QEDEM REPORTS 11
Editorial Board Y. Garfinkel, N. Goring-Morris, T. Ornan, N. Panitz-Cohen, Z. Weiss
2018 Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Sveta Matskevich EXCAVATIONS AT DOR, FINAL REPORT
VOLUME IIB
AREA G, THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES: POTTERY, ARTIFACTS, ECOFACTS AND OTHER STUDIES
DIRECTED BY EPHRAIM STERN 1986–2000 ILAN SHARON AND AYELET GILBOA 2002–2004
with contributions by: Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, László Bartosiewicz, Hagar Ben Basat, John E. Berg, Elisabetta Boaretto, Adi Eliyahu-Behar, Marina Faerman, Christian Herrmann, Tzipi Kahana, Othmar Keel, Elicia Lisk, Stefan Münger, Yossi Salmon, Irina Segal, Sariel Shalev, Sana Shilstein, Patricia Smith, Ragna Stidsing, Philipp W. Stockhammer, Yana Vitalkov, Naama Yahalom-Mack and Irit Zohar CONTENTS
List of Illustrations...... IX
List of Abbreviations...... XIII
VOLUME IIA (QEDEM 10)
Part One: Introduction and Synthesis
Chapter 1. History of the Excavations in Area G (1986–2004), Post-Excavation Analysis (1993–2010) and Remarks on Documentation and Methods — Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa ...... 3
Chapter 2. The Late Bronze and Iron Ages in Area G: An Architectural, Contextual, Functional and Chronological Synthesis — Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon and Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 27
Part Two: Stratigraphy
Chapter 3. Introduction to the Stratigraphy of Area G — Phases 5–12 — Ilan Sharon ...... 81
Chapter 4. East of “Cheryl’s Room”: AG/33–34—Phases 5–6/7? — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 99
Chapter 5. The “Pithoi Room”: AH–AI/33—Phases 5–10 — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 109
Chapter 6. Below “Ana’s Room”: AH/34—Phases 6–8 — Allen Estes...... 121
Chapter 7. “Cheryl’s Room”: AH–AG/33—Phases 5–8 — Allen Estes and Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 125
Chapter 8. The “Egyptian-Jars Room”: AI/31—Phases 5–12 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 137
Chapter 9. The Courtyard (The “Bakery” and the Bronze Smithy): AI/32–33, AJ/32—Phases 5–12 — Jeffrey R. Zorn . . 155
Chapter 10. “Doreen’s Room”: AI/33—Phases 5–10 — Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 191
Chapter 11. Fragmentary Remains of Phases 5–7 in AI/34 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 205
Chapter 12. The “Cult Room”: AJ/34—Phases 6–10 — Jeffrey R. Zorn...... 209
Chapter 13. The “Fish Room”: AJ/33 East–AI/33 West—Phases 6–12 — Ilan Sharon...... 219
Chapter 14. The “Antler Room”: AJ–AK/32—Phases 5–12 — Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Jeffrey R. Zorn and Ilan Sharon. 229
Chapter 15. “Sloan’s Room”: AJ/33–AK/33 West—Phases 5–10 — Ilan Sharon...... 249
Chapter 16. Iron Age Traces: AK/34 —Phases 4?/5?–6 — Jeffrey R. Zorn ...... 259
Phase Plans and Section – John E. Berg and Sveta Matskevich...... 261 Volume IIB (QEDEM 11)
Part Three: Ceramics
Chapter 17. The Local and Imported Late Bronze Age II–III Pottery of Phases 12 and 11: Typology, Chronology and Cultural Setting — Ragna Stidsing and Yossi Salmon...... 3
Chapter 18. The Aegean-Type Pottery of Phases 12 and 11 — Philipp W. Stockhammer ...... 71
Chapter 19. Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-Type Pottery of Phase 11 — Yossi Salmon ...... 89
Chapter 20. The Iron Age Pottery of Phases 10–5: Sequence, Contexts, Typology, Cultural Affinities and Chronology — Ayelet Gilboa...... 97
Chapter 21. Quantitative Aspects of the Iron Age Pottery Assemblage — Sveta Matskevich and Ayelet Gilboa...... 173
Part Four: Artifacts, Ecofacts and Other Studies
Chapter 22. Metalworking in Area G — Naama Yahalom-Mack, Jeffery R. Zorn, Adi Eliyahu-Behar, Sana Shilstein and Sariel Shalev 195
Chapter 23. Lead Isotope Analysis of Copper-Based Artifacts from Area G — Naama Yahalom-Mack and Irina Segal...... 205
Chapter 24. The Flaked-Stone Tool Assemblage — John E. Berg ...... 211
Chapter 25. The Glyptics of Area G — Othmar Keel and Stefan Münger ...... 233
Chapter 26. Ornamental and Utilitarian Objects of the Late Bronze IIB and Iron Ages — Hagar Ben Basat With an Addendum by Christian Herrmann ...... 247
Chapter 27. Mammalian Remains — László Bartosiewicz and Elicia Lisk ...... 277
Chapter 28. Non-Mammalian Vertebrate Remains — László Bartosiewicz, Elicia Lisk and Irit Zohar...... 313
Chapter 29. The Human Skeletal Remains from Area G— Tzipi Kahana, Marina Faerman and Patricia Smith...... 323
Chapter 30. Radiocarbon Dating of the Human Skeletal Remains from Area G — Elisabetta Boaretto ...... 331
Chapter 31. Mollusk Shells from the Late Bronze Age IIB in Area G — Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer and Yana Vitalkov...... 333
VOLUME IIC (QEDEM 12)
Part Five: Pottery Plates, Phase Plans and Index of Loci
Pottery Plates – Chapter 17...... 3
Pottery Plates – Chapter 20...... 63
Phase Plans and Section – John E. Berg and Sveta Matskevich...... 241
Index of Loci – Jeffrey R. Zorn, Ilan Sharon, Elizabeth Bloch-Smith and Allen Estes...... 257 CHAPTER 18 The Aegean-type Pottery of Phases 12 and 11 Philipp W. Stockhammer
Introduction of the 86 sherds were analyzed, most of the attributions were done on the basis of my personal experience in the analysis The material included under the heading “Aegean-type of Aegean-style pottery. Attribution to an unknown place of pottery” from Late Bronze Age IIB (LBIIB) Phases 12 and production may result from the fact that the sherd was not 11 consists mostly of vessels which, in fact, did not originate personally examined. in the Mycenaean Aegean world.1 Terms like “Mycenaean” As noted above, it is clear from the stratigraphic contexts or “Cypriot” convey regional and ethnic components which that all these sherds were found in secondary deposition. become problematic when migrations result in entangled The number of ceramic finds per phase (Chapter 17, Table regional pottery styles that combine the familiar of one’s 17.3) is not only the consequence of the site-formation homeland with elements of the new surroundings. It processes, but also depends on the amount of cubic meters may be helpful to use terms like “Cypro-Mycenaean”, of debris excavated: ca. 35 cubic meters for Phase 12 and “Levanto-Mycenaean” or “Cypro-Levantine”. However, as ca. 50 cubic meters for Phase 11. Considering the volume we have only recently begun to understand the complex of material excavated, one would expect more sherd phenomena of the regionalization of formerly Aegean material from Phase 11 (a total of 1169) than from Phase pottery traditions, I use the term “Aegean-type” for all the 12 (a total of 670). The excavators considered only a small pottery discussed in this chapter, irrespective of its locus number of loci to be sealed, which means that most of the of production, following French and Tomlinson (2004: 18, pottery dealt with in this chapter derives from unsealed note 1): “The term ‘Aegean-type’ is used here instead of contexts (Chapter 17, Tables 17.1–17.2, 17.4–17.5). None the more subjective term ‘Mycenaean’ to indicate sherds of the ten Aegean-type sherds from Horizons 1 and 23 of alien to the contexts in which they were found and therefore Phase 12 were found in a sealed context, while only 11 thought to be imported from the Aegean” (cf., Jung 2006: of the 61 sherds attributed to Horizon 34 and two of the 191). 15 from Horizon 45 (both belonging to Phase 11), come The Aegean-type pottery from Area G comprises 86 from such contexts. Because of the small available dataset, registered vessels,2 each represented by single sherds or a all sherds were included in the quantitative analysis and group of joining sherds, most of which are only preserved the abovementioned difficulties must be kept in mind when as small pieces. Moreover, the surface of many of the evaluating the evidence. sherds has been badly eroded, making it difficult to identify In addition to this quantitative approach, a selection of surface treatments and traces of paint. None of the sherds vessels will be discussed more extensively, since they are derive from a meaningful architectural context, since of importance from a chronological and cultural-historical virtually all stratigraphic deposits of Phases 12 and 11 are perspective. These sherds, all but one (from a later context) accumulations of debris that were secondarily deposited from Phase 11, are the only ones illustrated (Pl. 18.1; Figs. from metallurgical activities (for details, see Chapter 18.1–18.4) and described in detail. Of these, only Nos. 4, 15 2). Therefore, a contextual analysis of the sherds is not and 17 were found in sealed contexts. possible.
Vessel Shapes and Motifs Methodology and Contextual Integrity Most of the Aegean-type pottery could not be classified into The first step of this study involved evaluation ofthe shapes (Furumark Shape: FS) or motifs (Furumark Motif: whole corpus with regards to the quantity of vessel forms, FM) following Furumark’s (1941) terminology. Thus, in the their points of origin/production and relative chronological attribution to FS and FM, I follow an abbreviated version dating. The attribution to different regions of production of the methodology developed in my Ph.D. dissertation (Tables 18.4–18.5) is based on the results of NAA analysis (Stockhammer 2008: 103–111). Typologically, most sherds (13 samples; see Chapter 19) and petrography (one sample; could only be attributed broadly to unidentified closed shapes see notes 6–7) whenever possible. However, since only 14 or to open or closed vessels (Tables 18.1–18.2).
71 CHAPTER 18
Table 18.1. Quantitative distribution of Aegean-type pottery forms according to Dor horizon and phase
Aegean-type vessel forms/Dor horizon and phase * Undefined vessel Undefined large closed vessel Undefined small closed vessel Undefined closed vessel S tirrup jar Pilgrim flask, FS 189 pilgrim flask, FS FS 171 etc. or Stirrup jar, 190 FS 96 Straight-sided alabastron, Jug FS 7-9 Stemmed krater, FS 54/55 krater, Amphoroid FS 281 Ring-based krater, Undefined krater deep bowl, FS 284 FS 281 or Krater, Deep bowl, FS 284 One-handled conical bowl, FS 242 deep One-handled conical bowl, FS 242 or bowl, FS 284 Goblet, FS 254/55 Shallow bowl, FS 296 Aegean-type pottery and its Total of total imported pottery percentage imported pottery Total Horizon 4 (11, 11a) 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 15 30.0 51 Horizon 3 (11, 11b) 5 12 7 10 10 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 61 24.1 253 Horizon 2 (11/12) 1 1 2 2.8 71 Horizon 1 (12, 12a, 12b) 1 5 1 1 8 5.1 158 Total 6 18 11 12 14 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 86 16.1 533 * See Chapter 17, Table 17.5.
Table 18.2. Quantitative distribution of Aegean-type general vessel forms (undefined, closed, open) according to Dor horizon and phase
Main Aegean-type vessel forms/ Undefined vessels Closed vessels Open vessels Total Aegean-type pottery Dor horizon and phase N % N % N % N Horizon 4 (11, 11a) 12 80.0 3 20.0 15 Horizon 3 (11, 11b) 5 8.2 44 72.1 12 19.7 61 Horizon 2 (11/12) 2 100.0 2 Horizon 1 (12, 12a, 12b) 1 12.5 7 87.5 8 Total 6 7.0 65 75.6 15 17.4 86
Closed Vessels (Pl. 18.1:7) and to a Cypriot or local (Pl. 18.1:20) origin. One medium-sized, conical-piriform stirrup jar sherd (FS Undefined Closed Vessels (Pl. 18.1:1–3) 167) from a sealed context (Pl. 18.1:4; Fig. 18.1; cf., Stern 2000: Pl. IX:1 left) is preserved to such a large extent that, in The sherds that were attributed to undefined closed shapes were this case, it might have been found in a primary depositional further subdivided into large and small vessels where possible position in this context. It looks different from LH IIIA/B (Table 18.1). Those classified as “small closed vessels” in medium-sized conical-piriform stirrup jars from the Argolid, Table 18.1 might easily be merged together with the stirrup as these regularly show a patterned decoration on the shoulder jars. One small sherd of an unidentified small closed vessel (Mountjoy 1986: 77–78, 105–106). Its fabric could point to a (Pl. 18.1:3), which could come from a globular stirrup jar or a Cypriot origin, but this would need further scientific analyses.6 horizontal flask (FS 190), is of definite Argolid origin and is As noted above, it is possible that many of the linear-painted easily distinguishable from the rest of the linear painted sherds sherds of medium- or small-sized closed vessels of probable (see below) by visual inspection, as well as by NAA analysis. Cypriot origin from Dor might be attributed to stirrup jars.
Stirrup Jars (Pl. 18.1:4–7, 20; Fig. 18.1) Pilgrim Flasks–FS 189 (Pl. 18.1:21)
Stirrup jars are the most abundant Aegean-type vessel form in The second most abundant Aegean-type vessel is the this assemblage (Table 18.1). For the most part, they comprise pilgrim flask (FS 189), which may, in part, be due to its easy the small globular version (FS 171, etc.) with only linear identification in the sherd material. The so-called horizontal decoration, which is so typical of the Cypriot Simple Style. flask (FS 190) is not definitely attested in the material. Some This fits very well with the results of the NAA analysis of sherds (e.g., Pl. 18.1:3) may either derive from this vessel two of the stirrup jar sherds, which either mapped to a Cypriot form or from a small globular stirrup jar, as noted above.
72 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
Fig. 18.1. Conical-piriform stirrup jar, FS 167 (Pl. 18.1:4). (p10Z3-0029)
Other Closed Shapes (Pl. 18.1:18–19, 24; Fig.18.2)
Other than the stirrup jars and pilgrim flasks, the only identifiable closed shapes are a large piriform jar witha papyrus motif (FM 11) on the shoulder (Pl. 18.1:24; Fig. 18.2), a straight-sided alabastron (FS 96) (Pl. 18.1:18) and a sherd from the linear-painted neck of some kind of jug (Pl. 18.1:19), perhaps with cutaway neck (FS 136), a strainer jug (FS 155) or a beaked jug.
Open Vessels
Goblet (Pl. 18.1:25; Fig. 18.3)
A highly interesting rim fragment of a goblet (FS 254/255; Pl. 18.1:25, Fig. 18.3) was identified in the sherd material from Area G, subsequent to my initial examination of the assemblage (see note 2). It shows a thin rim band on the interior and a rim band with pendant wavy band and some complex decoration below. The latter might be interpreted as part of a spiral, an argonaut or a floral motif. On the basis of the decoration, the vessel should be dated to LH IIB or LH IIIA1 at the latest and would thus be one of the earliest Late Bronze Age (LBA) Aegean-type imports in the southern Fig. 18.2. Large piriform jar, papyrus motif (FM 11) (Pl. 18.1:24). Levant. (p11X-1200)
73 CHAPTER 18
with a spiral motif (Pl. 18.1:13–14).8 One base (Pl. 18.1:15), with a diameter of ca. 7 cm, could be attributed to either a krater (FS 281) or a large deep bowl (FS 284), since base diameters between 7 and 8 cm appear on both forms (Stockhammer 2008: 109).
Bowls (Pl. 18.1:10–11, 16–17, 22–23)
The Aegean-type pottery from Dor includes a small, but highly interesting number of bowl shapes which, from an Aegean perspective, can be attributed to one-handled conical bowls (FS 242) (Pl. 18.1:10–11), deep bowls (FS 284) (Pl. 18.1:22– 23) and shallow bowls (FS 296) (Pl. 18.1:16–17). While shallow bowls are one of the most common open shapes of imported Aegean-type pottery in the Levant (Leonard 1994: Fig. 18.3. Goblet, FS 254/255 (Pl. 18.1:25). (p11X-1621). 123–126), deep bowls are rarely found as imports in Levantine LBA contexts and imported one-handled conical bowls are otherwise completely absent (Leonard 1994: 104, 117–119). Kraters (Pl. 18.1:8–9; 12–15; Fig. 18.4) One cannot totally exclude the possibility that the rim sherds classified as one-handled conical bowls belong to oneof Although open vessels are quite rare in the assemblage, the other bowl shapes documented on LC IIC/IIIA Cyprus there is evidence for six or seven kraters of three different (cf., Karageorghis 1965: 157–184). However, the small rim forms. At least one of the sherds is clearly an old piece diameter most probably points to the type of one-handled in secondary deposition, since it was part of a LH IIIA2 conical bowls which has also been found in Cyprus, e.g., at stemmed krater (FS 7–9) of clearly Argolid origin (Pl. Maa-Palaeokastro in a LC IIIA context (Karageorghis and 18.1:8), of which only the lower attachment of the handle Demas 1988: Pl. 143). Deep bowls are one of the hallmarks of with a ladder pattern is preserved. The form and decoration early “Philistine” settlements in southern Canaan (Dothan and of an amphoroid krater (FS 54/55) sherd (Pl. 18.1:9; Fig. Zukerman 2004: 8–15) and one-handled conical bowls are key 18.4; cf., Stern 2000, Pl. IX:1 right) indicate a Cypriot features of the early Iron Age locally produced Aegean-type origin, while the running spiral decoration points to a pottery of Tarsus in Cilicia (French 1975: 61, 64–65, Figs. LCIIC–LCIIIA date (Kling 1989: 128–130; S. Sherratt, 14–15; Mountjoy 2005: 98–104). personal communication).7 One ring-based krater (FS 281) In Horizon 3 of Phase 11, two rim fragments of one-handled (Pl. 18.1:12) features an unclear, complex motif directly conical bowls (FS 242) (Pl. 18.1:10–11) were found. Linear under the rim. It is probably not a wavy band (FM 53), painted one-handled bowls appear in Mycenae in LH IIIB2 since such bands are regularly depicted in the middle of the Late (French and Taylour 2007: CD-275), and in Tiryns in handle zone or as some kind of festoon hanging directly LH IIIC Early for the first time (Stockhammer 2008: 57). The from the rim band. It may be some kind of loop motif, as one-handled bowls found at Tarsus are dated to LH IIIC Early shown on a ring-based krater from the so-called Epichosis (French 1975; Mountjoy 2005: 84–85, 98–104). Although this in Tiryns (Voigtländer 2003: Pl. 113:K13), or the section type starts in the late 13th century BCE in the Argolid, they are of a thick-lined running spiral, like on a Pastoral Style not common there until LH IIIC Early. krater from Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios (South, Russel and Two deep bowls (FS 284) are evidenced by rim sherds (Pl. Schuster Keswani 1989: Fig. 13:K-AD 536). All remaining 18.1:22–23). Whereas one has a small rim band on the interior krater sherds are small body sherds, two of them decorated and a medium one on the exterior, the other could be identified as a medium-band bowl, characterized by a monochrome interior and only a medium rim band and handle splashes on the exterior (Mountjoy 1986: 151; Stockhammer 2008: 51). Linear deep bowls appear in the Argolid in LH IIIB2 Early and medium-band deep bowls in LH IIIB2 Late for the first time (Stockhammer 2008: 47–48, 51; French and Stockhammer 2009).9 Therefore, both variants of the deep bowls found at Dor start in the second half of the 13th century BCE in the Argolid. However, like the one-handled conical bowls, they are not common until LH IIIC Early. Two shallow bowl sherds (FS 296), one a linear rim fragment (Pl. 18.1:16) and one a small body sherd (Pl. 18.1:17), were identified. The latter has a patterned decoration (hatched triangle? chevron?) on the interior and was found in a sealed locus of Horizon 3. As one would expect, the NAA Fig. 18.4. Amphoroid krater, FS 54/55 (Pl. 18.1:9). (p10Z3-0030) analyses of both sherds point to a Cypriot place of production
74 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
Table 18.3. Quantitative distribution of dated Aegean-type pottery according to Dor horizon and phase
Date of Aegean-type pottery/ LH IIB/ LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2/B LH IIIB LH IIIB/C LH IIIC Unclear Total Aegean- Dor horizon and phase IIIA1 Early type pottery N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N Horizon 4 (11, 11a) 14 93.3 1 6.7 15 Horizon 3 (11, 11b) 1 1.6 1 1.6 1 1.6 1 53 86.9 2 3.2 2 3.2 61 Horizon 2 (11/12) 2 1.0 2 Horizon 1 (12, 12a, 12b) 1 12.5 7 87.5 8 Total 1 1.2 1 1.2 2 2.3 3 3.5 74 86.0 3 3.5 2 2.3 86
(see Chapter 19). Both the linear rim fragment (Pl. 18.1:16) Table 18.4. Quantitative distribution of Aegean-type pottery and the small body sherd (Pl. 18.1:17) can only be dated to according to provenience and Dor horizon and phase LH IIIB2/C from an Aegean perspective or LC IIC/IIIA from a Cypriot perspective. These bowls have been found in Cyprus from LC IIC onwards (Kling 1989: 132–134). Most of them display only linear decoration, but some depict a patterned decoration on the interior, e.g., several shallow bowls from Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios (South 1988: 228; Pl. 35). In the Argolid, shallow bowls appear from LH IIIB2 Early onwards (Stockhammer 2008: 46; French and Stockhammer 2009), but have only been found in the harbor town of Tiryns so far (Podzuweit 2007: Pl. 38). This reinforces Kling’s (1989: 134) suggestion that these bowls belong to a local Cypriot tradition. Aegean-type of Provenience pottery/ horizon and phase D or Mainland Greece mainland Greece Probably C rete P robably mainland Greece Cyprus or C yprus C yprus P robably local Cyprus or C yprus Tarsus or local Probably Unclear Aegean-type pottery Total Horizon 4 (11, 1 7 4 2 1 15 11a) Chronological Implications Horizon 3 (11, 2 2 1 7 42 1 2 1 3 61 The secondary depositional position of the sherds, 11b) compounded by the fact that Phase 12 (Horizons 1 and 2) does Horizon 2 (11/12) 1 1 2 not contain many Aegean-type sherds, none of which were Horizon 1 (12, 1 4 1 2 8 found in a sealed context, makes any chronological statements 12a, 12b) problematic (Tables 18.3–18.5). However, a few general Total 2 3 1 1 8 54 6 2 3 6 86 conclusions can be drawn. Although the number of Aegean-type sherds dating before LH IIIB is very small, it is nevertheless a highly interesting corpus. This is mainly due to the goblet FS 254/255 of LH IIB/IIIA1 date, which was, however, found in the much later Table 18.5. Quantitative distribution of Aegean-type pottery context of Horizon 3 in a secondary position. The vessel could according to provenience and Aegean date be of Argolid origin, but its remarkably gritty fabric may point to another area of production in the Aegean. However, it is definitely not of Cretan origin and belongs to the very small group of non-Cretan imports to the southern Levant dating before LH IIIA2. Most of the contemporary early Aegean- type imports can be attributed to a Minoan origin, e.g., the two LM IIIA1 conical cups from Tel Beth-Shemesh (Levine, Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011: 157) or the Minoan amphoras from the tombs of Tell Jedur (Hankey 1981: 33*, Fig. 1) and the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (Lemaire 1954: 287, Fig. 18). However, some very early mainland Greek imports are Aegean-type of Provenience pottery/date Mainland Greece mainland Greece Probably C rete P robably mainland Greece Cyprus or C yprus C ypriot P robably local Cypriot or C yprus Tarsus or local Probably Unclear Total Aegean-type pottery also known from the southern Levant. Beside the well-known LH IIIC Early 1 2 5 early Aegean-type pottery from the “temple” excavated at the LH IIIB/C 1 1 8 52 6 3 4 73 Amman airport (Hankey 1974), a LH IIB goblet (FS 254) from LH IIIB 1 1 2 the first phase of the Fosse Temple in Lachish (Tufnell, Inge LH IIIA2/B 1 1 2 and Harding 1940: Pl. 49:257) is a most interesting parallel to LH IIIA2 1 1 the goblet from Dor. LH IIB/IIIA1 1 1 Aside from the few pre-LH IIIB sherds, which must have Unclear 1 1 2 been redeposited from earlier levels, the bulk of the pottery, especially most of the closed vessels, can be dated generally to Total 2 3 1 1 8 54 6 2 3 6 86
75 CHAPTER 18
LH IIIB/C in Aegean terms or LC IIC/IIIA in Cypriot terms. old piece. Small open vessels for eating and drinking were However, there are several clear indicators for a more precise found only in Horizons 3 and 4 (Phase 11). The quantitative date in the second half of the 13th century BCE (or possibly ratio of mixing to drinking vessels indicates that there was no even slightly later) for Phase 11 (Horizons 3 and 4). Cypriot appropriation of Aegean drinking practices in Phase 11 at Dor, Simple Style stirrup jars (FS 171, etc.) (Horizons 3 and 4), linear which would have required a set of open vessels consisting deep bowls (FS 284) (Horizon 4) and shallow bowls (FS 296) of one krater and about ten small open vessels (Stockhammer (Horizon 3) appear during the second half of the 13th century 2008: 135). BCE in Mycenaean Greece, while one-handled conical bowls At first glance, it is surprising that less than 5% of the (FS 242) (Horizon 3) and medium-band deep bowls (FS 284) Aegean-type pottery found in Area G was imported from the (Horizon 4) do not start until the very late 13th century BCE, Greek mainland. Most of the pottery can safely or probably i.e., LH IIIB2 Late in the terminology of Mycenaean pottery. be attributed to Cypriot workshops, with smaller quantities However, the only chronologically diagnostic sherd from a assigned to local Levantine potters. It is not surprising to find sealed context (Horizon 3) is the small body sherd of a shallow locally produced Aegean-type pottery of the early 12th century bowl (FS 296) with interior patterned decoration of Cypriot BCE in northern Israel. Moshe Dothan argued for a local origin (Pl. 18.1:17). The production of these bowls does not production of Aegean-type pottery at Akko, suggested by such start before the middle of the 13th century BCE in Cyprus and sherds found in the context of a kiln, which he dated to the late on the Greek mainland. This provides us with a terminus post 13th century BCE (Dothan 1989: Figs. 3:1–3:2). Subsequent quem for the deposition of Horizon 3. In conclusion, I would NAA analysis of five Aegean-type sherds from Akko pointed like to argue for a possible date of Horizon 3 in the late 13th to a Cypriot origin (D’Agata et al. 2005: 372–375), while century BCE. Based on the Aegean-type pottery, Horizons 1 the relationship between the sherds and the kiln mentioned and 2 (Phase 12) may, therefore, be dated to the second half by Dothan remains unclear. Locally produced Aegean-type of the 13th century and Horizon 4, most probably, to the late pottery from the Akko bay found its way to Megiddo, Area 13th/early 12th centuries BCE. K, Level 5 (Stratum VIB) (Yasur-Landau 2006), Tell Keisan, Stratum 13 (Puech 1980: 229–230, Fig. 56) and, perhaps, also to Tel Dan (D’Agata et al. 2005).10 Historical Implications Aegean-type pottery imported from Cyprus is published Aside from one sherd from an unidentifiable vessel shape, the from the settlement and tombs of Megiddo (Mountjoy 2008; very small amount of Aegean-type pottery found in Phase 12 Stockhammer 2011), Tell Keisan, Level 13 (Balensi 1981; (Horizons 1 and 2) derives from undefined small and large Gunneweg and Perlman 1994) and Beth-Shean (D’Agata et closed vessels (seven sherds) and a stirrup jar (one sherd) al. 2005; Mazar 2007; Sherratt 2009; Stockhammer 2014) (Table 18.1). In the later Phase 11 (Horizons 3 and 4), closed from late 13th and 12th centuries BCE contexts (for a shapes continue to make up 80% of the total identifiable comprehensive overview, see Stockhammer forthcoming). sherds. It is not the dominance of closed Aegean-type shapes For most of the Aegean-type sherds in the Akko bay, as well which is surprising, but rather, the type of closed vessels in as the Jezreel and Jordan valleys, only scientific analyses comparison to other assemblages; small piriform jars are totally will enable us to differentiate a Cypriot from a Cilician or missing and only one alabastron has been found (Pl. 18.1:18), local Levantine place of production (cf., Zuckerman et al. although this form is quite common in many LBA and Iron 2010; Mountjoy 2011). Age I contexts in Canaan. There is hardly any evidence for In conclusion, I believe we can differentiate between decorated closed shapes. With the exception of one wall sherd different horizons of interaction of what is generally called from a large piriform jar (Pl. 18.1:24, Fig. 18.2), all sherds are Aegean-type pottery (Stockhammer forthcoming). The earliest linear and derive from linear-painted small- and medium-sized should be called the “Cretan” horizon, due to the dominance of stirrup jars, pilgrim flasks, jugs and perhaps also amphorae. Cretan imports in the repertoire of Aegean-type vessels until A large amount of foreign transport vessels is not surprising the middle of the 14th century BCE. The following horizon at a harbor site like Dor and finds good comparisons at LBA of interaction should be named after the rich assemblage of Tiryns and Kommos, where the inventory of foreign vessels is Tell Abu Hawam, characterized by Mycenaean imports from also dominated by closed transport vessels, with hardly more the Greek mainland and almost entirely dominated by high- than linear decoration, from all over the eastern Mediterranean quality vessels from the Mycenae/Berbati workshop, often (Rutter 2006; Stockhammer 2008: 90–99). Therefore, the featuring a high-quality glossy orange paint (Artzy 2006: 52). majority of the Aegean-type pottery at Dor probably reached This import horizon starts in LH IIIA2 and continues until the harbor site as containers of foreign commodities and not as the early second half of the 13th century BCE, i.e., LH IIIB2 a commodity of its own. A similar interpretation has already Early in the consensual pottery terminology of the Argolid been suggested for the Aegean-type pottery from Sarepta, (French and Stockhammer 2009). The decline of imports from which is also dominated by small closed containers, especially the Mycenae/Berbati workshop can be correlated with the end stirrup jars (Koehl 1985: 144; Bell 2006: 54). of pottery production in the Berbati valley itself, which very It is interesting that the only evidence for kraters seems to probably took place during LH IIIB2 Early (Stockhammer be limited to Horizon 3 (Pl. 18.1:8–9, 12–15). This may partly 2008: 263–264). be due to the relatively large quantity of Aegean-type pottery The suggested Tell Abu Hawam horizon is followed by the from this horizon (ca. 70% of all the Aegean-type pottery); at “Nami” horizon, named after the exceptional findings from least one of the kraters (Pl. 18.1:8) is definitely an intrusive the graves and cultic precinct at Tel Nami, which probably
76 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11 commenced in the last third of the 13th century BCE (Artzy dated from the last third of the 13th century BCE until around 1995: 32). Scientific analyses have shown that the rich 1180/1150 BCE. Aegean-type pottery from Tel Nami originated in Cyprus and The Aegean-type pottery of Area G falls completely into from local workshops along the Carmel coast (Artzy 2006: the Nami horizon and exhibits connections to Cyprus with 52). Artzy has already pointed to the strong Cypriot influence its flourishing Aegean-type pottery production in the late along the Carmel coast in the late 13th century BCE; these 13th and 12th centuries BCE. The chronological position of Cypriot connections continued well into the early Iron Age the imports to Dor, and their range of shapes, has excellent at Dor (Gilboa 2006/2007: 211; see also Chapter 20, this parallels, especially at Megiddo, where the Aegean-type volume). This horizon is characterized by the domination of imports are mostly restricted to small, often Simple Style Cypriot imports, especially small Simple Style stirrup jars, stirrup jars, pilgrim flasks and kraters (Leonard and Cline which have been found at many sites in Canaan (Leonard 1998; Stockhammer 2011). This calls for more attention to 1994: 55–56, 60–61, 64), especially in graves, such as at be given to parallels between pottery assemblages of coastal Megiddo (Stockhammer 2011), Beth-Shean (Oren 1973) and harbor towns, such as Dor, with those of the cities of the Hazor (Yadin et al. 1960: Pl. 137:10). This horizon should be Canaanite hinterland.
Pl. 18.1. Aegean-type pottery from Area G, Phase 11. (d10Z1-1039)
77 CHAPTER 18
Pl. 18.1. Aegean-type pottery from Area G, Phase 11 (continued). (d10Z1-1039)
78 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
Pl. 18.1. Aegean-type pottery from Area G, Phase 11.
No. Vessel and Preservation Reg. No. Locus Phase Horizon Decoration Diameter Origin* Date Photo Ware and fabric type (no. of Rim: rdm color** fragments) Base: bdm 1 Huge Body (1) 185932/1 18405 11 3 Linear—2.5YR 4/6 red, Probably LH Hardness 2, density closed paint slightly abraded Cyprus IIIB/C 2, firing 3, matrix 2, vessel inclusions rounded limestone 0.05 (2), iron oxides 0.2 (2), black 0.2 (2) shell 0.05 (2) 1.2 (1), blue (?) 0.5 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 5YR 7/3 pink 2 Closed Body (1) 186691/12 18480 11 3 Linear—2.5YR 4/6 red, Eastern LH Fig. 19.1.7 Hardness 2, density vessel paint slightly abraded Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix 3, Dor3) inclusions rounded limestone 0.03 (2), iron oxides 0.3 (2), angular black 0.2 (2), shell 0.2 (2) 0.02 (3). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow 3 Small Body (1) 186328/4 18444 11 3 Fine line group—2.5YR 4/8 Argolid LH Fig. 19.1.13 Hardness 2, density closed red, lustrous orange slip, (NAA Dor2) IIIA2 1, firing 3, matrix 3, vessel paint intact inclusions limestone 0.5 (1), iron oxides 0.05 (3), angular black 0.02 (2), mica 0.02 (1), The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, faint zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture exterior zone 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, interior zone 10YR 7/4 very pale brown 4 Stirrup jar Body, nearly 186885/1 18491 11 3 Linear, including fine line Probably LH Fig. 18.1 Hardness 2, density (FS 167) 80% of the (18480, group—10R 4/6 red, paint Cyprus IIIB/C 2, firing 3, matrix vessel (23) 18496) slightly abraded 3, inclusions decomposed limestone 0.05 (3), iron oxides 0.05 (2), angular black 0.5 (1), shell 0.5(1), yellow mica 0.02 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 7.5YR 7/4 reddish yellow
79 CHAPTER 18
Pl. 18.1. continued
No. Vessel and Preservation Reg. No. Locus Phase Horizon Decoration Diameter Origin* Date Photo Ware and fabric type (no. of Rim: rdm color** fragments) Base: bdm 5 Small Body (1) 185657/17 18406 11 3 Linear, Simple Style—10R Probably LH Hardness 2, density globular 4/6 red, paint widely Cyprus IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix 3, stirrup jar abraded inclusions decomposed (FS 171, limestone 0.1 black 0.3 etc.) (2) iron oxides 0.7 (1) red, weathered quartz 0.3 (2) semi translucent angular quartz 0.2 (3), grey (chert?) 0.2(2), red mica 0.01 (2), The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 7/3 pink, fracture 2.5YR 6/8 light red
6 Small False neck (1) 187023/2 18496 11 3 Spiral on knob—10R 4/6 Probably LH Hardness 2, density stirrup jar red, paint widely abraded Cyprus IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix (FS 171, 2, inclusions semi etc.) angular limestone 0.05 (2), decomposed limestone 0.2 (2), shell 0.2 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, fracture 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow 7 Small False neck (1) 187065/4 18496 11 3 Probably spiral on knob— Eastern LH Fig.19.1.8 Hardness 2, density stirrup jar 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown, Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 3, firing 3, matrix 3, (FS 171, paint widely abraded Dor6) inclusions limestone etc.) 0.5 (1), iron oxides 0.3 (2), angular black 0.2 (2), shell 0.1 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, fracture 10YR 7/4 very pale brown 8 Stemmed Wall and handle 186300/2 18446 11 3 Linear under handle, ladder Argolid LH Fig.19.1.12 Hardness 2, density krater attachment (2) motif on handle—2.5YR (NAA Dor1) IIIA2/B 1, firing 3, matrix 3, (FS 7–9) 4/6 red, lustrous orange inclusions limestone slip, paint slightly abraded, 0.5 (1), iron oxides polished 0.05 (3), angular black 0.02 (2). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, faint zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture exterior and intrior zone 2.5YR 6/8 light red, core 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow
80 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
Pl. 18.1. continued
No. Vessel and Preservation Reg. No. Locus Phase Horizon Decoration Diameter Origin* Date Photo Ware and fabric type (no. of Rim: rdm color** fragments) Base: bdm 9 Amphoroid Rim, body (9) 185657/1 18406 11 3 Inside: thin rdm ca. Cypriot? LH Fig. 18.4 Hardness 2, density krater (FS rim band 23.5 cm IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix 54/55) (ca. 0.5 cm, 2, inclusions semi outside: broad angular limestone rim band 0.3 (2), decomposed covering limestone 0.3 (2), also neck shell 0.5(1), quartz and part of 0.4 (2), chert 0.5 (1), the shoulder, red mica 0.01 (1). spiral motif, The firing seems to both—2.5YR be evenly distributed 4/6 red, across the sherd, paint slightly no zoning. Exterior abraded surface, 2.5YR 6/8 light red, fracture 2.5YR 6/6 light red, hard fired 10 One- Rim 185935/1 18405 11 3 Inside: rdm ca. 14 Cyprus or LH IIIC Hardness 2, density handled (1) monochrome, cm Tarsus Early 1, firing 3, matrix conical outside 2, inclusions bowl linear under decomposed (FS 242) rim — 5YR limestone 0.3 (1) 4/3 reddish rounded limestone brown, 0.05 (2), black/red 1.2 paint widely (1) grey 0.2 (1), black abraded 0.3 (2), red mica 0.02 (2). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, fracture 10YR 7/3 very pale brown 11 One- Rim 186665/16 18444 11 3 Inside: rdm ca. 13 Cyprus or LH IIIC Hardness 2, density handled (1) monochrome, cm Tarsus Early 2, firing 3, matrix 3, conical outside: inclusions rounded, bowl linear under limestone 0.05 (2), (FS 242) rim—2.5YR rounded black 0.01 6/6 light red, (2), yellow mica paint slightly 0.02 (1). The firing abraded seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 2.5YR 8/2 white, fracture 10YR 7/3 very pale brown 12 Ring-based Rim 186516/1 18480 11 3 Inside: thin- rdm ca. 26 Eastern LH Fig.19.1.4 Hardness 2, density krater (1) to-medium cm Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix (FS 281) rim band ca. Dor7) 3, inclusions 1 cm, outside: decomposed medium rim limestone 0.1, 0.1 band ca. 1.5 (1), semi rounded cm, unclear limestone 0.1 (2), complex black 0.2 (2) red mica motif—2.5YR 0.01 (2). The firing 3/6 dark seems to be evenly red & 5YR distributed across 4/3 reddish the sherd, no zoning. brown, paint Exterior surface slightly 10YR 8/2 white, abraded fracture 10YR 7/4 very pale brown
81 CHAPTER 18
Pl. 18.1. continued
No. Vessel and Preservation Reg. No. Locus Phase Horizon Decoration Diameter Origin* Date Photo Ware and fabric type (no. of Rim: rdm color** fragments) Base: bdm 13 Krater Body (1) 186604/10 18452 11 3 Outside: unclear spiral Eastern LH Fig. 19.1.5 Hardness 2, density motif—10R 4/6 red, paint Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix intact, burnished Dor12) 2, inclusions decomposed limestone 0.1 (2), angular limestone 0.05 (1), angular black 0.2 (2), shell 0.02 (1) 0.2 (1) weathered quartz? 0.3 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, fracture 2.5YR 6/6 light red 14 Krater Body (1) 186974/1 18494 11 3 Outside: spiral—2.5YR 4/6 Eastern LH Fig. 19.1.6 Hardness 2, density red, paint slightly abraded Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 2, firing 3, matrix Dor13) 2, inclusions decomposed limestone 0.1 (2), angular limestone 0.05 (1), angular black 0.2 (2), shell 0.02 (1) 0.2 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 5YR 7/3 pink 15 Krater Base (1) 187164/8 18511 11 3 Outside: bdm Probably LH Hardness 2, density (FS 281) linear—10R 7 cm Cyprus IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix 3, or 5/6 red, inclusions decomposed deep bowl paint slightly limestone 0.1 (2), semi (FS 284) abraded rounded limestone 0.1 (2), black 0.3 (2) iron oxides 0.2 (1) red mica 0.01 (2). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 7.5YR 7/4 pink 16 Shallow Rim 187158/14 18513 11 3 Inside: small rdm ca. 20 Southwestern LH Fig.19.1.10 Hardness 2, density bowl (1) rim band and cm Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 3, firing 3, matrix (FS 296) linear under Dor8) 2, inclusions rim, outside: decomposed rim band and limestone 0.01 (2), two linear yellow mica 0.01 bands under (2), weathered quartz rim—2.5YR 0.2 (1). The firing 6/8 light red, seems to be evenly paint slightly distributed across abraded the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white, fracture 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow,
82 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
Pl. 18.1. continued
No. Vessel and Preservation Reg. No. Locus Phase Horizon Decoration Diameter Origin* Date Photo Ware and fabric type (no. of Rim: rdm color** fragments) Base: bdm 17 Shallow Body (1) 186806/7 18491 11 3 Inside: linear with unclear Southwestern LH Fig.19.1.11 Hardness 2, density bowl complex motif (chevron, Cyprus (NAA IIIB/C 2, firing 3, matrix (FS 296) hatched triangle?), outside: Dor11) 2 inclusions linear—2.5YR 6/8 light red, decomposed paint slightly abraded limestone 0.1, 0.2 (1), semi rounded limestone 0.3 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 7/3 pink, fracture 5YR 7/3 pink 18 Straight- Body, one 185617/1 18378 11 4 Linear—2.5YR 4/6 red, Akko bay? LH Fig. 19.1.1 Hardness 2, density sided handle; ca. 40% paint slightly abraded, paint (NAA Dor4) III/C 2, firing 3, matrix 2, alabastron of the vessel (10) slightly abraded inclusions limestone (FS 96) 0.5 (1), iron oxides 0.05 (1), angular black 0.2 (2), 0.4 (2), rounded grey 0.1 (1), yellow mica 0.01 (1), chert? 0.1 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow 19 Jug Body, neck (1) 184470/1 18352 11a 4 Linear on neck—2.5YR Probably LH Hardness 2, density N3 very dark grey, paint Cyprus IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix slightly abraded 2, inclusions decomposed limestone 0.1 (1), black 0.3 (2) iron oxides 0.3 (2), weathered quartz 0.3 (2). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 2.5YR 8/2 white, fracture 10YR 8/3 very pale brown 20 Globular Base (1) 186038/1 18365 11 4 Linear, Simple Style—10R Akko bay? LH Fig. 19.1.3 Hardness 2, density stirrup jar 4/6 red, paint slightly Cypriot? IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix (FS 171, abraded (NAA Dor9) 3, inclusions etc.) decomposed limestone 0.1, 0.1 (1), semi rounded limestone 0.1 (2), angular limestone 0.1 (2), grey 0.3 (2) red mica 0.01 (2). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 5YR 6/6-8 light red, fracture 2.5YR 6/8 light red
83 CHAPTER 18
Pl. 18.1. continued
No. Vessel and Preservation Reg. No. Locus Phase Horizon Decoration Diameter Origin* Date Photo Ware and fabric type (no. of Rim: rdm color** fragments) Base: bdm 21 Pilgrim Body (1) 184449/5 18353 11a 4 Concentric circles—2.5YR Akko bay? LH Fig. 19.1.2 Hardness 2, density flask 5/6 red, paint slightly (NAA Dor10) IIIB/C 1, firing 3, matrix 2, (FS 189) abraded inclusions iron oxides 0.01 (1), grey 0.05 (3) chert 0.5(1), red mica 0.01 (1). The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, faint zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture exterior zone 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, interior zone 10YR 7/4 very pale brown
22 Deep bowl Rim 184470/2 18352 11a 4 Inside: thin rdm ca. Unclear LH Unknown (sherd (FS 284) (1) rim band; 17.7 IIIB2/C presently missing) outside: medium rim band
23 Deep bowl Rim 186038/2 18365 11 4 Inside: monochrome, Southwestern LH Fig. 19.1.9 Hardness 2, density (FS 284) (1) outside medium rim Cyprus (NAA IIIB2/C 3, firing 3, matrix band and dot at handle Dor5) 3.Very fine ware all attachment—7.5YR 3/2 inclusions less than dark brown & 2.5YR5/6 0.01mm and cannot red, paint slightly abraded be described, traces of decomposed limestone. The firing seems to be evenly distributed across the sherd, no zoning. Exterior surface 7.5YR 8/4 pink, fracture 7.5YR 8/4 pink 24 Large Body (1) 185423 18384 10a- post-4 Papyrus FM 11 Probably LH IIIA Fig. 18.2 Not described piriform 11 Argolid jar 25 Goblet Rim 185605 18396 11 3 Inside: thin rim band, Probably LH IIB/ Fig. 18.3 Not described (FS (1) outside: medium rim band, mainland IIIA1 254/255) pendant wavy band and Greece unclear complex (spiral, flower, argonaut) * For the NAA samples, see Chapter 19. ** The detailed ware description is based on a semi-quantitative analysis of a fresh break of a sherd based on constant parameters done by Yossi Salmon. The evaluation is based on an analysis of an approximately 10 mm2 large area of a fresh sherd break with a magnification of 40x. The parameters for hardness, density and firing are given in values relative to the ceramic corpus of the Late Bronze Age of Dor (see Chapter 17) and thus do not apply to any absolute value. The parameters are as follows: Hardness: 1 to 5, with 1 = very soft and 5 = very hard. Density: 1 to 3, with 1 = porous, 2 = medium and 3 = dense. Firing: 1 to 4, with 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = medium and 4 = high. The values of the matrix and inclusions are actual measured values as observed through a binocular microscope. Matrix grain sizes are: 1 < 250μm, 2 = 250μm-500μm, 3 > 500μm. Inclusions are measured in millimeter units while the frequency count of a ca. 10 mm2 area is given in values: (1) ≤4, (2) 5-10, (3) ≥11.
84 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
notes Goren was reported to suggest a Levantine place of production (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 31). However, these analytical 1 I examined this pottery in Haifa in January 2009 before results are preliminary and it seems to the author that this knowing that I would later be asked to publish it. When should tentatively be considered a Cypriot piece, unless proven writing this chapter in June 2009, my information was otherwise. based on the database, photos and drawings provided by 8 One of the spiral motifs (Pl. 18.1:13) is possibly reminiscent of the Dor excavation team, my own notes and photographs, stemmed spirals (FM 49) or curtailed running spirals (FM 46), and a multitude of answers to questions that I asked Ragna Mycenaean motifs that are typical of LH IIIA1 and LH IIIA2, Stidsing and Yossi Salmon. After having finished this article, respectively. However, this date contradicts the Cypriot origin I was informed that several sherds of the corpus had been of the krater, since the production of Aegean-type pottery on catalogued and commented on by Penelope A. Mountjoy in Cyprus does not start before the 13th century BCE (Kling 1989: the course of a joint NAA program together with the late 170). Sharon Zuckerman, David Ben-Shlomo and Hans Mommsen. 9 The possible LH IIIC Early date of this medium-band deep After 2009, only minor additions took place. I am deeply bowl was first recognized by P.A. Mountjoy. indebted to all of the above for their support, as well as to 10 However, the result for the stirrup jar from Tel Dan showed the directors of the Dor excavation, present and past: Ayelet that it was a chemical loner (D’Agata et al. 2005: 375) and thus, Gilboa, Ilan Sharon and Ephraim Stern. Moreover, I would could have been the product of a local workshop. like to thank Joseph Maran, Elizabeth French, Susan Sherratt and Carol Bell for intensive discussion of the material and Bibliography also Michal Artzy, from whom I first learned about the fascinating diversity of the Aegean-type pottery along the Artzy, M. 1995. Nami: A Second Millennium International Carmel coast. This research was financed and inspired by Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean. Pp. 17–40 the Cluster of Excellence 270/1 “Asia and Europe in a in Gitin, S. (ed.). Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to Global Context: Shifting Asymmetries in Cultural Flows” the West. Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor, and of Heidelberg University and part of the trans-disciplinary Ashkelon. Archaeological Institute of America. Dubuque. research project “Materiality and Practice: Cultural Artzy, M. 2006. The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Entanglements of 2nd Millennium BC East Mediterranean Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Societies” funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Transshipping. BASOR 343: 45–64. (German Research Foundation). Balensi, J. 1981. Tell Keisan, Témoin original de l’apparition du 2 After submitting the first draft of this chapter, two additional ‘Mycénien III C1a’ au Proche-Orient. RB 88: 399–401. fragments of Aegean-type pottery were identified (Pl. 18.1:24– Bell, C. 2006. The Evolution of Long Distance Trading 25). One of them (Pl. 18.1:24) was found in a probably later Relationships across the LBA/Iron Age Transition context (Phase 10a-11=post Horizon 4) and has been excluded on the Northern Levantine Coast: Crisis, Continuity from my statistics. Since the two sherds shed additional light and Change. (B.A.R. International Series 1574). on the Aegean-type corpus from Dor, it was decided to include Archaeopress. Oxford. them in the publication. Although it was not possible for me to Bunimovitz, S., Lederman, Z. and Hatzaki, E. 2013. Knossian handle the sherds, I was supplied with helpful photographs and Gifts? Two Late Minoan IIIA1 Cups from Tel Beth- drawings. Shemesh, Israel. ABSA 108: 51–66. 3 For the definition of the pottery horizons in Phases 12 and 11, D’Agata, A.L., Goren, Y., Mommsen, H., Schwedt, A. and Yasur- see Chapter 17. Landau, A. 2005. Imported Pottery of LHIIIC Style from 4 These include: 186885/1 = Pl. 18.1:4; 187164/8 = Pl. 18.1:15; Israel. Style, Provenance, and Chronology. Pp. 371–379 in 186806/7 = Pl. 18.1:17; 186093/3: stirrup jar or pilgrim flask, Laffineur, R. and Greco, E. (eds.).Emporia I. Aegeans in the LH IIB/C, probably Cyprus; 186093/8: huge closed vessel, Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th LH IIIB/C, probably Greek mainland; 186466/1: stirrup jar International Aegean Conference/10e Recontre égéenne or pilgrim flask, LH IIIB/C, probably Cyprus; 186642/1: huge internationale, Italian School of Archaeology, Athens, 14th– closed vessel, LH IIIB/C, probably Cyprus; 186800/9: small 18th April 2004. (Aegaeum 25). Liège and Austin. closed vessel, LH IIIB/C, probably Cyprus; 187039/3: small Dothan, M. 1989. Archaeological Evidence for Movements of the closed vessel, LH IIIB/C, probably Cyprus; 187039/4: small Early ‘Sea Peoples’ in Canaan. Pp. 59–70 in Gitin, S. and closed vessel, LH IIIB/C, probably Cyprus; 187164/2: small Dever, W.G. (eds.). Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies closed vessel, LH IIIB/C, probably Cyprus. . in Iron Age Archaeology. (ASOR 49). Eisenbrauns. 5 These include: 186075/7: stirrup jar, LH IIIB/C, probably Winona Lake. Cyprus; 186244/1: closed vessel, LH IIIB/C, Cypriot or local. Dothan, T. and Zukerman, A. 2004. A Preliminary Study of the 6 Gilboa and Sharon (2003: 31) mention the petrographic analysis Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne- of this sherd, which points to a Levantine place of production. Ekron and Ashdod. BASOR 333: 1–54. However, the wrong sherd from the bag of this locus was French, E.B. 1975. A Reassessment of the Mycenaean Pottery at taken for analysis, which means that the stirrup jar’s origin Tarsus. Anatolian Studies 25: 53–75. has yet to be scientifically determined (R. Stidsing, personal French, E.B. and Stockhammer, P.W. 2009. Mycenae and Tiryns: communication). The Pottery of the Second Half of the 13th Century B.C.: 7 A preliminary petrographic analysis of this sherd by Yuval Contexts and Definitions.ABSA 104: 173–230.
85 CHAPTER 18
French, E.B. and Taylour, W.D. 2007. The Service Areas of Mountjoy, P.A. 2008. A Mycenaean Vase from Megiddo. BASOR the Cult Centre. Well Built Mycenae 13. Oxbow Books. 349: 13–24. Oxford. Mountjoy, P.A. and Mommsen, H. 2015. Neutron Activation French, E.B. and Tomlinson, J.E. 2004. Investigating the Analysis of Aegean-Style IIIC Pottery from 11 Cypriot Provenance of Some Aegean-Type Potsherds Found in and Various Near Eastern Sites. Ägypten und Levante 15: the Near East: Results from Neutron Activation Analysis. 421–508. Pp. 18–25 in Balensi, J., Monchambert, J.-Y. and Müller Oren, E.D. 1973. The Northern Cemetery of Beth-Shean. Celka, S. (eds.). La céramique mycénienne de l’Égée (University Museum Monograph 33). Brill. Leiden. au Levant. Hommage à Vronwy Hankey. (Travaux de la Podzuweit, C. 2007. Studien zur spätmykenischen Keramik. Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 41). Lyon. Tiryns 14. Reichart Verlag. Wiesbaden. Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Puech, É. 1980. La Céramique des Niv. 9c à 11. Pp. 216–234 in Classification. Victor Pettersons Bokindustriaktiebolag. Humbert, J.-B. and Briend, J. (eds.). Tell Keisan (1971– Stockholm. 1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée. (OBOSA 1). Gilboa, A. 2006/2007 Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, with Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fribourg. an Emphasis on Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: A Tel Dor Rutter, J.B. 2006. Ceramic Imports of the Neopalatial and Perspective. Scripta Mediterranea 27/28: 209–244. Later Bronze Age Eras. Pp. 646–715 in Shaw, J.W. and Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2003. An Archaeological Contribution Shaw, M.C. (eds.). The Monumental Minoan Buildings to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative at Kommos. Kommos 5. Princeton University Press. Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Princeton. Levant, Cyprus, and Greece. BASOR 332: 7–80. Sherratt, E.S. 2009. Imported Mycenaean IIIC Pottery. Pp. Gunneweg, J. and Perlman, I. 1994. The Origin of a Mycenaean 478–499 in Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A. (eds.). IIIC:1 Stirrup Jar from Tell Keisan. RB 101: 559–661. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3: The Hankey, V. 1974. A Late Bronze Age Temple at Amman: I. The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S. Institute Aegean Pottery. Levant 6: 131–159. of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hankey, V. 1981. The Aegean Pottery of Khirbet Judur. Eretz- and the Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem. Israel 15: 33*–38*. South, A.K. 1988. Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1987: An Jung, R. 2006. Die mykenische Keramik von Tell Kazel (Syrien). Important Ceramic Group from Building X. RDAC 1988: Damaszener Mitteilungen 15: 147–218. 223–228. Karageorghis, V. 1965. Nouveaux documents pour l’étude du South, A., Russell, P. and Schuster Keswani, P. 1989. Kalavasos- Bronze Récent a Chypre. Recueil critique et commenté. Ayios Dhimitrios II: Ceramics, Objects, Tombs, Specialist (Études Chypriotes 3). Boccard. Paris. Studies. P. Aström Forlag. Göteborg. Karageorghis, V. and Demas, M. 1988. Excavations at Maa- Stern, E. 2000. Dor–Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Palaeokastro 1976–1986. Department of Antiquities, Excavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town Cyprus. Nicosia. on the Carmel Coast. The Israel Exploration Society. Kling, B. 1989. Mycenaean IIIC:1b and Related Pottery in Jerusalem. Cyprus. P. Åström Forlag. Göteborg. Stockhammer, P.W. 2008. Kontinuität und Wandel–Die Keramik Koehl, R.B. 1985. Sarepta 3. The Imported Bronze and Iron Age der Nachpalastzeit aus der Unterstadt von Tiryns. Wares from Area II, X. Lebanese University. Beirut. Heidelberg. Lemaire, P. 1954. Une Tombe du Récent Bronze au Mont des
86 The Aegean-type Pottery from Phases 12 and 11
Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, Halpern, B. (eds.). (Institute of Archaeology Monograph I. and Perrot, J. 1960. Hazor II: An Account of the Series 24). Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. Tel Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Magness Press. Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Jerusalem. Zuckerman, S., Ben-Shlomo, D., Mountjoy, P.A. and Mommsen, Yasur-Landau, A. 2006. A LH IIIC-Style Stirrup Jar from Area H. 2010. A Provenance Study of Mycenaean Pottery from K. Pp. 299–302 in Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Northern Israel. JAS 37: 409–416.
87