3 loci (see Table 5.2), Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims (see Fig.

4.29: 2-3), table amphoras with angled rims (see Figs. 4.29: 6; 4.30: 1), and juglets with wide

mouths (see Fig. 4.31: 3-4) all increase as a proportion of total vessel fragments in Hell 3 loci

compared to their representation in Hell 2 (but not Hell 2b), possibly indicating that they were

still used at Kedesh. It is equally possible that so many were present because they had been

recently introduced in the middle of the 2nd century and many were laying about and usable when

the squatters arrived. Eleven jugs with folded rims occur in Hell 3 loci and 86 in later loci; 19

table amphoras with angled rims appear in Hell 3 loci and 56 in later loci; 14 juglets with wide

mouths appear in Hell 3 loci and another 98 in later loci. In addition, all three types occurred at

Anafa in phase Hell 2a (c. 125-110),1482 indicating that they were still being produced and transported inland from the coast in the last quarter of the 2nd century. A nearly intact spatter

painted ware squat table amphora was found in a Roman locus among well-preserved squatter

material in a room (the former dining room) reused by the squatters. There is no way that this

1481 Grose forthcoming. 1482 For jugs with folded rims see Berlin (1997a, 48-49, pl. 8: PW39); for table amphoras with angled rims see Berlin (1997a, 38-39, pl. 1: PW3-4) for juglets with wide mouths see Berlin (1997a, 52-53, pls. 10, 74: PW54).

355

vessel’s final position can be attributed to the PHAB abandonment, and it seems likely that it

was found and reused by the squatters (though not necessarily for its original function).

Toilet Vessels

Few toilet vessels can certainly be associated with the squatter occupation of Kedesh in the 130s

and 120s. Three tan-gray marl jugs or juglets with cupped rims, one found in a Hell 3 locus and

two in Roman loci, and one juglet in basaltic cooking ware from a Roman locus have been

found. These were probably used to hold some commodity since their round bodies would be

awkward to use at the table, they are too small to be a useful water flask, and their necks are

constricted and rims cupped for measured pouring. Similar juglets are attested in the 3rd and 2nd

centuries at Shechem,1483 in the mid to late 2nd century at Jerusalem,1484 and at Gamla in the 1st

century.1485 With the possible exception of the tan-gray marl juglets just described, no new toilet vessels appeared at Kedesh in Hell 3 loci. It is possible that juglets with flanged rims continued to be used at the site, since they are almost as well represented in Hell 3 loci as they are in Hell

2/2b loci. But because juglets with flanged rims seem on the basis of their distribution in the building and at other sites in the region to have contained a product made or concentrated at the

PHAB, this possibility must be viewed with caution. The squatters may have acquired some

Phoenician SF amphoriskoi or unguentaria. Eight Phoenician SF amphoriskoi occur in Hell 3 loci and 59 in later loci and six Phoenician SF unguentaria occur in Hell 3 loci and another 49 in later loci.

1483 N. Lapp 2008, 282-283, pl. 3.24: 6-11. 1484 Geva 2003, pls. 5.1: 19-20; 5.2: 41; 5.5: 12; 5.6: 27-28; 5.8: 23; Tushingham 1985, figs. 19: 27; 20: 19. 1485 Berlin 2006, 68-70, 73-74, 86-88, 91-93, 99, figs. 3.3; 3.4: 7; 3.8: 43; 3.18; 3.19: 7; 3.23: 16; tables 3.3-4; 3.10; 3.16.

356

Summary

The squatter assemblage is monotonous (Fig. 5.13). Most storage and transport was served by

locally produced jars in tan-gray marl ware, with a few Rhodian wine amphoras and Phoenician

SF baggy jars that bore goods from outside the local environs. One variety of mortarium in hard

mortarium fabric and one form of large jug in tan-gray marl, both local products, were the

principal utility vessels aside from perhaps a few kraters with overhanging rims. Cooking was

done in globular cooking pots in basaltic cooking ware as well as a few in gritty cooking ware,

along with a handful of casseroles in basaltic cooking ware. For the first time at Kedesh since

perhaps early in the Persian period, most cooking vessels came from an inland, rather than a

coastal, source. ESA plates, bowls, mold made bowls, mastoi, and conical cups along with a few

local bowls and saucers in tan-gray marl ware are the only table vessels that can be assigned to

the squatter phase with any certainty. Some number of Phoenician SF jugs, juglets, and table

amphoras, perhaps both scavenged from the abandoned rooms of the building and occasionally

acquired by the squatters themselves, were used for serving liquids. Toilet vessels are limited to

a few tan-gray marl juglets, and Phoenician SF amphoriskoi and unguentaria that may have been

acquired by the squatters. They were clearly poorer than the staff of the PHAB in the middle of

the 2nd century.

Significantly, aside from the ESA assemblage, which was being distributed widely

throughout the Levant and eastern Mediterranean in the late 2nd century,1486 all of the new vessel forms (elongated baggy jars with everted rims, jugs with squared rims and round bottoms, cooking pots with high splayed necks, casseroles with short sharply angled rims, and footless bowls with incurved or plain rims) have earlier or contemporary comparanda almost exclusively at sites to the south, and especially those in the Central Hills. This pattern does not hold for all

1486 E.g., Lund 2005; Lund, Malfatina, and Poblome 2006.

357

sites in the Galilee in the mid to late 2nd century, or even for all sites in the Upper Galilee and

Hula Valley surrounding Kedesh. New centers of ceramic production and new market networks served newcomers to the region in the late 2nd century. Based upon the vessels brought to

Kedesh, their manner of production, their appearance, and the range of the assemblage as a

whole, it is most likely that the squatters came from the Central Hills.

COMPARATIVE LATE 2ND CENTURY ASSEMBLAGES

I have already given an overview of ceramic assemblages of several eastern Mediterranean sites

that are roughly or closely contemporary with the squatter phase at Kedesh (c. 140-123/116)

including Jebel Khalid, Tarsus, Akko-Ptolemais, Dor, Maresha, Shechem, Anafa, Shuhara, and

even the PHAB at Kedesh itself (see pages 258-316, above, Figs. 5.14-15). Indeed, given the

limited datability of most archaeological finds in the region (i.e., pottery), how closely the Hell 3

occupation followed on the Hell 2b abandonment, and how short-lived it was, such overlap is

unavoidable. It will be useful to add descriptions of some settlements founded or resettled from

the mid 2nd to the early 1st century: Jerusalem in the Central Hills, Pella in the Transjordan,

Gamla in the Golan, and the late 2nd century settlement at Shuhara near Kedesh.

The Central Hills: Jerusalem

Jerusalem had a long and storied history prior to the Hellenistic period. It was the capital of the

kingdom of Judah from the beginning of the Iron Age until the Babylonian conquest in 586.1487

The city was refounded with Persian blessing by Nehemiah in the Persian period and many

exiled Jews returned from Babylon to inhabit it, though much of the population surely were the

1487 For discussion see Lipschits (2005, 72-84).

358

descendents of local Jews who had not been exiled.1488 Jerusalem continued to be inhabited into the Hellenistic period with little if any interruption. Excavations in the Armenian Garden, the

City of David, and the Jewish Quarter have uncovered stratified remains (although little architecture) of mid 2nd century and later date. Jerusalem was the capital of the Maccabees after their successful revolt against Seleucid rule in the 160s and their Hasmonean successors in the second half of the 2nd century and first half of the 1st century. We also know that in the second quarter of the 2nd century the city was divided by conflicts between Jews who embraced certain

aspects of Hellenistic civilization and those who were staunchly opposed to both Hellenic

institutions and the outward expressions of Hellenism such as exercise in the gymnasium.1489

The archaeological record of Jerusalem in the 3rd century and first half of the 2nd century is poorly known with the exception of a single well that contains a limited repertoire of plain wares generally comparable to those of Shechem in the 3rd and 2nd centuries: elongated baggy

jars with everted rims, jugs with thickened or squared rims, flasks, cooking pots with high

splayed necks, a casserole with short, sharply angled rim, and a juglet with cupped rim.1490

Residual material of probable 3rd and early to mid 2nd century date has been recovered in other

areas of the city. Most notable among this dispersed material is the regular appearance of a red

slipped plain ware used to produce bowls with incurved and everted rims and saucers with ledge,

drooping or grooved rims that John Hayes named “Palestinian red-slip wares.”1491 These wares

are local analogues of the central coastal fine ware so abundant at Kedesh in the 3rd and early 2nd centuries. It seems then that in the 3rd century the residents of Jerusalem communicated with

local suppliers that peddled the same limited range of cooking and utility vessels as the residents

1488 For discussion see Lipschits (2005, 370-373). 1489 E.g., S. Schwartz (1998). 1490 See Geva and Hershkovitz (2006, 94-99, pls. 4.1-2). 1491 Hayes 1985b, 183, 187-189, figs. 47: 1-2; 15-27; 48: 1-13; Tushingham 1985, 40-41 figs. 19: 8; 47: 11; 48: 1.

359

of Shechem. The presence of slipped tablewares, even if they were also local, indicates that some

of the people of Jerusalem in the 3rd and early 2nd century had a desire for tableware that was not strictly functional. However, there is no evidence that they acquired a broad a range of table and cooking vessels comparable to coastal cities or Samaria (see pages 153-160, above). The residents of Jerusalem in the 3rd and early 2nd century lived in much the same manner as their neighbors at Shechem or the 3rd century residents of Anafa rather than coastal sites or other large

cities in the southern Levant.

We have more evidence from mid to late 2nd century Jerusalem, and in some respects

little changed from the 3rd and early 2nd century. In the mid to late 2nd century the standard transport and storage vessels at Jerusalem were elongated baggy jars with everted rims of the same form as the jars used at Shechem throughout the Hellenistic period and the jars introduced at Kedesh by the squatters.1492 Stamped Rhodian handles are also attested, indicating that goods

from the coast arrived at least on occasion. Jugs with thickened or squared rims and round

bottoms comparable to jugs used throughout the Hellenistic period at Shechem and first used at

Kedesh by the squatters.1493 Jugs with offset rims are also present,1494 as are flasks with long

narrow necks and thickened rims.1495 Kraters with overhanging rims for washing and mixing

occur as well.1496 Most of the shapes for transport, storage, and utility used at Jerusalem in the mid to late 2nd century were local, and conform in style (if not necessarily source) with those used at smaller, more isolated sites in the Central Hills such as Shechem.

1492 Geva 2003, pls. 5.1: 7-9; 5.2: 1-3, 11-12, 16-30; 5.6: 1-9; 5.8: 1-8; 5.10: 1-2; Tushingham 1985, 38-39, figs. 18: 1-3; 12-17; 20: 6 1493 Geva 2003 pls. 5.2: 35; 5.4: 21-22; 5.6: 15-16; Tushingham 1985, fig. 19: 17-24. 1494 Geva 2003, pls. 5.2: 36-37; 5.6: 18-19; 5.8: 16-17; 5.10: 28; Tushingham 1985, fig. 19: 25-26. 1495 Geva 2003, pls. 5.2: 38-39; 5.4: 8, 23-24; 5.6: 21-24; 5.7: 30. 1496 Geva 2003, pl. 5.5: 17; Tushingham 1985, fig. 20: 37-39.

360

The range of cooking and table vessels used at Jerusalem is also of a piece with other

settlements in the Central Hills. Cooking pots with high splayed necks1497 and with splayed

necks and thickened rims1498 were the most popular cooking vessels at Jerusalem, and the former

were produced just outside the city in the mid-late 1st century.1499 Stewpots with splayed necks and thickened rims are attested.1500 Casseroles with short sharply angled rims also appear,1501 and there is at least one casserole with a squared rim.1502 Pans with very short upright tapered rims are attested but they do not conform in form to pans used in the Aegean or Italy in the Hellenistic period.1503 Meals were consumed mainly from locally produced bowls with incurved rims and

flat bottoms identical to those used throughout the Hellenistic period at Shechem.1504 Slipped bowls with incurved rims,1505 and saucers with drooping1506 or thickened rims and flat bottoms

(the latter also unslipped) were used as well.1507 The only recognizable imported table vessels

dated to the second half of the 2nd and early 1st century are several black slipped saucers with ledge or drooping rims,1508 a black slipped bowl with everted rim,1509 ESA footed hemispherical bowls,1510 ESA plates with upturned rims,1511 conical mastoi in an unknown fabric, an ESA mold made bowl,1512 and a painted Nabatean bowl.1513 For serving drink the residents of Jerusalem

1497 Geva 2003, 133-134, pls. 5.1: 27-28; 5.3: 4-6; 5.4: 30-32; 5.6: 34, 36-41; 5.7: 1; Tushingham 1985, 39-40, figs. 18: 30; 19: 1-5; 20: 11. 1498 Geva 2003, 133-134, pls. 5.1: 23-24; 5.3: 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15; 5.4: 11, 28-29; Tushingham 1985, 39-40, fig. 18: 22- 29, 33-34, 36. 1499 Berlin 2005, 30-34, fig. 2; tables 3-4. 1500 Geva 2003, pls. 5.1: 21; 5.3: 14; Tushingham 1985, fig. 18: 37. 1501 Geva 2003, 135-136, pls. 5.1: 30; 5.3: 16-17; 5.7: 2-3; 5.8: 37-38. 1502 Geva 2003, 135-136, pl. 5.4: 33. 1503 Geva 2003, 136, pls. 5.4: 12; 5.10: 31. 1504 Geva 2003, pls. 5.3: 18-22; 5.4: 34-38; Tushingham 1985, figs. 19: 9-10; 20: 22-24. 1505 Geva 2003, pls. 5.1: 33; 5.3: 27-28; 5.5: 2-3. 1506 Geva 2003, pls. 5.1: 34-37; 5.3: 29-33; 5.5: 5, 18-19; Tushingham 1985, fig. 20: 31 1507 Geva 2003, pls. 5.3: 23-26; 5.4: 39-43; 5.5: 1, 6; Tushingham 1985, fig. 20: 34 1508 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003, 206-207, pl. 6.3: 19-21. 1509 Hayes 1985b, 189, fig. 50: 1-4; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003, 206-207, pl. 6.3: 23. 1510 Geva 2003, pl. 5.5: 22; Hayes 1985b, 189, fig. 52: 6. 1511 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003, 194-195, pl. 6.3: 32-35. 1512 Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003, 195, 211 pl. 6.3: 37. 1513 Tushingham 1985, fig. 20: 36.

361

used table amphoras with ledge rims,1514 and possibly juglets with cupped rims.1515 Fusiform

unguentaria appeared regularly at Jerusalem in the second half of the 2nd and early 1st century if their representation in publications is a reliable indicator of their relative abundance.1516

Local transport/storage and cooking vessels dominate the assemblage of Hellenistic

pottery from Jerusalem. Table and service vessels are rare by comparison. Most cooking was

done in deep globular cooking pots for preparing soups and gruels, and accordingly most vessels

for consuming food were small plain bowls and saucers. Plates for serving food to groups and

vessels for serving liquid were scarce. Characterizing the population of such a large and

important city on the basis of material from scrappy fills is difficult, but it seems that most

people in mid 2nd to early 1st century Jerusalem lived a basic lifestyle. The one luxury that seems to have been indulged regularly was the use of perfumes borne in unguentaria. From the middle of the 2nd century to the early 1st century the people of Jerusalem relied mostly on local products.

The only imports they received regularly were Rhodian amphoras and ESA. The latter became a

major component of table assemblages at sites all over the eastern Mediterranean (even inland)

in the late 2nd and 1st century.1517 For a large city, indeed the capital of a Hellenistic kingdom, the mid to late 2nd century ceramic assemblage from Jerusalem is surprisingly lacking in variety.

There is little evidence for foreign cuisine and imported commodities and tablewares were scarce when compared to other cities in the southern Levant and even inland cities and towns just outside the Central Hills like Maresha and Samaria. The insularity of household assemblages at

Jerusalem can certainly be accounted for in part by the distance of the site from the coast and

1514 Geva 2003, pls. 5.2: 32-34; 5.7: 17; 5.8: 13-14. 1515 Geva 2003, pls. 5.1: 19-20; 5.2: 41; 5.5: 12; 5.6: 27-28; 5.8: 23; Tushingham 1985, figs. 19: 27; 20: 19. 1516 Geva 2003, pls. 5.2: 43-49; 5.4: 25-27; 5.5: 13; 5.7: 28-29; 5.8: 25-26; Tushingham 1985, fig. 20: 18. 1517 Magness 2011, 56-57.

362

market routes connected to it (unlike Samaria and Maresha),1518 but it seems that if there were widespread interest in imported goods, cuisine, and modes of entertaining among the city’s residents, they would have sought out these objects and practices more regularly or local potters would have produced their own versions as the potters in the Hula Valley increasingly did as the

2nd century progressed. In short, the assemblage of household goods from late Hellenistic

Jerusalem has much more in common with that of smaller towns in the Central Hills than with other large cities in the region. Many of the city’s 2nd century residents were either unaware, or

not desirous of, imported goods of the sort common on the coast and increasingly available

inland as the Hellenistic period progressed. It is significant though that they did not altogether

reject such goods, and some residents acquired imported goods at least on occasion.

The Transjordan: Pella of the Decapolis

Pella is located in the eastern Jordan Valley approximately 30 km south of the Sea of Galilee,

near the junction of the Jezreel and Jordan valleys. It is listed as one of the ten “Decapolis” cities

founded in the Transjordan at an uncertain date in the Hellenistic period, possibly as outposts of

Hellenism.1519 Evidence for Hellenistic occupation of the site in the 3rd century is scant. There is

an abundance of material from a few undecorated houses and fortifications in the vicinity of the

site dating from c. 200-83. As such, it seems that Pella may have been founded soon after the

Seleucids conquered the southern Levant, possibly to take advantage of increased opportunities

for commerce with Seleucid territory to the north and east. According to Josephus, in 83/2 Pella

was destroyed by the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus as part of a campaign to expunge

1518 Magness 2011, 56-57. 1519 For discussion of how scarce the primary evidence is for the Decapolis as a league of city-states meant to safeguard Hellenism or extend Greek influence in the region see Parker (1975).

363

gentiles from the Transjordan or convert them to Judaism.1520 This destruction left behind an

abundance of well-preserved pottery amid the remains of buildings that were probably modest

houses.1521

The range of transport, storage, and utility vessels at Pella is similar to that at sites in the

Central Hills, the nearby city of Samaria, and squatter Kedesh. The most common jars at Pella throughout the 2nd century are elongated baggy jars with everted rims1522 like those used

throughout the Hellenistic period at Shechem and Dor, and those that appear at Kedesh in Hell 3

loci. These occur in conjunction with jars (some perhaps jugs) with tall concave necks.1523 A large jar with everted rim similar to those used in the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century is attested as well.1524 Water was fetched in jugs with squared rims and rounded bottoms similar to

those used at Kedesh in the squatter phase,1525 jugs with everted rims,1526 and perhaps the jars with tall necks mentioned above. Kraters with overhanging rims were used at Pella late in the 2nd and in the early 1st century since they appear in both earlier 2nd century contexts and early

Roman contexts.1527 Flasks with cupped rims may have been used for carrying water on journeys away from the site.1528

The cooking vessels used at Pella are also similar to those used at sites in the Central

Hills and Kedesh, with the exception of the absence of casseroles. Cooking pots with high splayed necks were used at Pella in the late 2nd and early first century1529 as were cooking pots

1520 Jos. Ant. 13.397 (Marcus 1933, 426-427); War 1.104-105 (Thackeray 1927, 50-51). 1521 Tidmarsh 2000, 173-174. Complete or nearly complete plans of the buildings have not been exposed. 1522 Tidmarsh 2000, 225, figs. 42: 408; 45: 459; 46: 462-465; 47: 484-485, 488-490, 493; 48: 506-509; 49: 510-516, 518. 1523 Tidmarsh 2000, 225-227, figs. 42: 409-412; 45: 458. 1524 Tidmarsh 2000, 224, fig. 41: 401. 1525 Tidmarsh 2000, 225, figs. 42: 407 (published as a jar); 47: 487 (published as a jar); 53: 576. 1526 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 53: 575. 1527 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 30: 277-282. 1528 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 53: 582. 1529 Tidmarsh 2000, figs. 33: 304; 34: 323-325; 35: 326-330.

364

with concave rims.1530 No casseroles are published from late 2nd or early 1st century contexts,

suggesting that the inhabitants did not have a taste for Greek-style cuisine. This is odd because

the city was supposed to be a Greek foundation. The dearth of casseroles at Pella closely

corresponds to the situation at the housing insula at Jebel Khalid in North Syria. Jebel Khalid’s

strategic position, the Greek-style architectural adornment in the acropolis palace, on the temple,

and in the housing insula, and the range of Greek-style table and service vessels make the site

seem a likely Greco-Macedonian colony, as Pella and the Decapolis cities supposedly were.

Perhaps both Jebel Khalid and Pella were populated in part or full by people from the Near East

who eagerly adopted Greek-style material culture, but preferred meals that were familiar to them.

The residents of Pella had a more varied assemblage of table and service vessels than the

people living at Shechem, Jerusalem, and squatter Kedesh. Bowls with incurved rims remained

common at Pella in the late 2nd and early 1st century. Unlike most sites surveyed here most

examples were slipped and had ring feet like the bowls typically found at sites in Greece, the

Aegean, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Levantine coastal sites and most inland sites in the 2nd

century,1531 though at least some examples were unslipped and flat footed like the bowls used at sites in the Central Hills.1532 Bowls with everted rims also may have continued to be used at the site.1533 ESA footed hemispherical bowls were used at Pella in the late 2nd and early 1st

century.1534 A saucer with thickened rim and flat foot is attested in the last phase of occupation at

Pella.1535 BSP fishplates are also attested, though these may have been residual.1536 ESA plates

1530 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 37: 346, 350-351. 1531 Tidmarsh 2000, figs. 23: 162-164, 166-168, 170-176; 24: 177-181, 183-187; 62: 660-662 (in ESA). 1532 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 24: 182. 1533 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 20: 118; 21: 123, 126-128, 131-136. 1534 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 62: 663-664. 1535 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 16: 48. 1536 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 15: 29.

365

with upturned rims1537 and platters with offset rims1538 can be attributed to the late 2nd and early

1st century with greater certainty. Mold made bowls with Attic profiles in ESA1539 and examples with Ionian profiles in wares of the Aegean or Western Asia Minor1540 are the most common late

2nd and early 1st century drinking vessels at Pella. The only other drinking vessel datable to the late 2nd and early 1st century is an ESA conical mastos with interior rim molding.1541

The most numerous service vessels at Pella are mold made juglets and jugs with wide

mouths in an unknown gray ware, probably a local product.1542 Several lagynoi were found in the

deposits associated with the destruction of the site by Jannaeus in 82/3,1543 and an ESA lagynos may have been brought to the site at around the same time.1544 Juglets with cupped rims were probably used for transporting some sort of perfume or similar commodity.1545 Several fusiform unguentaria have been found at Pella as well.1546

Much of the household equipment from Pella (the vessels for transport and storage,

general utility, cooking, and many of the table vessels) corresponds to that used at Shechem and

Jerusalem in the Central Hills in the Hellenistic period. That a gentile city of the Decapolis was

supplied with such a similar range of goods indicates that potting traditions and market routes

spanned groups that were ethnically, culturally, and/or religiously distinct. The residents of Pella

in the late 2nd and early 1st century were fairly well-connected with the outside world, as the regular import of ESA from the northern Levant and appearance of Aegean mold made bowls at the site indicate. The distinctive service vessels and frequency of ESA and slipped bowls and

1537 Tidmarsh 2000, figs. 60: 639-643. 1538 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 61: 656. 1539 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 27: 242-243. 1540 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 27: 241, 244. 1541 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 61: 658. 1542 Tidmarsh 2000, 203-204, fig. 58: 620-630. 1543 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 56: 611-615. 1544 TIdmarsh 2000, fig. 63: 677. 1545 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 54: 586. 1546 Tidmarsh 2000, fig. 55: 600, 610.

366 saucers found at the site betray a desire on the part of the people of Pella to entertain with some standard of style (albeit an idiosyncratic one). Likewise, the presence of a good quantity of toilet vessels at the site suggests that Pella’s residents had a concern with personal adornment and the wherewithal to address it.

The Golan Heights: Gamla

Gamla is located in the Golan Heights just to the northeast of the Sea of Galilee on a rocky spur at the confluence of two wadis. Numismatic evidence indicates that Gamla was inhabited in the late 2nd century.1547 Most of the late 2nd and early 1st century coins at the site are Hasmonean, and

Gamla was one of the only sites in the region not destroyed by Jannaeus during his campaign to de-hellenize the northern end of his domains in 83/2 (unlike Pella).1548 Andrea Berlin interprets this evidence as indicating that Gamla was inhabited by Jews in the late 2nd century, prior to

Jannaeus’ campaign.1549

Ceramic evidence that can shed light on the nature of the 2nd century settlement is scant, and architecture is entirely lacking. As a result, only pottery that can be dated to the late 2nd and early 1st century on the basis of comparanda can certainly be assigned to this early date at Gamla.

Among the vessels that can be assigned to this horizon are Rhodian amphoras, mortaria with extended or curled ridged rims (seven examples), cooking pots with splayed necks and grooved rims (23 examples), BSP bowls with incurved rims, BSP (two examples) and ESA (23 examples) footed hemispherical bowls, BSP fishplates (three examples), ESA plates with upturned rims (34 examples), Phoenician SF table amphoras (three examples), jugs (two examples), lagynoi (two examples), and juglets (two examples), Phoenician SF fusiform unguentaria (20 examples), and

1547 Berlin 2006, 133. 1548 Jos. Ant. 13.394 (Marcus 1933, 426-427); War 1.104-105 (Thackeray 1927, 50-51). 1549 Berlin 2006, 133-135.

367

Phoenician SF amphoriskoi (19 examples).1550 The material listed above indicates that the residents of Gamla were served by market routes connected to the coast. Of course, these vessels only include forms and wares that are identifiable on the basis of well dated material at other sites, and Anafa in particular, so we do not know what local products may have been used late in the 2nd century in addition to these imports and coastal vessels. It is likely that some of the vessel

forms published as part of the 1st century BCE assemblage from the site, were used already late in the 2nd century (see pages 381-383, below). For this reason I have refrained from making

direct proportional comparisons between the ceramic assemblage of late 2nd century Gamla and squatter Kedesh below.

The presence of coastal vessels of late 2nd century date in purely secondary contexts indicates that the Jewish residents of Gamla in the late 2nd century, like the squatters at Kedesh, received goods from coastal suppliers for dining, serving liquid, and toiletries. While it is likely that local vessels made up a higher proportion of their assemblage than coastal and imported vessels, it shows that the late 2nd century residents of Gamla, did not strictly avoid all of the

goods used by gentiles living to the north and west of the Sea of Galilee.

In the Vicinity of Kedesh: Shuhara

The hoard of 22 coins found at Shuhara dating from 148/7-141 (with some issues possibly dating

as late as 139; for discussion of Shuhara in the early to mid 2nd century see pages 295-298,

above) and subsequent break in the numismatic sequence suggests that Shuhara was abandoned

shortly after the PHAB at Kedesh, and shortly before or around the same time as the squatters

moved to the site in c. 140-138, or slightly later. Danny Syon suggests that the hoard was left at

Shuhara just before the site was abandoned due to fighting nearby between forces loyal to

1550 Berlin 2006, 133-135, fig. 5.1; table 5.1.

368

Antiochus VII and his rival Tryphon.1551 The numismatic record at Shuhara picks up again with coins of autonomous Tyre dated to 126/5 and John Hyrcanus dated from c. 125-104, and coins dating as late as c. 76 are found at the site,1552 indicating that Shuhara was occupied in the last

quarter of the 2nd century and first quarter of the 1st century, roughly contemporary with the Hell

2a-c (c. 125-75) occupation of the LHSB at Anafa. As such, Shuhara was not settled until late in

the squatter occupation or even after it had ended, and the site was certainly inhabited for quite

some time after the squatter settlement at Kedesh has ceased.

The architectural remains associated with the late 2nd and early 1st century settlement at

Shuhara are scant and seemingly poor, consisting of three rooms from two different houses.

There are also few ceramic remains known from the site, but they allow for a general impression of what was used at the site and Shuhara’s regional connections. Elongated baggy jars with everted rims in tan-gray marl identical to those that appeared at squatter Kedesh were used for transporting goods to, and storing them at, the site.1553 Tan-gray marl ware jugs with squared

rims and rounded bottoms are also attested.1554 Cooking was done at Shuhara in the late 2nd and

early 1st century in cooking pots with high splayed necks1555 and casseroles with short sharply angled rims,1556 both in basaltic cooking ware. A bowl with plain rim and flat foot in tan-gray marl like those at Kedesh is attested,1557 as is an ESA plate with upturned rim.1558 The assemblage of the late 2nd and early first century settlement at Shuhara closely approximates that of squatter Kedesh.

1551 Syon 2002, 125-126. 1552 Syon 2002, 122, 125-127, table 1. 1553 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 128, fig. 14: 3-4, 6. 1554 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 128, fig. 14: 5, 7. 1555 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 12: 2, 6. 1556 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 12: 4. 1557 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 11: 7. 1558 Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124-125, fig. 11: 8.

369

The small body of late 2nd and early 1st century material published from Shuhara is not sufficient to discuss the lifestyle of its inhabitants in detail. It is clear though that the site received pottery from most of the same sources as the squatters at Kedesh: the eastern Upper

Galilee in which both sites were located, the northern Levant, and the Golan/Chorazim Plateau.

Significantly, the residents of Shuhara apparently continued to receive vessels from these same sources in the last quarter of the 2nd century and perhaps early 1st century, while the nearby

LHSB at Anafa was occupied but not receiving these goods. This suggests that the end of the

squatter occupation at Kedesh did not coincide with the end of production and supply of tan-gray

marl ware in the eastern Upper Galilee and the shipment of basaltic cooking ware from the Golan

or Chorazim plateaus. The production centers and market routes that served squatter Kedesh, and

that were distinct from those that served the PHAB or Anafa, continued to operate in the eastern

Upper Galilee in the late 2nd and early 1st century. There was sufficient demand, presumably in communities inhabited by Jewish settlers from the Central Hills, for the products of the tan-gray marl ware and basaltic cooking ware industries.

Summary

Despite gaining at least nominal independence from Seleucid rule, it seems that the rhythms of daily life and cosmopolitan outlook of people living at coastal cities such as Akko-Ptolemais and

Dor changed little in the mid to late 2nd century (for discussion see pages 278-283, above). These sites remained connected to the same Aegean and northern Levantine suppliers of imported goods that they had been earlier. Indeed, they relied more on imported tablewares, and ESA from the northern Levant in particular, marking a decline in the production of local and regional

tablewares that would be one of the hallmarks of the Roman period in the eastern

370

Mediterranean.1559 Residents of these coastal sites also continued to use a wide array of cooking, table, and service vessels, showing evidence for a sophisticated palate and domestic aesthetic.

Sites in the Central Hills, including the Hasmonaean capital of Jerusalem, contrast strikingly with the cities of the coast. Ceramic assemblages in the Central Hills remained largely unchanged late in the 2nd century, as the continuity of the assemblage at Shechem and the similarity of the assemblage at Jerusalem indicate. Imports were rare and the most common household vessels were elongated baggy jars with everted rims, cooking pots with high splayed necks or thickened rims, a smaller number of deep casseroles with short sharply angled rims, and small unslipped bowls and saucers. The residents of the Central Hills had little taste for cosmopolitan cuisine and corresponding table settings, even as there is ample evidence that these became more common at other inland sites. The appearance of at least some imports at these sites shows that there was nothing taboo about imported goods; most people in the Central Hills were just too poor to, or did not wish to, acquire them.

Maresha, Pella, and Anafa all provide evidence that inland sites in the southern Levant were not necessarily cut-off from imported goods. Despite being located well inland, Maresha was well-connected to the outside world thanks in large part to its position on a caravan route from the coast to the Jordan Valley. There was access to, and interest in, imports from the northern Levant and Aegean, and a wide range of table and service vessels. The people of Pella used many of the same sorts of household goods as residents of the Central Hills, but they also received a greater variety and quantity of imports than people sites in the Central Hills or squatter Kedesh. The people of Pella were equally comfortable with household goods in the local style alongside regional and imported luxuries.

1559 For discussion see Slane (2003).

371

The picture in the inland areas to the north of the Sea of Galilee is a bit murkier than the

sites already discussed. Access to imported goods from the coast and northern Levant was

certainly more widespread throughout the inland Galilee than in the Central Hills. All of the sites

discussed above regularly received ESA imported from the northern Levant, although ESA, other

imports, coastal products, and cast glass vessels were much more abundant at Anafa than at

Gamla, Shuhara, or squatter Kedesh, indicating that the residents of Anafa were more interested

in products and practices of the wider Mediterranean world and had the wherewithal to acquire

them regularly. Such interest is in accord with the elaborate decoration of the LHSB at Anafa

itself. At squatter Kedesh and Shuhara, forms appear in the second half of the 2nd century that have earlier parallels in the inland south, and which do not appear at nearby Anafa. These new forms appear despite the fact that these sites continued to draw on coastal suppliers at least from time to time and despite the continued production of spatter painted ware in the Hula Valley.

Because Kedesh and Shuhara are so near Anafa and the merchants who peddled tan-gray marl ware and basaltic cooking ware vessels must have traveled close to Anafa, it seems that the merchants who peddled them never stopped at Anafa and/or that the residents of Anafa were as uninterested in such goods as the squatters Kedesh were unaware of, or indifferent to, spatter painted ware vessels.

SQUATTER KEDESH IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT

The discussion of assemblages from contemporary sites given above allows us to situate the assemblage from squatter Kedesh and to assess why it was so different from the assemblages used at the PHAB just a few years earlier and the LHSB at Anafa around the time the squatter habitation ended. With the exception of table vessels in ESA and gritty cooking ware necked

372

cooking pots with grooved rims, all the new forms and wares attested in quantity at Kedesh in

Hell 3 loci (tan-gray marl ware elongated baggy jars with everted rims and jugs with squared

rims and rounded bottoms; basaltic cooking ware cooking pots with high splayed necks and

casseroles with short sharply angled rims; and tan-gray marl unslipped bowls with plain or

incurved rims and flat feet) find earlier parallels at sites inland and to the south, most notably

Shechem and Jerusalem in the Central Hills. Parallels for these new forms and wares at sites to

the north of the Sea of Galilee securely dated to the late 2nd century are limited to the small village of Shuhara about eight kilometers to the west of Kedesh that was settled around the time that the squatters left Kedesh. The squatters at Kedesh drew upon sources that were not exploited by the staff of the PHAB (perhaps they were not yet available in the final years of the PHAB) or the residents of the LHSB at Anafa.1560

Despite their access to new sources of pottery, the squatters at Kedesh were also

connected to some of the same (or similar) market routes that had brought goods inland from the

coast to the PHAB and would to bring them to the LHSB at Anafa, as the presence of Rhodian

amphoras, ESA from the northern Levant, gritty cooking ware, and Phoenician SF demonstrate.

The presence of vessels in hard mortarium fabric also indicates that they may have had some

contact with the Hula Valley where Anafa was located, though not nearly as intense as the last

phase of the PHAB when spatter painted ware was brought to the site regularly. It is interesting

that the production of cooking shapes in spatter painted ware broadened in the late 2nd century to include casseroles, which had only arrived at the PHAB at Kedesh from the coast. The potters of the spatter painted ware industry in the late 2nd century seem to have adapted their repertoire to

1560 The absence of southern style vessels in the late Hellenistic period at Anafa has been emphasized by Andrea Berlin (1997a, 20-23).

373

suit the preferences of people such as the residents of the LHSB, whose sophisticated tastes were

reminiscent of the final staff of the PHAB.1561

The range of imports diminished in comparison to the early to mid 2nd century occupation

of the PHAB, and fewer ESA vessels are attested at the site than BSP vessels used in the final

phase of the PHAB, indicating that the squatters did not have the means to acquire fine

tablewares often and/or had only limited desire for them. Although the squatters received goods

from the coast, it is interesting that they did not acquire the full range of goods that the residents

of coastal cities or the PHAB had or those of Anafa would. The squatters did not use sandy

cooking ware cooking pots or casseroles. In fact they used few casseroles at all and only deep

ones in basaltic cooking ware that have parallels in the Central Hills, Shuhara, and at the 1st

century town of Gamla. They did not use pans either unless they used a Pompeian red ware pan

and lid found at the site. The squatters were comfortable with kitchen equipment similar in

appearance and function to cooking assemblages in the Central Hills in the Hellenistic period and

had little interest in cooking vessels from the coast or Hula Valley. Culinary traditions can be

culturally specific since they require specific ingredients prepared (and often served) in a specific

manner. Of course, the adoption of foreign cuisine can signal an interest in or desire to emulate

other cultural traditions as well.1562 If we are to judge from their cooking vessels, the squatters at

Kedesh were thoroughly ensconced in the culinary traditions of the Central Hills and not very

interested in the (originally) Greek-style meals many other people in the southern Levant had

become accustomed to by the late 2nd century.

1561 It is possible that the residents of the LHSB at Anafa were somehow connected to the early to mid 2nd century inhabitants of the PHAB, or that some had even lived at the PHAB 15 years before the LHSB was built, but this cannot be proved with the evidence available. 1562 For discussion pertinent to the archaeological record of the Hellenistic southern Levant see Berlin (1997a, 21-22, 94-95). For illuminating anthropological case studies based in the modern world see e.g., Clark (2004); Wilk (1999).

374

“HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY” AT THE PHAB IN THE EARLY TO MID 2ND CENTURY AND THE SQUATTER SETTLEMENT AT KEDESH

Much material that may have been used by the squatters during the 15 years they lived at Kedesh could be confused with residuals from the PHAB. Indeed, as mentioned above it is even likely that the squatters reused intact vessels that were left behind in the PHAB. Aside from a squatter tabun in which a gritty cooking ware necked cooking pot with pointed rim was found in situ,

there are no primary deposits of squatter material either. But the components of the assemblage

used by the squatters can be isolated with some assurance if we pay attention to which vessels

and wares occur in concentrations with the new squatter forms and wares listed above. As

mentioned above, there are sizable Roman loci in the former dining room of the PHAB with a

high proportion of well-preserved squatter material such as tan-gray marl ware and basaltic

cooking ware (see Table 5.4). The quantities of Phoenician SF and preservation of vessels in that

ware in these loci demonstrate that the squatters used Phoenician SF vessels that came from the

coast, and probably acquired some from passing merchants. Because the repertoire of forms in

Phoenician SF did not change between the abandonment of the PHAB and the erection of the

LHSB at Anafa, it is impossible to say for sure how many Phoenician SF vessels in Hell 3 and

later loci were used by the squatters. Likewise, the gritty cooking ware necked cooking pots with

pointed rims used by the squatters are the same as those used in the final years of the PHAB and

at the LHSB at Anafa. While these continuities make it difficult to determine precisely how

many vessels for certain functions the squatters used, we can still be sure of the components of

the assemblage and present a range for the quantities of vessels serving different functions. Thus

we can examine how the nature of the squatter habitation and the day-to-day activities conducted

at it differed from the PHAB.

375

Unlike the final staff of the PHAB as an administrative center, the squatters used only

mid sized jars for storage and transport, and not large jars functionally comparable to the low-

fired orange ware and low-fired brown ware jars of the previous phase (see Fig. 5.16 for a

comparison of the functional makeup of the Hell 2/2b and squatter assemblages). Forty-nine

local jars suited for both transport and storage were used instead, accounting for 4-8% of the

squatter assemblage and representing at least a modest increase over the final phase of the

PHAB. These jars are more portable than the large local jars used in the PHAB, perhaps

indicating that the squatter settlement was not conceived of as being as permanent. Of course, the

smaller size of many jars would have meant that they held less, and their thinner walls and

portability would have made them more prone to breakage, accounting for a greater proportional

representation of local squatter jars. The complete change in the supply of local jars suggests that

the low-fired brown and low-fired orange ware jars previously made on the eastern Upper

Galilee plateau were no longer produced or that such large storage vessels did not suit the needs

and preferences of the squatters. Phoenician SF baggy jars and Rhodian amphoras were brought

to the site as well, for a total of between three (Rhodian stamped handles stamped with dates)

and 220 coastal and imported jars. These jars account for between 0.5% and 16% of vessels

attributable to the squatter phase (depending on how many are Hell 2 or earlier residuals rather

than squatter acquisitions). It is likely that most of these jars are Hell 2 residuals, given the

frequency in which they occur in Hell 2/2b loci and the much greater number of amphora stamps

dating to the early and mid 2nd century on the site.

Eighty-three to 126 utility vessels that may have been used by the squatters are present.

Included among these are mortaria with curled rims, jugs with squared rims and round bottoms, possibly kraters with overhanging rims, and Phoenician SF flasks. Utility vessels account for

376 between 9% and 13% of the squatter assemblage, compared to 5% of the final PHAB assemblage. As with the jars, a significant class of vessel (jugs for fetching water), was supplied from completely new sources.

Cooking vessels were particularly abundant in the squatter phase although the only vessels represented are basaltic cooking ware cooking pots and casseroles, and some gritty cooking ware necked cooking pots with grooved rims and with pointed rims. All told there are between 371 and 466 squatter cooking vessels at Kedesh, representing between 34% and 59% of the total assemblage, a very dramatic increase over the 12% that they had constituted at the

PHAB in the 3rd century and early to mid 2nd century. The reason for this increase may be that large groups or elaborate entertainments were not hosted by the squatters, so that table and service vessels were less numerous than cooking vessels. The switch from the coastal sandy and gritty cooking ware industries to basaltic cooking ware of the Chorazim or Golan Plateaus represents a major shift in the supply of goods to Kedesh, as residents of the PHAB had relied principally on coastal cooking vessels since at least the 4th century.

ESA bowls and plates, mastoi, and conical cups and small bowls and saucers in tan-gray marl were the only regularly attested squatter table vessels. There are 119 of these at Kedesh, constituting between 9% and 19% of the squatter vessels from the site, for a dramatic decrease from the 3rd century (35%) and early to mid 2nd century (61%) assemblages at the PHAB. Given the great number of squatter cooking vessels used at the site, the small proportion of table vessels is somewhat puzzling. As mentioned above, this shift in the relative ratio of cooking vessels and those for eating food perhaps points to simpler meals and no formal entertainment and the possible use of vessels made in other materials that do not survive, such as wood. The overwhelming use of one cooking pot form supports such an interpretation. Since no new vessels

377

for table service were introduced in the squatter phase, the only potential service vessels are in

Phoenician SF, and many of those recovered in Hell 3 and later loci are surely datable to the last

phase of the PHAB. As a result, there are from zero to 284 service vessels that may have been

used by the squatters, representing 0% to 20% of vessels in the squatter assemblage. The true

proportion is somewhere between the two figures, but it is unclear if more or fewer were used by

the squatters than had been used in the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century when service vessels made up 8% of the assemblage. Given how few table vessels can be attributed to the squatter assemblage and how many service vessels were left behind in the Hell 2b abandonment, it is most likely that service vessels made up much less of the squatter assemblage than they had in the early to mid 2nd century. The squatters had a sufficient array of table and (probably) service vessels to eat basic meals on a daily basis, and little more.

As few as six or as many as 122 squatter toilet vessels are attested at Kedesh, accounting for anywhere from less than 1% to 9% of the squatter assemblage, making it difficult to compare their representation with the Hell 2 assemblage.

Despite the ambiguity concerning the exact quantities of vessels for different functions used by the squatters, one general distinction between the squatter assemblage and early to mid

2nd century PHAB assemblage is clear: vessels for household tasks such as transport and storage, washing, grinding, fetching and pouring water, and cooking made up a higher proportion of the assemblage than they had previously. Conversely, imported jar-borne commodities (probably), table, service (probably), and toilet vessels were far less common in the squatter phase than they had been previously.

Summary

378

Dramatic differences between the household assemblage used at Kedesh in the last half century

of the PHAB and the squatter occupation betray equally dramatic differences between the daily

habits of the final residents of the PHAB and the squatters. Large storage jars like the ones found

in several of the PHAB storerooms went out of use in favor of smaller and more versatile jars.

Vessels for basic household tasks like washing, fetching water, cooking, and grinding make up a

larger proportion of the assemblage than they had in the PHAB and table and toilet vessels

became less common. This indicates that the squatters did not indulge in formal entertainment of

the sort held in the early to mid 2nd century PHAB. The ceramic assemblage used by the squatters betrays a greater emphasis on basic household tasks and none on administrative functions or stylish meals. The ceramic assemblage reflects very well the change of the PHAB from a public building with palatial features to partial reuse as (an) ad hoc house(s) by people who were poorer and had a different standard of life.

“HOUSEHOLD” ECONOMY AT SQUATTER KEDESH AND AT ANAFA

I have already compared the early and mid 2nd century assemblage from the PHAB with that from Anafa, but since the squatter assemblage is more nearly contemporary with the Hell 2a (c.

125-110) assemblage at Anafa, it is equally appropriate. Comparison of Kedesh with Anafa will show how the lifestyles of the squatters compared with a cosmopolitan Phoenician villa in the

Hula Valley. The comparison already made between the early to mid 2nd century PHAB

assemblage and the Hell 2a assemblage at Anafa shows that the assemblages of the two sites

were similar both in terms of functionality and many of the specific vessels used. Thus, some of

the differences between the early to mid 2nd century PHAB assemblage and the squatter assemblage at Kedesh also pertain in a comparison between squatter Kedesh and Anafa.

379

Large storage jars of the sort present at Anafa are not attested at squatter Kedesh, where smaller tan-gray marl jars for transport and storage were the principal transport and storage jars.

These jars in turn were not represented at Anafa. Phoenician SF baggy jars and Rhodian amphoras conveyed coastal wine and oil and Aegean wine to Anafa, and some of the same jars were conveyed to Kedesh, though it is uncertain how many. Jars made up a larger proportion of the assemblage at squatter Kedesh than they did at Anafa, constituting 8-19% at Kedesh and 3% at Anafa (see Fig. 5.17). The smaller local jars used by the squatters would have held less individually and been more versatile functionally since they would be easier to handle with liquid contents. These factors may account for their greater representation at Kedesh.

Utility vessels occur with similar frequency at Anafa (11%) and Kedesh (9-13%).

Mortaria with curled rims in hard mortarium fabric were used at both sites, but the residents of

Anafa continued to use spatter painted ware jugs rather than the tan-gray marl jugs used by the squatters. Residents of both Kedesh and Anafa may have used Phoenician SF flasks and kraters with overhanging rims.

Cooking vessels are more abundant at squatter Kedesh (34-59%) than at Anafa (31%).

With the exception of gritty cooking ware cooking pots, there is little in common between the cooking assemblage used at Kedesh and Anafa, where spatter painted ware cooking pots and casseroles were common, and sandy cooking ware cooking pots and casseroles were used regularly, in addition to a handful of Aegean and Italian pans.

Table vessels were less common at squatter Kedesh (9-19%) than at Anafa (25%). The table assemblage at Anafa is also more varied than Kedesh, including a wider range and greater quantity of ESA vessels along with Phoenician SF and spatter painted ware table vessels, and some imports from western Asia Minor and Italy. In addition, cast glass drinking vessels occur in

380 great quantity at Anafa (as many as 1116), and are only represented in a few examples (34) at

Kedesh. The small tan-gray marl bowls and saucers represented in a handful of examples at

Kedesh do not appear at Anafa. At both sites there are three to four small bowls or saucers (in

ESA and other wares) for every large ESA plate (or platter), suggesting that the plates were used to serve food to small groups of diners.

Since it is difficult to determine how many dedicated service vessels were used at Kedesh it is difficult to compare the assemblage of service vessels with Anafa. Residents of Kedesh used at least a selection of the same range of vessels as those used at Anafa: Phoenician SF table amphoras, jugs, and juglets, though many or all of the vessels in these wares that they used could have been salvaged from the PHAB. Toilet vessels may occur in roughly the same proportion at

Kedesh as Anafa, but it is more likely that they were less abundant at Kedesh and that most of the Phoenician SF toilet vessels found in Hell 3 and later loci were Hell 1-2/2b residuals. The people living at Anafa were more concerned with personal luxuries than the squatters at Kedesh.

Summary

The assemblages of the two sites discussed above correspond to each other fairly closely in terms of functions fulfilled. There are differences in the ratios of cooking and table vessels that suggest that more effort was put into presentation at Anafa than squatter Kedesh. Casseroles are rare at

Kedesh compared to Anafa, and the squatters of Kedesh did not utilize pans at all. The squatters who lived at Kedesh were either supplied with local commodities in jars that people at Anafa were not, or preferred local jars that were multipurpose. Both sites received jar borne commodities from the coast, though it is likely that the residents of Anafa did so with more

381 regularity given the much greater number of Rhodian amphora handles found at the site. Service and toilet vessels were probably used more often at Anafa as well.

What is strikingly different about these two sites are the sources from which their residents received much of their pottery. Both sites received some jar-borne goods, cooking vessels, table, service, and toilet vessels from the coast. However, the residents of Kedesh received most of their jars and jugs from a local supplier that did not reach Anafa and most of their cooking vessels from manufacturers in the Chorazim or Golan plateaus that also did not ship to Anafa. The residents of Anafa used spatter painted ware vessels for storage, utility, cooking, dining, and serving that the squatters did not, and they received vessels in ESA and

Phoenician SF (and cast glass) with greater frequency than the squatters.

The residents of Anafa used a range of household equipment generally similar to sites on the coast and almost exactly identical (substituting ESA for BSP, and with the addition of many glass vessels) to the assemblage used by the final staff of the PHAB. The squatters at Kedesh used goods patterned after household equipment of the Central Hills and either could not afford or avoided some wares and vessels forms that had circulated in the Upper Galilee or Hula Valley for half a century or more prior to their arrival and that would continue in circulation for at least a quarter century after they left Kedesh. Their assemblage of pottery marks them as having distinct patterns of daily life and preferences that correspond to sites in the Central Hills. During the course of their brief occupation of the former PHAB, the squatters did not adopt cuisine traditional in the region, and they could not afford and/or did not develop a taste for elaborate table settings.

AFTER THE SQUATTERS: SITES IN THE LATE HELLENISTIC UPPER GALILEE, HULA VALLEY, AND GOLAN

382

As I have established in Chapters 3 and 4, in the 3rd and 2nd centuries people at coastal sites, and by the middle of the 2nd century many inland sites, used assemblages that would have been familiar at almost any contemporary city in the eastern Mediterranean. People at these sites were urbane even if, like people at early to mid 2nd century Kedesh or the LHSB at Anafa, they did not

actually live in an urban setting. The only sizable area of the southern Levant where this was not

the case was the Central Hills, where the range of goods at most sites changed little during the

course of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, and household equipment was predominantly locally produced and uniformly unvaried.1563

The residents of the LHSB at Anafa drew upon the same sources for pottery as the PHAB

at Kedesh from founding of the LHSB in 125 until its abandonment around 75. This shows that

the material culture used by the squatters does not reflect general trends in the Upper Galilee and

Hula Valley. As such, it would be enlightening to know if the settlers from the Central Hills who

moved north in the second half of the 2nd century eventually became more receptive to local goods and modes of life in their new setting. Unfortunately squatter Kedesh was inhabited for only 15-25 years, and thus a cross-generational assessment is impossible there.

The idiosyncracies in the squatter assemblage might make more sense if considered in relation to the abundant 1st century BCE remains at Gamla, located approximately 25 km to the southeast of Kedesh in the Golan. Unlike squatter Kedesh, there is unambiguous historical and numismatic evidence indicating that Gamla was a predominantly Jewish town (see pages 365-

367, above). Further evidence for a Jewish population in the 1st century BCE is furnished by the

1563 See e.g., Berlin 1997c; N. Lapp 2008; Geva 2003; Geva and Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006; Hayes 1985b.

383

presence of stepped ritual baths (miqva’ot) that are a hallmark of Late Hellenistic and early

Roman Jewish sites.1564

Despite the two generations that separated them, the range of vessels used at Gamla in the

1st century is very similar to squatter Kedesh. At 1st century BCE Gamla, the most common jars

are elongated baggy jars with everted rims, the most common cooking vessels are cooking pots

with high splayed necks and casseroles with short sharply angled rims.1565 Tables at Gamla were

set with ESA plates, dishes, and bowls and small locally produced bowls. Dedicated service and

toilet vessels were rare. Phoenician SF vessels from the coast, in particular, were no longer

brought to the site in the 1st century. All indications are that the people of Gamla were even more

reliant on local products than they had been in the late 2nd century or than the squatters at Kedesh had been in the third quarter of the 2nd century. That the residents of Gamla did not acquire a

greater range of vessels produced on the coast or vessels modeled on them suggests that they

were comfortable and content with the range of goods available locally. Like the squatters, the

people of the prosperous town of Gamla in the 1st century BCE had a clear preference for

material culture of the sort that had been typical of sites in the Central Hills in the Hellenistic

period. Between the late 2nd century and the second quarter of the 1st century their tastes diverged

even further from those of people living at primarily Gentile sites in the region.

Although the range of wares and vessels that made up the assemblages of squatter

Kedesh and 1st century Gamla correspond well with each other and suggest that the residents of each site had a shared cultural background, it is clear from the architecture of the two sites and the ratios of vessels used for different tasks that they were very different sorts of settlements with very different patterns of daily life. The residents of Gamla lived in well-built, if simple and

1564 Berlin 2006, 59-60, table 4.1. 1565 For the 1st century BCE assemblage from Gamla see Berlin (2006, 64-99, 137-144, figs. 3.1-26; 5.4-5.5).

384

unadorned, houses. In addition, at Gamla a public pressing installation for producing oil and a

great quantity of jars for shipping has been found as well as a public ritual bath. The people who

lived at Gamla used both cooking pots and casseroles on a regular basis. Their architecture and

ceramic assemblage signals a settled, secure town where people had put down roots, with

industry for supplying the town and exporting an important commodity. The people of Gamla

were not poor. By contrast the squatters at Kedesh hastily and temporarily repurposed a derelict

building and there is little evidence that they did more economically than simple subsistence

farming.

In this light squatter Kedesh seems a tentative venture, perhaps even exploratory in

nature. Given the date of its establishment just a few years after the abandonment of the PHAB,

we might wonder if the squatters moved north from the Central Hills to an area that may have

been seen as “conquered” by the Hasmoneans after the battle of Hazor. Perhaps the

independence from Seleucid rule achieved by the nearby Phoenician cities of Tyre and Akko-

Ptolemais in c. 126, and the establishment of possibly associated settlements like the luxurious

Phoenician villa at Anafa made the residents wary of their new home. In this scenario, they may

have moved back south to the Central Hills, to a site further inland like Gamla, or to a site that

was less prominent both on the landscape and in recent memory than Kedesh, like Shuhara.

SQUATTER SUMMARY

After more than 300 years of continuous (or nearly so) use as a palatial administrative center, the

PHAB finally went out of use in 143. The people who reused parts of it shortly thereafter had

very different priorities and economic connections from the final staff of the PHAB. The squatters acquired transport/storage jars and utility vessels locally, but from different suppliers

385

than the final staff of the PHAB or the late 2nd century residents of Anafa. These suppliers made jars and water jugs similar to those used in the Central Hills in the Hellenistic period. The squatters also received their cooking vessels from a new regional source on the Chorazim or

Golan plateau to the south. Their cooking assemblage was less varied, suited mostly for soups and stews. The individual components of it were also different in source and appearance from the coastal cooking vessels used at the PHAB from the 3rd century on, and at Anafa in the late 2nd

century (compare Figs. 3.8: 3 and 4.35: 2 with Fig. 5.13: 3). The potters who made the

squatters’ cooking pots and casseroles prepared clay and shaped pots exactly like potters of the

Central Hills in the Hellenistic period. Because this required specific knowledge of clay recipes

and forming techniques, it is logical to suppose that these potters moved north from the Central

Hills themselves. The table assemblage used by the squatters was basic and vessels for serving

liquid formally were few in number. In both quantity and variety, the squatters’ equipment for

dining and drinking pales in comparison with that used by the staff of the PHAB and their guests

in the middle of the 2nd century (compare Fig. 4.36 with Fig. 5.13: 4). The range of pottery used by the squatters closely matches that used in the Central Hills in the Hellenistic period. As I have emphasized in this chapter, this pattern strongly suggests that they were settlers who came north after Jonathan’s victory over the Seleucid forces at the Battle of Hazor.

Perhaps more intriguing than their place of origin is the fact that the squatters used a distinctive range of goods that makes their origin recognizable. In the third quarter of the 2nd

century, evidence from the PHAB at Kedesh (abandoned in 143) and the LHSB at Anafa (settled

c. 125) shows that the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley were serviced by merchants who

carried an impressive volume and variety of pottery imported from abroad (mostly the northern

Levant) or produced on the coast. In addition, a vibrant ceramic industry was active in the Hula

386

Valley. These potters and merchants produced and circulated goods that from a purely functional

standpoint could have served all the squatters’ needs. But the squatters did not acquire just anything that was around; they opted for jars, jugs, and cooking vessels corresponding to southern templates familiar to them. For serving food and liquid at the table, though, they acquired ESA vessels and probably even some in Phoenician SF, presumably from merchants who came inland from the coast. It is possible that the new jars, jugs, and cooking vessels that they used were less expensive than the output of potters on the coast or of the spatter painted ware workshop(s) in the Hula Valley. But it seems unlikely that price was the chief motivation for this pattern because the squatters acquired other coastal products (i.e., Phoenician SF, ESA,

and occasionally gritty cooking ware), possibly carried by the same merchants who peddled

sandy cooking ware. Furthermore, all indications are that the tan-gray marl jugs and jars and

basaltic cooking ware pots were of comparable quality to coastal products and possibly even

superior to spatter painted ware vessels. The acquisition of this specific range of pots by the squatters thus represents a deliberate choice.

The reasons that the squatters chose this particular array of household equipment – familiar cooking vessels from a specific familiar source on the one hand and a modest quantity tablewares imported in bulk and traded widely to settlements of all sorts on the other – are difficult to discern. It seems that it was more important to the squatters that they knew from where/whom they received their cooking vessels than it was to know the source of those used for serving food.1566 Likewise, they were supplied with jar-borne commodities and jugs for fetching water that find parallels in the Central Hills, and in the vicinity only at the contemporary settlement at Shuhara and at the Jewish village of Yodefat in the Lower Galilee.1567

1566 Their acquisition of some vessels in gritty cooking ware shows that adherence to this pattern was not absolute. 1567 See Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov (2002) for discussion.

387

It was important to at least some of the squatters that certain commodities and/or goods

(jars, jugs, cooking vessels) came from specific sources and that meal preparation corresponded

to traditions with which they were comfortable. These traditions apparently extended even to the

look and feel of the pots themselves. A consideration of the evidence for Jewish purity concerns

in the late Hellenistic and early Roman period might help us account for these choices because

they show that some people in the southern Levant in the 1st centuries BCE signaled social differences with material culture.

In the time of the First Jewish Revolt against the Romans (66-70 CE) material culture including ritual baths (miqva’ot) and limestone and chalk vessels that were (unlike their ceramic analogues) impervious to defilement were common at Jewish sites throughout the southern

Levant.1568 These are not standard finds at other eastern Mediterranean sites in the Roman period, and the use of this material culture, like the avoidance of figural decoration in Jewish art of the period, was used by Jews to distinguish themselves from people in the gentile communities that surrounded them. What is interesting about this situation is that many people within the Judean Jewish community understood the purity concerns implied by use of this material culture and the social and religious distinctions that it signaled.

When did it become normal to employ seemingly mundane material culture in this way?

The archaeological evidence we have suggests that it did not happen all at once. Miqva’ot first appear at Jewish sites sometime in the first half of the 1st century BCE, and stone vessels do not

appear regularly until the late 1st century BCE. Likewise, there is little evidence for a coherent

Jewish iconography (e.g., menorah, tabernacles) before the 1st century BCE.1569

1568 For discussion and chronology of evidence for Jewish ritual purity concerns (halakhah) visible in household installations and equipment see Berlin (2012), Magen (2002, 138-164), and Magness (2011, 16-23, 54-76). 1569 For a sense of how little evidence there is for a coherent Jewish iconography before the 1st century BCE survey Goodenough (1953a; b; 1965).

388

Despite the dearth of easily recognizable signs of Jewish identity in the archaeological

record of the mid to late 2nd century, the literary record indicates that it was a time when many

Jews first became interested in expressing their identity. According to the author of 1

Maccabees, in the second and third quarters of the 2nd century, Judean society was divided between “Hellenizers” who had surgeries to reverse circumcision and petitioned Antiochus IV to establish a gymnasium in Jerusalem and to worship Zeus at the temple, and people with a more traditional outlook.1570 The latter were the followers of the Maccabees and the accounts of 1 and

2 Maccabees and Josephus make it clear that they were concerned with cultural divisions within

Jewish society as much as they were with the political reality of Seleucid rule. Perhaps in the 2nd

century, the greater access that wealthy members of the Jewish community like the Tobiads had

to Hellenistic luxuries of the sort described in Chapter 4 (see pages 183-187, 325-326, above)

had a role in prompting this conflict within Jewish society. Greek-style objects were scarce in the

Central Hills throughout the Persian and Hellenistic period, but there is no concrete evidence for

a systematic aversion to Greek culture prior to the reign of Antiochus IV (r. 175-164).1571 The condemnation of intermarriage between Jews and foreigners in the mid 2nd century Book of

Jubilees demonstrates this well.1572

If we suppose that the squatters who inhabited Kedesh briefly in the late Hellenistic period were Jews from the Central Hills, it is possible that they used familiar jars, jugs, and cooking vessels and largely avoided functional equivalents produced locally or regionally to

1570 1 Macc 1.11-15 (Goldstein 1976, 199). 1571 See for example the extremely short account of Hellenistic events before the reign of Antiochus IV in 1 Maccabees 1.1-10 (Goldstein 1976, 189), and the idyllic account of affairs before the Maccabean revolt in 2 Maccabees 3.1 (D.R. Schwartz 2008, 181). Josephus also records no hostility towards Hellenistic culture on the part of Jews prior to the reign of Antiochus IV. Jos. Ant. 12.1-153 (Marcus 1933, 2-79). Indeed, Josephus begins his account of the events that led up to the first Jewish revolt against the Romans with the reign of Antiochus IV. Jos. War 1.31 (Thackeray 1927, 16-19). Seth Schwartz (1998, 43) suggests that rejection of Greek culture first became emphatic in the context of the Maccabean revolt. For discussion of the Jewish community in Judea prior to the Maccabean revolt see Bickerman (1988, 69-80, 117-129); Hengel (1981, 18-31, 39-57; 1989a; 1989b). 1572 Jub. 30.7-8, 14-15. For translation and discussion see Werman (1997, 11-12, 16-17, 21).

389

show their personal discomfort with, or rejection of, Greek culture. In the absence of a well

established Jewish iconography in the mid 2nd century or of household purity laws and equipment of the sort that are evident in the archaeological remains of the early Roman period,

Judeans in the decades just after the Maccabean revolt may have used whatever ad hoc, tentative, and idiosyncratic means were at their disposal to signal their discomfort with or opposition to the

Hellenizing currents of the Hellenistic world. We cannot determine whether or not the squatters at Kedesh late in the 2nd century were Judeans; they may have been people with a similarly

insular outlook (e.g., Samaritans) from whom we do not have an abundance of written evidence

that illuminates the variety of attitudes towards the cultural environment of the 2nd century.

CHAPTER 6-THE PHAB AND ENVIRONS OVER TIME

GENERAL INTRODUCTION: THE PHAB AT KEDESH AS A CASE STUDY IN CULTURAL CHANGE

As mentioned in the introduction, the goals of this dissertation have been to show how daily

habits and preferences changed in the politically chaotic environment of the southern Levant

from the Persian period until the twilight of Seleucid rule in the late 2nd century (see Figs. 6.1-2

for the location and geography of the southern Levant). In Chapters 2-5, I described the

assemblages of pottery used in the Persian and Hellenistic administrative building at Kedesh

(hereafter PHAB) while it operated under Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid rule, and during a

brief squatter occupation of the semi-ruined building following the defeat of Seleucid forces

nearby at the hands of a Hasmonean army in 143. In each of these chapters I compared the

PHAB’s assemblage to contemporary sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Having discussed the

ceramic evidence from the PHAB at Kedesh and comparative sites, it is possible to draw

conclusions about economic interconnections and cultural change in the southern Levant.

From the early 5th century until its abandonment in the middle of the 2nd century, the

PHAB at Kedesh was a conspicuous landmark in the Upper Galilee (see Fig. 6.3 for the environs of the PHAB and Figs. 6.4-5 for the building itself). This span is defined historically in the southern Levant by the rule of the Persians (c. 529-332), the conquest of the region by Alexander the Great and squabble of his successors over it (332-301), Ptolemaic rule and the Syrian wars fought with the Seleucids (301-200), Seleucid rule over the region (200-143),1573 and the

Maccabean revolt followed by the rise of the Hasmonean kingdom and steady disintegration of

1573 The latter date refers to the circumstances at Kedesh and in the Upper Galilee itself, where the Seleucids lost effective political influence after Jonathan Maccabee’s victory in 143. 1 Macc. 11:63-74 (Goldstein 1976, 471-473). 391

Seleucid power (167/6-104). While these historical events were taking place, economic and social changes both drastic and subtle occurred. These changes are evidenced in the great volume of Persian and Hellenistic archaeological remains found in the region. Kedesh is located in the

Upper Galilee, an area that was little remarked upon in antiquity and which was seemingly a backwater in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Thus, from the vantage of the PHAB we can compare the activities and tastes of people who enjoyed favored status under the Persian,

Ptolemaic, and Seleucid regimes with people who lived in provincial villages, towns, and cities.1574 We are also able to assess this diachronically: to see how people at Kedesh and these other sites adjusted their lifestyle in the face of shifting borders, political and economic priorities that changed with each regime, and the increasing presence of people, attitudes, and goods that were initially foreign to the region.

The household debris that people throughout the southern Levant left behind reflects the priority put on different sorts of domestic and economic activities at a site, the availability of different goods via local, regional, and international market routes, and the wherewithal that people had to acquire them. Once the range of available goods from which people at a given site could choose has been established, it is possible to explore their preferences for specific commodities, certain sorts of cuisine, and and whether they took a basic or sophisticated approach towards entertaining. In other words, household goods give us a window into people’s daily habits, economic interconnections, sense of style, and their familiarity with objects and practices charged with cultural meaning such as meals prepared in a traditional or exotic manner or elaborate table settings. Most of this household debris is pottery (see e.g., Fig. 6.6), and it is for this reason that it has been the principal evidence discussed in the chapters above.

1574 As I noted in the introduction, evidence from houses at Kedesh is not available.

392

In this chapter I give a diachronic summary of what ceramic assemblages signal about changing lifestyles in the southern Levant from the Persian period through the middle of the 2nd century. I follow this with an overview of the assemblages from each phase of the PHAB at

Kedesh. I conclude with a reflection on what the evidence presented in this dissertation reveals about taste, lifestyle, and the scope of cultural transformation in the Persian and Hellenistic

Levant.

DIACHRONIC OVERVIEW OF ASSEMBLAGES IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT FROM THE PERSIAN PERIOD TO THE 2ND CENTURY

In Chapters 2-5, I surveyed the ceramic assemblages from representative sites in the southern

Levant in the periods under discussion and contextualized them vis-à-vis other well published sites in the eastern Mediterranean. A few general patterns can be seen over time. The range and sources of pottery imported to the southern Levant changed greatly from the Persian period to the 3rd century and in turn from the 3rd century to the 2nd century. These changes occurred in part as a result of political circumstances such as shifting borders and destabilizing warfare in the region. But they were also influenced by wider trends in the production and circulation of goods and, of course, local needs and desires. During the centuries that the PHAB was inhabited there was naturally at least some general disparity between assemblages on the coast, which were supplied directly by ships from abroad, and at inland sites that would have required merchants to bring such goods inland. For this reason I will discuss coastal and inland sites separately (see

Figs. 6.2-3 for maps of the southern Levant).

Assemblages and Lifestyles on the Coast

393

As a result of frequent contact with foreign merchants and travelers, ready access to imported

goods, and their own curiosity, many people living at cities on the coast in the Persian and

Hellenistic periods were familiar with foreign goods, cuisine, dining practices, and modes of

décor. In the Persian period, people at most coastal sites used vessels for transport, storage, and

general household tasks such as fetching water and washing that corresponded to vessels at sites

throughout the southern Levant. These vessels are also generally similar to vessels that were used in the region from at least the 7th century on. Wine was shipped from the Aegean or Cyprus regularly, as was perfumed oil transported in Attic lekythoi. Residents of coastal cities used deep, globular cooking pots suited for cooking traditional Levantine dishes as well as casseroles for cooking Greek-style meals at least on occasion. In the Persian period East Greek and

Attic/Atticizing pottery arrived regularly on the coast. By the 4th century imported Attic and

Atticizing pottery made up the bulk of the table assemblage at several sites (e.g., Dor, Michal,

Ashdod). Although many of their household goods were made in a traditional manner, people

living on the coast in the Persian period had a taste for specific foreign commodities like wine

and perfume, and for Greek-style cuisine and table settings.

The proportion of imported tablewares at coastal sites in the southern Levant went down

in the 3rd century, and most that arrived came from Cyprus or the Aegean islands and western

Asia Minor. Imported Attic pottery largely disappeared by the second quarter of the 3rd century, though this is a result of the decline of the Athenian export market, rather than a trend specific to the Levant. Even as the number of imports decreased in the 3rd century, locally or regionally produced versions of Greek-style cooking, table, and service vessels became a normal component of household assemblages at coastal sites, and Aegean wine remained common.

Despite a change in the volume and sources of imported pottery, local production of Greek-style

394

cooking and table vessels on the coast demonstrates that the use of such goods was an ingrained regional habit by the 3rd century. In other words, Greek-style goods served what were now local tastes.

In the 2nd century, when the southern Levant came under Seleucid rule, table vessels from

the northern Levant came to make up the bulk of coastal table assemblages, reflecting increased

trade up and down the Levantine coast once these regions were politically unified. Wine

amphoras and tablewares from the Aegean and western Asia Minor still arrived regularly, and

more exotic imports from Italy appeared occasionally. Coastal potters produced greater numbers

of vessels for formal service of wine than they had in the 3rd century, and these were marketed at inland sites along with imported wine. Pans and casseroles for preparing Greek style cuisine were commonplace by the 2nd century. People on the southern Levantine coast continued to use

Greek-style goods and became even more accustomed to culinary habits and modes of serving

food and wine that were common all over the eastern Mediterranean.

Assemblages and Lifestyles Inland

From the 5th to the 2nd century, people living at many inland sites became increasingly (if slowly)

acclimated to the sorts of goods available on the coast. In the Persian period, most inland sites in

the southern Levant relied principally on local producers and suppliers for their household

pottery. Commodities like wine and oil from the coast were widespread but not circulated in

great volume. As on the coast, many local storage and utility vessels were similar in form to their

predecessors at the end of the Iron Age. Assemblages of cooking, table, and service vessels all

display much less functional and stylistic variety than at sites on the coast. Deep globular

cooking pots were the only sort of cooking vessels used and most table vessels were locally

395 produced and unadorned. Vessels clearly meant for drinking and serving liquid and toilet vessels were scarce, as were Attic or East Greek tablewares of the sorts abundant on the coast. In short, there is little evidence for awareness (or appreciation) of imported goods from the west or Greek- style cuisine and table settings at inland southern Levantine sites in the Persian period. This characterization even pertains for sites on the edges of the coastal plain like Gezer and Lachish in the Shephelah, and at sites with palatial architecture like Lachish and Kedesh itself. The ports of call on the coast, where Greek merchants and travelers presumably interacted with locals, represented the eastern limit of substantial cultural interchange in the Persian period.

In the 3rd century, during which the Ptolemies ruled the southern Levant, the outlook of residents at some inland sites began to change. Many small villages and towns (e.g., Shechem,

Anafa) were still supplied entirely locally and their ceramic remains do little to suggest any tendency towards cosmopolitanism deeper than the local production in some areas like the Hula

Valley of vessels in slipped wares that are vaguely Greek in style. Even these vessels were not necessarily conscious imitations of Greek originals, since regionally produced models existed as close as the coast. More significantly, the functional range of vessels remained as limited as it had been in the Persian period, suggesting that there was no attempt to emulate foreign meals or table settings. People at small inland villages and towns only used one or two forms of local jars and utility vessels, deep globular cooking pots, and small bowls for dining. Drinking, service, and toilet vessels for unguents and perfumes were all very rare. Sites with an official function

(e.g., Samaria, Kedesh) and/or cities founded by the Ptolemies (e.g., Beth Yerah-Philoteira) along major trade routes between the coast and inland areas received markedly more varied assemblages. All of these sites were supplied with jar borne goods from the coast, and some

(e.g., Samaria) received a steady supply of Aegean wine amphoras. People at these larger and

396

better-positioned sites used cooking vessels for preparing both local and Greek-style cuisine,

table assemblages including several shapes for consuming food, and at least some vessels for

drinking and serving wine and conveying perfumes. While all official sites and cities on the

interior were connected to the coast, imports from abroad (mostly Cyprus and the Aegean or

western Asia Minor) only arrived regularly at sites along the Jezreel Valley, the only major,

well-populated trade route, and not in more isolated regions like the Central Hills and Upper

Galilee (see Figs. 6.2-3). This suggests that merchants who peddled imports only bothered to do so in areas with large populations of people who were desirous of them (see pages 169-172, above).

In the 2nd century the differences between life on the coast and at many inland sites

became even less apparent. Coastal goods, regionally produced and imported cooking pots, pans,

and casseroles, a broader range of imported table wares (most from the northern Levant),

imported wine amphoras, and full sets of vessels for drinking and serving wine are present at

inland sites throughout most of the southern Levant (e.g., Samaria, Maresha, Beth Yerah-

Philoteira, Anafa, Kedesh). Sites in the Central Hills like Jerusalem and Shechem are notable

exceptions. Over the course of the 3rd and 2nd centuries coastal and imported goods, more elaborate service of food and wine at the table, and a taste for Greek-style cuisine and interior décor became the norm at many inland sites.

Accounting for the increased volume of imports and variety in inland assemblages as the

Hellenistic period progressed is no straightforward matter, and several factors were probably involved. Notable among these was the increased presence at colonies like Samaria of Greeks or

Macedonians, who would presumably want ready access to goods of the sort they were familiar with back home. In the wake of the collapse of the Athenian export industry, local and regional

397

production of Greek-style table vessels served the needs of both residents of the coast, who were

already accustomed to them, and of new settlers from Greece or Macedonia in the region. It

seems that people throughout much of the region took a liking to shapes of Greek inspiration in slipped wares once they were regularly available, even if (in the 3rd century) they did not seek or

use the entire functional range of vessels typical on the coast. The production of only small

slipped bowls with incurved and everted rims, and no saucers, by potters in the Hula Valley in

the 3rd century illustrates this well. These bowls were the functional equivalents of the unslipped

bowls used in the Persian period – style alone set them apart. Bowls of this sort were considered

suitable by the people at the small 3rd century settlement at Anafa, but the people living at

Kedesh wanted not just Greek-style table wares, they wanted sets including both bowls and saucers that could accommodate more elaborate settings. It was only over time, and perhaps with the expansion of trade between the coast and inland areas under the Seleucids, that the residents of inland sites came to use the full functional range of goods favored by people on the coast.

Greek-style cooking and table vessels became so common in the region that by the middle of the

2nd century it is difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that the people who did not regularly receive or produce them, principally those who lived in the Central Hills, chose not to.

DIACHRONIC OVERVIEW OF ASSEMBLAGES AT KEDESH FROM THE PERSIAN PERIOD TO THE 2ND CENTURY

The PHAB was erected in the 5th century on a massive scale and with architectural adornment (a colonnaded entrance court) only paralleled at one other site in the region, the palatial “residency” at Lachish. The PHAB was more elaborate than the storage forts erected elsewhere in the Levant in the Persian period, the only buildings in the region aside from Lachish that approximate the

PHAB in scale. Nevertheless, the quantity of locally made jars for transport and storage at

398

Kedesh indicates that stockpiling goods was an important aspect of the PHAB’s function, much

like the storage forts located at Nahal Tut and Michal. The staff of the PHAB, who were possibly

local Phoenicians charged with overseeing the collection of produce and monitoring the route

between the coast and inland areas, had access to coastal and imported commodities and vessels

for cooking and dining. However, they did not eschew local commodities, and most of their table

vessels were also locally produced. Almost all of their cooking vessels were brought from the

Chorazim or Golan plateaus early in the Persian period and Akko on the coast towards its end.

They did not embrace the Greek-style cuisine prepared in casseroles that many people living at

coastal cities did by the 4th century. Likewise, although a substantial quantity of Attic and

Atticizing table vessels have been found at the PHAB (152 in total), these vessels were acquired over the course of more than a century and a half, and they did not include as great a functional or stylistic range as the Attic/Atticizing assemblages at coastal sites. Sympotic equipment, in particular, is almost entirely lacking at Kedesh. The most common Attic vessels were small bowls for food that are functional equivalents of local bowls for food. The choice of this particular array of Attic vessels by the residents of Kedesh suggests that these pots were incorporated into traditional entertainments, and were not used to dine (or drink) in a Greek manner (for the Persian period assemblage see Fig. 6.7).1575

The people who operated the PHAB in the Persian period were important, and almost certainly wealthy. But these qualities did not translate into recognizably cosmopolitan tastes in food, modes of entertainment, and daily household equipment. For most tasks and occasions, local goods of the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula Valley were considered wholly adequate. In these preferences there is little apparent difference between Kedesh and sites in its immediate

1575 Shannan Stewart (2010, 227-232) has noted a similar phenomenon among early and middle Hellenistic Greek and Greek-style vessels used at Gordion in Turkey.

399

hinterland (Anafa and Hazor) or other inland sites in the southern Levant (including the

residency at Lachish), whose residents relied heavily on local goods as well, but who still

received at least some cooking and table vessels from the coast.

After Alexander the Great’s conquest in 331 and the Wars of the Successors (323-301)

the southern Levant became the northern buffer for the Ptolemaic kingdom based in Egypt. The

PHAB was put to use as a Ptolemaic administrative center or the seat of a royal estate or an estate entrusted to a court favorite. The references to grain being collected at and/or distributed from Kedesh in the Zenon papyri indicate that it had a place in the Ptolemaic bureaucracy.1576

Still, the precise layout and décor of the 3rd century PHAB (phase Hell 1) are largely a mystery.

It is also difficult to identify the cultural background of the people who used the building, who

could plausibly have been Greeks, Macedonians, or Phoenicians. Despite these uncertainties

regarding the plan of the building and the precise identity of the people who lived there, we have

a large sample of pottery dating to the 3rd century that can tell us much about the function of the

PHAB and nature of the 3rd century habitation. The proximate sources of supply for commodities

and ceramic goods changed little from the Persian period, suggesting that Alexander the Great’s

conquest and quarter century of turmoil after his death did not have a great immediate impact on

local economies or patterns of production. Local produce was still stockpiled at the PHAB in the

same sorts of jars as in the Persian period. Commodities such as wine and oil from the coast

arrived at least on occasion just as they had in the Persian period, and Aegean wine amphoras

remained scarce. Also like the Persian period, most household vessels for general utility were

acquired from local producers. Cooking vessels used at Kedesh in the 3rd century came primarily

from the coast as they had towards the end of the Persian period. But although deep globular

1576 Durand 1997, 55-72, 102-105 (P. Cairo Zen. I 59.004; P. L. Bat. 20, 32); Edgar 1925, 7-10 (P. Cairo Zen. I 59.004).

400

cooking pots for preparing traditional cuisine were still the standard cooking vessels used, the 3rd century staff of the PHAB acquired at least a few casseroles for preparing Greek-style cuisine.

Perhaps such meals were only prepared on special occasions or only consumed by certain members of the PHAB’s staff.

Unlike the Persian period, when tables at Kedesh were set with locally produced table vessels supplemented by Attic and Atticizing imports, in the 3rd century the residents of Kedesh

relied almost exclusively on Greek-style table vessels produced regionally at the Phoenician

cities of Akko-Ptolemais and/or Tyre on the coast. Local table vessels of the Hula Valley or

eastern Upper Galilee and imported table vessels from Athens, Cyprus, and the Aegean or

western Asia Minor (via the coast) were acquired only occasionally. The scarcity of international

imports is probably a result of the PHAB’s position at a distance from major population centers

and the market routes that served them. This distance would have made the Upper Galilee an

unprofitable zone for merchants peddling imported goods that were subject to duties under the

Ptolemies and that were not abundant even on the coast.1577 Even though imports were rare in the

3rd century, the staff of the PHAB used a wider array of table vessels than their Persian period

predecessors or their contemporaries at the nearby village of Anafa. Their table assemblage

featured multiple forms of bowls and saucers, as well as drinking and some service vessels.

Coastal merchants visited the Kedesh often enough that people living there could rely almost

solely on coastal producers for their table and cooking vessels, even though almost all of their

utility vessels originated locally in the Hula Valley. This discrepancy attests to the tastes of the

PHAB’s staff. They eschewed local products for the preparation and presentation of meals unlike

the people of the village at Anafa, who used a basic assemblage of cooking and table vessels

produced in the Hula Valley, and who did not use drinking or service vessels at all. When

1577 For discussion see Tcherikover (1937).

401

culinary preference and manner of presentation mattered, the people living at Kedesh in the 3rd century chose goods made and shipped from the cosmopolitan cities of the coast over local products (see Fig. 6.8 for the 3rd century assemblage from Kedesh).

In the first half of the 2nd century, while the southern Levant was part of a Seleucid

kingdom that included Mesopotamia, Syria, the Northern Levant, and much of Asia Minor, the

PHAB was a large and elaborately decorated building, featuring dining and reception rooms with

tessellated floors and drafted and painted stucco wall decoration in imitation of stone veneer.

Such interior décor is comparable to lavish residences in major centers of the Hellenistic world

like Pergamon and Delos. The clay bullae in the archive room of the PHAB include a large

number featuring Greek gods and goddesses and veristic portraits carved in Hellenistic style as

well as Phoenician motifs such as the goddess Tanit in conjunction with a Phoenician inscription

reading “he who is over the land.”1578 These bullae suggest that the administrators who operated

from the PHAB were Phoenicians from Tyre or Akko-Ptolemais who were familiar with the

contemporary visual culture of the eastern Mediterranean. It may be that the 3rd century staff had been Phoenicians as well, especially since they enjoyed such strong market connections with the coast, but if they were, they left behind no definitive evidence.

The early to mid 2nd century ceramic assemblage of the PHAB (phase Hell 2) underscores

its official function and the sophistication of its staff. Several rooms of the PHAB were stocked

with large, locally produced storage jars when it was abandoned, indicating that as under Persian

and Ptolemaic rule there was a concentration of produce at the site. The administrators at Kedesh

may have been in charge of collecting produce to supply the Phoenician ports of Akko-Ptolemais

and Tyre or stockpiling provisions for caravans and/or military units traveling to and from the

1578 For the Bullae see Ariel and Naveh (2003); Herbert (2003b); Herbert and Berlin (2003a, 45, 50-52, figs. 26-28); Cakmak (2010); Lesperance (2010).

402

coast.1579 The local storage jars brought to Kedesh were produced in a different ware and manner

than the Persian and 3rd century jars at the site, marking a change in patterns of local production

and supply in the early 2nd century. Local transport jars were no longer used regularly though, suggesting that locally produced commodities such as wine or oil were not often brought to the site,1580 at least by the time it was abandoned in 143 (see Fig. 6.9 for the early to mid 2nd century assemblage of storage and transport vessels from the PHAB). The residents of Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century instead received shipments of wine and oil from the coast and abroad with greater frequency than their Persian period or 3rd century predecessors.

Utility vessels were still supplied by producers in the nearby Hula Valley as they had

been since the Persian period. Globular cooking pots continued to be used, as casseroles became

more common, and a few pans from the Aegean and coastal versions of the same joined the

repertoire of cooking equipment at Kedesh (see Fig. 6.10 for the early to mid 2nd century utility and cooking assemblage). Casseroles were customary at the PHAB in the 2nd century, and the

use of pans suggests that people at Kedesh kept pace with contemporary culinary trends on the

coast and in the Aegean.

The staff of the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century used a much more varied

assemblage of table and service vessels than their Persian period or 3rd century predecessors (see

Fig. 6.11 for the 2nd century table and service assemblage). As in the 3rd century, table vessels

were still largely supplied by coastal producers and merchants early in the 2nd century, although by the middle of the 2nd century imported tablewares from the northern Levant and the Aegean or western Asia Minor had supplanted the regional products of Akko-Ptolemais and/or Tyre that

1579 Herbert and Berlin 2003a (48-54). 1580 It is possible that local wine and oil were brought to Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century in skins that are not preserved. Even if this were the case, the increase in coastal jars and imported amphoras in Hell 2/2b loci indicate greater consumption of coastal and imported wine and oil than in the Persian period or 3rd century.

403

made up the bulk of the 3rd century table assemblage, even though tablewares continued to be produced at these coastal centers throughout the 2nd century. The great profusion of vessels from

the northern Levant suggests that the removal of the border between Ptolemaic and Seleucid

territory to the north of Kedesh and the cessations of hostilities along the coast encouraged trade

that had either been actively discouraged by the Ptolemies or accidentally disrupted by the five

Syrian wars of the 3rd century. Behaviors travelled with these pots. Plates and service vessels similar to those used at Kedesh, and produced in the southern Levant by the middle of the 2nd century, were common from early in the Hellenistic period in sites in the Seleucid heartland such as Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates and Failaka-Ikaros in the Persian Gulf.1581 It seems that a

knowledge of, and interest in, entertainments that featured plates for serving food to groups and

vessels for drinking and serving wine (see e.g., Fig. 6.12) came across the former border as a

result of increased intercommunication.

In addition to northern Levantine vessels, more exotic imported tablewares from the

western coast of Asia Minor, Italy, and even Mesopotamia appeared at least on occasion,

attesting to the ability of members of the PHAB’s staff to acquire goods via rarefied economic or

social networks (see Fig. 6.13: 1). The presence of these exotic vessels may indicate that the

administrators of Kedesh traveled widely on business or diplomatic errands themselves, or that

they hosted well-traveled individuals who had access to goods not often circulated in the region.

Several of these rare imports were found in the archive room (see Fig. 6.13: 2) possibly

indicating that these vessels were mementos of visits from distinguished guests and/or that they

were only used for entertaining on special occasions.

Another significant change between the 3rd and 2nd century assemblage at the PHAB was

the increase in local cooking and table vessels in spatter painted ware of the Hula Valley. Their

1581 See Hannestad (1983).

404

appearance at Kedesh does not represent a major change in local production patterns because

spatter painted ware cooking and table vessels were already used nearby at Anafa in the 3rd century. It also does not signal a change in market routes since almost all utility vessels acquired by the residents of Kedesh in the 3rd century were spatter painted ware vessels from the Hula

Valley. Rather, their acquisition of spatter painted ware cooking, table, and service vessels signals that the staff of the PHAB in the 2nd century liked the products of workshops in the Hula

Valley more than their 3rd century predecessors had, even as a greater quantity and variety of imports had become available. Part of the explanation is surely to be found in the expanded range of shapes produced in spatter painted ware in the 2nd century. The same range of utility vessels continued to be made, but there is a greater diversity of cooking pot forms based upon coastal models. The production of plates and service vessels in addition to bowls of the sort made in the 3rd century shows that in the 2nd century local demand in the nearby Hula Valley for

varied cuisine table settings had increased.

Lastly, it should come as little surprise given the increased variety of cooking, table, and

service vessels at Kedesh in the 2nd century that toilet vessels for personal luxuries such as perfumes and ointments were more abundant and varied than they had been in the 3rd century.

Some of these perfume vessels may have been filled and stockpiled at the PHAB. If associates or merchants with exotic gifts or merchandise (e.g., table vessels in Mesopotamian glazed ware) did visit the PHAB, specialty aromatics or medicines like the styrax extract that may have filled the juglets with flanged rims so abundant at Kedesh would have made fitting reciprocal gifts or trade goods. Indeed, one of the only other places where these juglets have been found is Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, the site of a Seleucid governor’s palace and luxurious houses (see pages 33-35,

258-273, above).

405

In short, the people who staffed the PHAB and lived at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd

century were familiar and comfortable with a wider range of cooking and dining equipment than

either the Persian period or 3rd century staff and had greater access to imported commodities

(compare Figs. 6.7 and 6.8 with Figs. 6.9-13). The staff of the PHAB regularly used vessels imported from abroad and shipped via the coast, as well as coastal products, and the local products of the Hula Valley and Upper Galilee. They also served imported Aegean wine formally more often than their predecessors, as the array of imported wine amphoras and drinking vessels and local and coastal service vessels demonstrates. This varied assemblage is a reflection of the eclectic tastes of the PHAB’s staff in the years leading up to its abandonment, tastes that could be expressed because they had a variety of imported, regional, and local goods from which to choose.

The people who lived at other sites in the vicinity of Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century (e.g., Zemel) had household assemblages that fulfilled the same functions as the Kedesh assemblage, suggesting that they carried out similar household activities. But assemblages at

Zemel and Shuhara also exhibit less variety, especially of imported goods. We might suppose from this that the networks that brought such goods came to the region principally to supply the

PHAB. However, a similar range of imported goods is attested at the late Hellenistic stuccoed building (hereafter LHSB) at Anafa in the Hula Valley, founded around 15-20 years after the

PHAB was abandoned, indicating that merchants did still carry a range of imports inland late in the 2nd century. The residents of the LHSB at Anafa were also supplied with an even greater range of local spatter painted ware vessels than those of the PHAB had been, including casseroles and pans. The local production of such vessels shows that demand in the region for goods normally shipped from the coast did not cease with the abandonment of the PHAB. The

406

development of the spatter painted ware industry from a repertoire of just one or two shapes for

general utility in the Persian period to producing vessels for all household functions and

including shapes originally inspired by Greek originals (see e.g., Fig. 6.14) attests to the slow

acclimation of people living in the Hula Valley and Upper Galilee to wider Mediterranean trends

from the 5th to the 2nd century. The production and consumption of such vessels is an indication that vessels that had once been “foreign” to the region had become part of the local craft tradition.

The PHAB was abandoned abruptly after the Jonathan’s army defeated Seleucid forces in the nearby battle of Hazor in 143.1582 A few years later parts of the PHAB were reused as a more

humble residence. The ceramic assemblage used by these squatters was drawn in part from a

local source that supplied jars, jugs, and some table vessels similar in form to domestic

equipment of contemporary sites in the Central Hills, far to the south. Cooking vessels from the

coast were largely replaced by pots from the Chorazim or Golan plateaus around the northern

end of the Sea of Galilee that also correspond closely in form and fabric to products of the

Central Hills. The squatters had fewer shapes for preparing food and consuming food and liquid

than the staff of the PHAB had in the early to mid 2nd century. They received some coastal transport jars, Aegean amphoras, and cooking pots produced on the coast, along with ESA from the northern Levant. But their assemblage differed in character from that used by the final staff of the PHAB (compare Figs. 6.9-13 with Fig. 6.15) or residents of the contemporary Late

Hellenistic stuccoed building (hereafter LHSB) at Anafa. The squatters at Kedesh did not acquire vessels in spatter painted ware from the Hula Valley, even though evidence from Anafa shows that the output of spatter painted ware potters was becoming ever more diverse in the late 2nd

15821 Macc. 11: 63-74 (Goldstein 1976, 471-473).

407

century.1583 The squatters did most of their cooking in deep globular cooking pots supplemented by only a few casseroles. They did not use pans. Likewise, tablewares from the Aegean or Italy, attested in moderate quantity in the final phase of the PHAB and at the LHSB at Anafa, were no longer brought to Kedesh. The squatters acquired substantially less imported tableware from the northern Levant too. When viewed in comparison with the staff of the PHAB in the middle of the

2nd century and the residents of the nearby LHSB at Anafa, it certainly seems that the squatters were poor. But it also seems that they did not aspire to the same lifestyle. As I have discussed in

Chapter 5, the squatters deliberately favored cooking vessels (and perhaps jars and jugs) similar in appearance to pots made in the Central Hills around Jerusalem and made by potters who probably moved north from there themselves.

The people who lived at Shuhara, a site in the eastern Upper Galilee refounded around the time the squatters left Kedesh, used a nearly identical assemblage to the squatters, even as the residents of Anafa in the Hula Valley used the same general range of pottery and had all the trappings of the luxurious lifestyle of the residents and administrators of Kedesh in the mid 2nd century. Their preferences reveal that the squatters at Kedesh and residents of Shuhara were almost surely from the Central Hills who moved north to found modest, unfortified settlements in the Upper Galilee in the wake of the expulsion of Seleucid forces from the area in 143 (for discussion see pages 384-388, above). It seems that the squatters at Kedesh and residents of

Shuhara had relatively little communication with their established neighbors, despite at least occasionally receiving some goods from the same coastal sources.

TASTE AND LIFESTYLE IN THE PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC SOUTHERN LEVANT

1583 Berlin 1997a, 22.

408

In the Persian and Hellenistic periods the eastern Mediterranean was more interconnected via

trade and political circumstances than it had ever been before. In this study, I have considered

how the patterns of daily life and tastes of the staff of a palatial administrative center positioned

in a dramatic historical arena changed across several centuries and under the rule of three foreign

regimes. I have placed these changes within the context of Kedesh’s local environs of the Upper

Galilee and the wider context of the Levant and eastern Cyprus.

Because of the great expanse of the Persian Empire and the Hellenistic world forged after

Alexander’s conquest of it, and the attendant dispersion of scholarly work on these periods from

Greece to Bactria, it has been difficult to determine if the “cosmopolitan outlook” so apparent in

the artistic and literary records of the Hellenistic period1584 was pervasive all over and at all

levels of society. The evidence I have presented and analyzed in this dissertation shows just how

complex such an assessment is. The term “cosmopolitan” suggests the adoption or adaptation of

the trappings of a variety of cultures. These trappings can certainly include literary and artistic

output, but can also encompass domestic architecture and interior décor, distinctive cuisine, taste

for specific commodities, dining and drinking practices, imported or exotic objects, and craft

traditions. At Kedesh and the other sites surveyed here, we have seen these cultural trappings

mixed and matched in different combinations as a result of local availability (obviously impacted

by political and economic circumstances) and the preferences people had for the range of goods

available. The most obvious individual indicators of cosmopolitan outlook at archaeological sites

are imported objects, so that one might suppose their presence or absence alone at a site could

signal a population with a cosmopolitan outlook. However, imported objects alone do not imply

1584 Jerome Pollitt (1986, 10-13) gives a succinct and elegant discussion of the “cosmopolitan outlook” of the Hellenistic world. Recent work has shown that this cosmopolitan outlook predated Alexander along the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. For discussion of how this is reflected in the literary record see Fowler (1989); Clauss and Cuypers (2010); for evidence in the artistic and architectural arenas see Pollitt (1986); for art in the Levant more specifically see Erlich (2009) and Nitschke (2007).

409

knowledge of foreign cultural habits unless there is evidence that they were used in a similar

manner as they had been in their original cultural contexts. It follows that local or regional items

of stylistic and functional equivalents can be used to signal deliberate cultural affiliation, or

perhaps more often, acceptance and appreciation for new things. But our chief means of

recognizing the adoption or emulation of behaviors is to consider the assemblage of pottery in

the context of a site – and how its components would have worked to complement each other –

rather than individual objects. Because I have discussed vessels in the context of the PHAB and

by functional category in the chapters above and considered the makeup of the PHAB

assemblage in each phase, it is possible to make some illuminating comments about how the

tastes and behaviors of the PHAB’s staff compared to people living elsewhere in the southern

Levant in the Persian period, under the Ptolemies, and under the Seleucids. It is also possible to

consider how a completely different group of people from a socio-eonomic point of view, the

squatters, adjusted to life in this same region very soon after the PHAB went out of use.

In the Persian period, the southern Levantine coast was the scene of artistic and cultural exchange and the people of coastal cities incorporated foreign goods, and imported Greek pottery especially, into their lives on a daily basis. People living just 30-40 km in the interior, even at important places like Kedesh, did not receive this pottery with nearly the frequency as people on the coast, and more importantly, they received a more limited functional range that suggests they

were not accustomed to use sets of fine ceramic table vessels for eating or drinking that were

anywhere near an approximation of what was used in Greece. Similarly, while people on the

coast began using casseroles for cooking Greek style cuisine in the 3rd century, the staff of the

PHAB did not use them, indicating that they had little exposure to or taste for Greek cuisine.

410

Likewise, there is little evidence for the use of a distinctive range of vessels of eastern derivation

to indicate a particular familiarity with traditions in the Persian heartland.

We should probably not conclude that the Persian period residents of Kedesh or staff of the PHAB were unsophisticated from their pottery alone. The monumental architecture of the building, including decorative features like an entrance court framed by a Doric colonnade, argue otherwise, as do other finds at the site such as Phoenician-style scarabs and Mesopotamian-style conical glass stamp seals. The architecture at Kedesh is unique (even more elaborate than residency at Lachish) in the southern Levant, and the scarabs and glass stamp seals are not frequently found at inland sites. It seems likely that in the case of the Persian period Levant, pottery, while it can signal a cosmopolitan outlook, as it does at sites on the coast, is not necessarily a particularly sensitive or reliable indicator of it. Perhaps in the eastern reaches of the

Persian Empire (i.e., once one moves past the coastal zone in the eastern Mediterranean), there was not a tradition of using particularly nice ceramic vessels for dining and drinking and thus such items would not have had resonance among the elite in inland areas.

In the 3rd century ceramic imports from abroad were less frequent throughout the

southern Levant than in the Persian period, including at coastal sites. This is in large part because

of the collapse of the Athenian export industry, which had supplied most of the imported (and

Greek-style) tablewares used in the Levant in the Persian period. Potters on the coast filled the

vacuum thus created by producing their own Greek-style tablewares, principally bowls and

saucers, to supplement higher quality imports from Cyprus and Western Asia Minor that arrived

regularly, if not in great abundance. Coastal potters also produced casseroles that were used

regularly at coastal cities, but are seldom seen at inland sites in the 3rd century. At Kedesh, imports from abroad of the sort attested on the coast are rare, though the staff of the PHAB used

411

coastal vessels for cooking, table, and service. These include both the bowls and saucers and at least a few casseroles for preparing Greek-style meals. This range of vessels is greater than that found at small inland sites in the southern Levant, including the nearby village or farmstead at

Anafa. Being largely cut off from actual Aegean imports did not prevent the staff of the PHAB

from eating Greek-style cuisine and dining in the same manner as people living in coastal cities

because there was regional production and supply of Aegean-style cooking and table vessels.

The staff of the PHAB drew upon regional sources of supply on the coast, where Greek-style

cuisine and more elaborate table settings were normal and part of the local tradition already early

in the Hellenistic period. By virtue of their tastes and habits, the staff of the PHAB in the 3rd century, whether it was made up of Greeks, Macedonians, or Phoenicians, were part of the same cultural milieu as people living on the coast, even if they could not regularly acquire imported goods because their circulation was limited. Their neighbors at Anafa in the 3rd century and their contemporaries at other small inland sites in the southern Levant, were not part of this milieu.

In the early to mid 2nd century the picture became more complicated. The décor of the

PHAB in this phase (including tessellated floors and drafted and painted plaster wall decoration),

the wide range of artistic motifs on the bullae drawing on the world of Greek mythology and

royal Hellenistic iconography, the functional makeup of the ceramic assemblage, and the

quantity and range of ceramic imports all bespeak a cosmopolitan outlook and eclecticism when

compared to the Persian period or 3rd century. Of course, we have more evidence for the interior décor of the building than for the 3rd century because it was abandoned and not thoroughly remodeled, and the bullae were preserved due to special circumstances, in this case the burning of the archive room. Had the PHAB been abandoned in a similarly abrupt manner at the end of

412

the Persian period or 3rd century, we might have more evidence from those horizons that could shed light on the outlook of the PHAB’s staff.

Regardless of whether or not the staff of the PHAB was replaced after the Seleucid conquest (as seems unlikely; see pages 325-326, above), many of the changes in the ceramic assemblage from the PHAB in the early to mid 2nd century are clearly related to wider regional

trends and in particular the increased availability of imported goods. In the 2nd century more inland sites show substantial functional variety in their assemblages, and these sites even received imports with some regularity. The regular arrival in the early to mid 2nd century of northern Levantine imports at Kedesh can be attributed to political and economic changes in the region resulting from its conquest by the Seleucids, and the distribution patterns inform us as much about the widespread availability of goods as it does about the preferences of the people living in the PHAB. Indeed, in the early to mid 2nd century the staff of the PHAB began regularly

acquiring spatter painted ware cooking, table, and service vessels because the local potters

making them produced a range of goods comparable in function to imported goods available via

coastal suppliers. Regular production of such goods in the Hula Valley suggests that people aside

from the residents of Kedesh used them regularly, even if orders from Kedesh had a role in

spurring their production.

The people who operated the PHAB showed preferences for fancy table settings by the

mid 2nd century that their 3rd century predecessors did not (perhaps because such things were not

available in the 3rd century), particularly for plates suitable for serving courses to several diners seated together and complementary serving vessels, and cups, mold made bowls, and mastoi for drinking parties. This change corresponds to evidence from sites in the northern Levant, north

Syria, and Mesopotamia, where plates and a variety of service vessels were available throughout

413

the 3rd century,1585 much as they had been in Greece early in the Hellenistic period.1586 It is

possible that meals served from a central plate or platter to individual diners equipped with

bowls and/or saucers were in vogue in the Seleucid realm throughout the Hellenistic period and

caught on in the southern Levant only in the 2nd century as a result of increased interaction

between the northern and southern Levant. If so, this demonstrates the adoption of a culturally

charged practice from across the former border between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid realms. The

more sporadic occurrence of imports from the Aegean and western Asia Minor, Italy, and

Mesopotamia at the PHAB may be a testament both to the refined tastes of at least some of its

staff, and to their social connections, which may have given them access to rare goods that were

not widely available in the region. The residents of the PHAB in the 2nd century liked Greek- style cuisine that was already well established along the coast and at some inland sites in the 3rd century, they used table settings that were more elaborate and included more imports than the 3rd century assemblage from the PHAB. When taken in conjunction with the décor of the building, this ceramic assemblage points to a sophisticated population with access to an impressive selection of goods.

The elaborate interior décor and assemblage of pottery at Kedesh in the early to mid 2nd century corresponds nicely with the evidence for a wider array of household goods at several other southern Levantine sites and a greater frequency of Hellenistic art and interior décor in the region (e.g., Akko-Ptolemais, Dor, Tel Anafa). This evidence together indicates that there was more opportunity to express refined tastes than there had been under the Ptolemies. It is reasonable to suppose that the prospect of broader economic and cultural horizons had some role in the decision of Ptolemaic officials and generals (i.e., elites) such as Theodotus and Ptolemaios

1585 See Jackson (2011c). 1586 E.g., Rotroff 1997, 142-155.

414 to defect to Antiochus III during the Fourth (c. 221-217) and Fifth (c. 202-198) Syrian wars (see pages 183-187, 325-326, above).

Not everyone in the southern Levant expanded their functional repertoire to include a greater range of cooking, table, and service vessels in the 2nd century; nor was everyone able or eager to acquire the newly available imports from the northern Levant. Residents of sites in the

Central Hills such as Jerusalem and Shechem and at some possible Jewish settlements founded in the Upper Galilee in the late Hellenistic period like the squatter settlement at Kedesh were limited to or chose to live a simpler lifestyle. For them, limited exposure to imported and coastal goods in the Persian period and 3rd century had turned into comfortable habit in the 2nd century.

If the squatters at Kedesh were indeed Jewish settlers from the Central Hills, their decision to use only familiar cooking vessels (and perhaps jars and water jugs) suggests that in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids these simple preferences for household goods became a means of setting themselves apart from their Hellenizing neighbors. But even if the squatters were not Jews, their choice not to adopt foreign practices and material culture suggests that there were other groups in the region who were similarly uncomfortable with the increasingly common Hellenistic cultural currency. As in many times and places, in the 2nd century southern Levant new options for cultural expression engendered both enthusiasm and resistance.

Some people, like the administrators of the PHAB, the residents of the LHSB at Anafa, and the Tobiad tax collectors and Hellenizers referred to in 1 and 2 Maccabees were eager to adopt the newly available cosmopolitan material culture, cuisine, and modes of entertainment.

The sudden profusion in the 2nd century of these same stimuli was disturbing or distasteful to many members of the Jewish community in the Central Hills who joined the Maccabees in revolt

415

(and perhaps other groups as well). Whether or not they were Jewish, the squatters who settled at

Kedesh in the 130s seem to have shared this attitude towards the prevailing cultural currents of

the day. Their likely preference for simple household goods and disinterest or aversion to

Mediterranean cuisine and trends in entertaining is put into high relief by contrasting their

market connections and tastes with the previous residents of Kedesh.

ACCOUNTING FOR CHANGING TASTES IN THE PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC WORLD

In the late 2nd century, after six hundred years of foreign rule, the southern Levant had essentially returned to the same political configuration as it had in the 10th and 9th centuries. Along the coast

there were a series of independent city-states and on the interior was a Jewish kingdom. But

much had changed, both in the Levant itself and in the wider Mediterranean world. From the

Persian period on, the coast became closely tied economically to the western world of the

Aegean. Under Alexander the Great and his Hellenistic successors the region also became tied to

this world politically. For people in the southern Levant this meant exposure to foreign ideas,

literature, religious practices, and art. It also meant living with the reality or recent memory of

foreign rule. I have focused on how habits of day-to-day living and preferences in household

goods reflect cultural transformation from the 5th to the 2nd centuries in the region in an effort to see how Greek cultural practices and Greek and Greek-style goods became a part of the local fabric(s) of life in the southern Levant.

The evidence I have presented in this dissertation shows that people in different areas of the southern Levant and with different cultural backgrounds adopted Greek-style objects, cuisine, and habits at different paces, and in some cases not at all. The staff of the administrative center at Kedesh went from being largely indifferent to wider Mediterranean trends in the

416

Persian period, to using basic, regionally produced Greek-style household equipment under the

Ptolemies, to being supplied with a fantastic range of goods from the Mediterranean and beyond under Seleucid rule. After the abandonment of the PHAB, people of a different cultural background than the administrators who were too poor and/or indifferent or hostile to such luxuries inhabited the site.

By examining the evidence from a specific site over time and in its historical and regional contexts it becomes apparent that the “Hellenization” so often invoked in past discussions of the

Persian and Hellenistic Levant to account for the encroachment of Greek language, habits, and material culture was an incremental, uneven, reversible, and in some cases, unconscious process.

Its expression was dependent in variable and unpredictable proportions upon changing political and economic circumstances and long-established cultural traditions. As such, the term

“Hellenization” is perhaps not best used to describe what was in reality the sometimes deliberate, and sometimes accidental, result of people choosing or rejecting indigenous or foreign practices and material goods that they found appealing, simply practical, unnecessary, or distasteful.

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

POTTERY AS AN INDEX OF ECONOMIC ORIENTATION AND LIFESTYLE

Pottery is ubiquitous at ancient Mediterranean sites. This ubiquity, the range of functions served

by ceramic vessels, and the relative proportion of the original quantities of vessels that were left

behind as garbage or in their place of use, make pottery a class of evidence that is particularly

suited to discern the economic interconnections, day-to day-activities, and tastes of people in the ancient world. For this reason, the interpretive lens for this dissertation has been the ceramic

assemblage from Kedesh, considered in its regional context. Other categories of evidence (e.g.,

architecture, coins, document sealings, organic residues) certainly have a bearing on the issues

raised in this dissertation. I have cited such categories of evidence when they can provide context

for the ceramic assemblage or help answer larger questions. But pottery, as the largest available

subset of household goods – used for transport and storage of foodstuffs and commodities; for

fetching water, washing, and grinding; for cooking; and for serving food and liquid at the table –

is the class of evidence that I presented and analyzed here. In this appendix, I will describe the

system of excavation at Kedesh, the assignment of pottery from different contexts to ceramic

phases on the site, and working procedures in the field for weighing and quantifying the pottery.

STRATIGRAPHIC AND CERAMIC PHASES AT KEDESH

Excavations began at Kedesh in 1997 under the direction Sharon Herbert and Andrea Berlin.

From the beginning they employed a system (which Sharon Herbert developed while working at 418

Tel Anafa) of stratigraphic analysis that combined aspects of the Corinth “lot” system and the

Gezer locus system. The resulting amalgam prioritized the initial processing of the pottery

according to excavation unit, and ensured that the pottery would remain embedded in the

recorded stratigraphy from the time of excavation, rather than needing to be inserted back into it.

The excavations at Tel Kedesh were conducted along similar lines to the second

campaign of excavations at Tel Anafa.1587 The site was divided into a grid of trenches measuring

10 x 10 m, but excavation was carried out in smaller 5 x 5 m quadrants under two supervisors with two to four volunteers or workmen. Within excavation trenches soil was excavated in

“units,” the equivalent of “baskets” utilized at many other sites. A unit represents the excavation of soil in the field, and units were closed out upon the detection of possible soil changes or at the end of a day’s excavation. As such units are designed to limit the risk of contamination or of excavating discrete depositional phenomena as one, while at the same time preserving the requisite information to reconstruct the stratigraphy with the aid of the finds recovered from the unit itself. During the course of excavation beginning and ending elevations of each unit were recorded on a unit sheet, as was soil volume and description. Supervisors drew daily top plans showing the extent of each unit, its elevations, and its spatial relationship to features and other units in the trench. The pottery from each unit was read within two days of excavation. During these readings the preservation of pottery in each unit was recorded, and the pottery was sorted according to ware groups (for how ware groups were identified see 347-349, below), checked by the ceramicist, and weighed.1588 The latest datable material from the unit was also recorded,

1587 Herbert 1994, 23-25. Sharon Herbert, director of the second campaign at Anafa, and Andrea Berlin, another member of the Anafa team, are the co-directors of the excavations at Kedesh. The system used in the second campaign at Anafa, and subsequently at Kedesh, is essentially an amalgam of the “locus” system devised at Gezer and the Corinth “lot” system. 1588 From 1997-2000 Andrea Berlin was the ceramicist in charge of pottery reading, in 2006 it was Nicholas Hudson, and from 2008-2010, I read the pottery at Kedesh.

419 establishing a terminus post quem for the deposition of the soil and artifacts recovered in that unit.

At the end of each season, trench supervisors reviewed all of the documentation from units excavated in their trenches and grouped the units into “loci,” stratigraphically discrete depositional phenomena (e.g., walls, floors, pits, fills).1589 They laid out all of the pottery and small finds from each locus for review by the directors of the project, and adjustments to loci were made as was deemed appropriate. Supervisors then filled out locus sheets on which they recorded the following information: the units which made up the locus, beginning and ending elevations of the locus, soil volume and description, an account of soil inclusions, the stratigraphic relationship of the locus to surrounding loci, and the latest datable material in the locus. Supervisors also wrote final reports that in conjunction with plans, photographs, locus sheets, and their own notes, make it possible to piece together the stratigraphic and architectural phasing of the site.1590

The final two pieces of information on the locus sheets – the stratigraphic relationships between loci and the latest datable material (hereafter LDM) within each locus – make it possible to determine both the relative sequence of deposition of loci and the likely date of each locus. As a result, it has been possible to assign loci to larger phases of activity at the site. A suite of reliable ceramic LDMs has been defined for each phase, making it possible to assign at least approximate dates to phases of activity.

In the spring and summer of 2010 a small team under my supervision tallied all of the diagnostic sherds (rims, bases, and in some cases handles and body sherds) from each locus by

1589 For a definition of loci according to the Gezer system see Lance (1967, 12-13). The main difference between the treatment of loci at Gezer (and most other Levantine sites) and at Kedesh is that Kedesh loci were only assigned after the finds and stratigraphic relationships of features to each other were considered, rather than assigning them as they were excavated. 1590 Sharon Herbert is currently working on the final stratigraphic and architectural phasing of Kedesh.

420 shape, form, and fabric and double checked the locus LDMs.1591 After this had been done, I assigned loci to ceramic phases based upon their stratigraphic position and LDM. The LDMs were grouped into suites of shapes and wares (see Tables A1-2) that have a limited date range that corresponds to a use period for a discrete assemblage.

My method for assigning individual loci to ceramic phases was to begin at the lowest

(and therefore earliest) locus in a trench or group of contiguous trenches and assign it to a phase on the basis of its LDM and proceed upwards through superimposed loci in stratigraphic order.

Loci that have no artifacts in them that need date later than the Persian period and do not overlie loci with later material or later features are assigned to the Persian phase; loci that have nothing in them that need date later than the 3rd century and do not overlie loci that have later material are assigned to the first Hellenistic phase (Hell 1), and so on.

There are seven ceramic phases and one subphase at Kedesh. The ceramic LDMs used to determine the date of most loci consist of those wares and forms whose dates have either been reliably established by other excavations, or that occurred in quantity at Kedesh and could be shown not to have appeared before a certain datable stratigraphic horizon (e.g., no examples of x appear beneath final building Hellenistic floors). The wares and forms listed as LDMs for each phase were not necessarily used for the entire span of that phase, nor did they necessarily go out of use at the end of that phase. All wares and forms listed as an LDM for a phase are first attested in that chronological span at other sites, or first appeared at Kedesh (and appeared in substantial quantity) in stratified loci associated with that phase (see Tables A3-6). Indeed many wares and forms definitely continued in use across more than one phase. I have worked under the

1591 I owe especial thanks to Andrew Boos and Caitlin Clerkin of the University of Georgia for their assistance.

421

assumption that a given ware or shape will peak as a proportion of fill material in the phase

during which it was used or the phase immediately thereafter.1592

The ceramic phases I have defined represent the finest distinctions that can be made on the basis of the pottery. In conjunction with absolutely datable finds recovered at Kedesh such as coins and stamped amphora handles, they allow for meaningful interpretations of the material at

Kedesh in a historical context. The Persian phase at Kedesh is dated from c. 500, the approximate date of the earliest Attic imports found at the site, to the conquest of Alexander the

Great in 332, after which the building may have been abandoned for a time (for more detailed discussion of the evidence for dating these phases see Chapters 2-5, above). Phase Hell 1 spans the 3rd century as Attic imports, numerous coins, two stamped Rhodian amphora handles, and

ceramic comparanda, attest. There is no evidence of any break in occupation or immediate

change in the ceramic assemblages at the turn of the 2nd century. But soon after the beginning of the century new wares and forms came into use that do not appear yet in Hell 1 loci and were apparently already out of use by the time the building was abandoned in the middle of the century, since reconstructable examples do not occur in the destruction debris. A coin of

Antiochus III dated to 199-188 found between a Hell 1 and Hell 2 floor establishes a terminus post quem of 199 for Seleucid modifications of at least part of the building. Many coins dating from the beginning of the 2nd century until 145 have been found as well. Phase Hell 2 is dated

from the beginning of the 2nd century to 143, at which date the PHAB was abandoned following a battle between a Hasmonean army and Seleucid forces in the nearby Hula Valley. An abundance of stamped amphora handles helps pinpoint the dating of this phase. In particular, there is a sequence of stamps dating from the 150s and 140s that ceases abruptly at c. 143/2, and

1592 A similar approach was taken by Andrea Berlin in her work on the pottery at Coptos in Egypt (Herbert and Berlin 2003b, 13-14, 22-23) and at the site of the Jerusalem convention center, Binyane ha’Uma (Berlin 2005, 31- 34).

422

there are four reconstructable amphoras with stamped handles from the abandonment of the

building. Of these, one has stamps dating to 170/168, two have stamps dating to 151, and another

has stamps dating to 146. This sequence of stamped amphora handles, along with the numismatic

profile of the site and the account of the nearby battle between Jonathan and Demetrius and flight

to Kedesh in 1 Maccabees indicates that the PHAB was abandoned in 143 after the battle. Within

a few years people repurposed parts of the PHAB as a residence and left behind pockets of

household goods. I have designated this squatter phase Hell 3 and stamped amphora handles and

coins from the site indicate that it lasted from c. 140/138-123/14. This marks the last phase of

substantial occupation in the area of the PHAB. In the 1st centuries BCE and CE (the Roman phase) many of the walls of the PHAB were partially robbed, perhaps to build houses on the north tel or even in the plain below the tel. Only trace quantities of Roman pottery or other finds were left behind. The most common of these are fragments of Kfar Hananya cooking ware, which was produced at the village of Kfar Hananya from the middle of the 1st century BCE until

the 5th century CE.1593 The types most commonly found in the ware date to the 1st centuries BCE

and CE. Several Byzantine or Early Islamic burials were dug on the site (the Byzantine-Islamic

phase). In the Medieval and modern era the south tel was probably under cultivation (the remains

of a Palestinian village cover the north tel), and material remains in the form of lead glazed

pottery, Turkish pipes, pottery produced at Akko from the 17th through the first half of the 20th century, and bullet casings are a frequent occurrence in topsoil and subsoil.

Some divisions within this sequence that may have been illuminating (e.g., between the early and late Persian period; between the first and second half of the 3rd century) were not

possible on the basis of the available stratigraphic and ceramic evidence. Further subdivision of

phases on the basis of the limited appearance of closely datable items (e.g., Attic vessels,

1593 For the Kfar Hananya ceramic industry see Adan-Bayewitz (1993).

423

stamped Rhodian amphora handles) would have been problematic because they did not occur in

sufficient quantity.

Residual Material at Tel Kedesh

A substantial proportion of the pottery recovered at any multi-period Mediterranean site occurs

residually in strata of later date than its original use, a phenomenon that has been well

discussed.1594 Kedesh is no exception. The continuous or near continuous occupation of the site

over several centuries makes it a challenge to determine in which phases particular wares and

forms were used at the site, and in which phases they were used after their first appearance.

Wares and forms that occur in great quantity should be best represented stratigraphically in the

phase during which they went out of use or shortly thereafter, since that is when they should

have constituted their largest proportion of accumulated garbage left on a site.1595 Thus, I have

paid attention to when wares and forms “peak” as a means of determining how long a given ware

or form stayed in use (in conjunction with their appearance in dated contexts elsewhere).

THE IDENTIFICATION AND WEIGHING OF WARES AT KEDESH

Since excavations began at Kedesh in 1997, knowledge of the local and regional wares of the

Persian and Hellenistic Upper Galilee has improved greatly, in large part as a result of the

pottery recovered at Kedesh and the stratigraphic resolution of the PHAB itself. As a result, field

readings have become more refined between 1997 and the conclusion of excavations at the site

in 2010. A “ware” here refers to a petrographically distinct fabric (clay matrix and inclusions)

1594 E.g., Herbert and Berlin 2003b, 132-133; Berlin 2005, 31-34; Lynch 2011, 51, 68; Peña 2007. 1595 “Accumulated” is a key term since a given form or ware accumulates from the time it goes into use until examples of it stop entering the stratigraphic record as debris.

424

prepared in a particular way to make a clay body of consistent appearance that is used to make a

specific range of forms. The wares identified at the excavations at Tel Anafa in the Hula Valley

formed the initial baseline for wares recognized at Kedesh in 1997. Included among the Anafa

wares are white ware, spatter painted ware, Phoenician semi fine ware (hereafter Phoenician SF),

sandy cooking ware, gritty cooking ware, sandy cooking ware, bricky cooking ware, Galilean

cooking ware (since established as Kfar Hananya cooking ware),1596 and the black slipped predecessor (BSP) of eastern sigillata A (ESA) and ESA itself.1597 In addition, the directors of

Kedesh were also familiar with a range of well known wares that occurred at Anafa including

Rhodian amphora fabric, Attic, and Campana A.1598

Thus, at the outset of excavations at Kedesh, the directors of the site, Sharon Herbert and

Andrea Berlin, both of whom had been involved in the processing and publication of the pottery

from Anafa, had a reasonable expectation of which Hellenistic and early Roman wares might

occur regularly at Kedesh and had experience identifying them in the field. Indeed, their

expectation has proved justified, as white ware, spatter painted ware, Phoenician SF, sandy

cooking ware, Rhodian amphora fabric, Attic/Atticizing, and BSP are among the most abundant

wares at Kedesh. In addition, gritty cooking ware, Kfar Hananya cooking ware, ESA, and

Campana A all occur in some quantity at Kedesh, and at least a few examples of bricky cooking

ware have been found as well. As a result, from the beginning of excavation pottery reading that

consisted of making piles of identified wares and weighing them by unit was feasible.1599

However, several fabrics and wares appeared at Kedesh that did not occur regularly at

Anafa. Those that occurred consistently and in great quantity (red-brown gritty ware, coarse

1596 See Berlin (1997a, 6-16) for description and discussion of these plain wares from Anafa. 1597 See Slane (1997, 269-271) for description and discussion of BSP and ESA. 1598 Slane 1997, 347-348. 1599 Such bulk sorting is similar to that advocated by William Y. Adams (1988) in his article, “Archaeological Classification: Theory Versus Practice.” The same method for sorting was utilized at Anafa, see Berlin (1997a, 6-7).

425

orange ware, and low-fired orange ware) were recognized during field sorting in the 1999 and

2000 seasons because large piles of them could be made. Samples of red-brown gritty ware and

coarse orange ware were sent for petrographic testing in the 2000 season along with samples of

white ware and the fabric that would later be identified as central coastal plain ware. Testing

showed that these wares did indeed have distinct geological sources in the Upper Galilee.1600

Wares that occurred regularly, but not in such quantities, or that were easily confused with other identified wares because of similarities in appearance, were not recognized until the

2008 season. These include: central coastal plain ware, low-fired brown ware, tan-gray marl ware, basaltic cooking ware, central coastal fine ware, and northern coastal fine ware. All of these wares were initially recognized visually, and petrographic testing has supported the separation of many on the basis of fabric (clay matrix and tempers).1601 Some (e.g., central

coastal fine ware, northern coastal fine ware) can also be distinguished as separate wares because

of the specific shapes made in them and details of clay preparation and surface treatment.

Because the wares just listed were not recognized and recorded regularly prior to the

2008 season when a second set of samples was gathered for petrographic testing, fabric weights

for them are not available from 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2006. Since it was likely that sherds in

these wares were weighed as unknown or with other wares of similar appearance (e.g., central

coastal fine ware with Phoenician SF; northern coastal fine ware with ESA) in these seasons, I

have limited my sample of fabric weights to those from 2008-2010 seasons. Although this

reduces the sample size, it still encompasses almost half of the pottery by weight recovered from

the PHAB, and includes material excavated from almost every section of the building and all

1600 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010. 1601 Shapiro, Berlin, and Stone unpublished report 2010.

426 stratigraphic horizons. In total, 7217.73 kg are included in this sample, of which 4099.12 kg are of recognizable Persian and Hellenistic wares.

THE IDENTIFICATION AND TALLYING OF SHAPES AND FORMS AT KEDESH

Most sherds recovered during the course of excavations at Kedesh were body sherds that were not sufficiently preserved to allow for the identification of the specific vessel from which they derived. These sherds were only read for fabric/ware in the manner described above. Diagnostic sherds, usually rims or feet, but occasionally handles or body sherds, were separated out during daily pottery reading for further study at a later date to identify their shape and form. Particularly good examples of diagnostics and reconstructable vessels were sent to inventory to be catalogued, drawn, and photographed. Study of these inventoried vessels and identification of comparanda made it possible to determine the range of vessels that were used regularly at

Kedesh.

“Shape” is a general category that describes a vessel’s intended function1602 and general appearance (e.g., jar, jug, cooking pot, bowl, unguentarium), while “form” describes a shape with a distinct feature (usually rim) that differentiates it morphologically from other examples of the same shape (e.g., bowl with incurved rim, baggy jar). Obviously, since ancient pottery was made in pre-industrial settings, one could split shapes into forms almost ad-finitum on the basis of subtle differences or particular attributes.1603 In order to avoid this unhelpful situation, forms have been differentiated at Kedesh based upon what seem to be likely templates in antiquity that suggest production at a common source or that potters working in different places had the same

1602 While it is impossible in most cases to determine how exactly any individual vessel found in an archaeological context was used, ethnographic study has shown that people tend to classify their own vessels first and foremost in terms of function cross-culturally (Rice 1987, 278). 1603 Rice 1987, 276.

427

idea in mind when they were making the pots to fulfill specific functions and applied that idea

consistently (e.g., repeating the same action each time they formed a rim).1604 Thus, forms can be indicators of regional potting traditions, or of chronological horizons when certain forms were in vogue, preferences held by residents of different sites, or all of the above. True “types,” forms that only occur in one ware, are rare at Kedesh, although most forms only occur in a limited number of wares, again reflecting that they derive from specific regions and/or have a limited chronological range.

The method used at Kedesh for determining the approximate number of vessels based upon fragmentary diagnostics is similar to that used by Andrea Berlin at the nearby sites of

Anafa and Gamla1605 and to methods used at several other Mediterranean sites.1606 The diagnostics from each locus were sorted according to form and ware, and all diagnostic sherds were counted. Joining sherds or multiple sherds that seemed obviously to be part of the same vessel were counted as one. All the loci of a trench were laid out in stratigraphic order, making it possible to search for joins between adjacent loci that were not detected in initial pottery reading.

Since each vessel has a rim and foot, the count for each form in each ware was determined by locus according to whichever diagnostic vessel part (rim or foot) occurred in greater number in that locus. In cases where diagnostic handles (e.g., Rhodian amphora handles) or body sherds

(e.g., mold made bowl body sherds) were present, these could count if they were the only

1604 For discussion see Rice (1987, 283-284). 1605 For Anafa see Berlin (1997a, 5) for Gamla see Berlin (2006, 4-5, 8-9). At Gamla diagnostics were divided by likely ratio of circumference per rim, with averages determined on the basis of the shape considered, so for instance cooking pot rims were counted as 1/6 of a cooking pot. This approach is very well suited to a site with relatively consistent preservation of vessels in primary or good secondary condition. At Kedesh this method would have been impractical, because of the great variety of material found at the site and because preservation was so variable from locus to locus, meaning that it would be difficult to assign an average preserved circumference to the rim or foot of any particular form. In any case, whether or not the rims are counted as partial vessels, if quantification is done consistently and the sample is large, the results should approximate the relative proportion of vessels used at a site. 1606 E.g., Benghazi (Riley 1979, 99-102); Corinth (Slane 2003); Troy (Berlin 1999b; 2002). For discussion of quantification methods across the archaeological spectrum see Rice (1987, 290-293).

428

indication of a given form’s presence in that locus.1607 Reconstructable vessels with joins across loci were only counted in the earliest locus that (a) fragment(s) appeared in.

This method of quantification, of course, does not produce a true figure for the number of vessels used at Kedesh (and would not even if the entire tel were excavated), but the ratios in which vessels of different shape and form occur can give us a sense of the different household activities conducted on the site and the the frequency of local, regional, or imported vessels in each phase of occupation. The vessel counts referred to throughout this dissertation are the result of this quantification of diagnostic sherds.

ABUNDANT COMPARANDA: PUBLISHED PERSIAN AND HELLENISTIC POTTERY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

In the chapters above, I described the wares and forms that were used at Kedesh in each ceramic

phase and cited evidence from other excavated sites for their chronology and distribution. As

discussed in the introduction, there has been a great concentration of archaeological excavation

and survey in the southern Levant. There has also been a laudably diligent record of publication.

This means that substantial corpora of Persian and Hellenistic pottery have been published from

sites all over the region.1608 At almost all of these sites stratigraphic information has been

1607 Kathleen Lynch (2011, 50) has taken a similar approach towards quantification of fineware body sherds in her study of pottery from a domestic context in Late Archaic Athens. 1608 For an overview of Persian period pottery in the southern Levant see Lehmann (1998) and Stern (1982). Substantial quantities of Persian period pottery have been published from Apollonia-Arsuf (Tal 1999); Ashdod (Dothan 1971; Kee 1971); Dor (Stern 1995b; Marchese 1995; Mook and Coulson 1995; Stewart and Martin 2005); Hazor (Yadin et al. 1958, 1961); Gezer (Gitin 1990); Gil’am (Stern 1970); Lachish (Fantalkin and Tal 2004); Mizpe Yammim (Berlin and Frankel forthcoming); Nahal Tut (Alexandre 2006); Shechem (N. Lapp 2008); Shiqmona (Elgavish 1968); Tel Anafa (Berlin 1997a); Tel el-Hesi (Bennett and Blakely 1989; Risser and Blakely 1989); Tel Keisan (Briend and Humbert 1980); Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978); Tel Michal (Marchese 1989; Singer-Avitz 1989; Kapitaikin 2006). For an overview of Hellenistic pottery from the southern Levant see P. Lapp (1961) and Berlin. Substantial quantities of Hellenistic pottery have been published from Akko-Ptolemais (Berlin and Stone forthcoming; Vitto 2005); Apollonia-Arsuf (Fischer and Tal 1999); Ashdod (Kee 1971); Beth Shean (Johnson 2006); Bet Yerah- Philoteira (Ben-Nahum and Getzov 2006); Beth Zur (N. Lapp and P. Lapp 1968); Dor (Guz-Zilberstein 1995; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995); Gamla (Berlin 2006); Gezer (Gitin 1979; 1990; Macalister 1912); Jerusalem (Geva

429

presented as well and evidence (numismatic, ceramic, and historical/circumstantial) given for the

dating of the excavated strata. I have consulted all of the publications that include a substantial

quantity of Persian or Hellenistic pottery, but for the purposes of clarity in the description and

discussion of vessels I have cited specific parallels only from sites that have particularly

extensive and well-dated contexts (e.g., Dor, Tel Anafa), or that are close to Kedesh and have

parallels in both form and ware to vessels found at Kedesh (e.g., Tel Anafa, Hazor, Khirbet

Zemel) since the chronology established at these sites has the most relevance for the date of

material found at Kedesh.

After describing the components of the Kedesh assemblage in the above chapters, I

presented comparative assemblages from sites in the eastern Mediterranean (i.e., the Levant,

North Syria, and Cyprus) that make it possible to discern variations in household equipment at

sites of different character and function (e.g., coastal cities, inland villages). For this purpose I

have picked sites with large bodies of published pottery that are representative of the assemblage

at sites in different areas and of different size or character. In order to situate Kedesh in its local

environs, I have described remains from all published sites in the eastern Upper Galilee and Hula

Valley. My purpose in making comparisons between Kedesh and these sites is not for

typological description, but rather to show how economic interconnections, household activities,

and tastes varied between people living at different sorts of sites located throughout the eastern

Mediterranean.

2003; Geva and Hershkovitz 2006; Hayes 1985b; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003; Tushingham 1985); Hippos-Sussita (Młynarczyk 2004; 2006; 2007; 2008); Khirbet er-Rasm (Faust and Erlich 2011); Khirbet Zemel (Hartal 2002); Maresha (Kloner and Hess 1985; Levine 2003a, b); Nahf (Smithline 2008); Oumm el-Amed (Dunand and Duru 1962); Pella (Tidmarsh 2000); Samaria (J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957; Hennessy 1970); Sha’ar Ha’amakim (Młynarczyk 2009); Shechem (N. Lapp 2008); Shiqmona (Elgavish 1974); Strato’s Tower (Berlin 1992); Tel Aviv and environs (Gorzalczany 1999; 2003; Kletter 2006); Tel Anafa (Berlin 1988; 1997a; Slane 1997); Tel Keisan (Briend and Humbert 1980; Młynarczyk 2002); Tel Michal (Fischer 1989; Kapitaikan 2006); Tirat Yehuda (Yeivin and Edelstein 1970); Yoqne’am (Avissar 1996).

APPENDIX B (TABLES B1-4)-CONCORDANCE OF VESSELS SHOWN IN FIGURES

In Chapters 2-5, I described the pots used at Kedesh in the Persian period, the 3rd century, and the early to mid 2nd century, as well as the pottery used by the squatters who briefly reused parts of the PHAB in the late 2nd century. In order to reflect better that the vessels used in the PHAB and squatter settlement were by and large the equipment of daily life, I grouped shapes and forms within their functional class and described the general parameters of each shape and form as a group. I have avoided focusing on the vessels as individual objects, and accordingly did not include a catalogue of the sort often utilized in publications of excavation pottery.

The vessels from Kedesh are, nonetheless, individual objects, and the recovery of these specific vessels from specific archaeological contexts at the site is relevant for understanding the history of the site, the chronology of the wares and forms described in this dissertation, and in some cases the use of different parts of the PHAB. For the benefit of current and future researchers working on material from Kedesh or comparable sites, I include a concordance

(Tables B1-4) that provides basic contextual information for the vessels illustrated. The concordance is a list according to figure number. For each vessel it provides the identification by ware and form (corresponding to the descriptions in the text), its Kedesh inventory number(s), the excavation locus/loci in which it was found, and the provisional phase to which it was assigned. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, W.Y. 1988. “Archaeological Classification: Theory versus Practice.” Antiquity 62: 40- 56.

Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

Aharoni, Y. 1993. “Kedesh (In Upper Galilee).” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 3, edited by Ephraim Stern, 855-856. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta.

Alexandre, Y. 2006. “Nahal Tut (Site VIII): A Fortified Storage Depot from the Late Fourth Century BCE.” ‘Atiqot 52: 131-189.

Alexandrescu, P. 2005. “La Céramique.” In Histria. Vol. 7, La Zone Sacrée d’Époque Greque (Fouilles 1915-1989), edited by P. Alexandrescu, 329-411. Bucarest: Institutul de Arheologie.

Anderson-Stojanović, V. 1987. “The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria.” AJA 91(1): 105-122

______. 1992. Stobi: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Arav, R. 1989. Hellenistic Palestine: Settlement Patterns and City Planning, 337-31 BCE. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Ariel, D.T. 2002. “The Coins from Khirbet Zemel.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, edited by Z. Gal, 119-122. Haifa: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Ariel, D.T. and G. Finkielsztein. 1994. “Stamped Amphora Handles.” In Tel Anafa. Vol. 1, Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel, edited by S.C. Herbert, 183-240. JRA Suppl. 10.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______. 2003. “Amphora Stamps and Imported Amphoras.” In Maresha Final Reports. Vol. 1, Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, edited by A. Kloner, 137-151. IAA Reports 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Ariel, D.T. and J. Naveh. 2003. “Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee.” BASOR 329: 61-80.

Aubet, M-E. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade. 2nd edition, translated by M. Turton. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

______. 2007. “East Greek and Etruscan Pottery in a Phoenician Context.” In Up to the Gates of Ekron: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of 432

Seymour Gitin, edited by S. White Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J.P. Dessel, W.G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram, 447-460. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Aviam, M. 2004. Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.

______. 2007. “Distribution maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation.” In Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee, edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, 115-132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Aviam, M. and A. Amitai. 2002. “Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, edited by Z. Gal, 119-134. Haifa: Israel Antiquities Authority. (Hebrew)

Avissar, M. 1996. “The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery.” In Yoqne’am. Vol. 1, The Late Periods, edited by A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali, 48-59. Jerusalam: Hebrew University Institute of Archaelogy and Israel Exploration Society.

Avi-Yonah, M. 2002. The Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C.-A.D.640). Text revisions and toponymic index by A.F. Rainey. Jerusalem: Carta.

Avshalom-Gorni, D. and N. Getzov 2002. “Phoenicians and Jews: a Ceramic Case Study.” In The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, edited by A. Berlin and J.A. Overman, 74-84. New York: Routledge.

Bagnall, R.S. 1976. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Bakır, T. 1994. “Beobachtungen über die Residenz in Daskyleion.” Pallas 43: 269-285.

______. 2006. “Daskyleion.” In Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im wesltichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes, edited by W. Radt, 61-72. Byzas, Veröffentlichen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Istanbul, 3. Istanbul: Yayılari.

Barag, D. 2008. “Ptolemaic Silver Currency of Cyprus in Seleucid Phoenicia and Coele-Syria.” INJ: 16: 28-56.

Barrett, J.C. 2001. “A Thesis on Agency.” In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, 61-68. New York: Routledge.

Ben-Nahum, H. and N. Getzov 2006. “Stratum I—The Hellenistic Period.” In The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994-1995, edited by N. Getzov, 133-50. IAA Reports 28. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

433

Bennett, J. Jr., and J.A. Blakely. 1989. “The Coarse Ware.” In Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V), edited by J. Bennett, Jr., and J.A. Blakely, 139-230. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Berlin, A. 1988. The Hellenistic and Early Roman Common-Ware Pottery from Tel Anafa. PhD diss., University of Michigan.

______. 1992. “Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Preliminary Report, 1990.” In Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea: Including Papers given at a Symposium held at the University of Maryland, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington on 25-28 March, 1988, edited by R. L. Vann, 112-128. JRA Suppl. 5. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______. 1997a. Tell Anafa. Vol. 2.1, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Plain Wares, edited by S. C. Herbert, 1-211. JRA Suppl. 10.2.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______. 1997b. “From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine.” BASOR 306: 75-88.

______. 1997c. “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period.” The Biblical Archaeologist, 60: 2-51.

______. 1998. “Naukratis/Kom Hadid: A Ceramic Typology for Hellenistic Lower Egypt.” In Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt. Part 2, The Excavations at Kom Hadid, edited by A. Leonard, Jr., 26-163. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 55. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

______. 1999a. “The Archaeology of Ritual: The Sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi.” BASOR 315: 27-45.

______. 1999b. “Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: The Lower City. Stratified Assemblages and Chronology.” Studia Troica 9: 73-157.

______. 1999c. “The Pottery from the North and Northwest Areas.” In Ancient Naucratis: Excavations of a Greek Emporium in Egypt. Part 1, The Excavations in the South Mound at Kom Ge’if, edited by A. Leonard Jr., 136-285. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 54. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

______. 2002. “Ilion Before Alexander: A Fourth Century B.C. Ritual Deposit.” Studia Troica 12: 131-165.

______. 2005. “Pottery and Pottery Production in the Second Temple Period.” In Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’Uma): A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, The Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, And a Byzantine

434

Monastery Complex. Pottery and Other Small Finds, edited by B. Arubas and H. Goldfus, 29-60. JRA Suppl. 60. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period. IAA Reports 29. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

______. 2012. “Identity Politics in Early Roman Galilee.” In The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by M. Popović, 69-106. Leiden: Brill.

Berlin, A. and K.M. Lynch. 2002. “Going Greek: Atticizing Pottery in the Achaemenid World.” Studia Troica 12: 167-178.

Berlin, A. and A. Overman, eds. 2002. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. New York: Routledge.

Berlin, A., T. Ball, R. Thompson, and S. Herbert. 2003. “Ptolemaic Agriculture, “Syrian Wheat,” and Triticum aestivium.” Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 115-121.

Berlin A. and J. Pilacinski. 2005. The Pottery from the Excavations at St. George’s Hill.” RDAC 2003: 201-237.

Berlin, A. and R. Frankel. Forthcoming. “The Sanctuary at Mizpe Yammim: Phoenician Cult and Territory in the Upper Galilee during the Persian Period.” BASOR.

Berlin, A., S.C. Herbert, and P.J. Stone. Forthcoming. “Dining in State: The Tablewares from the Persian-Hellenistic Administrative Building at Kedesh.” In: Pottery, Peoples, and Places: The Late Hellenistic Period, c. 200-50 BC Between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, edited by P. Bilde and M. Lawall. Aarhus: Danish Centre for Black Sea Studies.

Berlin, A. and P.J. Stone. Forthcoming. “Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery from the Courthouse Excavations and the Hospitaller Compound.” In: Akko, the Excavations of 1991- 1998. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic Period, edited by Eliezer. Stern, M. Hartal, and D. Syon. IAA Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Bernard, P. 1973. Fouilles D’Aï Khanoum. Vol. 1, Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.

Betlyon, J.W. 2005. “A People Transformed: Palestine in the Persian Period.” Near Eastern Archaeology 68(1-2): 4-58.

Bettles, E.A. 2003. Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A multi-disciplinary investigation into carinated-shoulder amphorae of the Persian period (539- 332 BC). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Bickerman, E.J. 1988. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

435

Bikai, P.M. 1978. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips Ltd.

Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Boling, R.G. and G.E. Wright, trans. 1982. Joshua. A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. 1st ed. Anchor Bible 6. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, translated by P.T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Briend, J. and J.-B. Humbert 1980. Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une cite phénicienne en Galilée. Fribourg: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis.

Burkhalter, F. 1987. “La céramique hellénistique et romaine du sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Amathonte.” BCH 111: 353-395.

Cahill, N. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cakmak, L. 2010. “Mixed Signals: Androgyny, Identity, and Iconography on the Graeco- Phoenician Sealings from Tel Kedesh, Israel.” PhD diss., University of Michigan.

Calvet, Y. 1993. “Les timbres amphoriques.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 61-80. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

Campbell, E.F. 2002. Shechem. Vol. 3.1, The Stratigraphy and Architecture. Boston: The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Cappelletti, S. 2007. “Non-Jewish Authors on Galilee.” In Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee, edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, 69-82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Carter, C.E. 2003. “Ideology and Archaeology in the Neo-Babylonian Period: Excavating Text and Tel.” In Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 301-322. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Chancey, M.A. 2005. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Christensen, A. P. 1971. “Les poteries hellénistiques.” In Hama: fouilles et récherches 1931- 1938. Vol. 3.2, Les poteries hellénistiques et les terres sigillées orientales, edited by A.P. Christensen and C.F. Johansen, 2-54. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseets Skrifter.

Clark, D. 2004. “The Raw and the Rotten: Punk Cuisine.” Ethnology 43(1): 19-31.

Clarke, G. 1994. “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates: The Acropolis Building.” MeditArch 7: 69-75.

436

______. 2001. “The Governor’s Palace, Acropolis, Jebel Khalid.” In The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millenium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange Between East and West, edited by I. Nielsen, 215-247. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

______., ed. 2002. Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 1, Report on Excavations 1986-1996. MeditArch Suppl. 5-6. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

Clauss, J.J. and M. Cuypers, eds. 2010. A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.

Clifford, R.J. 1990. “Phoenician Religion.” BASOR 279: 55-64.

Coggins, R.J., trans. 1976. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Cambridge Bible Commentary: New English Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, G.M. 1978. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration, and Organization. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

______. 1983. “Colonization and Population Transfer in the Hellenistic World.” In Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24-26 May 1982, edited by E. van ‘t. Dack, P. Van Dessel, and W. van Gucht, 63-74. Leuven: Orientaliste.

______. 2006. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, The Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohn, Y.B. 2011. “The Graeco-Roman Trade Fair and the Rabbis.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131(2): 187-194.

Connely, J. B. 1983. “A Hellenistic Deposit on the Kourion Acropolis.” RDAC 1983: 275-280.

Cornell, L. A. 1997. “A Note on the Molded Bowls.” In Tel Anafa. Vol. 2.1, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, edited by S. C. Herbert, 407-16. JRA Suppl. 10.2.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Crowfoot, G.M. 1957. “Hellenistic Pottery, General List.” In Samaria-Sebaste. Vol. 3, The Objects, edited by J. W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, 365-78. London: Palestinian Exploration Society.

Crowfoot, J.W., G.M Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon., eds. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste. Vol. 3, The Objects. London: Palestinian Exploration Society.

Culican, W. 1991. “Phoenician and Phoenician Colonization.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3.2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., edited by J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond, E. Sollberger, 461-546. New York: Cambridge University Press.

437

Curtis, J. E. 2002. “Observations on Selected Metal Objects from the Nimrud Tombs.” In New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings on the Nimrud Conference 11th-13th March 2002, edited by J.E. Curtis, H. McCall, D. Collon, and L. al-Gailani Werr, 243-254. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Cuyler-Young, T. 1988. “The Consolidation of the Empire and its limits of Growth under Darius and Xerxes.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 4, Persia, Greece, and the Western Mediterranean c. 525-479 B.C., 2nd ed., edited by J. Boardman, N.G.L. Hammond, D.M. Lewis, and M. Ostwald, 53-110. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, J.K. 1984. “Cultural, Social, and Economic features of the Hellenistic World.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 7.1, The Hellenistic World, 2nd ed., edited by F.W. Walbank, A.E. Astin, M.W. Frederiksen, and R.M. Ogilvie, 257-320. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, J.K. 2001. “Hellenistic Economies in the Post-Finley Era.” In Hellenistic Economies, edited by Z.H. Archibald, J Davies, V. Gabrielsen, and G.J. Oliver, 11-62. New York: Routledge.

Debevoise, N.C. 1934. Parthian Pottery from Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. deLigt, L. and P.W. deNeeve. 1988. “Ancient Periodic Markets: Festivals and Fairs.” Athenaeum 66: 391-416.

Dietler, M. 1998. “Consumption, Agency, and Cultural Entanglement: Theoretical Implications of a Mediterranean Encounter.” In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture, Change, and Archaeology, edited by J.G. Cusick, 288-315. Carbondale, Ill.: Center for Archaeological Investigations.

Dobres, M-A. and J.E. Robb, eds. 2001. Agency in Archaeology, edited by M-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, 3-18. New York: Routledge.

Dothan, M., ed. 1971. Ashdod. Vol. 2-3, The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1964. ‘Atiqot 9-10.

______. 1976. “Akko. Interim Excavation Report, First Season, 1973/4.” BASOR 224: 1-48.

Downey, S. 1986. “The Citadel Palace at Dura-Europos.” Syria 63: 27-37.

Droysen, J.G. 1877. Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Berthes.

Dunand, M. and R. Duru. 1962. Oumm El-‘Amed: Une Ville de l’Epoque Hellenistique aux Echelles de Tyr. Paris: Libraire d’Amerique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve 11, Rue Saint- Sulpice, VI.

438

Durand, X. 1997. Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ: le dossier syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos (261-252). Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 38. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie Éditeurs.

Dusinberre, E. 1999. “Satrapal Sardis: Achaemenid Bowls in an Achaemenid Capital.” AJA 103(1): 73-102.

Edgar, C.C. 1925. Catalogue général des antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 59001-59139: Zenon Papyri. Vol. 1. Cairo: L’Institute Français D’Archéologie Orientale.

______. 1926. Catalogue général des antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 59140- 59297: Zenon Papyri. Vol. 2. Cairo: L’Institute Français D’Archéologie Orientale.

______. 1928. Catalogue général des antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 59298- 59531: Zenon Papyri. Vol. 3. Cairo: L’Institute Français D’Archéologie Orientale.

______. 1931. Catalogue général des antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 59532- 59800: Zenon Papyri. Vol. 4. Cairo: L’Institute Français D’Archéologie Orientale.

Edwards, G.R. 1975. Corinth. Vol. 7.3, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Eiring, L.J. 2001. “The Hellenistic Period.” In Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman, edited by J.N. Coldstream, L.J. Eiring, and G. Forster, 91-136. London: British School at Athens.

Elgavish J. 1968. Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona. Field Report No. 1, The Levels of the Persian Period – Stratum H. Seasons 1963-1970. Haifa: Haifa Museum of Art.

______. 1974. Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona. Field Report No. 2, The Level of the Hellenistic Period. Seasons 1963-1965. Haifa: Haifa Museum of Art.

Erlich, A. 2009. The Art of Hellenistic Palestine. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Erlich, A. and A. Kloner. 2008. Maresha Excavations Final Report. Vol. 2, Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989-1996 Seasons. IAA Reports 35. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Errington, R.M. 2008. A History of the Hellenistic World, 323-30 BC. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.

Etienne, R. 1990. Ténos. Vol. 2. Ténos et les Cyclades: du milieu du IVe siècle av J.-C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. Athens: Ecole française d'Athènes.

Fantalkin, A. and O. Tal. 2004. “The Persian and Hellenistic Pottery of Level I.” In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Vol. 4, edited by David Ussishkin, 2174- 2194. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

439

Faust, A. and A. Erlich. 2011. The Excavations of Khirbet er-Rasm, Israel: The Changing Faces of the Countryside. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Finkielsztejn, G. Forthcoming. “Amphora Stamps from Akko: Hospitaller Compound and Some other Areas.” In: Akko, the Excavations of 1991-1998. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic Period, edited by Eliezer Stern, M. Hartal, and D. Syon. IAA Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Fischer, M. 1989. “Hellenistic Pottery (Strata V-III).” In The Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi, 177-187. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fischer, M. and O. Tal 1999. “The Hellenistic Period.” In Apollonia-Arsuf. Vol. 1, The Persian And Hellenistic Periods, edited by I. Roll and O. Tal, 223-261. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Fischer, M., A. Ovadiah, and I. Roll. 1984. “The Roman Temple at Kedesh, Upper Galilee: A Preliminary Study.” Tel Aviv 11: 146-172.

Fowler, B.H. 1989. The Hellenistic Aesthetic. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Frankel, R., N. Getzov, M. Aviam, A. Degani. 2001. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee. IAA Reports 14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Freyne, S. 1980. Galilee From Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E.-135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism. Wilmington, N.C.: Michael Glazier, Inc. and University of Notre Dame Press.

______. 2001. “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans: A Study of Regional Contrasts in the Hellenistic Age.” In Hellenism in the Land of Israel, edited by J.J. Collins and G.E. Sterling, 184-217. Wilmington, N.C.: University of Notre Dame Press.

______. 2007. “Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions.” In Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, D.B. Martin, 13-29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Gardner, A. 2008. “Agency.” In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, edited by R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner, and C. Chippendale, 95-108. Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press.

Gatier, P-L. 1993. “Le Chantier Nord, l’établissment hellénistique.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 133-148. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

Geer, R.M., trans. 1947. Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. 9. Loeb Classical Library 377. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

440

Georgiadou, A. 2005. Totenkult und elische Grabkeramik spätklassischer und hellenistischer Zeit. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Geva H. 2003. “Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vol. 2, The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, edited by H. Geva, 113- 75. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University and Israel Exploration Society.

Geva H. and Hershkovitz M. 2006. “Local Pottery of the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods.” In H. Geva, ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vol. 3, Area E and Other Studies, edited by H. Geva, 94-143. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University and Israel Exploration Society.

Geva H. and Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 2003. “Local Pottery from Area A.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vol. 2, The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, edited by H. Geva, 176-191. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University and Israel Exploration Society.

Gitin, S. 1979. A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian, and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. 3 vols. PhD diss., Hebrew Union College.

______. 1990. Gezer. Vol. 3, A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian, and Hellenistic Periods at Tel Gezer. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

______. 1997 (1995). “The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The Levant, with a focus on Philistine Ekron.” In Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo Assyrian Text Corpus Project, edited by S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, 77-104. Helsinki: The Neo Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Gjerstad, E. 1933. “Further Remarks on the Palace at Vouni.” AJA 37(4): 589-598.

Godley, A.D., trans. 1921. Histories, by Herodotus. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library 118. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

______., trans. 1922. Histories, by Herodotus. Vol. 3. Loeb Classical Library 119. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Goldman, H. 1950, ed. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goldman, Z. 1993. “Akko.” In The New Encycolpedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by Ephraim Stern, 16-31. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta.

Goldstein, J. A., trans. 1976. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

441

______., trans. 1983. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed. Anchor Bible 41A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

______. 1989. “The Hasmonean Revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2, The Hellenistic Age, edited by W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 292- 351. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goodenough, E. R. 1953a. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 1, The Archaeological Evidence from Palestine. Bollingen Series 37. Kingsport, Tenn.: Pantheon Books.

______. 1953b. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 3, Illustrations. Bollingen Series 37. Kingsport, Tenn.: Pantheon Books.

______. 1965. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 12, Summary and Conclusions. Bollingen Series 37. Kingsport, Tenn.: Pantheon Books.

Goodman, M. 1998. “Jews, Greeks, and Romans.” In Jews in a Greco-Roman World, edited by M. Goodman, 37-46. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gorzalczany, A. 1999. “Hellenistic-Period Remains at Ramat Aviv.” ‘Atiqot 38: 25-32. (Hebrew)

______. 2003. “A Hellenistic Site on Shay ‘Agnon Street, Ramat Aviv.” ‘Atiqot 44: 5-11. (Hebrew)

______. 2006. “Petrographic Analysis of the Pottery from Nahal Tut.” ‘Atiqot 52: 191-196.

Grace, V.R. “The Stamped Amphora Handles.” In Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, edited by H. Goldman, 297-383. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Grainger, J.D. 1991. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

______. 2010. The Syrian Wars. Mnemosyne Suppl. 320. Boston: Brill.

Gray, J., trans. 1970. I and II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin.

______. 1991a. “Assyria: Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II (744-705 B.C.).” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3.2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., edited by J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, 71-102. New York: Cambridge University Press.

442

______. 1991b. “Assyrian Civilization.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3.2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., edited by J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, 194-228. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grose, D.F. Forthcoming. “The Pre-Hellenistic, Hellenistic, Roman, and Islamic Glass Vessels.” In Tel Anafa. Vol. 2.2, Glass Vessels, Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels, edited by A. Berlin,. JRA Suppl. 10.2.2. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Gruen, E.S. 1993. “Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews.” In Hellenistic History and Culture, edited by P. Green, 238-263. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gulick, C.B., trans. 1929. The Diepnosophists, by Athenaeus. Vol. 3. Loeb Classical Library 224. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1995. “The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, edited by Ephraim Stern, 289-433. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

Hall, J. M. 2002. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Halpern, B. 2000. “Centre and Sentry: Megiddo’s Role in Transit, Administration, and Trade.” In Megiddo. Vol. 3, The 1992-1996 Seasons, edited by I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, 535-575. Jerusalem: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Handberg, S., P.J. Stone, and J.H. Petersen. Forthcoming. “Uncommon Tastes: The Consumption of Campana A Pottery in the Southern Levant and Black Sea.” Acta Hyperborea. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

Hannestad, L. 1983. Ikaros, The Hellenistic Settlements. Vol. 2. The Hellenistic Pottery From Failaka, with a Survey of Hellenistic Pottery in the Near East. 2 vols. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 16.2. Aarhus: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab.

______. 2005. “‘How Much Came from Where’: The Proportion of Local, Regional, and ‘Long- Distance’ Pottery from a Rural Settlement in the Crimea.” In Making, Moving, and Managing the New World of Ancient Economies, 323-31 BC, edited by Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, 165-187. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hartal, M. 2002. “Excavations at Khirbet Zemel, Northern Golan. An Iturean Settlement Site.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, edited by Z. Gal, 75-117. Haifa: Israel Antiquities Authority.

443

______. Forthcoming. “The Excavations in the Courthouse Site of ‘Akko: Areas TB and TC.” In: Akko, the Excavations of 1991-1998. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic Period, edited by Eliezer Stern, M. Hartal, and D. Syon. IAA Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Hausmann, U. 1996. Hellenistic Keramik: eine Brunnenfüllung nördlich von Bau C und Reliefkeramik verschiedener Fundplätze in Olympia. New York: W. de Gruyter.

Hayes J. W. 1985a. “Sigillate Orientali.” In Atlante delle forme ceramiche. Vol. 2, Ceramica fine Romana nel bacino Mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero), 1-96. Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale. Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

______. 1985b. “Hellenistic to Byzantine Fine Wares and Derivatives in the Jerusalem Corpus.” In Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. 1, edited by A.D. Tushingham, 181-196. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

______. 1991. Paphos, Vol. 3, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus.

Hengel, M. 1981. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd.

______. 1989a. “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (333-187 B.C.E.).” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2, The Hellenistic Age, edited by W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 35-78. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

______. 1989b. “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the pre-Maccabean Period.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2, The Hellenistic Age, edited by W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 167-228. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hennessy, J.B. 1970. “Excavations at Samaria-Sebaste, 1968.” Levant 2: 1-21.

Herbert. S.C., ed. 1994. Tel Anafa. Vol 1, Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel. 2 vols. JRA Suppl. 10.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______., ed. 1997. Tel Anafa. Vol 2.1, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. JRA Suppl. 10.2.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______. 2003a. “Excavating Ethnic Strata: The Search for Hellenistic Phoenicians in the Upper Galilee of Israel.” In One Hundred Years of American Archaeology in the Middle East: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Centennial Celebration, Washington, DC, April 2000, edited by D.R. Clark and V.H. Matthews, 319-330. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

______. 2003b. “The Hellenistic Archives from Tel Kedesh and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris (Iraq).” Bulletin of the University of Michigan Museums of Art and Archaeology 15: 65-86.

444

______. 2010. “Kedesh Team Finds Most Valuable Coin Ever Uncovered in Israel.” Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Newsletter Fall 2010.

Herbert, S. and A. Berlin. 2003a. “A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Tel Kedesh.” BASOR 329: 13-59.

______. 2003b. Excavations at Coptos (Qift) (1988-1992). JRA Suppl. 53. Portsmouth R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Herr, L.G. 1997. “The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations.” The Biblical Archaeologist 60(3): 114-183.

Herrmann, G. 2002. “The Ivories from Nimrud.” In New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings on the Nimrud Conference 11th-13th March 2002, edited by J.E. Curtis, H. McCall, D. Collon, and L. al- Gailani Werr, 243-254. London: British Museum.

Herzog, Z. 1989a. “Persian Period Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata XI-VI).” In The Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi, 88-114. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

______. 1989b. “Hellenistic Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata V-III).” In The Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi, 165-176. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hoglund, K.G. 1992. Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Holbl, G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, translated by T. Saavedra. New York: Routledge.

Horsley, R.A. 1996. Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International.

Hudson, N.F. 2010. “Changing Places: The Archaeology of the Roman Convivium.” AJA 114(4): 663-695.

Invernizzi, A. 2004. Seleucia al Tigro: Le impronte di sigillo dagli archivi. 3 vols. Allesandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Jackson, H. 2002. “The Cemetery Pottery – 1996 and 1997.” In Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 1, Report on Excavations 1986-1996, edited by G. Clarke, 101-124. MeditArch Suppl. 5-6. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

445

______. 2011a. “The Common Wares from the Housing Insula.” In Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 3, The Pottery, edited by H. Jackson and J. Tidmarsh, 1-262. MeditArch Suppl. 7. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

______. 2011b. “The Green Glazed Wares from Jebel Khalid, 1986-2006.” In Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 3, The Pottery, edited by H. Jackson and J. Tidmarsh, 431-496. MeditArch Suppl. 7. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

______. 2011c. “Life in the Housing Insula: The Evidence of the Pottery.” In Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 3, The Pottery, edited by H. Jackson and J. Tidmarsh, 497-518. MeditArch Suppl. 7. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

Jacobson, D.M. 2007. The Hellenistic Paintings of Marisa, Including a Facsimile Reprint of “Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Maresha),” by John P. Peters and Hermann Thiersch, edited by S.A. Cook. Leeds: Maney.

Johnson, B.L. 2006. “The Hellenistic to Early Islamic Pottery.” In Excavations at Tel Beth- Shean, 1989-1996. Vol 1, From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, edited by A. Mazar, 523-593. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University.

Jones, F.F. 1950. “The Pottery.” In Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic and Roman Periods, edited by H. Goldman, 149-296. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kadman, L. 1961. The Coins of Akko-Ptolemais. Tel Aviv: Schocken.

Kapitaikin, L. A. 2006. “The Pottery from the IAA Excavations at Tel Mikhas (Tel Michal).” ‘Atiqot 52: 21-56.

Kasher, A. 1990. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz- Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE-70 CE). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

Kee, H.C. 1971. “The Pottery.” In Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, soundings in 1967, edited by M. Dothan, 44-64. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Kenrick 1985. Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice). Vol. 3.1, The Fine Pottery. Tripoli: Department of Antiquities, Ministry of Teaching and Education, People’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Kenyon K. M. 1957. “Pottery: Hellenistic and Later. Hellenistic Pottery I. Stratified Groups.” In Samaria-Sebaste. Vol. 3, The Objects, edited by J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, 217-34. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

446

Kirkman, J.S. 1957. “The Evidence of the Coins.” In Samaria-Sebaste. Vol. 3, The Objects, edited by J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon, 43-70. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Kletter, R. 2006. “A Middle Bronze Age II Site West of Tel Qasile.” ‘Atiqot 53: 65-128.

Kloner, A. and O. Hess. 1985. “A Columbarium in Complex 21 at Marisa.” ‘Atiqot 17:122-133.

Kloner, A., ed. 2003. Maresha Excavations Final Report. Vol. 1: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70. IAA Reports 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Kramer, N. 2004. Gindaros: Geschichte und Archäologie einer Siedlung im nordwestlichen Syrien von hellenistischer bis in fruühbyzantinische Zeit. International Archäologie Band 41. Rahden, Westfalia: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Krinzinger, F. 2001 (ed.). Studien zur hellenistichen Keramik in Ephesos. Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes, Heft 2. Wien: Österreichisches Archäoligisches Institut.

Kuhrt, A. 1994. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC. 2 vols. New York: Routledge.

______. 2001. “The Achaemenid Persian Empire (c. 550-330 BCE): Continuities, Adaptations, Transformations.” In Empires: Perspectives from History and Archaeology, edited by S.E. Alcock, T.N. D’Altroy, K.D. Morrison, and C. M. Sinopoli, 93-123. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

______. 2007. The Persian Empire. 2 vols. New York: Routledge.

Kuhrt, A. and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg. 1990 (1986). “Introduction.” In Achaemenid History. Vol. 4, Centre and Periphery: Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop, edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, xi-xv. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Kuhrt, A. and S. Sherwin-White. 1993. From Samarkand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. London: Duckworth.

Lance, D.H. 1967. Excavation Manual for Area Supervisors. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College and Archaeological School.

Landau, Y.H. 1966. “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah.” IEJ 16: 54-70.

Lapp, N. 1980. The Excavations at Araq el-Emir. Vol. 1. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 47-48. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

______. 2008. Shechem. Vol. 4, The Persian and Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balatah. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

447

Lapp, N. and P. Lapp. 1968. “Iron II-Hellenistic Pottery Groups.” In The 1957 Excavation at Beth Zur, edited by O.R. Sellers, R.W. Funk, J.L. McKenzie, P. Lapp, and N. Lapp, 54-79. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 38. Boston: American School of Oriental Research.

Lapp, P. 1961. Palestinian Ceramic Chronology, 200 B.C.-A.D. 70. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Larché, F. 2005. ‘Iraq al-Amir, Le Château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Vol. 2, Restitution et Reconstruction, 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Laumonier, A. 1977. Delos. Vol. 31, La Céramique Hellénistique a Reliefs 1: Ateliers Ioniens. Paris: Dépositaire Diffusion de Boccard.

Lawall, M. 2002. “Ilion Before Alexander: Amphoras and Economic Archaeology.” Studia Troica 12: 197-243.

______. 2005. “Amphoras and Hellenistic Economies: Addressing the (Over)Emphasis on Stamped Amphora Handles.” In Making, Moving, and Managing the New World of Ancient Economies, 323-31 BC, edited by Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, 188-232. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Lehmann, G. 1998. “Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700-300 B.C.” BASOR 311: 7-37.

Leonard Jones, H., trans. 1930. Geography, by Strabo. Vol. 7. Loeb Classical Library 241. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Lesperance, P. 2010. “Symbols and Objects on the Sealings from Kedesh.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota.

Levine, T. 2003a. “Pottery and Small Finds from Subterranean Complexes 21 and 70.” In Maresha Excavations Final Report. Vol. 1, Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, edited by A. Kloner, 73-130. IAA Reports 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Levine, T. 2003b. “Pottery and Small Finds from Subterranean Complex 44.” In Maresha Excavations Final Report. Vol. 1, Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, edited by A. Kloner, 131- 136. IAA Reports 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Lipschits, O. 2005. The Fall and Rise of Jeruslaem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Lorber, C.C. 2008. “Ptolemaic Bronze Coinage of Tyre.” INJ 16: 11-27.

448

Luke, J. 2003. Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Lund, J. 2004. “Italian-made Fine Wares and Cooking Wares in the Eastern Mediterranean Before the Time of Augustus.” In Early Italian Sigillata: The Chronological Framework and Trade Patterns. Proceedings of the First International ROCT-Congress, edited by J. Poblome, P. Talloen, R. Brulet, and M. Waelkens, 3-15. Leuven: Peeters.

______. 2005. “An Economy of Consumption: The Eastern Sigillata A Industry in the Late Hellenistic Period.” In Making, Moving, and Managing: The New World of Ancient Economies, 323-31 BC, edited by Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, 233-252. Oxbow books: Oxford.

Lund, J., D. Malfatina, J. Poblome. 2006. “Rhosica vasa Mandavi (Cic. Att. 6.1.13). Towards the Identification of a Major Ceramic Tableware Industry of the Eastern Mediterranean: Eastern Sigillata A.” Archeologica Classica 57: 491-508.

Lynch, K.M. 2011. The Symposium in Context: Pottery from a Late Archaic House near the Athenian Agora. Hesperia suppl. 46. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Macalister, R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909. 3 vols. London: Palestine Exploration Society.

MacDonald, B.R. 1982. “The Import of Attic Pottery to Corinth and the Question of Trade during the Peloponnesian War.” JHS 102: 113-123.

MacMullen, R. 1970. “Market Days in the Roman Empire.” Phoenix 24: 333-341.

Magen, Y. 2002. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Antiquities Authority.

Magness, J. 1990. “Some Observations on the Roman Temple at Kedesh,” IEJ 40(2-3):173-181.

______. 2011. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Marchese, R.T. 1989. “Aegean and Cypriote Imports in the Persian Period (Strata XI-VI).” In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi, 145-152. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

______. 1995. “Athenian Imports in the Persian Period.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, edited by Ephraim Stern, 127-181. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

Marcus, R., trans. 1933. The Jewish Antiquities, by Josephus. Vol. 7. Loeb Classical Library 365. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

449

______., trans. 1937. The Jewish Antiquities, by Josephus. Vol. 6. Loeb Classical Library 326. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Meshorer, Y. “Coins.” In Tel Anafa. Vol. 1, Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel, edited by S.C. Herbert, 241-260. JRA Suppl. 10.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Milevski, I. 2011. “Palestine’s Economic Formation and the Crisis of Judah (Yehud) during the Persian Period.” Transeuphratène 40: 135-166.

Millar, F. 1983. “The Phoenician Cities: A Case Study of Hellenisation.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 209: 55-71.

Młynarczyk, J. 1996. “Palaces of the strategoi and the Ptolemies in Nea Paphos. Topographical remarks.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der Hellenistischen Könige. Edited by W. Hoepfner, G. Brands, 193-202. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

______. 2002. “Hellenistic Finewares at Tell Keisan: A Pattern of Importations.” In Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines: Productions et diffusion in Méditerranée orientale (Chypre Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne, edited by F. Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Salles, 117-132. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloix.

______. 2004. “Pottery Report.” In Hippos-Sussita: Fifth Season of Excavations (September- October 2004) and Summary of all Five Seasons (2000-2004), edited by A. Segal, J. Młynarczyk, M. Burdajewicz, M. Schuler, M. Eisenberg, 140-163. Haifa: University of Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology.

______. 2006. “Pottery Report.” In Hippos-Sussita: Seventh Season of Excavations (July 2006), edited by A. Segal, J. Młynarczyk, M. Burdajewicz, M. Schuler, M. Eisenberg, 91-126. Haifa: University of Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology.

______. 2007. “Pottery Report.” In Hippos-Sussita: Eighth Season of Excavations (July 2007), edited by A. Segal, J. Młynarczyk, M. Burdajewicz, M. Schuler, M. Eisenberg, 105-154. Haifa: University of Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology.

______. 2008. “Pottery Report.” In Hippos-Sussita: Ninth Season of Excavations (June-July 2008), edited by A. Segal, J. Młynarczyk, M. Burdajewicz, M. Schuler, M. Eisenberg, 59-109. Haifa: University of Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology.

______. 2009. “Hellenistic and Roman Period Pottery from Sha’ar Ha’Amakim.” In Excavations of the Hellenistic Site at Sha’ar Ha’Amakim (Gaba), 1984-1998, edited by A. Segal, 97-119. Haifa: University of Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology.

450

Mook, M. S. and W. D. E. Coulson 1995. “East Greek and Other Imported Pottery.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1B: Areas A and C: The Finds, edited by Ephraim Stern, 93-125. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

Moreland, M. 2007. “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence.” In Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee, edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, 133-162. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Morel, J. P. 1981. Céramique Campanienne: Les Formes. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome.

______. 1983. “Les producteurs de biens artisanaux en Italie à la fin de la République.” In Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et ler siècles av J.-C. Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la recherch sientifique 609, 21-39. Naples: Centre Jean Bâerard.

______. 1986. “Céramiques à vernis noir d’Italie trouvées à Delos.” BCH 110: 461-493.

Morris, S.P. 2006. “The View from East Greece: Miletus, Samos, and Ephesus.” In Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean, edited by C. Riva and N.C. Vella, 66-84. London: Equinox.

Musti, D. 1984. “Syria and the East.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 7.1, The Hellenistic World, 2nd ed., edited by F.W. Walbank, A.E. Astin, M.W. Frederiksen, and R.M. Ogilvie, 175- 220. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, E.A. 2007. The Itureans: Challenging Misconceptions and Evaluating the Primary Sources. PhD diss., University of Toronto.

Myers, J.M., trans. 1973. I Chronicles. Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2nd ed. Anchor Bible 12. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Na’aman, N. 1995. “Tiglath-Pileser III’s Campaigns Against Tyre and Israel (734-732BCE),” Tel Aviv 22(2): 268-278.

______. 2009. “Was Dor the Capital of an Assyrian Province?” Tel Aviv 36(1): 95-109.

Netzer, E. 1992. “Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age.” In The Architecture of Ancient Israel From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by A. Kempinski, R. Reich, 193-201. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Nielsen, I. 1999. Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal. 2nd ed. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Nitschke, J. L. N. 2007. “Perceptions of Culture: Interpreting Greco-Near Eastern Hybridity in the Phoenician Homeland.” PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley.

451

Nixon, C.E.V. 2002. “The Coins.” In Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 1, Report on Excavations 1986-1996, edited by G. Clarke, 291-335. MeditArch Suppl. 5-6. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

Oates, D. and J. Oates. 1958. “Nimrud 1957: The Hellenistic Settlement.” Iraq 20(2): 114-157.

Oates, D. 1968. Studies in the History of Northern Iraq. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Oded, B. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Ovadiyah, A, I. Roll, and M. Fischer. 1993. “The Roman Temple at Kedesh in Upper Galilee: A Response.” IEJ 43(1):60-63.

Parker, S.T. 1975. “The Decapolis Reviewed.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94(3): 437-441.

Paton, W.R., trans. 2011. Histories, by Polybios. Vol. 3, revised by F.W. Walbank and C. Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 138. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Peacock, D.P.S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach. New York: Longman.

Peña, T. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, J. and H. Thiersch. 1905. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa, edited by S.A. Cook. London: Palestine Exploration Society.

Pollitt, J.J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Porath, J. 1974. “A Fortress of the Persian Period.” ‘Atiqot 7: 43-55. (Hebrew)

Postgate, J.N. 1979. “The Economic Structure of the Assyrian Empire.” In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, edited by M. Trolle-Larsen, 193-222. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Rackham, H., trans. 1945. Natural History, by Pliny. Vol. 4. Loeb Classical Library 370. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Rainey, A. 1969. “The Satrapy Beyond the River.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1: 51-78.

______. 1981. “Toponymic Problems (continued).” Tel Aviv 8:146-151.

452

Reich, R. 1992. “Palaces and Residencies in the Iron Age.” In The Architecture of Ancient Israel From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by A. Kempinski, R. Reich, 202-222. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Riley, J.A. 1979. “The Coarse Pottery from Berenice.” In Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice). Vol. 2, edited by J.A. Lloyd, 91-466. Tripoli: Department of Antiquities, Ministry of Teaching and Education, People’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Risser, M.K and J.A. Blakely. 1989. “Imported Aegean Fine Ware in the First Millennium B.C.E.” In Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V), edited by J. Bennett Jr., and J.A. Blakely, 69-138. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Römer-Strahel, C. 2000. “Die Keramik.” In Der Parthisch-Römische friedhof von Tall seh Hamad/Magdala. Vol. 1, edited by G. Elsen-Novák and U. Runge, 121-148. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Rosenberg, S.G. 2006. Airaq al-Amir: The Architecture of the Tobiads. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1995. “Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, edited by Ephraim Stern, 183-288. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

______. 2003. “Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Lamps and Fine Ware.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vol. 2, The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, edited by H. Geva, 144-167. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University and Israel Exploration Society.

Rostovzeff, M.I. 1937. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rotroff, S.I. 1982. Agora. Vol. 22, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

______. 1996. The Missing Krater and the Hellenistic Symposium: Drinking in the Age of Alexander the Great. Broadhead Classical Lecture 7. Christchurch, N.Z.: University of Canterbury Press.

______. 1997. Agora. Vol. 29, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

______. 2002. “West Slope in the East.” In Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines: Productions et diffusion in Méditerranée orientale (Chypre Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne, edited by F.

453

Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Salles, 97-116. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-Jean Pouilloix.

______. 2006a. Agora. Vol. 33, Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

______. 2006b. "The Introduction of the Moldmade Bowl Revisited: Tracking A Hellenistic Innovation." Hesperia 75(3): 357-378.

Rotroff, S.I. and A. Oliver, Jr. 2003. The Hellenistic Pottery from Sardis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Saatsoglou-Paliadeli. 2001. “The Palace of Vergina-Aegae and its Surroundings.” In The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millenium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange Between East and West, edited by I. Nielsen, 201-213. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Salles, J.-F. 1983. Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 2, Les Égouts de la Ville Classique. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

______., ed. 1993. Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

______. 1993a. “Présentation.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 165-180. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

______. 1993b. “Recherches et travaux, 1845-1976.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 17-46. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

______. 1993c. “Les dépôts.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 181-226. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

______. 1993d. “La citerne 198.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 261-284. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

Salles, J.F. and O. Callot. 1993. “Le chantier Sud.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 81-132. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

Salles, J.F. and C. Rey. 1993. “Le bassin 417.” In Kition-Bamboula. Vol. 4, Les niveaux hellénistiques, edited by J.-F. Salles, 227-260. Paris: Editions Recherché sur les Civilizations.

Schäfer, J. 1968. Hellenistic Keramik aus Pergamon. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Schmidt, E.F. 1957. Persepolis. Vol. 2, Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

454

Schürer, E. 1897-1898. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, translated by Rev. J. Macpherson, 5 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schwartz, S. 1998. “The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem.” In Jews in a Greco-Roman World, edited by M. Goodman, 37-46. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Schwartz, D. R., trans. 2008. 2 Maccabees. New York: W. de Gruyter.

Shapiro, A., A. Berlin, P.J. Stone. 2010. “Tel Kedesh – Fabrics and Wares.” Unpublished report.

Sharif, S. Forthcoming. “Hellenistic Wall Paintings from ‘Akko.” In Akko, the Excavations of 1991-1998. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic Period, edited by Eliezer Stern, M. Hartal, and D. Syon. IAA Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Sharon, I. 1987. “Phoenician and Greek Ashlar Construction Techniques at Tel Dor, Israel.” BASOR 267: 21-42.

______. 1995. “The Stratigraphy of Areas A and C.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1A, Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy, edited by Ephraim Stern, 49-234. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

Shipley, G. 1994. “Distance, Development, Decline? World Systems Analysis and the ‘Hellenistic’ World.” In Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World, edited by P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, 271-284. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

______., trans. 2008. “Pseudo-Skylax.” The ‘Periplous’ (Circumnavigation): a provisional translation (updated 2008),” accessed November 2011. http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/shiplay/pseudo-skylax.

Siebert, G. 1978. Recherches sur les ateliers de bols à reliefs du Pélopnnèse à l'époque hellénistique. Paris: diffusion de Boccard.

Singer-Avitz, L. 1989. “Local Pottery of the Persian Period.” In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi, 115-144. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Skeat, T.C. 1974. Greek Papyri in the British Museum (now in the British Library) Vol. 7, The Zenon Archive. London: British Museum Publications Limited.

Slane, K. 1997. Tel Anafa. Vol. 2.1, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery: The Fine Wares, edited by S. C. Herbert, 249-406. JRA Suppl. 10.2.1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology and Journal of Roman Archaeology.

______. “Corinth’s Roman Pottery.” In Corinth, The Centenary 1896-1996, edited by C.K. Williams and Nancy Bookidis, 321-336. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.

455

Smith, R.H. 1990. “The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period.” Levant 22: 123-130.

Smithline, H. 2008. “Results of Three Small Excavations in Nahf, Upper Galilee.” ‘Atiqot 59: 87-102.

Sparkes, B.A., and L. Talcott. 1970. Agora. Vol. 12, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Stern, Eliezer. Forthcoming. “The Hospitaller Compound: Hellenistic and Early Roman Remains.” In: Akko, the Excavations of 1991-1998. Vol. 1, The Hellenistic Period, edited by Eliezer Stern, M. Hartal, and D. Syon. IAA Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Stern, Ephraim. 1970. “Excavations at Gil’am (Kh. Er-Rujm).” ‘Atiqot 6:31-55. (Hebrew)

______. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976). Vol. 1, From the Iron Age to the Roman Period. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

______. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

______. 1990 (1986). “New Evidence on the Administrative Division of Palestine in the Persian Period.” In Achaemenid History IV: Centre and Periphery: Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop, edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, 221-226. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

______. 1995a. “Stratigraphical Summary of Architectural Remains.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1A, Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy, edited by Ephraim Stern, 29-48. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

______. 1995b. “Local Pottery of the Persian Period.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, edited by Ephraim Stern, 51-92. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

______. 1995c. “Introduction.” In Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1A, Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy, edited by Ephraim Stern, 1-12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology at Hebrew University.

______. 2001. The Archaeology of the Bible. Vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 BCE. New York: Doubleday.

Stewart, A. and S.R. Martin. 2003. “Hellenistic Discoveries at Tel Dor, Israel.” Hesperia 72(2): 121-145.

______. 2005. “Attic Imported Pottery at Tel Dor, Israel, an Overview.” BASOR 337: 79-94.

456

Stewart, S.M. 2010. “Gordion After the Knot: Hellenistic Pottery and Culture.” PhD diss., University of Cincinnati.

Stone, P.J. Forthcoming. “Hidden in PLAIN Sight: Ceramic Assemblages and Daily Life in the Ptolemaic Southern Levant.” In Networks in the Hellenistic World: Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond, edited by N. Fenn and C. Römer-Strehl. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Stronach, D. 2001. “From Cyrus to Darius: Notes on Art and Architecture in Early Achaemenid Palaces.” In The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millenium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange Between East and West, edited by I. Nielsen, 95-111. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Syon, D. 2002. “Coins from the Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, edited by Z. Gal, 123-134. Haifa: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Tal, O. 1999. “The Persian Period.” In Apollonia-Arsuf. Vol. 1, The Persian And Hellenistic Periods, edited by I. Roll and O. Tal, 83-222. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Talbert, R.J.A., ed. 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tcherikover, V. 1937. “Palestine under the Ptolemies (A Contribution to the Study of the Zenon Papyri).” Mizraim 4-5: 9-90.

______. 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Tcherikover, V. and A. Fuks. 1957. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Thackeray, H., trans. 1927. The Jewish War, by Josephus. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library 203. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

______., trans. 1928. The Jewish War, by Josephus. Vol. 3. Loeb Classical Library 210. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Thackeray, H. and R. Marcus, trans. 1934. Jewish Antiquities, by Josephus. Vol. 5. Loeb Classical Library 281. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Tidmarsh, J. 2000. “The Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery from Pella in Jordan.” PhD diss., University of Sydney.

457

______. 2011. “The Imported Fine Wares at Jebel Khalid.” In Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates. Vol. 3, The Pottery, edited by H. Jackson and J. Tidmarsh, 279-430. MeditArch Suppl. 7. Sydney: MEDITARCH.

Toll, N. 1943. The Excavations at Dura-Europus Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Vol. 4.1.1, The Green Glazed Pottery. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish. Vol. 3, The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press.

Turner, E. 1984. “Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 7.1, The Hellenistic World, 2nd ed., edited by F.W. Walbank, A.E. Astin, M.W. Frederiksen, and R.M. Ogilvie, 118- 174. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tushingham, A.D. 1985. “Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill.” In Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Vol. 1, edited by A.D. Tushingham, 1-166. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

Van der Spek, B. and I. Finkel, trans. “The Seleucid Accessions Chronicle (BCHP 10),” accessed January 2012. http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-dynastic/dynastic_02.html

Vanderhooft, D.S. 2003. “Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric.” In Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipshits and J. Blenkinsopp, 235-262. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Vitto, F. 2005. “Hellenistic and Crusader Remains at Montmusard, Acre (Akko).” ‘Atiqot 50: 153-180.

Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. 2000. “Late Hellenistic Pottery in Athens: A New Deposit and Further Thoughts on the Association of Pottery and Societal Change.” Hesperia 69(3): 293-333.

Voyatoglou, M. 1974. “The Jar Markets of Thrapsano in Crete.” Expedition 16: 18-24.

Waagé, F.O. 1948. “Hellenistic and Roman Tablewares of North Syria.” In Antioch on the Orontes. Vol. 4(1): Ceramics and Islamic Coins, edited by F. O. Waagé. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Waldbaum, J.C. 1997. “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence.” BASOR 305: 1-17.

Werman, C. 1997. “‘Jubilees 30’: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage.” Harvard Theological Review 90(1): 1-22.

Westermann, W.L., E.S. Hasenoehrl. 1934. Zenon Papyri: Business Papers of the Third Century B.C. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt. Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press.

458

Westermann, W.L., C.W. Keyes, and H. Liebesny. 1940. Zenon Papyri: Business Papers of the Third Century B.C. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wilk, R.R. 1999. “‘Real Belizean Food”: Building Local Identity in the Transnational Caribbean.” American Anthropologist 101(1): 244-255.

Will, E. and F. Larché 1991. ‘Iraq al-Amir, Le Château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Wiseman, D.J. 1991. “Babylonia, 605-539 B.C.” In Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3.2, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., edited by J. Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, N.G.L. Hammond, E. Sollberger, 229- 251. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Woolley, C.L. 1911. “Some Potters’ Marks from Cales.” Journal of Roman Studies 1: 199-205.

Yadin, Y. et al. 1958. Hazor, Vol. 1, An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press.

______. 1960. Hazor, Vol. 2, An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press.

Yeivin, Z. and G. Edelstein. 1970. “Excavations at Tirat Yehuda.” ‘Atiqot 6: 56-69. (Hebrew)

Zangenberg, J. 2007. “A Region in Transition: Introducing Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee.” In Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, 1-12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Zangenberg, J., H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, eds. 2007. Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Zertal, A. 2003. “The Province of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III).” In Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 377-412. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Zorn, J.R. 2003. “Tell en-Nasbeh and the Problem of Material Culture of the Sixth Century.” In Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp, 413-447. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

LOCAL WARES REGIONAL WARES IMPORTED WARES (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) Red brown gritty ware Crystal cooking ware Attic/Atticizing (RBG) (crystal CW) Coarse orange ware (COW) Sandy cooking ware Aegean amphora fabric (sandy CW) White ware (WW) Phoenician semi fine (SF) Spatter painted ware (spatter) Central coastal plain ware (CCP) Table 2.1: Local, regional, and imported Persian Period wares at Kedesh.

PHASE WEIGHT RBG COW WW SPATTER CRYSTAL SANDY SF CCP AEGEAN FINE (KG) CW CW AMPHORA Persian 316.46 56.7% 27.2% 6% 0.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.4% 2.3% 0.1% <0.1% Hell 1 252.71 54.7% 24.2% 6.2% 1.7% 1.6% 2% 3.4% 2.5% 0.3% 0.9% Hell 2 374.27 45.2% 28.3% 5.6% 6.1% 1.3% 3.4% 6.4% 2.4% 1.5% 2.8% Hell 2b 249.12 2.3% 0.6% 0.1% 6.1% <0.1% 1% 8.1% <0.1% 4.6% 1% Hell 3 520.15 33.2% 29.1% 4.4% 2% 0.9% 2.3% 4.6% 2% 0.8% 1.4% Roman 1127.07 31.8% 24.1% 4.5% 4.6% 1.1% 3.1% 6.9% 1.9% 1.7% 2% Byz- 153.23 32.5% 22% 3.5% 2.7% 0.4% 4.7% 7.1% 1.3% 2.4% 1.7% Islamic Med- 1106.11 25.8% 17% 3.2% 4.9% 0.5% 2.5% 6.4% 1% 2.6% 1.5% Modern TOTAL 4099.12 33.1% 21.9% 4.2% 4% 1% 2.7% 5.9% 1.7% 1.8% Table 2.2: Persian Period wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only.

PHASE QUANTITY OF FRAGMENTARY VESSELS/% OF TOTAL Persian 647/63% Hell 1 606/54% Hell 2 834/30% Hell 2b 61/11% Hell 3 859/35% Roman 1521/29% Byz-Islamic 446/26% Med-Modern 1557/29% TOTAL 6531 Table 2.3: Persian Period diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

LOCAL WARES REGIONAL WARES IMPORTED WARES (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) Red brown gritty ware Sandy cooking ware Attic/Atticizing (RBG) (sandy CW) Coarse orange ware (COW) Phoenician semi fine (SF) Aegean amphora fabric Spatter painted ware (spatter) Central coastal fine (CCF) Cypriote tablewares Table 3.1: Local, regional, and imported Hell 1 wares at Kedesh.

PHASE WEIGHT RBG COW SPATTER SANDY SF AEGEAN FINE (KG) CW AMPHORA Persian 316.46 56.7% 27.2% 0.5% 2.1% 2.4% 0.1% <0.1% Hell 1 252.71 54.7% 24.2% 1.7% 2% 3.4% 0.3% 0.9% Hell 2 374.27 45.2% 28.3% 6.1% 3.4% 6.4% 1.5% 2.8% Hell 2b 249.12 2.3% 0.6% 6.1% 1% 8.1% 4.6% 1% Hell 3 520.15 33.2% 29.1% 2% 2.3% 4.6% 0.8% 1.4% Roman 1127.07 31.8% 24.1% 4.6% 3.1% 6.9% 1.7% 2% Byz- 153.23 32.5% 22% 2.7% 4.7% 7.1% 2.4% 1.7% Islamic Med- 1106.11 25.8% 17% 4.9% 2.5% 6.4% 2.6% 1.5% Modern TOTAL 4099.12 33.1% 21.9% 4% 2.7% 5.9% 1.8% Table 3.2: Hell 1 wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only.

PHASE ALL POSSIBLE HELL 1 FRAGMENTS, FRAGMENTS OF FORMS QUANTITY/% OF TOTAL INTRODUCED IN HELL 1, QUANTITY/% OF TOTAL Hell 1 654/58% 230/20% Hell 2 1501/54% 922/33% Hell 2b 160/29% 113/21% Hell 3 1100/44% 452/18% Roman 2126/41% 974/19% Byz- 535/31% 225/13% Islamic Med- 2148/40% 961/18% Modern TOTAL 8224 3877 Table 3.3: Hell 1 diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

LOCAL WARES REGIONAL WARES IMPORTED WARES (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) Low-fired orange ware Sandy cooking ware Northern coastal fine (LFO) (sandy CW) (NCF) Low-fired brown ware (LFB) Gritty cooking ware Black slipped (gritty CW) predecessor of eastern sigillata A (BSP) Spatter painted ware (spatter) Phoenician semi fine (SF) Cypriote tablewares Hard mortarium fabric (hard Central coastal fine (CCF) Aegean amphora fabric mort) (Aegean amphora) Aegean/western Asia Minor tablewares (WAM) Campana A Mesopotamian glazed ware Table 4.1: Local, regional, and imported Hell 2/2b wares at Kedesh.

PHASE WEIGHT SPATTER LFO LFB SANDY SF AEGEAN FINE (KG) CW AMPHORA Persian 316.46 0.5% - - 2.1% 2.4% 0.1% <0.1% Hell 1 252.71 1.7% 2.1% 0.6% 2% 3.4% 0.3% 0.9% Hell 2 374.27 6.1% 4.6% 1.5% 3.4% 6.4% 1.5% 2.8% Hell 2b 249.12 6.1% 41.2% 33.6% 1% 8.1% 4.6% 1% Hell 3 520.15 2% 15.5% 3.3% 2.3% 4.6% 0.8% 1.4% Roman 1127.07 4.6% 12.3% 4.3% 3.1% 6.9% 1.7% 2% Byz- 153.23 2.7% 11.3% 6.8% 4.7% 7.1% 2.4% 1.7% Islamic Med- 1106.11 4.9% 31.6% 1.7% 2.5% 6.4% 2.6% 1.5% Modern Total 4099.12 4% 17.4% 4.6% 2.7% 5.9% 1.8% Table 4.2: Hell 2/2b wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only.1

1 Hard mortarium fabric and gritty cooking ware are not included since they were not consistently recognized during pottery reading.

PHASE ALL POSSIBLE HELL 2 FRAGMENTS, FRAGMENTS OF FORMS QUANTITY/% OF TOTAL INTRODUCED IN HELL 2, QUANTITY/% OF TOTAL Hell 2 1233/44% 292/11% Hell 2b 320/59% 184/34% Hell 3 748/30% 259/10% Roman 1711/33% 628/12% Byz- 401/24% 143/8% Islamic Med- 1773/33% 752/13% Modern TOTAL 6186 2258 Table 4.3: Hell 2/2b diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

LOCAL WARES REGIONAL WARES IMPORTED WARES (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) (ABBREVIATION) Hard mortarium fabric (hard Basaltic cooking ware Eastern sigillata A (ESA) mort) (Basaltic CW) Tan-gray marl ware (TGM) Gritty cooking ware Aegean amphora fabric (gritty CW) (Aegean amphora) Phoenician semi fine (SF) Table 5.1: Local, regional, and imported Hell 3 wares at Kedesh.

PHASE IDENTIFIED TGM SF BASALTIC AEGEAN FINE WEIGHT CW AMPHORA (KG) Persian 316.46 - 2.4% - 0.1% <0.1% Hell 1 252.71 - 3.4% - 0.3% 0.9% Hell 2 374.27 0.2% 6.4% - 1.5% 2.8% Hell 2b 249.12 0 8.1% - 4.6% 1% Hell 3 520.15 1.5% 4.6% 0.6% 0.8% 1.4% Roman 1127.07 2.2% 6.9% 1% 1.7% 2% Byz- 153.23 1.8% 7.1% 1.6% 2.4% 1.7% Islamic Med- 1106.11 0.7% 6.4% 0.2% 2.6% 1.5% Modern TOTAL 4099.12 1.1% 5.9% 0.5% 1.8% Table 5.2: Hell 3 wares as percentage of identified wares by phase, 2008-2010 seasons only (gritty cooking ware not included).

LOCUS WEIGHT TGM BASALTIC SF SPATTER (KG) CW 35010 42.69 12.9% 3.3% 5% 1.3% 35011 101.68 11.6% 7.1% 10.2% 0.5% All Roman 1127.07 2.2% 1% 4.6% 4.6% loci Table 5.3: Percentage of ware weight in loci 35010 and 35011 compared to Roman average.

PHASE ALL POSSIBLE HELL 3 FRAGMENTS OF FORMS FRAGMENTS, QUANTITY/% OF INTRODUCED IN HELL 2, TOTAL QUANTITY/% OF TOTAL Hell 3 183/7% 82/3% Roman 546/11% 265/5% Byz-Islamic 229/13% 143/8% Med-Modern 411/8% 142/3% TOTAL 1369 632 Table 5.4: Hell 3 diagnostic vessel fragments by phase.

ABBREVIATION FABRIC/WARE Basaltic CW Basaltic cooking ware BSP Black slipped predecessor (of ESA) CCF Central coastal fine CCP Central coastal plain ware COW Coarse orange ware Crystal CW Crystal cooking ware ESA Eastern sigillata A Gritty CW Gritty cooking ware Hard Mort Hard mortarium fabric LFB Low fired brown LFO Low fired orange NCF Northern coastal fine RBG Red brown gritty Sandy CW Sandy cooking ware SF Phoenician semi fine Spatter Spatter painted ware TGM Tan grey marl WAM Wares from western Asia Minor WW White ware Table A1: Fabric/ware abbreviations used in the Appendix A and B tables.

PERSIAN LDMS DATE RANGE REFERENCES Attic/Atticizing Lekythoi Late 6th-4th General: Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 150- century 155; Stern 1982, 138-139 Attic/Atticizing skyphoi Early 5th-4th General: Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 84- century 85 Attic/Atticizing bowls Late 5th-early General: Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 128- with outturned and 3rd century 132 incurved rims Attic/Atticizing Classical 4th-early 3rd General: Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 118- kantharoi century 122; Rotroff 1996, 83-84 Neckless cooking pots 5th-3rd century General: Lehmann 1998, 21-22; Stern with triangular rims 1982, 100-102; Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 87- 88, pl. 20: PW179, 181, 183 Juglets with stumpy feet 5th-4th century General: Stern 1982, 123-124; Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 51-52; Mizpe Yammim: Berlin and Frankel forthcoming Cylindrical olpai Late 5th-mid 2nd General: Stern 1982, 118-120 century HELL 1 LDMS DATE RANGE REFERENCES CCF bowls and saucers 3rd-early 2nd Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone century forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 2; 3.4: 3, 6; 3.6: 5 Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A4 Gray brown Cypriote 3rd-early 2nd Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone bowls and saucers century forthcoming, figs. 3.1: 4; 3.4: 4; 3.10: 4; 3.6: 6-7, 9-10; 3.8: 1, 5 Skyphoi with vertical 3rd-early 2nd Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone handles century forthcoming figs. 3.1:9; 3.6:2 Dor: Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.6:3-4; Kition: Salles 1993, 186, 192, 202, figs. 196-197: 219; 214: 360, 364 Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A4 Sandy CW necked 3rd-2nd century Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 88-89 cooking pots with pointed, Dor: Guz-Zilberstein 1995, figs. 6.18: concave, and flattened 10; 6.19: 11 rims Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A4 Sandy CW casseroles with 3rd-2nd century Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone wavy rims and straight forthcoming, figs. 3.2:8; 3.5:5 walls Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A4. Phoenician SF baggy jars 3rd-early 1st Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone century forthcoming, fig. 3.3:2-6 Dor: Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.38:1. Phoenician SF juglets with 3rd-2nd century Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 52-53, pls. 10, 74: wide mouths PW54 Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A4 Phoenician SF juglets with 3rd-2nd century Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 53, pls. 10, 74: flanged rims PW59 Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A4 Fusiform unguentaria Late 4th-1st General: Anderson-Stojanović 1987 century HELL 2 LDMS DATE RANGE REFERENCES NCF bowls, saucers with Early-mid 2nd Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone grooved rim, and century forthcoming, figs. 3.9:2; 3.10: 11; 3.12:3, fishplates with hanging 11; 3.15: 6; 3.17:2-3 rims Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A5 BSP bowls, plates, and Second-third General: Slane 1997a, 271-272; 275-282 platters quarters of the Kedesh Stratigraphy: Table A5 2nd century Campana A saucers with 2nd century General: Morel 1981, 153, 164-165, drooping rim, footed 229, 238. hemispherical bowls, bowls with thickened rims, and plates with upturned rims Mold made bowls with 2nd-1st century General: Rotroff 2006b Attic and Ionian profiles, all wares Phoenician SF jugs with 2nd century Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 38-39, 48-49, pls. folded rim and table 1: PW3-4; 8: PW39 amphoras with angled Akko-Ptolemais: Berlin and Stone rims forthcoming, figs. 3.11: 3; 3.12: .20; 3.17: 11 Dor: Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.32:5 Spatter squat table 2nd century Anafa: Berlin 1997a, 40-41, pls. 2, 73: amphoras PW11 Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A5 HELL 3 LDMS DATE RANGE REFERENCES ESA bowls with incurved Third quarter of General: Slane 1997, 271-272; Tidmarsh rims, footed hemispherical 2nd century-first 2011 bowls, plates with quarter of 1st Anafa: Slane 1997, 285-289, 309, 319, upturned rims, mold made century pls. 6-7: FW55-56, FW60, 67; 17: FW bowls, conical mastoi with 176; 21: FW217; 22: FW236 interior rim moldings, conical cups. Basaltic CW cooking pots Third quarter of Jerusalem: Geva 2003, 133-136, pls. with high splayed necks 2nd century to 5.1: 27-28, 30; 5.3: 4-6; 5.4: 16-17, 30- and casseroles with short 1st century 32; 5.6: 34, 36-41; 5.7: 1-3; 5.8: 37-38 sharply angled rims Tushingham 1985, 39-40, figs. 18: 30; 19: 1-5; 20: 11 Shechem: N. Lapp 2008, 326-329, pls. 3.39: 6-9; 3.40: 1-2, 4-5 Shuhara: Aviam and Amitai 2002, 124- 125, fig. 12: 2, 6 Tirat Yehuda: Yeivin and Edelstein 1970 Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A6 TGM elongated baggy jars Third quarter of Kedesh stratigraphy: Table A6 with everted rims, jugs 2nd century to with squared rims and 1st century rounded bottoms, bowls with plain and incurved rims Table a2: Ceramic phase LDMs at Kedesh: Persian period, Hell 1, Hell 2, and Hell 3.

FORMS THAT FIRST APPEAR IN PERSIAN PERIOD QUANTITY IN PERSIAN LOCI WARES IN WHICH PERSIAN/LATER THEY APPEAR LOCI (TOTAL) Holemouth jars RBG, COW 56/501 (561) Holemouth jars with thickened rims RBG, COW 119/1245 (1363) Torpedo jars with narrow necks and COW, RBG, WW 189/1918 (2107) thickened rims Jars with high necks COW, WW, CCP, RBG 25/138 (163) Shouldered torpedo jars Phoenician SF, CCP, WW, 15/131 (146) RBG, COW Jars with squared rims that are CCP 3/62 (65) grooved on exterior Mortaria/deep bowls with rolled rims WW, CCP, RBG, Spatter 32/273 (305) Pale porous basins WW, Aegean ware(s) 8/61 (69) Mortaria with narrow rounded rims Spatter, Hard mort, RBG, 8/59 (67) WW, CCP Jugs with thickened rims WW, CCP 16/136 (152) Cylindrical stands with thickened rims RBG 2/2 (4) and bases Cooking pots, thick grooved rims Crystal CW 27/274 (301) Neckless cooking pots with triangular Sandy CW, Aegean CW 41/370 (411) rims Bowls with plain rims WW, RBG 64/485 (549) Carinated “Achaemenid” bowls WW, RBG 4/36 (40) Bowls with outturned rims Attic/Atticizing 3/32 (35) Bowls with incurved rims Attic/Atticizing 1/7 (8) Other Attic/Atticizing bowls Attic/Atticizing 2/18 (20) Skyphoi Attic/Atticizing 1/17 (18) Kantharoi Attic/Atticizing 1/6 (7) Other Attic/Atticizing drinking vessels Attic/Atticizing 3/11 (14) Column kraters Phoenician SF, WW, CCP, 2/26 (28) RBG Jugs with thickened slip banded rims Phoenician SF, WW 1/23 (24) Cylindrical olpai Phoenician SF, CCP, WW, 7/47 (54) Cypriote ware(?) Attic/Atticizing service vessels Attic/Atticizing 0/8 (8) Juglets with stumpy feet Phoenician SF, WW 1/8 (9) Attic lekythoi Attic/Atticizing 2/28 (30) Table A3: Forms that make their first appearance in Persian loci at Kedesh.

FORMS THAT FIRST APPEAR IN HELL 1 WARES IN QUANTITY IN HELL 1 LOCI WHICH THEY APPEAR HELL 1/LATER LOCI (TOTAL) Phoenician SF baggy jars Phoenician SF 7/207 (214) Rhodian amphoras Aegean amphora fabric 1/96 (97) Mortaria with extended rims Hard mortarium fabric 1/6 (7) Jugs with squared rims Spatter 3/156 (159) Neckless cooking pots with triangular Spatter (form present in 1/58 (59) rims Sandy CW in Persian loci) Necked cooking pots with pointed Sandy CW 17/247 (264) rims Necked cooking pots with concave Sandy CW 1/18 (19) rims Necked cooking pots with flattened Sandy CW 1/40 (41) rims Casseroles with wavy rims and Sandy CW 4/53 (57) straight walls Casseroles with angled rims and Sandy CW 1/56 (57) rounded walls Lids with plain rims Sandy CW 3/55 (58) Bowls with incurved rims CCF, spatter, Cypriote 57/1089 (1146) wares, unknown wares Bowls with everted rims CCF, WAM 2/16 (18) Saucers with ledge rims CCF 89/867 (956) Saucers with folded rims CCF 30/607 (637) Skyphoi with vertical handles Cypriote wares 2/12 (14) Kraters with thickened rim Spatter 1/19 (20) Juglets with wide mouths Phoenician SF 1/122 (123) Unguentarium, ledge rim fusiform Phoenician SF 1/1 (1) Juglet with flanged thickened rims Phoenician SF 1/3 (4) Unguentarium, uncertain form Phoenician SF, Grey 3/10 (13) unguentarium fabric Table A4: Forms that make their first appearance in Hell 1 loci at Kedesh.

FORMS THAT FIRST APPEAR IN HELL 2 WARES IN QUANTITY IN HELL 2 LOCI WHICH THEY APPEAR HELL 2 AND 2B/LATER LOCI (TOTAL) Large jars with everted rims LFO, LFB 27/116 (143) Phoenician SF amphoriskoi, small Phoenician SF 41/67 (108) Phoenician SF amphoriskoi, large Phoenician SF 4/3 (7) Mortaria with extended rims Spatter 12/42 (54) LFB handmade basins LFB 2/4 (6) Kraters with overhanging rims Sandy CW, Spatter, 5/13 (18) Unknown Phoenician SF flasks with folded rims Phoenician SF 3/27 (30) Necked cooking pots with pointed Gritty CW, Spatter 49/134 (183) rims Necked cooking pots with concave Spatter, unknown 2/4 (6) rims imported ware Necked cooking pots with flattened Spatter, unknown 5/9 (14) rims Necked cooking pots with ledge rims Sandy CW 6/12 (18) Casseroles with angled rims and Sandy CW 3/4 (7) rounded walls, large Casseroles with angled rims and Sandy CW 5/11 (16) straight walls Cooking lids Gritty CW 1/7 (8) Baking pan, Aegean style Aegean CW 2/13 (15) Cooking pots with high splayed necks Sandy CW 5/15 (20) Bowls with incurved rims NCF, BSP 59/93 (152) Bowls with everted rims Spatter, NCF, BSP, Camp 25/101 (126) A, Parthian GW, unknown Footed hemispherical bowls BSP 1/16 (17) Campana A bowls with thickened rims Campana A 2/3 (5) Saucers with ledge rims Cypriote wares, NCF, 13/19 (32) sandy tableware, unknown Saucers with folded rims Spatter, Phoenician SF 2/7 (9) Saucers with thickened rims NCF 1/10 (11) Saucers with grooved rims NCF, spatter, unknown 31/90 (121) Campana A saucers with drooping Campana A 3/16 (20) rims Fishplates with hanging rim BSP, spatter, NCF, WAM, 20/127 (147) Parthian GW Spatter fishplates with ridged walls Spatter 3/32 (35) Plates with rolled rims CCF, NCF, WAM, 5/7 (12) unknown Skyphoi with vertical handles CCF, NCF, unknown 4/11 (15) Carinated cups with pinched handles Rhodian FW, CCF, 20/57 (77) Spatter, WAM Moldmade bowls with Attic profiles BSP, NCF 17/62 (79) WAM Moldmade bowls with Ionian WAM 4/37 (41) profiles Conical mastoi NCF, Cypriote wares 2/3 (5) Concial mastoi with interior rim BSP 1/13 (14) moldings Painted column kraters Spatter 1/2 (3) Jugs with triangular rims Phoenician SF, unknown 6/21 (27) Phoenician SF jugs with folded rims Phoenician SF 8/97 (105) Table amphoras with stepped rims Spatter, Phoenician SF, 3/6 (9) WAM Phoenician SF table amphoras with Phoenician SF 17/75 (92) angled rims Spatter squat table amphora Spatter 9/24 (33) Lagynos Phoenician SF, Chian, 12/32 (44) unknown Jugs with flanged trefoil rims Phoenician SF 1/5 (6) Phoenician SF unguentaria with Phoenician SF 3/7 (10) domed mouths Phoenician SF elongated fusiform Phoenician SF 5/27 (32) unguentaria Imported grey unguentarium fabric Imported grey 4/3 (7) hollow footed fusiform unguentaria unguentarium fabric Phoenician SF banded fusiform Phoenician SF 1/5 (6) unguentaria Phoenician SF pared fusiform Phoenician SF 2/0 (2) unguentaria Phoenician SF squat ointment pot Phoenician SF 1/4 (5) Table A5: Forms that make their first appearance in Hell 2 and 2b loci at Kedesh.

FORMS THAT FIRST APPEAR IN HELL 3 WARES IN QUANTITY IN HELL 3 LOCI WHICH THEY APPEAR HELL 3 /LATER LOCI (TOTAL) Elongated baggy jars with everted rims TGM 6/36 (42) Jugs with squared rims and rounded TGM 10/43 (53) bottoms Gritty CW necked cooking pots with Gritty CW 5/36 (41) grooved rims Cooking pots with high splayed necks Basaltic CW 39/257 (296) Casseroles with short sharply angled Basaltic CW 1/10 (11) rims Cooking lids Basaltic CW, unknown 2/7 (9) Bowls with incurved rims Cypriote sigillata 1/1 (2) Bowls with everted rims Spatter, NCF, BSP, Camp 25/101 (126) A, Parthian GW, unknown Platters with offset rims BSP 3/15 (18) Footed hemispherical bowls ESA 6/41 (47) TGM bowls with plain or incurved TGM 2/8 (10) rims Moldmade bowls with Attic profiles ESA, unknown 4/13 (17) Conical mastoi ESA, unknown 3/4 (7) ESA conical cups ESA 4/2 (6) Table A6: Forms that make their first appearance in Hell 3 loci at Kedesh.

1 FIGURE SHAPE, FORM, WARE INVENTORY LOCUS STRATIGRAPHIC 2 NO. NO. PHASE 2.1: 1 Holemouth jar, RBG K00P020 CB24032 Hell 2 2.1: 2 Holemouth jar, RBG K00P008 CB24036 Hell 3 2.1: 3 Holemouth jar, RBG K10P050 CB25064 Persian 2.1: 4 Holemouth jar, thickened rim, K06P123 CB26022 Persian COW 2.1: 5 Holemouth jar, thickened rim, K00P009 CB39007 Med-Modern RBG 2.3: 1 Torpedo jar, narrow neck and K00P260 CB36014 Persian thickened rim, COW 2.3: 2 Torpedo jar, narrow neck and K10P053 CB25068 Persian thickened rim, COW 2.3: 3 Torpedo jar, narrow neck and K00P014 CB48021 Hell 3 thickened rim, COW 2.3: 4 Torpedo jar, narrow neck and K10P028 CB25064 Persian thickened rim, RBG 2.3: 5 Jar, high neck, COW K08P095 CB37025 Roman 2.3: 6 Shouldered torpedo jar, WW K99P017 CA93015 Persian 2.3: 7 Shouldered torpedo jar, WW K10P005 CB25061 Persian 2.4: 1 Mortarium, rolled rim, CCP K09P150 CB37046 Persian 2.4: 2 Mortarium, rolled rim, WW K00P310 CB24014 Roman 2.4: 3 Pale porous basin, unknown K09P096 CB15027 Hell 3 import 2.4: 4 Pale porous basin, WW K08P251 CB16044 No phase 2.4: 5 Mortarium, narrow rounded K10P051 CB25064 Persian rim, RBG 2.5: 1 Jug, thickened rim, CCP K09P227 CB37047 Roman 2.5: 2 Cooking pot, thick grooved rim, K09P149 CB37047 Roman crystal CW 2.5: 3 Cooking pot, thick grooved rim, K09P151 CB37047 Roman crystal CW 2.5: 4 Neckless cooking pot, K10P052 CB25064 Persian triangular room, imported Aegean CW 2.7: 1 Bowl, plain rim, WW K00P053 CB38014 Hell 2 2.7: 2 Bowl, plain rim, WW K10P021 CB25066 Persian 2.7: 3 Saucer, banded ledge rim, K09P214 CB25030.1 Hell 1 Phoenician SF 2.7: 4 Bowl, carinated “Achaemenid,” K09P226 CB37047 Roman WW 2.7: 5 Bowl, incurved rim, Attic K08P098 CB25017 Hell 3

1 For ware abbreviations see Table A1. 2 Work is ongoing on the stratigraphic and architectural phasing of the PHAB at Kedesh, so these designations should be considered preliminary. 2.7: 6 Bowl, outturned rim, Attic K06P086 CA95015 Roman 2.7: 7 Cup, stemless, Attic K10P035 CB25064 Persian 2.7: 8 Skyphos, type A, Attic K09P194 CA94001 Med-modern 2.7: 9 Kantharos, molded rim, Attic K06P084 CA95002.1 Persian 2.8: 1 Column krater, thickened rim, K08P293 CB18024 Persian CCP 2.8: 2 Jug, thickened slip banded rim, K06P122 CB26022 Persian Phoenician SF 2.8: 3 Cylindrical olpe, Phoenician SF K08P234 CA95028 Persian 2.8: 4 Juglet, stumpy footed, K06P121 CB26022 Persian Phoenician SF 2.8: 5 Lekythos, Attic/Atticizing K08P135 CB16062 Hell 2 2.8: 6 Lekythos, squat, Attic K09P062 CB17059 Hell 1 Table B1: Persian Period vessels shown in Figs. 2.1; 2.3-5; 2.7-9.

FIGURE SHAPE, FORM, WARE INVENTORY LOCUS STRATIGRAPHIC 3 NO. NO. PHASE 3.1 Baggy jar, shouldered, K08P231 CA95026 Hell 1 Phoenician SF 3.3: 1 Mortarium, narrow rounded K00P040 CB38011 Med-Modern rim, spatter 3.3: 2 Jug, squared rim, spatter K06P100 CB38cl No phase 3.4: 1 Neckless cooking pot, K99P109 CB24018 Hell 1 triangular rim, sandy CW 3.4: 2 Necked cooking pot, pointed K09P235 CB17056 Roman rim, sandy CW 3.4: 3 Necked cooking pot, concave K10P079 CB47024 Hell 2 rim, sandy CW 3.4: 4 Casserole, wavy rim, straight K09P063 CB17046 Hell 1 wall, sandy CW 3.4: 5 Lid, sandy CW K06P055 CB17009 Hell 1 3.4: 6 Casserole, angled rim, rounded K06P063 CB17024.1 Hell 1 wall, sandy CW 3.5: 1 Bowl, incurved rim, CCF K06P064 CB17009 Hell 1 CB17024.1 3.5: 2 Bowl, incurved rim, CCF K08P178 CB18cl No phase 3.5:3 Bowl, incurved rim, NE K08P230 CA95012 Hell 1 Cypriote CA95026 3.5: 4 Bowl, everted rim, gray-brown K06P113 CB26016 Roman Cypriote 3.5: 5 Saucer, ledge rim, CCF K08P290 CB17029 Hell 1 3.5: 6 Saucer, ledge rim, CCF K99P093 CB24008 Hell 3

3 Work is ongoing on the stratigraphic and architectural phasing of the PHAB at Kedesh, so these phase designations should be considered preliminary. 3.5: 7 Saucer, ledge rim, gray-brown K09P196 CB46023.1 Hell 2 Cypriote 3.5: 8 Saucer, ledge rim, CCF K06P062 CB17024.1 Hell 1 3.5: 9 Saucer, folded rim, CCF K06P075 CB47006.1 Hell 1 3.7: 1 Skyphos, vertical handled, NE K08P279 CB25015.1 Hell 2 Cypriote 3.7: 2 Skyphos, vertical handled, CCF K09P225 CB23004 Med-modern 3.7: 3 Cylindrical olpe, unknown K06P103 CA95018 Hell 2 import 3.7: 4 Fusiform unguentarium, ledge K10P066 CB35036 Hell 1 rim, Phoenician SF 3.7: 5 Fusiform unguentarium, K06P057 CB17024.1 Hell 1 Phoenician SF Table B2: Hell 1 vessels shown in Figs. 3.1; 3.3-5; 3.7-8.

FIGURE SHAPE, FORM, WARE INVENTORY LOCUS STRATIGRAPHIC 4 NO. NO. PHASE 4.2 Large jar, everted rim, LFO K99P054 CB47009 Hell 2b 4.3-4.4 Large jar, everted rim, LFB K99P056 CB47009 Hell 2b 4.5: 1 Baggy jar, Phoenician SF K08P277 CA96021 Hell 2b CA96033 4.5: 2 Baggy jar, Phoenician SF K99P140 CB47009 Hell 2b 4.6 Rhodian amphora, Aegean K99P052 CB47010 Hell 2b amphora fabric 4.7: 1 Amphoriskos, large, Phoenician K00P190 CB48025 Hell 2b SF 4.7: 2 Amphoriskos, Phoenician SF K00P195 CB48025 Hell 2b 4.7: 3 Amphoriskos, Phoenician SF K06P040 CB38030 Roman 4.9: 1 Mortarium, extended rim, K00P038 CB48021 Hell 2b spatter 4.9: 2 Handmade basin, LFB K08P042 CB16056 Hell 2b 4.9: 3 Krater, overhanging rim, sandy K09P230 CB17044.1 Hell 2 CW CB17047 CB17053 4.10: 1 Jug, squared rim, spatter K08P265 CA96021 Hell 2b CA96033 4.10: 2 Flask, folded rim, Phoenician K08P115 CB28005.1 Hell 3 SF 4.11 Utility jar, thickened rim, K10P009 CB35016 Hell 2b unknown ware 4.12: 1 Necked cooking pot, pointed K08P264 CA96021 Hell 2b

4 Work is ongoing on the stratigraphic and architectural phasing of the PHAB at Kedesh, so these designations should be considered preliminary. rim, spatter 4.12: 2 Necked cooking pot, pointed K08P267 CA96033 Hell 2b rim, gritty CW 4.12: 3 Necked cooking pot, flattened K08P268 CA96033 Hell 2b rim, sandy CW 4.12: 4 Necked cooking pot, flattened K10P015 CB45008 Hell 2b rim, spatter 4.14: 1 Necked cooking pot, ledge rim, K08P289 CB17028 Hell 2 sandy CW 4.14: 2 Small cooking pot, everted rim, K97P006 WB31004 Hell 2b (house sandy CW west of PHAB) 4.14: 3 Cooking pot, high splayed neck, K09P172 CB46023 Hell 2 sandy CW 4.14: 4 Necked cooking pot, concave K09P252 CB46023.1 Hell 2 rim, imported CW 4.14: 5 Necked cooking pot, short K09P249 CB46023.1 Hell 2 ledge rim, imported CW 4.14: 6 Casserole, wavy rim, straight K06P029 CB17004 Hell 2 wall, sandy CW 4.14: 7 Casserole, angled rim, straight K08P269 CA96033 Hell 2b wall 4.15: 1 Lid, sandy CW K00P205 CB38019 Hell 2 4.15: 2 Casserole, angled rim, rounded K08P058 CB28008 Med-modern wall, sandy CW 4.15: 3 Large casserole, angled rim, K09P008 CB17050 Hell 2 rounded wall CB17062 CB17054 CB17055 CB17057 4.16: 1 Pan, Aegean-style, Aegean CW K09P088 CB46021 Med-modern 4.16: 2 Pan, Aegean-style, sandy CW K09P059 CB17056 Roman 4.17 Brazier, molded, Aegean CW K08P129 CB18021 Hell 2b 4.18: 1 Bowl, incurved rim, CCF K99P132 CB47017 Hell 2b 4.18: 2 Bowl, incurved rim, spatter K08P263 CA96033 Hell 2b 4.18: 3 Bowl, incurved rim, NCF K09P076 CB46021 Med-modern 4.18: 4 Bowl, incurved rim, NCF K08P208 CB28008 Roman CB28009 4.18: 5 Bowl, incurved rim, NCF K08P260 CA96033 Hell 2b 4.18: 6 Bowl, incurved rim, NCF K10P027 CB35016 Hell 2b 4.18: 7 Bowl, incurved rim, NCF K00P198 CB46000 Roman CB46009 CB46010 4.20: 1 Bowl, everted rim, spatter K08P262 CA96033 Hell 2b 4.20: 2 Bowl, everted rim, NCF K08P185 CB17028 Hell 2 CB17028.1 CB17033 4.20: 3 Bowl, everted rim, BSP K08P172 CB17035 Roman 4.20: 4 Bowl, everted rim, Campana A K09P233 CB17055 Roman 4.20: 5 Bowl, everted rim, K06P076 CB37010.1 Hell 2 Mesopotamian glazed ware 4.20: 6 Hemispherical bowl, footed, K06P039 CB38030 Roman BSP 4.20: 7 Bowl, thickened rim, Campana K08P170 CB17035 Roman A 4.20: 8 Bowl, grooved rim, spatter K08P116 CB28009, Roman painted ware CB28010 4.21: 1 Saucer, folded rim, CCF K10P026 CB45010 Hell 2b 4.21: 2 Saucer, grooved rim, NCF K08P195 CB17030.0 Hell 2 CB17040 4.21:3 Saucer or plate, drooping ledge K99P060 CB47009 Hell 2b rim, Campana A 4.21: 4 Fishplate, hanging rim, BSP K08P258 CA96033 Hell 2b 4.22: 1 Fishplate, hanging rim, BSP K00P157 CB27013 Hell 2b (annex) 4.22: 2 Fishplate, hanging rim, BSP K00P034 CB27019 Hell 2b (annex) 4.22: 3 Fishplate, hanging rim, NCF K00P187 CB24035 Hell 2 CB24050 4.23: 1 Fishplate, hanging rim, spatter K08P052 CB28008 Med-modern 4.23: 2 Fishplate, hanging rim, K09P038 + CB17041.1 Hell 2 Mesopotamian glazed ware K09P237 CB17043.1 CB17053 CB17055 4.23: 3 Fishplate, ridged wall, spatter K08P060 CB28009 Roman 4.23: 4 Plate, rolled rim, WAM K08P188 CB17027 Roman 4.23: 5 Platter, offset rim, BSP K06P034 CB26013 Byz-Islamic CB26019 4.24: 1 Plate, upturned rim, Campana A K09P021 CB17068 Med-modern 4.24: 2 Platter, downturned rim, WAM K08P171 CB16037 Roman CB17035 4.24: 3 Plate or platter, offset wall? K09P017 CB17054 Roman WAM 4.25: 1 Platter, offset wall, Cypriote or K00P207 CB47011 Hell 2b WAM import CB47016 CB48024 CB48025 4.25: 2 Handmade platter, south Italian K00P232 CB48022 Hell 2b 4.26: 1 Carinated cup, pinched handles, K10P038 CB35022.1 Hell 2 WAM, color coated ware A CB35023 CB35032 CB35033 4.26: 2 Carinated cup, pinched handles, K08P259 CA96033 Hell 2b WAM 4.26: 3 Moldmade bowl, Attic profile, K00P219 CB27013 Hell 2b BSP (annex) 4.26: 4 Moldmade bowl, Attic profile, K06P010 CB17021 Byz-Islamic BSP CB17022 4.26: 5 Moldmade bowl, Ionian profile, K00P212 CB38011 Byz-Islamic WAM CB38016 4.26: 6 Moldmade bowl, Ionian profile K00P180 CB16000 Med-modern CB16002 4.27: 1 Mastos, conical, WAM? K08P024 CB16002b Roman 4.27: 2 Mastos, conical, Campana A K08P292 CB16002b Roman 4.27: 3 Mastos, conical with interior K06P008 CB26014 Roman rim molding, BSP CB26015 4.27: 4 Krater, thickened rim, spatter K00P204 CB46014 Hell 2 4.28: 1 Krater, painted, spatter K09P002 CB17038 Hell 2 CB17038.0 CB17049 CB17055 4.28: 2 Krater, everted rim, BSP K08P287 CB16002b Roman 4.29: 1 Jug, triangular rim, Phoenician K09P232a CB17049 Roman SF CB17055 4.29: 2 Jug, folded rim, Phoenician SF K00P092 CB27011 Hell 2b CB27013 (annex) 4.29: 3 Jug, folded rim, Phoenician SF K08P048 CB16002b Roman 4.29: 4 Jug, everted rim, spatter K99P114 CB47017 Hell 2b 4.29: 5 Table amphora, stepped rim, K00P231 CB48025 Hell 2b WAM 4.29: 6 Table amphora, angled rim, K00P189 CB27013 Hell 2b Phoenician SF (annex) 4.30: 1 Table amphora, angled rim, K08P189 CA96033 Hell 2b Phoenician SF 4.30: 2 Table amphora, thickened rim, K08P273 CA96033 Hell 2b Phoenician SF 4.30: 3 Table amphora, squat, spatter K08P182 CA96033 Hell 2b 4.31: 1 Lagynos, Chian K00P236 CB48025 Hell 2b 4.31: 2 Lagynos, Phoencian SF K09P140 CB28023 Hell 2 4.31: 3 Juglet, wide mouthed, K00P087 CB27013 Hell 2b Phoenician SF (annex) 4.31: 4 Juglet, wide mouthed, K08P198 CA96033 Hell 2b Phoenician SF 4.31: 5 Juglet, flattened rim, K00P311 CB27012 Roman Phoenician SF 4.31: 6 Guttus, unknown import K10P030 CB35016 Hell 2b 4.32: 1 Juglet, flanged rim, Phoenician K09P097 CB15028 Hell 2 SF 4.32: 2 Jug, flanged trefoil rim, K09P001 CB17063 Byz-Islamic Phoenician SF 4.32: 3 Unguentarium, domed mouth, K99P074 CB47016 Hell 2b Phoenician SF 4.32: 4 Unguentarium, elongated K10P016 CB35016 Hell 2b fusiform, Phoenician SF 4.32: 5 Unguentarium, banded K09P167 CB36050 Roman fusiform, Phoenician SF 4.32: 6 Unguentarium, hollow K99P142 CB47016 Hell 2b stemmed, gray unguentarium fabric 4.32: 7 Ointment pot, squat, Phoenician K09P179 CB46026.1 Hell 2 SF 4.33: 1 Baggy jar, miniature, K10P024 CB45000 Hell 2b Phoenician SF 4.33: 2 Juglet, fusiform, unknown ware K08P053 CB16056 Hell 2b Table B3: Hell 2 vessels shown in Figs. 4.2-10; 4.12-16; 4.18-36.

FIGURE SHAPE, FORM, WARE INVENTORY LOCUS STRATIGRAPHIC 5 NO. NO. PHASE 5.6 Baggy jar, elongated, TGM K00P305 CB27011 Med-modern 5.7: 1 Mortarium, curled rim, hard K09P003 CB17000 Med-modern mort CB17049 5.7: 2 Krater, overhanging rim, gritty K08P177 CA95025 Hell 3 CW 5.7: 3 Jug, squared rim, rounded K09P202 CB35011 Roman bottom, TGM 5.8: 1 Necked cooking pot, pointed K10P056 CB35022 Hell 3 rim, gritty CW 5.8: 2 Necked cooking pot, grooved K08P120 CB25017 Hell 3 rim, gritty CW 5.8: 3 Cooking pot, high splayed neck, K10P071 CB35010 Roman basaltic CW CB35011 5.9: 1 Cooking pot, high splayed neck, K08P108 CB26032 Hell 3 basaltic CW 5.9: 2 Cooking pot, high splayed neck, K09P031 CB37037 Roman basaltic CW CB37038 5.9: 3 Cooking pot, splayed neck, K09P222 CB35011 Roman thickened rim, basaltic CW 5.9: 4 Cooking pot, splayed neck, K10P055 CB35034 Med-modern

5 Work is ongoing on the stratigraphic and architectural phasing of the PHAB at Kedesh, so these designations should be considered preliminary. thickened rim, basaltic CW 5.10: 1 Casserole, short sharply angled K00P164 CB24035 Roman rim, basaltic CW 5.10: 2 Lid, basaltic CW K08P021 CB26037 Roman 5.10: 3 Casserole, short sharply angled K00P312 CB27013 Roman rim, basaltic CW 5.10: 4 Jug, flanged neck, basaltic CW K09P188 CB35011 Roman 5.10: 5 Jug, grooved rim, basaltic CW K06P105 CB26017 Byz-Islamic 5.10: 6 Jug, ledge rim, basaltic CW K09P219 CB35011 Roman 5.11: 1 Bowl, plain rim, TGM K06P101 CB26cl No phase 5.11: 2 Bowl, plain rim, TGM K06P106 CB26017 Byz-Islamic 5.11: 3 Saucer, flat foot, TGM K06P112 CB26013 Med-modern 5.11: 4 Bowl, incurved rim, ESA K00P151 CB27013 Roman 5.11: 5 Bowl, incurved rim, ESA K08P036 CB37025 Roman 5.11: 6 Hemispherical bowl, footed, K09P211 CB25045.1 Roman ESA 5.11: 7 Hemispherical bowl, footed, K00P162 CB27013 Roman ESA 5.11: 8 Hemispherical bowl, footed, K08P131 CB26033 Med-modern ESA 5.12: 1 Plate, upturned rim, ESA K06P022 CB26013 Med-modern CB26033 5.12: 2 Platter, offset rim, ESA K08P070 CB37007 Byz-Islamic 5.12: 3 Mastos, conical, ESA K08P022 CB26032 Hell 3 CB26011 5.12: 4 Cup, conical, ESA K08P037 CB25002 Hell 3 CB25017 CB25046 5.12: 5 Juglet, cupped rim, TGM K08P046 CB26032 Hell 3 5.12: 6 Juglet, basaltic CW K09P212 CB25051 Hell 3 Table B4: Hell 3 vessels shown in Figs. 5.6-13.

Tarsus

Jebel Khalid Antioch

RIVER EUPHRATES

Kition CYPRUS

Paphos

Byblos

ORONTES RIVER Berytus M E D I T E R R A N E A N Sidon S E A Tyre Kedesh

Akko SEA OF GALILEE Dor

Samaria 0 50 100 Kilometers

JORDAN RIVER Ashdod Jerusalem

DEAD SEA

Fig 1.1: Map of eastern Mediterranean with southern Levant highlighted. Sidon

M E D I T E R R A N E A N BEQAA VALLEY

LEBANON RANGE HERMON S E A MASSIF Tyre LITANI RIVER

Kedesh GOLAN UPPER GALILEE HEIGHTS 0 20 40 Kilometers Akko-Ptolemais LOWER GALILEE SEA OF GALILEE J E Z R E E L V A L L E Y CARMEL Dor

P L A I N

Samaria

J O R D A N V A L L E Y

H I L L S Gezer Ashdod C E N T R A L

C O A S T A L Jerusalem

S H E P Maresha H E L A H DEAD SEA Lachish

N E G E V

Fig. 1.2: Map showing regions of the southern Levant. Sidon

M E D I T E R R A N E A N

S E A B E Q A A V A L L E Y

L E B A N O N R A N G E HERMON MASSIF LITANI RIVER

0 10 20 30 Tyre Kilometers

U P P E R Anafa

Kedesh HULA G O L A N G A L I L E E VALLEY H E I G H T S

Hazor

Local proximity

Akko-Ptolemais CHORAZIM Regional PLATEAU proximity L O W E R G A L I L E E Gamla J E Z R E E L V A L L E Y SEA OF GALILEE CARMEL

Dor

Pella

J O R D A N V A L L E Y

C O A S T A L P L A I N

Fig. 1.3: Map showing local (one day’s travel) and regional (two-three day’s travel) proximity to/from Kedesh

Fig. 1.4: Aerial view of Upper Galilee from above Kedesh, looking southeast. (photo: Skyview)

Fig. 1.5: Aerial view of Tel Kedesh looking northeast, Hula Valley in distance. (photo: Sharon Herbert and Andrea Berlin) 0 5 10 N

Fig. 1.6: Aerial view of the PHAB at Kedesh, looking north. (photo: Skyview)

0 5 10 N

Fig. 1.7: Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer) Courtyard Iron Age walls built upon Entrance in Persian Period Court

Persian Period walls

Hellenistic walls built on orientation with Persian Period walls

0 5 10 N

Fig. 1.8: Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh with Iron Age, Persian Period, and Hellenistic walls in the line of Persian Period walls. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer) Courtyard

Extensive sealed 3rd century floor

Wall added or modified in the 3rd or 2nd century

0 5 10 N

Fig. 1.9: Plan of the PHAB at Kedesh with 3rd century floors and 3rd or 2nd century modifications. (plan: Lindy Lindorfer) Drain

Passage

Storage