OBSERVATIONS ON THE EARLY STRATA OF TEL ERANI

Baruch BRANDL Department of Antiquities and Museums,

Dedicated to the memories . \ of Prof. Shmue1 Yeivin, Mr. Shalom Levy and Ms. Ephrat Yeivin

Despite their great importance, the Tel Erani excavations have only been fragmentarily and haphazardly published 1. But since Erani is central to any argument concerning the Early Bronze Age in , and particularly with regard to the relations of and Canaan during that period, scholars have been forced to resort to the existing fragmentary published material. Various attempts have been made to reconcile stratigraphic, typological and chronological difficulties. Most recently, Weinstein (1984) has contributed substantially with his synthetic study of the implications of Erani for Egyp~-Canaan relations. With the passing away of Prof. Yeivin, Mr. Levy and Ms. Yeivin, the task of preparing the final report of the Tel Erani excavations of 1956-1961 was suggested to the present writer 2. This colloquium represents the first time that primary results and conclusions of this work are presented in public. The following discussion is based on both old publications and a partial examination of the material itself and will focus on four main topics: - the cultural and chronological milieu i - the beginnings of urbanization at Erani i

1. See below the list of publications of the excavators s. Yeivin, E. & s. Yeivin, and G. Ciasca. 2. I would like to thank Mr. Abraham Eitan, director of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (!DAM), and Dr. Ze'ev Yeivin for offering me the task of preparing the final excavation report and for permission to make this presentation. The generous assistence of other colleagues in IDAM should also be acknowledged, particularly that of Mrs. Varda Sussman, Curator, and of Mrs. Zila Sagiv and Mrs. Gara Amit for supplying photographic services. Special thanks are due to Mr; David Ilan for translating and editing the manUscript and for his fruitful comments, to Dr. Benjamin Sass for his valuable remarks on the draft, and to Ms. Ruchama Bonfil for drawing some of the objects and correcting a few of the original drawings. All drawings and photos are by courtesy of !DAM, unless otherwise noted.

-357 - BARUCH BRAND!.

FIG . 1. - Aerial photograph ofTel Erani taken in 1959. View to the West.

FIG 2. - Aerial photograph ofTel Erani taken in 1959. View to the South.

- 358- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

FIG. 3. - Te1 Erani, the excavation areas of the 1956-1960 seasons (Yeivin 1960d : fig: 1).

- Egyptian-Canaanite relations (as reflected especially by the large quantities of Egyptian pottery) ; - the question of the fortifications: their date and character. Each one of these subjects will be dealt with in the following order: S. Yeivin's interpretations, the other expedition members' opinIons (when expressed), other scholars suggestions, and finally my own. Wherever necessary, illustrative material has been included, some of which has been corrected or adapted. It must be emphasized· that the interpretations offered here are only preliminary and may change somewhat with further study.

-359 - BARUOI BRANDL

Chronology The large number of preliminary notes and articles published by Yeivin include an almost bewildering variety of chronologies. In particular, he repeatedly changed the chronological or cultural attributions of various strata in Area D. To complicate matters further, various scholars have attempted to reconcile contradictions and have suggested alternative schemes of their own. In order to make things clear it is worth tracing the development in Yeivin's and others' stratigraphic analyses and chronologies. At the end of this section, I will propose my own scheme to summarize the site's stratigraphy.

Yeivin IS interpretations (a) In the first season of excavation at Tel Erani seven strata were recognized in Area D, ranging from the late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age (Yeivin 1956: 259). (b) By the second season it was supposed that the two uppermost strata were EB II, and that the second stratum included five phases. An EB I stratum was also discerned at this time (Yeivin 1957: 264). (c) In another description of the results of the second season, Yeivin (1958b: 245) indicated that the two upper strata contained EB I and EB II material. (d) In are report following the third season, by which time eleven of the final twelve strata had been uncovered, the followingstratigraphy was given (Yeivin 1958c: 275): Strata I-II - EB 11 StratUm III EB I Strata IV-XI Chalcolithic (e) In the fourth season virgin soil was encountered and 13 strata determined (Yeivin 1959 : 270), but Stratum XIII was subsequently cancelled (Yeivin 1960d : 194). (f) In the preliminary report of the first three seasons (compiled in 1958 but published in 1961), Stratum IV was said to represent the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze (Yeivin 1961a : 8). (g) In another publication dealing with the first three seasons of excavation at Erani (also published some years after its writing), other strata were also attributed to this transitional stage: Stratum V and perhaps Stratum VI (Yeivin 1960a : 16). (h) Following the fourth season Stratum VI was removed from the transitional stage. I:Iere is Yeivin's (1960b: 394) stratigraphic interpretation after the fourth season: Strata I-II EBH Stratum III EB I Strata IV-V Chalcolithic - EB transition Strata VI-XII Chalcolithic (i) The Chalcolithic strata were assigned to the Late Chalcolithic period in the preliminary report (Yeivin 1961a : 8, but written in 1958). (j) Elsewhere, StratumXII was called Middle Chalcolithic and the other strata of that period were said to be contemporary with the Ghassulian...;Beersheva stage but to belong to another culture (Yeivin 196Od: 193-194,198; 1965: 355) .

.,360 - OBSERVATIONS ON TIffi EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

(k) In a 1965 lecture Yeivin (1967b: 45, 48 n. 30) proposed Stratum V to be Egyptian and remarked the presence of EB III sherds in Stratum I 3.

(l) In preparing the entry on Tel Erani for the Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land Yeivin seems to have been influenced by Hennessy (see below) when dealing with the upper strata: - the EB III was relegated to the uppermost phase of Stratum I and called Phase 0 (Yeivin 1970: 597; 1979: 341 n. 10) ; - Stratum IV - previously belonging to the Chalcolithic/EB I transitional phase - moved to the end of the EB I (Yeivin 1970 : 598; 1975: 95) ; - thus Yeivin seems to have dated Stratum III to EB 11, in contrast to the view he expressed until 1967, that Stratum III was EB I (Yeivin 1967b: 48). Yeivin's (1970) final proposal took the following form: Stratum I (Phase 0) EB III Strata I-Ill EB II Stratum IV endofEB I Stratum V Egyptian Strata VI-XII Chalcolithic

The interpretations of other expedition members Different views were held by three other members of the Erani staff. These were never published but were later cited by other scholars: • Z. Yeivin (in Ben-Tor 1969 : 3) : Stratum VI Late Chalcolithic/ early EB I Strata V-IV first half of EB I Stratum III second half of EB I Stratum II first half of EB II Stratum I second half of EB 11 • Sh. Levi (in Ben-Tor 1969: 3) : Stratum VI Post-Ghassulian Chalcolithic Stratum V Egyptian material including the serekh Strata IV-Ill EB I Strata 11-1 second half of EB 11 (following a gap in the first half of the EBII) • E. Yeivin (in Gophna 1972: 51 n.21) • Stratum IV EB II

Other scholars suggestions As mentioned above, a number of scholars have entered the foray and made alternative suggestions but part of their conclusions were based on insufficient and confused primary data.

3. This innovation was probably induced by the doctoral dissertations of Hennessy and BeI)-Tor. Hennessy (1967: 14 n. 53,22 nn. 130-131,23 n. 153,72 n. 61, pIs. 13: 1, 7, 60: 1) had dated the combed jars and Kenyon's A3a type bowl to the EB III, and Ben-Tor described one bowl of the Khirbet Kerak family (Ben-Tor 1969: 3,96,105[7], fig. 13 : 5 [our corrected Fig. 8 : 1]).

. - 361- BARUCH BRANDL

\J ~ ~ ~ ~ IJ ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7

'---~ i ;~ " ... -.... -# ..:

(;:---2; ~ ' .. ::-- ... 8 10 cm 9

FIG. 4. - Chalcolithic pottery from various strata in Area D.

2 3

6 6Il?t\\ ~V 4 5

7

8 10cm 9

FIG. 5. - Pottery from an early phase of the Early Bronze Age I, from Area D.

- 362- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

2

3

4 ( ,

5

6

7

8 10cm

FIG. 6. - Early Bronze Age III pottery from Stratum I in Area D.

- 363- BARUCH BRANDL

• Hennessy (1967 : 9 n. 25, 13 n. 43,14 n. 53,16 n. 65, 21 chart 1) We have already indicated that J.B. Hennessy was the first to do so; here is his stratigraphic interpretation: Stratum I EB III Strata I-Ill EB 11 Stratum IV EB I (Kenyon's terminology) Strata V-XII . Proto-Urban • Ben-Tor (1969 : 3) Stratum V the city.with the most abundant Egyptian material Strata IV.,.I11 EB I Strata 11-1 " EB 11 But in a summary table at the end of the above study, the author presented a somewhat different scheme (Ben-Tor 1969 : 155): Stratum V EB I Strata IV-I1 EB 11 Stratum I '. EB 11 > EB III (?) • Miroschedji (1971 : 63il:. 75,74, 79-80 n. 51, figs. 21-23) :) Strata XI-IX ghassoulien final, contemporary with the northern epoque pre-urbaine, phase 1 Strata XI-VIII epoque pre-urbaine, phase 2 Strata VII-VI epoque pre-urbaine, phase 3 • Gophna (1974: 121-128, 151, 153): Strata XII-IX Early EB I Strata VIII-V Late EB I Strata IV-I EB 11 Stratum I :{partially) EB III • Miroschedji (1976: 20 n. 27, 24 n. 46, 28 n. 78, 30 tableau 6): Strata VIII-VI epoque pre-urbaine Stratum V Bronze ancien I (= early EB 11 or EB IC) Strata IV-I1 Bronze ancien 11 Stratum I Bronze ancien III • Callaway and Weinstein (1977 : 2-3, 12) : Strata XI-X EB lA Strata VIII-VII EB IB Strata VI (?)-V EB IC Strata IV (?)-I EB IIA-B • Kempinski (1978 : 8-9) : Strata VII-VI EBIA Stratum V EBIB Stratum IV EB I1A Stratum III EB IliA Strata 11-1 EB IIIB But in his discussion of the EB I strata of Erani, the author (1978: 12-13) made some changes: Stratum. VIII EB lA and Chalcolithic Stratum VI EB IB

-364 - OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE ~y BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

• Kempinski and Gilead (1985): In their recent excavation east of Area D, the two excavators identified three strata (A-C> with the following suggested synchronisms to the previous expedition's stratigraphy : Stratum C = Strata VIII-VI EBlb Stratum B = .Strata V-II EB II Stratum A = Stratum I EBIII • Kempinski (1987 : 67);. This scholar now believes that Stratum VIII should be related to the earliest stage of the EB I.

A new suggestion An examination of the previously sorted material, consisting of several thousand . sherds isolat~ as "indicative" by the original expedition staff,-has lead me to suggest the following table (after the Encyclopedia of Excavations chronological terminology) : Stratum "pre-XII" 4 Chalcolithic Strata XII-IX Early EB I Strata VIII-IV Late EB I Stratum III Early I;B 11 Stratum 11 Late EB II Stratum I EB III This scheme, which enlarges the scope of the EB· remains at the expense of the Chalcolithic, is supported by the recent reanalysis of the lithics by Dr. S. Rosen Sand by a comparative study of the ~t bowls which consist of two types: the knobbed variety (Yeivin 1961a: pI. 8, from Stratum IX; Gophna 1979), and the four-handled type (Amiran & Porat 1984). Most recently the above chronology has been reinforced by the metallurgical evidence compiled by 0; llan and M. Sebbane 6.

The beginnings of urbanization at Erani In the literature, two architectural elements have often been referred to as indicative of the earfy stage of urbatrlzation at Erani : . ... - the misdated city wall hi Area N (which will be dealt with in more depth below); - and the famous "public building" in Area D (Fig. 7). . The latter structure was established in Stratum VIII and remained in use until StratumIV (Yeivin1958c: 275; 196Oc: 123; 1970: 599; 1975: 95-96; Ciasca 1962: 27-29). In light of the new chronological scheme I have suggested above, the "public building" falls entirely into the EB I. Hence, it has no importance as a transitional element existing in both the Chalcolithic and EB periods (contra Kempinski 1978: 12-13, 17; 1983: 237

4. The designation "pre-XII" was chosen in order to distinguish it from the expedition's Stratum XIII which was later canc;;e1led (Yeivin 1959 : 270; 1960b : 393; 1963 : 205; Qasca 1962: 26). This stratum is hypothetical for the time being sinCe the Chalcolithic material was found unstratified throughout several strata. Additional isolated sherds were found in the other excavation areas but also mixed in later contexts. A similar situation was encountered by Kemplnsld and Gilead (1985 : 40) in their exposure D2 to the east of Area D. 5. I would like to thank Dr. Steven Rosen for re-examining the flint assemblage of Tel Erani and updating the original work done by the late Ms. Ephrat Yeivin which remained in manuscript. 6. See the paper of flan & Sebbane 1989 in whlch they show that awls with a square section (like those at Tel Erani) belong to the EB horizon while awls with a round section are Chalcolithic.

-365- i...... BARUQI BRANDL ...... I I I I i j-'-'-'-'_! j'

.,.' :::1-. ..0 0"b o .. ,., ..~ , R. 0 o· •. tQP~~~

I .J I ,I

~ i I J

@ l'. A.,0 Vo . 11, 4 q, .~ ~~~ ,,'~,~::')" I ~; ... ~~- . tl)~ I

I I

-366 - .+-- Pa\'ements of beaten + ~ /L _M +r;:, ...'7!' .... T- :~~.. : ... :.: ... :: ..~.: \~! - ~ 'clay or pebbles 5107 0 Mud-brick "'al1s Spot ",here sherd 5101 11" + ...1 was found + ... ±: p~ + + 4- * I< ~ 760l '. ~ . ,." ' : :.,.,'.~ .. : ...... - ~ . lz.VI,.., c-.... ().• "...,~i~::"'·~~ ~:J ~ ~

~., ~ + r 5."7 +~ .. + + ~

I w ~iff.';;:\~ • .., ~ C7\ ~J. ~jltJ;;~'1r.:.=:o#!.D .. ····:~i ~ "I t~.~~~1.~·6. ,~~.' "z.' . . .• ;.,'" (w*~ l~~:~t~i~~~~~:J'{ + \ }tX:1}?~~~¥+.!f~~!~:;;~f:~~~·:'~~1 ~ ~

>~ ~ +; + + + .... t, n" ~

,~ 570/1 ~ !} ~ + + + t + Q $ ... - /. '-I - ,lit •m 671 • 'u, FrG. 8. - Area D, Stratum Vas interpreted by the excavators (Yeivin 1960d : fig. 3). BARurn BRANDL n. 16; Kempinski & Gilead 1985: 40). Recently, Kempinski (1987: 67) accepted the EB I date for the foundation of this structure.

Egypt-Canaan contacts At this point we shall limit the discussion to the Egyptian pottery at Tel Erani since it is the most frequent (albeit not only 7) Egyptian find type and appears throughout the site (Areas A, D, F, K, L, M, N).

The discernment of Egyptian material by the Erani Expedition staff Since Tel Erani was one of the first sites in Palestine in which Egyptian material was discovered, it took the excavators several seasons to recognize its presence. (a) Only during the fourth season, by which time the entire stratigraphic sequence of Area D had been achieved and the area enlarged, was a new kind of pottery discerned : "( ... ) a deep cylindrical jar of a new type, burnished sherds with white slip incised with geometrical design ( ... )" (Yeivin 1959 :270). . (b) But only some months later, during the break between the fourth and fifth seasons and following the discovery of an Egyptian serekh, was this posited as being Egyptian (Yeivin 1960b : 394). (c) During the fifth and last season in Area D, such white-"slipped" and burnished Egyptian material was identified in Stratum V in situ for the first time (Yeivin 1960c: 123). ' (d) A re-examination of the previous seasons' pottery revealed that similar material had already appeared in the second season, including also one squat pot and fragments of others like it with an incised decoration (Yeivin 1960d: 194-196, 200-201, pIs. 23a-d, 24c-d). All of this was relegated to Stratum V, the stratum to which the serekh, now identified with Narmer, was assigned (Yeivin 1960d : 195-200, fig. 2, pI. 24a). Two of the squat jar sherds (Yeivin 196Od: pI. 23: B) had the typical incised rope decoration, thought by Yeivin to be locally manufactured and influenced by local Chalcolithic traditions (Yeivin 196Od: 196 n.4; 1967b: 46; 1970: 599; 1975: 95), such as a sherd with plastic decoration (¥eivin 196Od: pI. 23: E) 8. (e) Subsequently, in 1960, two more sherds bearing Egyptian incisions were found (Yeivin 1963).

(f) In 1967, Yeivin mentioned other Egyptian sherds, including some red-slipped jar fragments with incisions, interpreted by him as serekhs or inscriptions, and storage-jar

7. In the preliminary report, a flint tool was published among the finds from Stratum 11 (Yeivin 1961a : pI. 5 : Stratum 11, bottom row, third from left) and later discussed by E. Yeivin (1976: 10 n. 3). The stratigraphic significance of this find was later recognized by Weinstein (1984: 64). It is also not the only tool of its kind found at Erani (E. Yeivin 1976: 10n.3). Two Egyptian palettes were also published in the above preliminary report (Yeivin 1961a: pt 5, Stratum 11, bottom row, second and third from right), but their significance escaped the attention of the excavators (Weinstein 1984: 62). Ongoing research by Dr. Steven Rosen shows that there is also a local Egyptian flint tool industry: see Rosen 1988. 8 This sherd was published as coming from Erani, while it is actually from Teleilat Ghassul, cf. Mallon, Koeppel & Neuville 1934 : pI. 46 : 3.

- 368- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

c------::-­ -----1) ! I \ I ~ ::

1

2

3

///------

4 ,/ ,, / I I I I / .; ... -: ....: ... : I'I I,· I!.: .. I 5

7

10cm 6

FIG. 9. - Imported Egyptian pottery made of Nile and mixed clays from Area D.

-369 - BARUOI BRANDL

5 1

\ : // mI 2

3

4 10 cm

FIG. 10. - Imported Egyptian pottery made of marly clays from Area D. fragments with an incised, Egyptian-style human figure (Yeivin 1967b: 45-46) (Fig. 11)9. (g) A further sherd with an incision was found by a visitor to the site in 1964 (Yeivin 1967a: 211-213, figs. 2-3, pI. 40 : 1-2; 1968 : 37-40, figs. 2-3, pI. la-b).

9. Yeivin (1967b: 46, n. 8) compared it with an ivory tablet of Den-Setui (petrie 1900: 21, section 22 : 9, pIs. 10: 14, 14 : 9). It was also mentioned by Weinstein (1984: 64). Personally, I find the comparison unconvincing and prefer a parallel with the incision on a slate palette from Tarkhan (Petrie 1914: pIs. 6: 1579,24: 98d).

- 370- OBSERVATIONS ON THE EARLY BRONZE AGE SlRATA OF TEL ERANI

, ,,, ,'' ,,, ,,' ,, ,I ,, ,, ,, ,I , I \ I \ I • I , I , I \ , I / \ I \ I \ I , f \ I , I , I , , ,I , I , I , I , I \ I \ I \ I 2cm \ ,/ =- " I '\\ /1' .... ~------_./

10cm

FIG. 11 . - Imported Egyptian storejar fragments made of marly clay with an incised human figure, from Area D.

- 371- BARurn BRANDL

Ward (1969 : 215-221) rejected Yeivin's interpretation of two of the serekhs as such while Schulman and Gophna (1981 : 165 n. 2-3) suggested that the second of the 1960 inscribed sherds was in fact a serekh. Lately, Weinstein (1984: 64) has summarized the views concerning the incised sherds.

Egyptian material discerned by other scholars Various scholars have identified further Egyptian and Egyptianizing pottery, mostly from Yeivin's publications, thus extending the range of the Egyptian ware to strata preceding and succeeding Stratum V. • Hennessy was the first of these. He demonstrated that the cylindrical jars, squat jars and sherds of these types characterized by white "slip" and fine burnish, all have Egyptian parallels (Hennessy 1967: 26-27, pIs. 17-18). He also identified another type, the vat, in the preliminary report for the first three seasons (Yeivin 1961a: pI. 8, top right; Hennessy 1967: 27, pI. 18 : 3). • Gophna, after seeing the material himself, brought attention to the existence of two further types: carinated bowls with bevelled rims, slightly rounded bases, and red burnished slip (Gophna 1972: 49 n. 12) ; and baking bowls (Gophna 1972 : .49-50 n. 14). Moreover, Gophna mentioned (after a discussion with Ephrat Yeivin) the presence of Egyptian pottery in Stratum IV (Gophna 1972 : 51 n. 21) 10. This is hinted at also in his doctoral dissertation (Gophna 1974: 173). There too Gophna (1974 :122, 130) referred to a small jar without handles (see Yeivin 1961a: pI. 8, Str. X) which might be an import from Egypt. He also concurred with Hennessy's identification of the vat (Gophna 1976: 33-34, fig. 2: 2). • Miroschedji (1976: pI. 40: 21) identified a vessel from Stratum V as an Egyptian jar (Yeivin 1967b: pI. 17: 7, corrected in Fig. 14: 6 in this paper). • Weinstein independently pointed out to Gophna's last type - the drop-shaped jar­ and added a small Egyptian cylindrical jar to Erani's existing repertoire (Weinstein 1984: 62-64). He recognized these types from Yeivin's preliminary report and from a later paper Yeivin delivered, in which he published some of the same items again (Yeivin 1961a: pIs. 5-8; 1967b). In so doing, Weinstein arrived at a crucial conclusion: that Egyptian material was present on the from Stratum X to Stratum 11. • Sebbane (1985: 7-8) has succeeded in finding additional Egyptian material, including eight new types, using the same original publications noted above 11.

Further additions to the Egyptian pottery corpus of Erani The work being carried out at present, not yet completed, has revealed much greater quantities of Egyptian pottery. A number of types should be added to the assemblage, some of which even appear in the preliminary report's plates (Yeivin 1961a): - a miniature bowl (pI. 6, Stratum IV, under the storage-jar) ; - a small spouted jar (pI. 7, Stratum VIII, upper right- hand corner);

10. This information was cited afterwards by other scholars: Amiran 1974: 8-9; Miroschedji 1976: 24 and 265, n.46; Kempinski 1978: 17; Ben-Tor 1982: 6; Weinstein 1984: 62. 11. Yeivin 1961a: pI. 6, Stratum Ill, top row, second and third from right; Stratum IV, center column, below the bowl; pI. 7, Stratum VI,lower row, fourth, fifth and sixth from left; pI. 8, Stratum IX, top right corner; 1967b: pIs. 18: 1 (= corrected Fig. 10: 6 in this paper), 4, 7, 9,11 (= Fig. 12: 16 in this paper), 12-14, 19: 1-4, 20: 5,7-8.

- 372- OBSERVATIONS ON 1HE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

2 3

5 6 4 \ I

8 9 7

11

, ' I ~ \ , TI \ / / \ ~-----_./ ! '------,-----_:

10 12

15 13 16 14 10cm

FIG. 12. - Locally made Egyptian bowls and goblets made of loessy clay, from Area D.

- 373- BARUCH BRANDL

, :~-.

1

2

\( 7 ". 3

4 10 cm

FIG. 13. - Locally made Egyptian bread-mould, platter and vats made of loessy clay, from Area D.

- a knobbed bowl (pI. 8, Stratum IX, bottom center), previously thought to be related to the Esdraelon Ware (Miroschedji 1971 : 50 n. 4); - a ledge handle (pI. 8, Stratum IX, second row from the bottom, third from the right). A number of other objects were made public in Yeivin's lecture to the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies in 1965 (Yeivin 1967b: figs. 18: 6, 10 [= corrected Fig. 9: 6 in this paper], 15, 17-18). At this juncture we suggest a rough estimate of 1000 vessels and sherds which can be divided into some fifty types and categorized according to Petrie's (1921) Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery into five families: - Polished Red (P) : 23c, 24, 34d, 36, 47, 82 - Fancy (F) : 7, 30 - Wavy Handled (W): 2c, 3, 62, 63, 71,80,85,90 - Rough (R) : 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 38, 45b, 53, 63, 84, 94, 95 - Late (L) : 2,3,16,17,34,35,53,57,58.

-374 - OBSERVATIONS ON THE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI (------/ , I . , ,f--- -- \ , ;, I :. I'" I : I \ : fI \ I 1/ 5 7

2

3 8

6

4

\ // \ : I \ \ , " I I \ , , \ I I \ I , \ II \ I I " /,' \ ,',l " 1 /' ,/ " ,------~------'" ,,/ 10 cm 9 10

FIG. 14. - Locally made Egyptian jugs and jars made of loessy clay, from Area D.

Most of these vessels also appear in Petrie's (1953) Corpus of Pro to dynastic Pottery: 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19,20,27,46,54,56,70,71,72,74,75,86,87,91,92.

- 375- BARurn BRANDL

This list can be supplemented by the families coined by Fedem (NeedIer 1981 ; 1984: 69): - Black Polished Ware (BP) ; - Hard Smoothed Ware (S); - Light Red Polished Ware (P-l); - Half Polished Bowls (P-2).

The date and duration of the Egyptian pottery at Tel Erani The majority of the Egyptian pottery can be dated to the late Predynastic period and the First Dynasty. In general these wares appear from Stratum XI (and perhaps even XII), to Stratum II (according to the excavators' original stratigraphy), confirming and extending Weinstein's (1984) observation that it is found from Stratum X to Stratum H. This contrasts with the most recent determination made by Kempinski and Gilead (1985: 40) limiH;ng the Egyptian pottery (excavated by them in Area D2) solely to their EB H Stratum B 12. For the present it is impossible to determine the range of each type individually; the stratigraphic location and integrity of each object need to be checked and its provenience defined. The writer will attempt to do these things in the near future, and for this reason the question of synchronism is not dealt with here.

The production localities of the Egyptian pottery of Erani In the course of the present work, two kinds of clays in the Egyptian pottery were observed: - a well levigated and compact clay which was typical to the white "slipped" and burnished vessels and the fragments of large storage-jars like those of the class bearing the Narmer serekh; - and a coarse clay tontaining much chaff which characterized the everyday vessels. My impression was that the first type was imported from Egypt while the second was locally made~The impression that the everyday vessels were locally made was partly based on the existence of several "hybrid" vessels having both Egyptian and Canaanite features. These hybrid vessels can be classified into two categories: . - Class a:Canaanite shapes with a chaff-bearing clay and an Egyptian style finish. - Class b!. Vessels displaying Egyptian forms sometimes having a Canaanite type of plastic ornamentation. A petrographic analysis was carried out by Ms. N.Porat in order to test this visual observation 13. Approximately one hundred samples were examined from the following classes of pottery : - vessels appearing to be Egyptian imports; - vessels with Egyptian forms which seem to be of local manufacture; - hybrid classes a and b ; - regular Canaanite types; - a mudbrick taken from an Early Bronze Age wall.

12. But see Kempinski's (1989) correction in which he observes Egyptian pottery in Stratum C as well. 13. Ms. Porat (1987) has already presented some of the results and conclusions of her petrographic work from Erani, TelMa'ahaz and En Besor in a paper given at a recent conference dealing with Egyptian ceramics at the Metropolitan Museum of Art inNew York.

- 376- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

2

3

4

6

5 10cm 7

FIG. 15. - Hybrid "class a" pottery made of loessy clay, from Area D.

- 377- BARUCH BRANDL

"-___--r.: ___ _ 1 10cm 2

FIG. 16. - Pottery from Area D. 1. Hybrid "class b" pottery made of Egyptian shape with Canaanite plastic decoration. 2. Hybrid "class c " pottery of Egyptian shape with Canaanite-type clay.

The petrographic analysis discerned four general classes of clay: - two different well-known clays native to Egypt were identified in the vessels thought to be imported: Nile Clay (see Fig. 9) and Marly Clay (see Figs. 10-11), once called "Desert Ware"

Concl~sions concerning the Egyptian pottery In brief, the following points can be made regarding the Egyptian material : (a) Egyptian. pottery is present in most·,of the Erani strata, not exclusively in Stratum V. (b) Most of the "Egyptian" material was t;nanufactured on the site (contra Gophna 1976: 32 n.2 ; see also Slatkine 1974 : 107 and B~m-Tor 1982 : 4). (c) Most of the material assigned to the Chalcolithic by Yeivin (1960b: 394; 1960d: 196-198,; 1967b : 4~, figs. 18-20; 1970: 599 ; 1975 :96) is in fact Egyptian. (d) The imported Egyptian vessels are mostly containers while the local Egyptian pottery also includes vessels of other, day-to-day functions. Finally, even the attribution of the famous Narmer .serekh to Stratum V is in doubt; an examination of the published Stratum V plan (Fig. 8 in this paper ; and see Yeivin 196Od: 197, fig. 3)$howsthat the sherd was found in a disturbed context between pits 5615 and 5617, south of a floor fragment, but not on it. These points have strong implications on the nature of the relations between Egypt and Tel Erani, and perhaps between: Egypt and Canaan as a whole:

- 378- OBSERVATIONS ON nm EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

- since the Egyptian and locally-made Egyptian pottery is found in many strata, Tel Erani can no longer be used to support the conception of Narmer's conquest and brief rule (Yeivin 1960d) 14 ; - the low frequency of truely imported Egyptian pottery (and this in the form of container vessels) contrasted to the masses of "Egyptian" pottery (including vessels of daily use) actually manufactured at the site, bolsters the idea of Egyptian colonization rather than the concept of strictly commercial relations (Gophna 1987, with references in p. 13).

The problem of the Erani fortifications

The finds and conclusions of the Erani Expedition One of the Erani expedition's chief goals was to uncover the site's fortifications and trace their development. (a) On the acropolis this aim was realized from the first season (Yeivin 1956: 259). But Area D, where the early levels were being revealed, proved to be a disappointment in this respect. (b) In the fourth season,two additional areas were opened up in order to find the early city wall: Area L at the edge of the upper terrace, and Area M at the edge of the lower terrace (see Figs. 1-3). Not even a hint of fortification was found in these areas, leading the excavators to suggest that perhaps the city was not fortified in the early periods (Yeivin 1959 : 270-271). (c) In the fifth season, one more attempt was made to find the wall by opening another area (Area N but mistakenly published as Area M) at the northwestern corner of the upper terrace. It was here that a massive city wall was discovered, 5 m. thick and faced with a glacis. On the glacis, two projections with stepped foundations were found with their own separate outward-facing glacis (Yeivin 1960c: 123) (Fig. 17). This discovery was integrated into one of Yeivin's (196Od) most important articles published in that same year, in which he laid one of the cornerstones of the theory that sees the nature of Egyptian-Canaanite relations as being one of conquest and dominion. The wall's discovery came at a crucial time, when the expedition had just recognized and dated the Egyptian material and formed an hypothesis to explain its presence. We must keep in mind that the expedition was convinced that the Narmer serekh and the Egyptian pottery both came from Stratum V alone. The fact that the other, "non-Egyptian" types of pottery in this stra41m occurred in the strata preceding and succeeding Stratum V indicated this stratum's short duration. This short duration, together with the great quantity of the Egyptian ceramics, seemed to point to one conclusion: a quick Egyptian conquest and a short period of rule over southern Canaan. The dating of this conquest to the time of Narmer on the basis of the serekh's discovery fits that part of Yadin's (1955) theory accepted by Yeivin, i.e., that some of the motifs on Narmer's Palette represent Narmer's incursion into Asia. Yadin held that the Asiatic figures on the palette's reverse represented Canaan and Transjordan, and that the accompanying symbols portray architecture which is native to these regions: e.g. a desert kite for Transjordan 15 and a fortified city for Canaan. The palette's obverse bears descriptions interpreted by Yadin as having a Mesopotamian origin: a ziggurat and

14. This approach, influenced by Yadin's 1955 article has been rejected by several Egyptologists (e.g. Ward 1963 ; 1969). 15. For another interpretation of the "desert kite" symbol see Amiran (1968).

- 379- BARurn BRANDL

FIG. 17. - Plan and section of the fortifications in Area N, excavated in 1960 (based on Yeivin 1960d : fig. 4). serpent-necked lions symbolizing the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers 16. The wall found in Area N was dated by pottery said to abut it, which paralleled pottery in Stratum VI of Area D, i.e., the stratum immediately before Narmer's coming. With this convenient stratigraphy, and the wall's projections in mind, Yeivin was induced to identify the configuration of the Erani EB Age city wall with the symbol of the enclosure studded with square projections, suggested by Yadin to represent an archetypal Canaanite walled city, and thus date its destruction to Narmer's hitherto hypothetical campaign. This suggestion was accepted later by Yadin (1963: 53). (d) In the sixth season, work continued in Area N to substantiate the contemporaneity of the city wall with Stratum VI in Area D. In addition, aerial photographs were taken which demonstrated that the wall surrounded the entire upper terrace including the acropolis (Yeivin 1961c : 191; 1962: 396; 1965 : 355-356).

16. Yeivin (1964 : 24, but written in 1956) rejected the idea that Narmer had reached Mesopotamia and reduced the area of the desert kites and fortified cities to the northern Negev and the Arava Valley. At least one scholar still favours the Mesopotamian aspect of the thesis (Ritter-Kaplan 1981).

- 380- OBSERVATIONS ON THE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

FIG. 18. - A segment of the suggested wall of Stratum I in Area D, and later trenching which cut it (Yeivin 1961a : fig. 9 : 1).

(e) In a joint article by E. Yeivin and her father Prof. S. Yeivin (1964 : 56), it was suggested that an ash layer which separated the foundations of the wall's projections from the wall's glacis, indicated that the projections were built later as buttressing for a section destroyed previously in a conflagration 17. Further publications added incrementally to the picture. In 1967 Yeivin reported for the first time the existence of a stratum within the wall in Area N, which was coeval with Stratum VI in area D. The armour scales found in area N were dated to this same stratum (Yeivin 1967a : 214; and later in 1968 : 43; 1970 : 600; 1975: 97).

(f) Other data were provided soon thereafter (Yeivin 1967b: 46-48) : ., Area N was chosen after aerial photographs were seen to show color differences in the soil at the northwestern corner of the high terrace between its top and its slope (Fig. 1). - EB II material was discovered 15 to 20 cm. below the surface in structural remains within the wall. - A small vessel of a type characteristic to Area D, Stratum VI, was found on the glacis (Yeivin 1967b : 46 n. 15, 48, fig. 18). - A new aerial photograph taken by the Israel Air Force revealed the wall's lines and "( ... ) small square projections at regular close intervals along its northwestern and eastern parts (... )". The wall's path encircles the upper terrace and to the southeast crosses the lower terrace. Its northeastern corner was discovered on the opposite bank of Nahal Lachish. - It is 8 m thick at least (1967b : 47 n. 26). (g) Additional details appeared in Yeivin's entry on Tel Erani in the Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land (1970: 600; 1975: 97): - Apparently, another fragment of the wall was found in Area M as well, despite Yeivin's (1959: 270-271) previous observation. - The ceramic vessel found on the glacis of Area N was not correctly described (in Yeivin 1967b: 46 n. 15). The correct vessel has a large loop handle and can be seen in Yeivin 1967b: fig. 20, bottom row, third from left.

17. If so, it must be inferred that Narmer attacked a city wall without towers, contrary to the portrayal on Narmer's palette.

-381- BARUCH BRANOL

- Sections made at the edges of the wall showed that it was constructed as a series of massive connected blocks. - The wall is built on an earlier wall only 2 m. thick, probably compatible with Stratum VII in Area D. . - It would also seem that the wall of Stratum VI remained in use in Stratum V. This conclusion was drawn because in the aerial photograph the remains of Stratum IV in Area D seemed to be superimposed on the line of the underlying wall.

Other scholars interpretations of the Erani fortifications • Hennessy emphasized the wall's precedence and dated its destruction by Narmer to the end of the Proto-Urban period (or Wright's EB Ib), one stage before the advent of fortification in the rest of Palestine. He was compelled to accept this date because part of the pottery assemblage of Stratum VI belonged to the Proto-Urban horizon (Hennessy 1967: 61). • Ben-Tor (1969: 40, 51-52) also discussed the wall's priority. • Lapp (1970: 109 n. 72) on the other hand, tried to promote an EB IC date for the wall based on comparative material from the EB I sequence at Bab edh-Dhra. • Gophna (1974: 131, 151, 155, 158, 173) rejects the idea that the Erani fortifications existed in EB I and dates them to the EB II/III. • Helms, in his article on postern gates (1975: 133 n. 7), simply related to the Erani wall as one with projecting towers. In his doctoral dissertation however, Helms identified two EB gates in addition to the wall: the first, whose date is uncertain, is the earliest fortification in Area G, and the second are the projecting outworks in Area N (Helms 1976a: 96-104, ills. 6-1 to 6-7). Both gates were dated by Helms to EB 11, and reconstructed by him as direct access gates or, alternatively, as indirect access gates. In Helms' later publications, the Area G gate was described as of indirect access (Helms 1976b: 4 n. 5 i 1977: 106 fig. 4, 107, 112-113) and the Area N gate as of direct access (Helms 1977: 112- 113). • Miroschedji (1976: 127 and n.112) reproduces Yeivin's description of the wall and ascribes its construction to Stratum V, which he dates to de Vaux's Bronze ancien I, i.e., early EB II or "EB IC". • Kempinski (1987: 61-62) accepts the excavators suggestion to the date and shape of the fortifications.

Further conclusions concerning the Erani fortifications Helms' reconstruction of an indirect access gate in Area N seems at present to be the most acceptable for the following reasons : (a) The structure's shape (Yeivin 1960d: 202, fig. 4) (Fig. 17) exhibits several anomalies: - the wall forms a corner at it~ northern end i - the "northern tower" has four corners, such that it could never have buttressed the wall (contra Kempinski 1987: 61-62 n. 2) i - the "southern tower" is farther away from the wall than the "northern tower" is i - the western face of the "southern tower" protrudes more to the west than the "northern tower".

-382 - OBSERVATIONS ON 1HE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

(b) The frequency of the "towers" is completely irregular. Yeivin (1967b: 46-47) wrote that towers were only to be found on the wall to the northwestern side of the tell while the remainder of the wall lacked them. (c) The towers' location at the northwestern side of the tell's upper terrace is apparently the easiest point of access to the terrace and the acropolis, where a later, post­ EB gate (contra Helms' EB II suggested dating) was said to have been found in Area A-G (Yeivin 1960a : 31, pI. 4 upper; 1961a : 4-5, fig. 3). I also have several objections regarding the dating of the wall : (a) First of all, the vessel found on the glacis cannot date that glacis ; the vessel may have washed or tumbled down the glacis, following the wall's ruin, from another context. (b) The excavator remarked the presence of an EB II stratum, which has now been dated to the EB Ill, immediately beneath the surface. A sampling of the Area N pottery did indeed reveal EB III pottery. (c) The published section (Yeivin 1960d : 202, fig. 4) (Fig. 17) seems to indicate that the wall completely lacks foundations. I would suggest that the small walls in the interior of the city wall represent an earlier stratum into which the city wall penetrated. (d) From my own familiarity with the material, I doubt that the expedition staff could have isolated the repertoire of Stratum VI. As outlined above, the expedition made erroneous distinctions by using Egyptian material which in fact appears in many strata. (e) If it is true that a fragment of the wall was discovered in Area M (Yeivin 1970: 600 ; 1975 : 97), then it must be kept in mind that the pottery here was originally dated to the EB II and like the pottery of Area N, should be corrected to EB III. (f) Yeivin's (1975: 97) assertion that the section of the wall discovered in Area D continued to function through Stratum V and not after, cannot be supported. The Area D plan (Fig. 7) published by Ciasca (1962 : 25, fig. 1) shows that the truncated walls of Strata VI and V reach the edge of the terrace like those of Stratum N, so that the latter stratum cannot "cover" the hypothetical, earlier city wall. From the above observations I propose dating the wall in Area M and the suggested gate complex in Area N to the EB III. Upon examining the strata plans of Area D, I found numerous errors in them. This was already remarked by Kempinski (1978: 17 n. 3) in his study of Stratum V. My impression is that a city wall was found in Area D, as the aerial photographs indicated to the excavators (Yeivin 1975: 97); only it does not lie under the remains of Stratum IV, but amongst those of Stratum I. I am referring to the brick platform found in the southern part of what was called a cultic structure with an altar (Yeivin 1956: 259; 1957: 265; 1958a: 418, pI. lla ; 1961a : 8, fig. 9 : 1 [our Fig. 18] ; 1967b : 48 n. 36; 1970: 597-598; 1975 : 94), or alternately even the "apsidal structure" (Yeivin 1958b: 242, 245). Apparently the entire brick section is superimposed on, and later than, the walls of the structure. The rounded form of the platform's northern end, (the reason for calling it an "apsidal house"), and the round "altar" further to the north, are both the result of a later, and very deep trench, the outline of which can be seen to cut through several successive floors 18.

Conclusions The following conclusions have resulted from a renewed examination and analYSis of the Tel Erani publications and excavated material:

18. This probably explains why the date of a. radiocarbon sample (BM 387) taken from that building is too early for Stratum 11 and not used by Callaway and Weinstein (1977: 8, 10).

- 383- BARUCH BRANDL

1) The paucity of true Chalcolithic material is indicative of that culture's short-term presence on the site previous to the EB I. 2) The duration of the EB I at Erani is much longer than most scholars previously supposed. This·new information·confirms the evidence for a long EB I (PU) sequence at Jericho for example. 3) We have been led to reject Yeivin's stratigraphic and especially his historical appraisal of Strata VI and V in connection with Narmer's supposed conquest and short dominion. 4) The quantity, typology and duration of the Egyptian material at Erani are unmatched at any site in Canaan, pointing to its important role for Egyptian interests. 5) Much of the Egyptian material .(and all the vessels of daily use) has been shown to be locally manufactured, ~upporting Gophna's idea (first suggested by Ephrat Yeivin) of Egyptian colonization in the southern coastal plain of Canaan. This contrasts the theory that sees Tel Erani as yet another point along the trade routes like Arad. 6) The fortifications of Tel Erani should probably be dated to EB III (Stratum I) and thus supplement the regionai picture provided by sites such as Tel Hesi and Tel Halif. 7) In the low~r city, the higher of the tell's two terraces was created by the above suggested EB III city wall. 8) Using the line of fortification as a criterion, the EB III area of the city was approximately 160 dunams, while the area of the preceding periods' occupation was greater, although its precise extent is still unknown.

APPENDIX: REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF OBJECTS ILLUSTRATED

FIGURE 4. -1. 058-319/7. 2; Gath 056-1956. 3. Gath 058-142/6. 4. Gath 056-2160.5. Gath 056-2147.6. Gath 058-243/81. 7. Gath 056-2139. 8. Gath 060-165/10 = lOAM 60-312. 9. Gath 057-587. FIGURE 5: '-1. Gath 058-551/1+2 = lOAM 58-866. 2. Gath 059-238/15. 3. Gath 058-440/33. 4. Gath 058-545/3. 5. Gath 059-216/34. 6. Gath 060-251/1.7. Gath 058-530/3. 8. Gath 058-553/33.9. Gath 058-539/25. FIGURE 6. -1. Gath 056-1684 and 057-25/2 = lOAM 57-1344. .2. Gath 056-801 and 1626/1-2 = lOAM 56-1358. 3. Gath 056-761. 4. Gath 056-335. 5. Gath 056-425. 6. Gath 056-218. 7. Gath 057-519 = lOAM 57-847. 8. Gath 056- 928. FIGURE 9. -1. Gath 058-452/32. 2. Gath 058-195/15 =lOAM 58-864. 3. Gath 058-107/4 =lOAM 58-865.4. Gath 060-300/6. 5. Gath 059-356/1. 6. Gath 059-98/1 =lOAM 59-179. 7. Gath 058-447 =lOAM 58-547. FIGURE 10. -1. Gath06O-403/13. 2. Gath 059-121/7. 3. Gath 059-356 and 318/3 =lOAM 59-191. 4. Gath 059- 51/45 and 119/121 =lOAM 59-232.5. Gath 060-358/9: 6. Gath 059-328/43 =lOAM 59-222. FIGURE 11. - Gath 056-2690, Gath 057-250 and Gath 058-419/17 =lOAM 58- 548. FIGURE 12. - 1. Gath 060-261/72 =lOAM 60-315. 2. Gath 060-362 =lOAM 60-318. 3. Gath 060-89/3-5, 7 =IDAM 60-313. 4. Gath 058-225/1 = lOAM 58-569. 5. Gath 059-385 = lOAM 59-230. 6. Gath 059-260/15 = lOAM 59-234. 7. Gath 058-469 = lOAM 58-498. 8.Gath 059-63/13. 9. Gath 059-146 = lOAM 59~371. 10. Gath 058-330/1, 7, 9, 13, 16,19 =lOAM 58-86.3. 11. Gath 056-3075. 12. Gath 059-119/26. 13. Gath 058-538/2! 4 =lOAM 58-862.14. Gath 058-438/1 =lOAM 58-464.15. Gath 060-451 =lOAM 60-308.16. Gath 059-255 =lOAM 59-180. FIGURE 13. -1. Gath 060-400/20 =lOAM 60-350. 2. Gath 059-194/4 and 105/63 = lOAM 59-370. 3. Gath 058- 465/1.4. Gath 059-377,390, 393,397,411 = lOAM 59-369. FIGURE 14. -1. Gath 059-231/25 =lOAM 59-2!Yl. 2. Gath 058-265/29 =lOAM 58-488. 3. Gath 058-425 = lOAM 58-535.4. Gath 058-479/20 = lOAM 58-538.5. Gath 059-144/2. 6. Gath 059-72 = lOAM 59-221. 7. Gath 059-386. 8. Gath 058-232/1 =lOAM 58-861. 9. Gath 059-132/1 =lOAM 59-211.10. Gath 059-97 =lOAM 59-368. FIGURE 15. -1. Gath 059-406 =lOAM 59-192. 2. Gath D59-418 and 393 =lOAM 59-213. 3. Gath 059-418 =lOAM 59-188.4. Gath 058-26 = lOAM 58-366. 5. Gath 059-409 =lOAM 59-210. 6. Gath 059-218 =lOAM 59-190. 7. Gath 059-385 and 390 =lOAM 59-175. FIGURE 16. -1. Gath 059-399 and 402 = lOAM 59-192. 2. Gath 058-533 = lOAM 58-493.

- 384- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMmAN,R. 1968 Note on One Sign in the Narmer Palette. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 7: 127. 1974 An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of Narmer from Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 24 : 4-12. AMmAN, R. & PORAT, N. 1984 The Basalt Vessels of the Cltalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Tel Aviv 11: 11-19. BEN-TOR, A. 1969 Problems in the Early Bronze Age II-III in Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (in Hebrew). 1982 The Relations Between Egypt and the Land of Canaan During the Third Millennium B.C. Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 3-18. CALLAWAY, J. A & WEINSTElN, J. M. 1977 Radiocarbon Dating of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 225: 1-16. ClASCA,A. 1962 Tell Gat. Oriens Antiquus 1 : 23-39. GOPHNA,R. 1972 Egyptian First Dynasty Pottery from Tel Halif Terrace. Museum Haaretz Bulletin 14: 47-52. 1974 The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel During the Early Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (in Hebrew). 1976 Egyptian Immigration into Southern Canaan During the First Dynasty? Tel Aviv 3 : 31-37. 1979 Two Early Bronze Age Basalt Bowls From the Vicinity of Nizzanim. Tel Aviv 6 : 136-137. 1987 Egyptian Trading Posts in Southern Canaan at the Dawn of the Archaic Period. pp. 13-21 in AF. Rainey, ed., Egypt, Israel, Sinai. Tel Aviv : Tel Aviv University. HELMS,S.W. 1975 Posterns in Early Bronze Age Fortifications of Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107: 133-50. 1976a Urban Fortifications of Palestine during the Third Millennium B.c. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Institute of Archaeology, University of London. 1976b The Early Bronze Age Gate at Ras en-Naqura (Rosh ha-Niqra). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paltistina­ Vereins 92: 1-9. 1977 Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tell Dothan. Levant 9: 101-114. HENNESSY, J. B. 1967 The Foreign Relations of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age. Colt Archaeological Institute Publications. London: B. Quaritch. ILAN, O. & SEBBANE, M 1989 Metallurgy, Trade and the Urbanization of Southern Cilnaan in the Cltalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. This volume: 139-162. KEMPlNSKI, A 1978 The Rise of an Urban Culture: The Urbanization of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age 3000-2150 B. C. Israel Ethnographic Society Studies 4. Jerusalem: I.E.S. 1983 Early Bronze Age Urbanization of Palestine: Some Topics in a Debate. Israel Exploration Journal 33 : 235- 241. 1987 The Fortifications, Public Buildings and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Period. Pp. 61-70 in E. Netzer, A Kempinski & R. Reich, eds., The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society (in Hebrew). 1989 Urbanization and Metallurgy in Southern Canaan. This volume: 163-167. KEMPINSKl, A & GILEAD, I. 1985 Tel 'Erani. Hadashot Arkheologiyot (Archaeological Newsletter) 87: 39-40 (in Hebrew) = Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1985. vol. 4, Jerusalem, 1986: 29-30. LAPP,P.W. 1970 Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. pp. 101-131 in J.A Sanders, ed., Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. New York: Doubleday. MALWN, A, KOEPPEL, R. & NEUVILLE, R. 1934 Teleilat Ghassul 1. Rome: Institut biblique pontifical. NUR06CHED~,P.R.de 1971 L'epoque pre..urbaine en Palestine. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 13. Paris: Gabalda. 1976 Contribution a l'etude de l'urbanisation en Palestine a 1'4ge du Bronze ancien. 2 vols. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Paris: Universite de Paris I. NEEDLER, W. 1981 Federn's Revision of Petrie's Predynastic Pottery Oassification. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 : 69-73.

-385 - BARUCH BRAND!.

1984 Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the BrookIyn Museum. Wilbour Monographs 9. New York: The Brooldyn Museum. NORDSTROM, H. A. 1985 "Ton". Cols 629-634 in W. Helck and E. DUo, eds., Lexikon der Agyptologie, vol. VI. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. PIrrRIE. W. M. F. '. 1900 The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty, 1900, Part 1. The Egypt Exploration Fund, vol. 18. London: Egypt Exploration Fund' . 1914 Tarkhan 11. Publication of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt 26. London: B. Quaritch. 1921 Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes. London: B. Quaritch. 1953 Ceremonial Slate Palettes and Corpus of Proto-Dynastic Pottery. Publication of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt 66. London: B. Quaritch. PORAT.N. 1987 Locallndustry of Egyptian Pottery in Southern Palestine During the Early Bronze I Pertod. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 7. RnTER-KAPLAN, H. 1981 Did Narmer Reach Southern Mesopotamia ? Eretz Israel 15 : 21-27 (in Hebrew), 79" (English Summary). ROSEN,S.A. 1988 A Preliminary Note on the Egyptian Component of the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tel 'Erani. Israel Exploration Journal 38 : 105-116. 5

- 386.- OBSERVATIONS ON THE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERAN!

1965 The Chalcolithic Cultures of Canaan. Pp. 355-357 in VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienu Preistoriche e Protostoriche, vol. H, comunicazioni, Sezioni I-N. Roma. 1967a Additional Note on Early Relations Between Canaan and Egypt. Eretz Israel 8 : 211-215 (in Hebrew). 1967b A New Chalcolithic Culture at Tel 'Erani and its Implications for Early Egypto-Canaanite Relations. Pp. 45-48 in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Swdies. 1968 Additonal Notes on the Early Relations Between Canaan and Egypt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27 : 37-50. 1970 Tel Erani. pp. 595-600 in B. Mazar, ed., Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. H. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press (in Hebrew). 1975 EI-'Areini, Tell Esh Sheikh Ahmed (Tel 'Erani). Pp. 89- 97 in M. Avi-Yonah, ed., Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. I. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press. 1979 Egyptian Testimonials on Egyptian-Canaanite Relations During the Early Canaanite Period. pp. 339-41 in Y. Hocherman, M. Lahav & Z. Zemarion, eds., Yaacov GilJubilee Volume: A Collection of Researches on the and its Information, Hebrew Linguistics, Jewish Thought, History and Halacha. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass. (in Hebrew).

~ 387- L'urbanisation·· de la Palestine a l'age· du Bronze ancien Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles

Actes du Colloque d'Emmaiis (20 - 24 octobre 1.986)

. ~dites par Pierre de Miroschedji

Part ii

BAR International Series 527(ii) 1989