*111

Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

David Ben-Shlomo*

Abstract Recent excavations at Tel Ḥevron (Rumeida) have revealed a pottery workshop dated to the Early Roman period. The portion of the workshop preserved includes a series of settling pools in various sizes and depths, an adjacent structure, and a kiln. This workshop was located in a well planned settlement dated to the Hasmonean and Early Roman periods, up to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, situated on the western part of the biblical tell of Ḥevron. Other finds, such as large ritual baths, indicate that the population here was Jewish during this period. The paper discusses the finds related to pottery production and the related pottery assemblage, as well as compositional analysis of pottery (including ‘wasters’) from the site, consisting of petrographic and chemical analysis. The analysis defines a local petrographic and chemical profile of the site, which was used for a large variety of pottery forms including transport amphorae. A different clay type was used to produce some of the cooking pots.

Keywords: Tel Ḥevron, Early Roman, pottery, potter’s workshop, petrography, neutron activation

Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman period The article will discuss finds evidencing pottery production during the Early Roman period unearthed in the recent excavations at Tel Ḥevron. Related compositional analysis of the pottery will also be presented and discussed. The site of Tel Ḥevron (Tell Rumeida), about 30 km south of , was accepted as the location of biblical (Bronze and Iron Age) Ḥevron as early as the 1950s (Mader 1957). was the major town in Judah for a lengthy period of time. While the impressive ashlar structure of the Cave of the is attributed by most scholars to (e.g., Vincent, MacKay and 1923), the location of the town of Ḥevron (el-Khalil) during this period was until recently unclear. The question is whether it was located near the Cave of the Patriarchs in the current 'Old City' of Ḥevron, or on top of the biblical town of Ḥevron on the nearby tell (Tel Ḥevron). The site was excavated by P. Hammond (1964–66; Hammond 1968), A. Ofer (1984–86; Ofer 1986; 1993) and E. Eisenberg (1999; Eisenberg and Nagorski 2002), yet the results of these excavations have been published so far only very briefly. Eisenberg’s Stratum IV, dating to the Hellenistic period (second to first century BCE), included the eastern part of a dwelling built on top of the EB III city wall. This may indicate that the town or this part of it was not fortified during this period and later. This building continued to be used during the Early Roman period

Judea and Samaria Research Studies | Volume 25 Number 2 | 2016 *112 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

(Stratum III), when the floor was raised (Eisenberg and Nagorski 2002). Recently (2014), the excavations at the site were renewed.1 The excavation areas (Areas 52, 53A, and 53B) were located on the western and southwestern fringes of the Tell. The article will discuss finds from the recent excavations at Tel Ḥevron. The excavations at Tel Ḥevron, Areas 53A and 52, on the western part of the tell revealed four occupation phases dated to the Hasmonean and Early Roman period (Phases 6–3, ca. 100 BCE–135 CE), while Phase 2 dates to the Late Roman to Early Byzantine period (third to fifth centuries CE; Ben-Shlomo 2016). The earliest phase is not well-known since the upper levels were not removed. However, pottery from the fills under the Early Roman levels represents the Hasmonean period (first century BCE). During the Early Roman period (Phases 5 and 4, late first century BCE–70 CE) the domestic and industrial quarter, located on the southwestern margins of the town, included a wide paved stepped street that connected it to the upper tell, which was probably the center of the settlement (but was not excavated) (Fig. 1). Domestic houses were excavated on both sides of the street. The most well-preserved architectural phase belongs to the Early Roman period, ended by the destruction of the Great Jewish Revolt (70 CE, Phase 4). These included, in addition to the domestic structures, an industrial area comprised of a potter’s workshop, a series of pools, a large ritual bath (miqveh), and winepresses and olive oil presses (Fig. 1). Phase 3 is dated to the period between the Great and Bar Kokhba Revolts (ca. 70–135 CE). During this phase an additional large (western) miqveh was built. According to the new results. it is apparent that the settlement at Second Temple period Ḥevron continued at the location of the biblical tell. It is likely that the lower area of the Cave of the Patriarchs functioned as a cultic compound and possibly as a cemetery, and living quarters of the town did not extend to that area. The ritual baths, as well as some chalk stone vessels found in the Hasmonean and Early Roman phases at Tel Ḥevron, indicate that during this period the settlement was occupied by a Jewish population.

1 The excavation (Permit 1-01-14) was carried out during January–June, and September–October 2014, and directed by David Ben-Shlomo of Ariel University and Emanuel Eisenberg of the Antiquities Authority (Eisenberg and Ben-Shlomo 2016, forthcoming; Farhi and Ben-Shlomo 2016; Ben-Shlomo 2016). Plans were prepared by Jay Rosenberg; photographs of finds are by Tomer Applebaum and field photos are by Assaf Peretz and David Ben-Shlomo. David Ben-Shlomo *113

Fig. 1: Schematic plan of Area 53A of the 2014 excavations at Tel Ḥevron

The Potter’s workshop and evidence for pottery production at Tel Ḥevron In the west part of Area 53A at Tel Ḥevron (Fig. 2, Sqs. QQ–O19–21 and SS–OO20– 21) an industrial zone was uncovered (Figs. 2–6), which was probably associated with pottery production. The main feature unearthed was Installation 2291 (Fig. 3), interpreted as a pottery kiln, with what seems to be an adjacent structure on the north (denoted Workshop 2291). In addition, a series of shallow and deeper plastered pools were found to the west and south (Figs. 4–6). The western portion of Area 52, about 30 m to the northwest (Fig. 7), may have been part of the same workshop complex, as suggested by the burnt brick installation with floors containing slag and pottery wasters (distorted and over-fired sherds, Fig. 8). *114 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

Fig. 2: Detailed map of the workshop and pools in Area 53A

Workshop 2291 Workshop 2291 includes the kiln in the south and two or three units to the north of it. Kiln 2291 is an oval structure (Fig. 3, internally 1.6×2.1 m, externally ca. 3.5×4.8 m), comprised of an area carved and fit into the bedrock and a superstructure, only partly preserved. The kiln was composed of a cavity (possibly partly natural) in the bedrock, which was the lower part of the firing chamber, while the vessel floor was probably located on a carved square pillar, which left its mark on the burnt rock (Fig. 3 center) but was not preserved. The lower stones of the inner walls are plastered, burnt, and cracked as a result of exposure to high temperature. The fill inside the feature David Ben-Shlomo *115

contained mostly Early Roman pottery, but no ‘wasters’ or slag were found here. The kiln may have been cleaned before it went out of use. To the southeast, in an area of about 1.3×2.2 m, a dark burnt packed layer of sediment was covered by many pottery sherds, darkened by fire (Fig. 3 right). This was linked to the kiln through a 0.55 m opening in its wall. These are probably remains of the loading compartment of the kiln's firing chamber.

Fig. 3: The pottery kiln (No. 2291) and the structure to the north (No. 2197, above; photo Assaf Peretz)

Somewhat similar kilns were found at Khirbet Qumran (Magen and Peleg 2007:52, Figs. 56,57, Early Roman period) and the Jerusalem Convention Center (Levy and Be'eri 2010; Levy and Be'eri 2011: Fig. 8, dated to the period between the revolts). To the north, a ca. 3.3×4 m space was covered by a partially preserved pavement of flat stones built on the bedrock (Floor 2197, Fig. 2 top). This area is delimited to the south by Kiln 2291, and by the poorly preserved stone walls. These remains may indicate that the structure may have been a working space. No finds were foundin situ and the entire structure is only preserved to, at best, a single course of stones between the topsoil and the bedrock. To the west, a roughly 4×5 m area can be defined according to carving lines on the bedrock, assumed to mark the border of the walls above that were not preserved, as well as the continuation of a wall to the west. These spaces north of Kiln 2291 are assumed to be auxiliary rooms related to the kiln production, possibly including space for the potter and the wheel, clay storage, vessels storage, drying area, etc. Yet, it should be noted that related finds, such as the potter's wheels, tools, raw clay, or wasters were not found in this area. It seems the area of Kiln 2291 probably did not continue to function as a pottery workshop and was leveled in Phase 3 after the destruction of Phase 4. *116 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

The pools To the south of Workshop 2291, a series of plastered pools of various sizes and depths were excavated (Figs. 4–6). The pools in the north, closer to the kiln, are larger and shallower (Fig. 2: Pools 2341, 2341A, 2341B), whereas those to the south are smaller and deeper (Fig. 2: Pools 2374, 2377, 2381, Fig. 5). The pools are interconnected through plastered channels. Preservation in the northern, higher squares (Fig. 1, labeled RR–PP) was poor, since they were found practically on the surface of the site, and thus some of the information on these installations is conjectured.

Fig. 4: Settling pools of the pottery workshop at Tel Ḥevron (facing north; photo Assaf Peretz)

Fig. 5: The three deeper settling pools of the pottery workshop at Tel Ḥevron (facing north; photo Assaf Peretz) David Ben-Shlomo *117

Fig. 6: Cross-sections of the settling pools

Pool 2341 is bordered by the wall of Kiln 2291 on the northeast. On the northwest, Channel 2378 was preserved to a length of 4.9 m and is 0.5–0.6 m wide, covered by 4 cm thick white plaster, and channeled water from Pool 2341 into Pool 2374 (Fig. 4 left). Thus, the pool's dimensions are roughly 5.6×6 m at a minimum (or up to 8 m). The pool floor was mostly built on the flattened bedrock, sloping gently southwards. The inside of the pool (Fig. 2: Pool 2341A) and its floor is covered with white plaster, up to 6 cm thick, which also covers the walls more thinly (0.23–0.4 m thick). Similar shallow pools were found, for example, in the industrial zone at Jericho ('Liquid Storage Building', Netzer 2004:66–69, Ills. 86–87). To the west of Pool 2341, another shallow, elongated, rectangular pool, ca. 1.5×5.2 m, is defined by lines of plaster and carvings in the bedrock. Further to the west, and adjacent to it, another pool (Pool 2341B) is similar in shape, albeit larger, measuring 2.7–3×[9.1?] m. It is separated from Pool 2341A by a 0.55 m thick wall of which only the external lines of plaster were preserved. The pool is also defined by a line of raised plaster in the west, and straight rock carvings in the north. Roughly in its center, a ca. 1.5×1.5 m carved area probably functioned as a settling or sedimentation basin for the clay. This pool may have been fed in the north through passages seen carved in the rock, possibly from the southwestern space of Workshop 2291 (Fig. 6: upper). It is also possible, however, that these multiple pools represent several stages in the life of the workshop, and replaced each other in their use. Further to the south, much of the rock surface was plastered yet no installation could be defined. To the south, a series of three smaller pools, increasing in depth along the flow of water, were fully excavated (Fig. 5, Pools 2374, 2377, and 2381, Fig. 6: lower) and were connected to Pool 2341. The pools are roughly square and were carved into the rock, plastered on their floor and walls, and supported in some places by a walled superstructure, plastered on both sides. It is therefore clear these three pools were *118 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

built together in Phase 4 dated to the first century CE, but continued to be used, at least partially, in Phase 3, until the early second century CE. The pools also channeled water to a large miqveh built in Phase 3. Pool 2374, the upper pool (Fig. 5 left), is fed from Pool 2341 through Channel 2378. It is 2.3–2.4×2.5–2.6 m in size and is about 0.2 m deep. The pool is connected to Pool 2377 by a short plastered channel (Fig. 2). Pool 2377 is a small 0.85×1.35 m pool, about 0.6 m deep; it may be seen as a settling pool in between Pools 2374 and 2381, which are of similar size but of an increasing depth. The walls of Pool 2377 are plastered in two layers and connected by a narrow channel leading to Pool 2381 (Fig. 5). On the short sides of the pool, two round shallow plastered dents about 0.2—0.24 m in diameter may have been used for placing jars (or lamps?) (Fig. 5 center). Similar dents were noted on the top of a similar pool at Jericho (Netzer 2004:112–113, Ills. 140, 141, 144, Collecting Vat F188), where they were used as a collection vat for an Early Roman winepress. This was possibly the secondary use of this pool during Phase 3. Pool 2381 may represent the final stage in the water/clay flow pattern (Fig. 5, right). It is well-built, with stone plastered walls up to 0.9 m high on its western sides. This roughly square pool is 2.3–2.9×1.8–2.4 m in size, and 1.65–1.85 m deep. The pool has two staircases: one comprised of four stairs, descending to the bottom of the pool. An additional staircase is located in the northern corner of the pool; it too is built of four small square stairs, organized in an L-shape. In the eastern corner, a depression in the plaster, approximately 0.5 m in diameter, was probably an inner settling pit. The walls, stairs, and floors are all well-plastered. The walls portray two plaster layers: an inner white layer, 1–2 cm thick, and an outer layer of hard gray, cement like plaster, 6–8 cm thick. In the northern corner above the stairs, a plastered channel was probably used to channel the overflow, possibly into a nearby cistern (Cistern 2238, Fig. 5, rear). A similar pool with a similar staircase was found in Herodian Jericho (Netzer 2004:178, Ill. 209) and interpreted there as a ritual bath. Due to the double staircase, one may suggest that the Ḥevron pool was also used as a small ritual bath (miqveh), yet, its location and function within the set of 'settling pools' may refute such a suggestion. The construction of a staircase in this pool only is due to its being much deeper than an arm-length; in all other pools clay could have been easily removed from their bottom without stairs. Note, however, that similar inter-connected pools may have also been used as a winepress (as at Jericho, Netzer 2004:108–113, Ills. 144,145), as the dents in Pool 2374 may also imply (see above). Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that these three pools were reused at a later stage as part of a winepress. It is assumed that these pools, or most of them, are related to the pottery production undertaken in the Early Roman workshop. These were used to levigate or ‘settle’ the clay, with the clay becoming finer as it flowed down the pools with the water, with larger particles settling at their base. However, the question is what was the function David Ben-Shlomo *119

of the deeper, smaller pools at the end of the water course. While clay could have settled in the large shallow pools in a regular water flow, if a heavier rain occurred and the flow of the water was more rapid, the deeper pools could have been more useful. In any case the runoff was probably drained into several cisterns, and thus saved for further use. At Jericho, plastered pools adjacent to kilns were also interpreted as a workshop (Netzer 2004:59, Ill. 72), and similar settling pools were excavated at the Herodian period workshops at the Jerusalem Convention Center / Crowne Plaza area in Jerusalem (Levy and Be'eri 2010; Levy and Be'eri 2011). The nearby ritual bath (miqveh) was probably also used for purification of the workers of the pottery workshop. The association of pottery workshops with ritual baths is well known (e.g., Adler 2011:131–2, and see below).

Area 52 In Area 52, about 30 m to the northeast (Sq. KK23), a small area of ca. 0.8×1.4 m was covered by flat burnt bricks near the bedrock (Fig. 7; L. 1129). The bricks are sized ca. 40×30 cm and some are slightly convex. This may have been the remains of an installation, although nothing was preserved beneath the layer of bricks. Around the bricks, ash as well as distorted and over-fired pottery sherds (‘wasters’, Fig. 8:2–5) and slag fragments were recovered (Fig. 8:1). Thus, this may have been the remains (roofing?) of an installation – possibly a pottery kiln. In any case, this area is likely related or belongs to the workshop unearthed in Area 53A (Workshop 2291 above). Adjacent to the bricks (Fig. 7), a portion of a yellow-marl floor was excavated; it was covered by a thick layer of Early Roman sherds producing a rich assemblage of forms of both storage vessels and tableware. Several of these vessels were ‘wasters’ (see below) (Fig. 8:4–5), analyzed by petrography and INAA and found to fit the clay of the common pottery on the site; this composition represents the profile of the Ḥevron Early Roman period workshop pottery production.

Fig. 7: Burnt bricks in Area 52, possibly remains of a kiln (L. 1129; photo David Ben-Shlomo) *120 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

Fig. 8: Pottery slag and wasters from Tel Ḥevron

Additional evidence Additional evidence for pottery production at Tel Ḥevron was reported by Hammond in his Area I.7 (divided into Areas I.7a and I.7b), located to the southwest of the tell and just below Area 53A of the 2014 excavations. Hammond reported 'three pottery kilns dated to the Hellenistic period' (Hammond 1968:256). Since the results of Hammond’s excavations have not yet been published in detail it is impossible to determine whether these installations were indeed pottery kilns and to what period they belong. Ofer also reported several plastered pools dated to the Hellenistic and/or Early Roman periods (Ofer 1986:92).

The Early Roman Pottery at Tel Ḥevron2 The pottery assemblage from Tel Ḥevron includes a large variety of types that create a rather complete chronological sequence from the Hasmonean period (late second and first century BCE) and until the first half of the second century CE (main types are listed in Table 1, Figs. 9–11). The Early Roman pottery typology will be mentioned here only briefly (Table 1), with a full account presented in Bar-Nathan and Ben- Shlomo forthcoming. The chronological terminology used in the discussion of the main pottery periods and typology is roughly adapted from Bar-Nathan (2002:5).

2 The pottery from the 2014 excavations at Tel Ḥevron was studied by David Ben-Shlomo and Bar-Nathan (Bar-Nathan and Ben-Shlomo forthcoming) David Ben-Shlomo *121

Fig. 9: A group of reconstructed Early Roman vessels from Room 2159 (Tel Ḥevron Phase 4)

Fig. 10: Selection of common Early Roman pottery types from Tel Ḥevron (storage jars, amphorae, and jugs) *122 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

The Early Roman pottery includes vessels from Phase 5 contexts, Locus 1100 in Area 52 in particular, which is probably a large refuse pit. The context mainly yielded containers (such as Type H-SJ1–H-SJ3, H-SJ5 [Fig. 10:1–4], storage jars and Type H-AM1 amphorae [Fig. 10:7, related to Type Dressel 2-4]3). Type H-SJ3 (Fig. 10:3), a cylindrical to ovoid jar with a ring base, short vertical rim, and perforated knob handles, is a rather rare type, also termed an ‘archive storage jar’ (due to its similarity to the jars in which the Qumran scrolls were found). The generic jar type H-SJ5 (Figs. 9:3, 10:4) continues into the next stage, while other forms, such as kraters and some of the bowl types, continue without change as well. Note that coins dating to Herod the Great were found at the site (Farhi and Ben-Shlomo 2016: Nos. 8, 9), although in Phase 4 contexts. Phase 4 was the primary Early Roman phase excavated, particularly extensively in Area 53A. The assemblage dates to the first century CE, until the Great Revolt (70 CE). The largest in-situ assemblage representing this period originated in Room 2159 (Fig. 9), which was destroyed by fire during the Great Revolt. As noted, Workshop 2291 also belongs to this phase (it might have been constructed as early as Phase 5). The main characteristic types of this assemblage are storage jars Types H-SJ5 (Figs. 9:3, 10:4), H–SJ6 (Fig. 10:5), H-SJ7, jugs and juglet Types H-JG1 (Fig. 10:8), H-JG2, H-JG3, H-JT1 (Fig. 10:9), amphorae Type H-AM1 (Fig. 10:7), cooking pot Type H-CP3 (Figs. 9:4,6, :1), Krater Types H-KR1 (Fig. 9:5; see Masada, Bar-Nathan 2006:124, Type M-KR1, Pl. 23:1,2), H-KR2B–C (Fig. 11:4) and bowl Types H-BL2 (Figs. 9:12, 11:6) and H-BL3 (Figs. 9:7–9, 11:7,8) (see Table 1). The Early Roman pottery of Ḥevron bears a resemblance to contemporary pottery from Jerusalem and , and in particular from south Judea and the Judean Desert, mainly at the sites of Masada, Jericho, and Khirbet Qumran. This is attested to by several pottery types, such as jars similar to the ‘archive jars’ (Type H-SJ3) and lamps Type H-LP1 (Fig. 11:10). Post 70 CE pottery is attested to in Phase 3 of Tel Ḥevron. This assemblage is dated according to parallels and stratigraphy to the period between the Great and Bar Kokhba Revolts – the late first and early second century CE. Many types of the previous assemblage continue into this phase (see Table 1). However, while these types continue, several new types or sub-types appear in this stage, that can be securely dated to post 70 CE based on parallels from Masada (Bar-Nathan 2006:12), Jericho, Roman Estate (Bar-Nathan and Eisenstadt 2013:42–5), and Shu'afat (Bar- Nathan Pers. Com.). These include Storage Jar Type H-SJ8 (Fig. 10:6), cooking pots Type H-CP4 (Fig. 11:3), and krater Type H-KR2D (with a stepped rim, Fig. 11:5).

3 This amphora type is especially common in L. 1100 (Phase 5) in Area 52, with about 82 examples of Type H-AM1 amphora handles from L. 1100 alone, indicating at least 41 vessels. This concentration of wine amphorae fragments indicates that the accumulation in L. 1100 may be derived from the affluent storeroom located nearby, dated to the Herodian period. David Ben-Shlomo *123

Fig. 11: Selection of common Early Roman pottery types from Tel Ḥevron (cooking pots, kraters, bowls, and lamps)

Petrographic and Chemical Analysis In order to better understand the pottery production at Tel Ḥevron in the Second Temple period in particular and in other periods in general, a petrographic study and limited chemical analysis were carried out.4 Petrographic analysis can determine the

4 Earlier periods, such as the Early and Middle Bronze Age, as well as the Iron Age and Hellenistic periods to a certain extent, have been studied in the past by A. Shapiro, who analyzed pottery from the 1999 excavations (Shapiro forthcoming). Current petrographic analysis was carried by the author. Chemical (Nuetron Activation) analysis was carried by Hans Mommsen at the Bonn University. *124 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

sources used for pottery production, whether all common types were produced locally, and shed light on various technological issues such as clay levigation or settling, tempering, and firing temperatures. So far, over ninety pottery vessels from the 2014 excavations at Tel Ḥevron were analyzed by thin section petrography (henceforth TSPA), of which 53 are from the Early Roman period (results of 42 samples are shown in Table 2). In this group, several distinctive types are also included, as the jars are similar to the 'archive jars' (Type H-SJ3, Fig. 10:3) and ‘Dressel 2-4’ amphorae (Fig. 10:7, Type H-AM1, e.g., Bar-Nathan 2006:323–330, type M-AM7A–F), the latter presumed initially to be imported.

Methodology Samples were obtained by standard thin sectioning of the pottery sherds, as discussed elsewhere (e.g., Ben-Shlomo 2012:285–286). The fabric description includes general characteristics of the matrix, optical activity, spacing, and voids. A definition of the type of local soil is given where applicable, according to maps and descriptions ( et al. 1975; Sneh et al. 1998). Non-plastic inclusions are identified and characterized according to distribution, frequency (percentage of slide area estimated according to distribution density charts), sorting, size range, and texture. The samples were divided into arbitrarily numbered petrographic groups according to the characteristics of the matrix (clay background and plastic inclusions) and inclusions (temper and non-plastic components). Most groups have subgroups, which usually do not imply a different clay source, but rather certain variations or 'end members' of the defined group (i.e., certain examples that are suggested to belong to a given petrographic group although they display differences in some of their petrographic characteristics).

Geological and pedological setting The area of Ḥevron in the southern central hills of Israel is covered by various Cenomanian era geological formations, all highly calcareous (see also Shapiro forthcoming). The site of Tel Ḥevron is located on the Bet Meir Formation (Ḥevron Sheet Map, GSI, Sneh and Roth 2012, and Beit Guvrin Sheet Map, Hisch 1983), characterized by dolomite and limestone. Just to the eastern and northern feet of the tell, the Moẓa Formation is exposed, containing marl and clay. In an area just 1 km from the tell, the dominant formation is the Kefar Shaul Formation with limestone, microfossils, and marl. To the east of Highway 60, some 2–3 km from the site, there are Turonian formations of limestone and dolomite, known as the Veradim Formation, and further to the east (5–6 km from the site), the Netzer formations are located. These latter formations may yield clay more similar to that of the Jerusalem region (terra rossa type clay). The soil on the tell is rendzina, while to the north and east of it, terra rossa soils are found. The Bet Meir and Moẓa formations may be good candidates for David Ben-Shlomo *125

clay sources as they naturally contain high amounts of clay. To the northeast of the site, the Ḥevron River may drain these soil types, and clay may have collected there in ancient times.

Previous Research Shapiro analyzed 65 vessels from the 1999 Tel Ḥevron excavations (Shapiro forthcoming).5 These included 21 Early Bronze Age, 17 MB II, five Iron Age I, 16 Iron II (various types), four Roman (one cooking pot and three jars), and two Byzantine vessels. Three main petrographic groups were identified (Groups I–III, with Group I having four subgroups), the first two related to Moẓa clay and the third to Taqiye marl; six other vessels were different and formed six additional groups or 'singles'.

Current petrographic results In this study, eight petrographic groups, labeled 1–8, were defined altogether, with several groups further divided into subgroups (altogether 13 fabrics; Ben-Shlomo forthcoming a). Most of the Early Roman pottery analyzed (43 of 53 samples) belonged to Group 1, while other groups are much smaller (see Table 2). The characteristics of the main petrographic groups attested to by the Early Roman pottery are discussed. Group 1 (Fig. 12:A–C) is characterized by a dark to opaque matrix in crossed polarized light, and reddish or reddish-brown matrix in regular polarized light. This is a rather compact, single-spaced, silty to fine fabric with usually 3–5% voids of the slide area (c:f:v20μ ratio of 40–50:40–45:3–5; there are four sub-groups 1a–d). Most particles are silt sized. The main, non-plastic inclusions are well sorted, silt-sized (usually up to 0.15 mm in size, with rarer occurrences of 0.2–0.5 mm sand) rhombic dolomite particles (usually with well-preserved crystal shape), often appearing reddish (ferruginized), comprising usually 35–45% of the slide area. The firing temperature must have been 700–800 degrees and no higher, since the dolomite is usually well preserved and not transformed into calcite (see Bentor 1966:61). Other non-plastics comprise a highly variable amount of poorly sorted calcareous inclusions (limestone, chalk, calcareous concentrations), usually comprising between 2–10% of the slide area and sometimes more. Clay pellets also often appear (either of quartzic-terra rossa or dolomitic soil type, also termed argillaceous inclusions, see Whitbread 1986). The high variability of the calcareous sand may indicate various degrees of fineness or levigation of the clay rather that different sources. Rarer quantities of quartz dust, opaque minerals, and microfossils also appear.

5 I wish to thank Anastasia Shapiro for making her unpublished report on the Tel Ḥevron petrography available to me. *126 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

Fig. 12: Photographs of petrographic thin sections of pottery from Tel Ḥevron (horizontal field width 1.7 mm and crossed polarized light, unless otherwise noted) (photos David Ben-Shlomo). A: Sample Hebron 128, Group 1a; B: Sample Hebron 133, Group 1a (polarized light); C: Sample Hebron 168, Group 1c (polarized light); D: Sample 109, Group 2b (see scale); E: Sample Hebron 110, Group 3; F: Sample 132, Group 5 David Ben-Shlomo *127

Group 1 probably represents clay derived from the local Bet Meir and/or Moẓa dolomitic formations, illustrating iron-rich calcareous clay. The well-preserved dolomite indicates it is in situ eroded dolomite from the local clay formations, and generally this is a fine, well-levigated clay. This group is similar to Shapiro's Group I.1 (Moẓa clay, and possibly I.4), and possibly Group II (Shapiro forthcoming: Moẓa marl), represented in EBIII through Byzantine pottery vessels in her sample. In the current study, this group is more typical of the Early Roman pottery (especially Subgroups 1a–1c), also including several of the wasters or warped vessels; all examples belong to INAA Group HebA. Petrographic Group 2 (Fig. 12:D) is characterized by a dark to opaque matrix in crossed polarized light, and a brown matrix in regular polarized light, with 5–15% voids. Non-plastics include dolomitic sand (up to 0.45 mm, some worn, most rhombic) with 35–40% containing some silt sized dolomite, and some calcareous inclusions, opaque minerals, and pellets, though in much smaller quantities than Group 1. This fabric, rarely represented in Early Roman vessels (and the most common in Iron Age vessels), although also derived from a dolomitic formation, such as the Beit Meir or Moẓa, possibly indicates a different source (and treatment) than the fabric of Group 1. The clay is less iron-rich and the dolomitic sand may have been naturally or manually transported from another source. Thus, this clay may have been derived from an alluvial/fluvial source in the Ḥevron River nearby, but this cannot be proven. It should be noted that the clay is very similar to the Moẓa clay with dolomitic sand, related to the Aminadav formation (Bentor 1966:49–51), found in the Jerusalem and Moẓa region in several periods (see, e.g., Goren 1996:51–52). This group is also compatible with Shapiro's Group I.3 (Shapiro forthcoming, Moẓa dolomite sand). Petrographic Group 3 (Fig. 12:E) is characterized by a dark matrix containing only silty angular quartz (40–45% of slide area) and few mica, opaque, and pellets grain. It has no calcareous inclusions. Thus, this fabric seems to represent clay not local to the Ḥevron area and may be a well levigated terra rossa or brown soil from the shephelah. It is difficult to geographically provenance this temper-less fabric with certainty by petrography, yet chemical analysis may indicate a provenance in the Jerusalem area (Group JleB). Two complete cooking pots are made of this clay. Petrographic Group 5, represented by several vessels as well as handles of 'Dressel 2-4' Type H-AM1 amphorae (Fig. 12:F), is characterized by a compact, silty to fine, dark to opaque matrix under crossed polarizers, and reddish-brown with regular polarized light. The non-plastics include silty quartz (up to 0.15 mm in size), calcareous inclusions up to 0.3 mm in size, as well as silty dolomite, with a high quantity of clay pellets and opaque minerals. It is difficult to determine the source of this clay, yet it carries certain resemblances to Group 1, but with much lower quantities of silty dolomite, replaced here by silty quartz. It is possible that this clay comprises *128 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

a mixture of Group 1 clay with another clay type. Most samples from this group analyzed chemically belong to Group HebA, thus linking it to the local Group 1. Several samples of pottery slag and wasters (three ‘wasters’ and a slag) were too vitrified and highly fired to identify a petrographic group. Some of the samples clearly contain large clay pellets or grog, some rounded quartz sand, and most do not contain any dolomite. Whether the sand quartz and the clay inclusions represent part of the original clay or material melted from the surrounded soil/lining in the kiln is not clear. It is likely that the calcareous inclusions were highly decomposed and that the dolomite, if present, was transformed into calcite, and then decomposed at these temperatures. It is thus difficult to say anything more about these samples.

Chemical Analysis So far 39 pottery vessels altogether, of which 29 are of the Early Roman period, were analyzed by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) (see Table 2), yielding concentrations of over 30 elements of the clay.6 A more detailed account of this analysis will be given elsewhere. The main chemical group defined, denoted HebA, includes several wasters and most Early Roman pottery, as well as Iron Age Hasmonean pottery; most of these examples belonged to Petrographic Group 1 and 5. This chemical profile represents the local pottery production of the Ḥevron workshops.

Discussion of the results Analysis of the Early Roman pottery portrayed a more homogeneous pottery production, especially of the tableware (though note that many morphological types from the typological array were not yet sampled). If cooking pots and amphorae are not included, then all the sampled vessels are Group 1.7 The clay is usually well- levigated, but different quantities of calcareous sand show that, at least in this sample, the standardization was not very high. The source is probably a local Moẓa/Bet Meir clay. The firing temperature was probably below 850 degrees, since the rhombic dolomite is well-preserved. While the main fabric indicates no addition of temper by the potters, the far less common fabric represents some addition of dolomite sand. Interestingly, four of the eight jars similar to the ‘archive jars’ analyzed (Type H-SJ3) are made of Fabric 1c. Whether this indicates a separate production source for this type of vessel (yet still in the Ḥevron area) is an open question that requires further

6 The analysis was carried out by Hans Mommsen from the University of Bonn, Germany, and results were compared to the Bonn University INAA database and to vessels analyzed from Iron Age Jerusalem (this study is funded by ISF Grant No. 236/2014). 7 Most Iron Age examples were locally made of the Fabric 2a, Moẓa marl, containing dolomitic sand (similar to the fabric of some of the other Iron Age I and II pithoi). David Ben-Shlomo *129

sampling and research, along with comparison with similar jars from Qumran and elsewhere. The fact that the two complete cooking pots were made of a non-local clay (Group 3, Samples Hebron 108, 110, Fig. 12:E), may not be surprising, since specialized cooking pots are often imported (see also Roman cooking pots analyzed by Shapiro [forthcoming]). This fabric may somewhat resemble the fabric of several Early Roman casseroles analyzed from the Jewish Quarter (Ben-Shlomo 2014:200, Fig. 4.1A), as well as several fire pans from Herodium (Ben-Shlomo forthcoming b), yet in the latter, sand-sized quartz appears as well. It is difficult to geographically provenance this temper-less fabric with certainty by petrography, yet chemical analysis may indicate a provenance in the Jerusalem area. An interesting and somewhat surprising result is that the 'Dressel 2-4' Type H-AM1 bifid amphorae handles (Fig. 10:7) were locally made (belonging to petrographic groups 1 and 5 and chemical group HebA). The distribution, provenience, and production of the Early Roman Dressel 2-4 amphorae were studied on several occasions (for instance, Peacock and Williams 1986:106), and results showed production in Italy and other locations (see Bar-Nathan 2006:323–4 and references therein). Clearly, this generic type was imitated and produced in several or even many locales around the Mediterranean. The notion that this type had a Levantine imitation was previously raised (see Bar-Nathan 2006:341–2), but has not been tested by compositional analysis so far. The results of several examples presented here may indicate that this type should be seen, at least at Ḥevron, primarily as a local vessel and not an import, and that within the Levant, the Ḥevron region may have been a center for the production of these amphorae. Moreover, this phenomenon further emphasizes the nearly-complete absence of imported pottery containers at Ḥevron (although imported tableware does seem to occur in small quantities). This phenomenon was suggested for other Jewish centers during the Hasmonean and Early Roman periods (see, e.g., Adler 2011:265– 277, although note imported wares at Masada, Bar-Nathan 2006:367–8, 387–8), and may be linked to Jewish purity laws, possibly related in particular to liquids (i.e., wine).

Discussion and conclusions The settlement at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman period indicates a large well- planned urban site, with an industrial area located on its western edge. The new archaeological and archaeometric-compositional results shown here clearly indicate that pottery was produced in a large scale and a wide variety of types at Tel Ḥevron. The Early Roman pottery resembles the assemblages published from other Early Roman sites in Judea, such as the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, Jericho, Masada, Qumran, and 'En Gedi (Bar-Nathan and Ben-Shlomo forthcoming). The Ḥevron *130 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

assemblage also shows several typological differences between the pre 70 CE and post 70 CE pottery. The pottery indicates (as do the large miqvehs) that the site continued to be a Jewish settlement at least until the early second century CE. There is a lack of imported pottery containers, although imported tableware is found in small quantities. In particular, the pottery of Ḥevron indicates strong connections with the contemporary material culture of southern Judea and the Judean Desert, mainly the sites of Masada and Khirbet Qumran. This is attested to by several pottery types, such as the jars and lamps. The association of pottery workshops in the Second Temple period with purification baths (miqvehs) is well attested at Jerusalem and Qumran, and now also at Tel Ḥevron. Since according to rabbinic law, clay vessels are especially susceptible to becoming impure, the production of pottery vessels for religious Jews in the Second Temple period would naturally have had to be somewhat linked with a high degree of purity supervision (see, e.g., Adler 2011:129–133; see also Magen and Peleg 2007:41–42). In Mishnaic texts, potters were sometimes noted as not highly observant of purity laws and thus people were cautioned against using their products (Adler 2011:133). At the Jerusalem Convention Center, a large pottery production site from the Roman period with several stepped pools – likely miqvehs – was discovered adjacent to pottery kilns (Arubas and Goldfus 2005: Fig. 1; 2008; Levy and Beeri 2010, Levy and Beeri 2011; Adler 2011:131–132, Adler forthcoming, noting several additional examples). In the past, it was suggested that possible pottery production centers at Qumran and Jericho supplied pottery to southern Judah during the Early Roman period and earlier (Bar-Nathan 2006:375–377), thus explaining certain typological differences between the Masada and Jerusalem pottery assemblages. We can now add the important pottery production center at Ḥevron, which may have been a major center in this respect. Ḥevron, the regional center of southern Judea, probably manufactured pottery for this region as well. The town of Ḥevron and its vicinity were a major traditional pottery production center in from to modern times (see e.g., Crowfoot 1932:180; Milwright 2000; Ziffer 2013:35e). Ḥevron was a well known major pottery and glass production center until recent days. It was also likely an important pottery production center during the Second Temple period, as one of the major cities of Judea. Results of petrographic and chemical analysis of pottery from Qumran suggests that some of the pottery was produced either in the Jerusalem or Ḥevron areas (e.g., Yellin et al. 2001; Gunneweg and Balla 2003: Group II, suggesting Beir ‘Ummar as the source). It will be thus interesting to further investigate the characteristics, distribution, and chronology of the Ḥevron pottery production during this period, both before and after the Great Revolt, in particular in light of the production center in Jerusalem to the north and the connections with the Judean Desert and the southern Jordan Valley. David Ben-Shlomo *131

This can be studied both from a typological-functional aspect, as well as from an archaeometric-technological angle. Certain petrographic and chemical analyses were carried out already in this study, as a pilot study. These indicate that all of the main types are made of local Moẓa clay and are rather homogeneous. However, this topic will be more comprehensively explored only in future studies. It is clear that these results call for further study, of both petrographic and chemical analyses of more examples of this type from Ḥevron and elsewhere in Judea.

References Adler, Y. 2011. The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Erez-Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (164 B.C.E.–400 C.E.). Unpublished PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew). Adler, Y. Forthcoming. The Miqwa’ot. In R. Beeri and D. Levy eds., Excavations at the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanē Ha’Uma–Crowne Plaza Hotel) 2009-2010: Pottery Workshops from the Second Century BCE to the Second Century CE near Jerusalem, Volume I. IAA Reports; Jerusalem: IAA. Arubas, B. and Goldfus, H. eds. 2005. 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 Monastic Complex. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplemental Studies 60. Portsmouth RI. Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho III: The Pottery. Jerusalem: IES. Bar-Nathan, R. 2006. Masada VII. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. The Pottery of Masada. Jerusalem: IES. Bar-Nathan, R. and Eisenstadt, I. 2013. The Ceramic Corpus from the Roman Estate at Jericho: Late 1st – Early 2nd Centuries C.E. In R. Bar-Nathan and J. Gärtner eds., Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Volume V: The Finds from Jericho and Cypros. Jerusalem: IES, pp. 3–84. Bar-Nathan, R. and Ben-Shlomo, D. Forthcoming. Hellenistic, Roman and Late Pottery. In E. Eisenberg and D. Ben-Shlomo eds., Tel Ḥevron 2014 Excavations. Final Report. Ariel: Ariel University Press. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2012. Archaeometric Analysis of Pottery. In Maeir, A.M. ed., Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996-2005 Seasons, Ägypten und Alten Testament. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 383–426. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2014. Appendix: Petrographic Analysis of Early Roman Cooking-Ware Vessels from Areas E and J. In H. Geva ed., Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 Volume VI: Areas J, N, Z and Other Studies. Final Report. Jerusalem: IES, pp. 200–202. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2016. Tel Hebron during the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Period. Judea and Samaria Research Studies 25/1:29–43 (Hebrew). *132 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

Ben-Shlomo, D. Forthcoming a. Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age and Early Roman Pottery. In E. Eisenberg and D. Ben-Shlomo eds., Tel Ḥevron 2014 Excavations. Final Report. Ariel: Ariel University Press. Ben-Shlomo, D. Forthcoming b. Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Herodium. Bentor, Y.K. 1966. Clays of Israel. (Guide-Book to the Excursions). Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific . Crowfoot, G.M. 1932. Pots, Ancient and Modern. PEF Quarterly Statement, pp. 179–187. Dan, J., Raz, Z., Ya’alon, D.H. and Koyumdjisky, H. 1975. Soil Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Agriculture. de Vincenz, A. 2007. The Pottery. In Y. Hirschfeld ‘En Gedi Excavations II (1996–2002). Jerusalem: IES, pp. 234–427. Eisenberg, E. and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2016. Tel Hevron. Hadashot Arkheologiyot. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 128. IAA. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=24926&mag_id=124 Eisenberg, E. and Ben-Shlomo, D. eds. Forthcoming. Tel Ḥevron 2014 Excavations. Final Report. Ariel: Ariel University Press. Eisenberg, E. and Nagorski, E. 2002. Tel Hebron. Hadashot Arkheoklogiyot 114: 92. Farhi, Y. and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2016. The Settlement of Tel Hebron from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period: New Numismatic Evidence. Tel-Aviv 43/2:243–265. Gunneweg, J. and Balla, M. 2003. Neutron Activation Analysis. Scroll Jars and Common Ware. In J-B Humbert and J. Gunneweg eds., Khirbet Qumrân et 'Aïn Feshkha II. Fribourg: Academic Press, pp. 3–52. Hammond, P. C. 1968. Hebron. Revue Biblique 75: 253–258. Hirsch, F. 1983. Bet Guvrin Map. Sheet 11-III. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000. Levy, D. and Beeri, R. 2010. Excavations at Crowne Plaza Hotel (Jerusalem Convention Center. In D. Amit, O. Pereg-Barkat and G. Stiebel eds, New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region IV:119–129 (Hebrew). Levy, D and Beeri, R. 2011. Roman Period Workshops at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Western Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 141:35–39 (Hebrew). Mader, A.E. 1957. Mambre, die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Ramt el-Halil in Südpalästina 1926–1928. Freiburg im Breisgau. Magen, I. and Y. Peleg, Y. 2007. The Qumran excavations 1993–2004. Preliminary Report. In Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria Researches and Discoveries JSP 6. Jerusalem: Staff officer of Archaeology – Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, pp. 353–426. Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200-800 CE. JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Milwright, M. 2000. Pottery of Bilad al-Sham in the Ottoman Period: a Review of the Published Archaeological Evidence. Levant 32/1:198–208. Młynarczyk, J. 2013. Terracotta Oil Lamps from Qumran: The Typology. RB 120:99–133. David Ben-Shlomo *133

Netzer, E. 2004. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho. Final reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations. Volume II. Jerusalem: IES. Ofer, A. 1986. Tell Rumeida (Hebron) Rumeida. ESI 5:92–93. Ofer, A. 1993. Hebron. In NEAEHL, pp. 606–609. Peacock, D.P.S. and Williams, D. F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide. Longman archaeology series. London: Longman. Rosenthal, R. and Sivan, R. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. Qedem 8. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Shapiro, A. Forthcoming. Petrographic Analysis of Selected Pottery from the Tel Hebron (1999) Excavations. In E. Eisenberg, The 1999 Excavations at Tel Hebron (tentative title). Jerusalem: IAA. Sneh A., Bartov Y., Weissbrod T. and Rosensaft M. 1998. Geological Map of Israel 1:200000, Sheet 2. GSI, Jerusalem. Sneh, A. and Roth, Y. 2012. Ḥevron Map. Sheet 11-IV. Geological Map of Israel 1:50,000. Jerusalem: GSI. Vincent, E., MacKay, J.H., and Abel, F.M. 1923. Hébron: le Haram el-Khalîl. Sépulture des Patriarches. Paris: Leroux. Whitbread, I.K. 1986. The Characterization of Argillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry 28 (1):79–88. Yellin, J., Broshi, M., and Eshel, H. 2001. Pottery of Qumran and Ein Ghuweir: The First Chemical Exploration of Provenience. BASOR 321:65–78. Ziffer, I. 2013. Water Vessels in Traditional Arab Pottery. In N. Kenaan-Kedar ed., The Maiden and the Jar. A Local and Multi-Cultural Image. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum, pp. 25(e)–40(e).

* David Ben-Shlomo, Institute of Archaeology, Department of Israel Heritage, Ariel University. *134 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

Tables

Table 1: Main and indicative general pottery types at Tel Ḥevron 2014 excavations (Bar-Nathan and Ben-Shlomo forthcoming) with the periods they appear in according to comparative literature

Selected parallels

Type (Fig.) Hasm. Post 70 CE Early Roman Early Roman (‘Herodian 3’) (‘Herodian LR/Early Byz. (‘Herodian 1, 2’) (‘Herodian H-SJ1 Bar-Nathan 2002:22–23, Type + + - - - (10:1) J-SJ1 H-SJ2 Bar-Nathan 2002:28–31, Type + + - - - (10:2) J-SJ4 H-SJ3 Bar-Nathan 2002:23–27, Type ? + + + - (10:3) J-SJ2, Ills. 7–16 H-SJ5 Bar-Nathan 2002:151–2, Type - + + + - (10:4) J-SJ7 H-SJ6 Bar-Nathan 2006:60, Pl. - + + + - (10:5) 12:47–50 H-SJ7 - ? + + - Bar-Nathan 2006: Pl. 12:65 H-SJ8 Bar-Nathan 2006:74–5, Type - - - + - (10:6) M-SJ24 Magness 1993:223–6, Type SJ H-SJ11 - - - - + 4A–C H-AM1 Bar-Nathan 2006:323–330, type - + + + - (10:7) M-AM7A–F; ‘Dressel 2-4’ H-JG1 Bar-Nathan 2006: 100–104, + + + - - (10:8) Type M-JG5B2 Bar-Nathan 2006: 105, Type H-JG2 + + + - - M-JG-7 Bar-Nathan 2002:158, Type H-JG3 - + + + - J-JG4, Pl. 25:429 Bar-Nathan 2006:109, Type H-JG4 - + + +? - M-JG12, Pl. 20:37–40 H-JT1 Bar-Nathan 2002:52–55,162–3, - + + + - (10:9) Type J-JT1 Bar-Nathan 2002:68–70, Type H-CP1 + - - - - J-CP1 H-CP3 Bar-Nathan 2002:70–2, Type - + + + - (11:1) J-CP2C 'Herodian CP' Bar-Nathan and Eisenstadt H-CP4 - - - + - 2013:26,28, Type J-CP12, Pl. (11:3) 1.5:616–617 David Ben-Shlomo *135

H-KR2A Bar-Nathan 2002:7–8, 180–1, + + + - - (11:4) Type J-KR1 Bar-Nathan 2006:126, Type H-KR2B - + + + - M-KR2B, Pl. 23:7–13 H-KR2D Bar-Nathan and Eisenstadt - - - + - (11:5) 2013:20–1, Type J-KR5 H-KR3 - - - - + de Vincenz 2007: Pl. 15:4–6 Bar-Nathan 2002:87–8, Type H-BL1 + + - - - J-BL5 H-BL2 Bar-Nathan 2002:83–87, Type ? + + +? - (11:6) J-BL3A3 H-BL3 Bar-Nathan 2006:136–7, Type ? ? + + - (11:7,8) M-BL5, Fig. 37 H-BL7 - - - - + Magness 1993:185–7, JRB H-CU1 Bar-Nathan 2002:98–102, Types + + + - - (9:10) J-CU1A-B H-LP1 Młynarczyk 2013:103–105, + + - - - (11:10) Type 032 Bar-Nathan 2002:107–9, Type H-LP2 - + - - - J-LP2B H-LP3 Bar-Nathan 2002:112–3, Type - - + + - (11:11) J-LP4, 'Herodian lamp' Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:116– H-LP6 - - - - + 118 H=Ḥevron; Hasm=Hasmonean; LR= Late Roman; SJ=storage jar; AM=amphora; CP=cooking pot; KR=krater; BL=bowl; JRB= Jerusalem rouletted bowl; LP=lamp

Table 2: Early Roman pottery vessels analyzed by TSPA and INAA from Tel Ḥevron, and their suggested provenance

TSPA INAA Suggested Sample Description/Type Type H-(Fig*) Group group provenance Hebron 101 Storage jar SJ5A (5.86:9) 1a Ḥevron Hebron 102 Bowl BL3B (5.90:18) 1a Ḥevron Hebron 103 Bowl BL3A (5.90:8) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 104 Bowl BL2A (5.89:8) 1b HebA Ḥevron Hebron 105 Bowl BL2A (5.89:9) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 106 Bowl BL3A (5.90:1) 1(a?) HebA Ḥevron Hebron 107 Bowl BL3A (5.90:4) 1a Ḥevron Hebron 108 Cooking pot CP3 (5.88:1) 3 JleB Jerusalem? Hebron 109 Cooking pot CP3 (5.88:2) 2b X37 Ḥevron Casserole 3 JleB Jerusalem? Hebron 110 (Fig. 9:2) CS3 (5.88:11) Hebron 111 Bowl BL3B (5.109:4) 1a Ḥevron Hebron 112 Bowl BL3A2 (5.109:2) 1a HebA Ḥevron *136 Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period

Hebron 113 Krater KR1 (5.88:14) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 114 Jug JG4 (5.87:15) 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 115 Storage jar SJ4 (8.3:9) 1a HebD Ḥevron Hebron 116 Stand SD1 (5.87:21) 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 117 Slag -- X37 ? Hebron 119 Storage jar SJ3B (5.169:2) 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 120 Storage jar SJ3A (8.3:4) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 121 Storage jar SJ3B (8.3:7) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 122 Storage jar SJ3B (8.3:6) 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 123 Storage jar SJ3B (8.3:8) 1(a?) HebA Ḥevron Hebron 124 Storage jar SJ3A (8.3:2) 1(a?) HebA Ḥevron Storage jar 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 126 (waster) SJ5 (5.169:8) Hebron 127 Jug (waster) (8.8:13) 1c/2a Ḥevron? Hebron 128 Storage jar-krater SJ4 (5.33:3) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 129 Amphora AM1 (2.33:9) 1a? HebA Ḥevron Hebron 130 Amphora AM1 (2.33:10) 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 131 Amphora AM1 (2.33:11) 1(a?) HebA Ḥevron Hebron 132 Amphora AM1 (2.33:8) 5 HebA Ḥevron Hebron 133 Amphora AM1 (8.6:2) 1a HebD Ḥevron Hebron 134 Amphora AM1 (8.6:4) 5 Single Ḥevron? Hebron 159 Krater KR1 1a Ḥevron Hebron 160 Storage jar SJ3B (5.87:10) 1c HebA Ḥevron Hebron 161 Sherd (‘waster’) (10.8:10) -- HebA Ḥevron Hebron 162 Sherd (‘waster’) (2.63:8) 1(a?) HebA Ḥevron Hebron 163 Sherd (‘waster’) (2.63:10) 1a HebA Ḥevron Hebron 164 Sherd (‘waster’) (2.63:11) 1a Ḥevron Hebron 165 Sherd (‘waster’) -- Ḥevron Hebron 166 Sherd (‘waster’) (10.8:11) -- Ḥevron Hebron 167 Sherd (‘waster’) 1a Ḥevron Hebron 168 Storage jar SJ3A 1c HebA Ḥevron * Figure in Eisenberg and Ben-Shlomo forthcoming