CHAPTER TWO LOCAL POTTERY OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD Ephraim Stern INTRODUCTION The following typological discussion differs from our pre­ vious summary in two respects. The imported East Greek A surprisingly meager quantity of local pottery of the Per­ and Attic vessels have been omitted and are dealt with in sian period was discovered in Areas A and C of Tel Dor. Still separate chapters (see below, Chapters 3-4). We have there­ more surprising was the lack of diversity in the ceramic rep­ fore also excluded all the undecorated vessels of Greek ertoire, even if we take into account the relatively small origin, such as wine jars and amphorae, which were dealt extent of the excavated areas. The low reliability of conclu­ with in the 1982 study. We have, however, included those sions drawn from such sparse finds can be demonstrated by vessels which we consider to have been of foreign origin - our excavations. Almost all the types absent from Areas A in our view Rhodian, but in the opinion of other scholars and C were encountered in the other excavated areas: B, D, Cypriot - but in the course oftime were absorbed into the E, F, and G. It therefore appears that the ceramic repertoire local repertoire and were locally produced in great quanti­ of Areas A and Cis a result of chance, or perhaps of the lim­ ties. Such vessels include the well-known 'Persian bowls' and ited size of the excavated area or its special character of small 'basket jars.' units of residential buildings. Our discussion of the pottery will proceed in the usual Generally speaking, none of the pottery vessels found in order, beginning with the open vessels and continuing with these areas can be considered new types; all belong to types the closed. In addition to the typological discussion, the dealt with by the present writer in 1982 in his typological reader will find at the end of the chapter the material from discussion of the pottery of the Persian period (Stern 1982). selected loci arranged by area and phase, in which the other For this reason the present discussion will follow the outlines finds are presented together with the pottery. This presenta­ of the previous study. tion also illustrates the gradual development of the pottery Since the publication of the above-mentioned study, from phase to phase which was noted in the field. many more large-scale excavations have been conducted and their material published, including a number from the BOWLS (Fig. 2.1) area of Dor. Since this material did not appear in the 1982 publication, we have taken the opportunity to include their It is already evident that ordinary bowls are very poorly rep­ results here and to discuss their contribution to pottery resented at Dor, both in number and in variety of types. We typology in general. The newly excavated sites in the vicinity have already noted a similar phenomenon at the neighbor­ ofTel Dorwhose finds will be discussed here are Tell Keisan, ing Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978: 30); this is also the case at the Yoqne'am, Tell Qiri, Tel Michal, Qadum, and Shechem. recent excavations at Tell Qiri (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: It can be stated with confidence that our study of 1982 is 18) and to an even more marked degree at Tel Michal still valid and that, with the exception of a number of new (Herzog 1989: 139). types unknown at that time, all our conclusions regarding The reason is difficult to determine. In the final report of typology and chronology have proved correct. Moreover, the Tel Mevorakh excavations, we offered the following the new finds from recent excavations, including those of explanation: 'The sparsity of the bowl types seems to stem Dor, have in fact strengthened our previous conclusions. from the fact that all the Persian vessels at the site belong to Our observations as to the regional character of several of the later part of the period' (Stern 1978: 30). Their absence the ceramic types have also withstood the test oftime, and at Dor, however, cannot be similarly explained. It is possible some of them have been finally proven. that the difficulty is a technical one, namely that we did not We shall mention here only two examples. The Phoeni­ succeed in collecting all the small sherds of these bowls and cian jars ofType F, which were attributed to the Sharon and thus could not estimate their numbers accurately. Alterna­ Carmel coast, were uncovered at Tel Michal in a kiln in the tively, the reason may be connected with the coastal or process of manufacture (Stern 1982: 104-105, Fig. 142; regional location of the site. Whatever the case may be, as at Herzog 1989: 102-103, Fig. 8.14, Pis. 30, 63: 1-5). The other Tel Mevorakh, four classes of bowls can be distinguished: example is that of jugs of Type H which were attributed to A. Large and small bowls with rounded walls and the same region (Stern 1982: 117, Fig. 172); though these inverted rims (Fig. 2.1:1-2, 8). were found in large concentrations at Qadum near Samaria, B. Large and small bowls with ledge rims (Fig.2.1 :3-5). they also occur at Dor and Tel Michal, but are completely C. Large and small bowls with rounded walls (Fig. 2.1 :7). absent from other regions. D. Carinated bowls (Fig. 2.1 :9). 51 I 7 2 ~17 3 4 5 6 I \~ J 8 7 9 0 5 10 15CM Fig. 2.1. Bowls. No. Reg. No. Locus Area Phase Description I. 46627/2 4668 C2 6b Light red clay (2.5YR 6/8). Large and small white and shiny grit~ 2. 11823111 !227 AI 7 Red-brown clay (2.5YR 5/6). Many white grits. 3. 1189711 1237 AI 7/8 Red-brown clay (2.5YR 5/6). White and gray grits. 4. 11897/2 1237 AI 7/8 Red-brown clay (2.5YR 5/6). Many minute white grits. 5. 11956/1 1242 AI 7/9 Yellowish red clay (5YR 5/8). White and gray grits. 6. 43065/2 4301 Cl 5 +topsoil Light red clay (2.5YR 6/8). Many minute white grits. 7. 43065/1 4301 Cl 5 +topsoil Reddish yellow clay (7.5YR 8/6). Smooth white surface. Very fe, 8. 11650 1197 AI 6a?/5c? white grits. 9. 11694/4 1206 AI 6(b'!/c?) Brownish yellow clay (I OYR 6/6). Many white and gray grits. This classification is also valid for the finds at Tel Dor, Qiri and Tell Keisan (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 18, Fig with the addition of Type E, a new type which may be a local 2:24-25; Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 20:22), as well as a imitation of the Attic fish plate (Fig. 2.1 :6). Yoqne'am (Ben-Tor eta/. !983: 45, Fig. 8:5); it dates fron the 5th-4th centuries BCE. Type A TypeC Flat bowl with disk base, rounded wall, and inverted rim (Fig. 2.1: l-2) (Stern 1982: 95-96, Fig. 118, Type B l; Stern Bowl with high to low disk base, rounded wall, and rounc and Magen 1984: 116, Fig. 5: I). This type was common in upright rim (Fig. 2.1 :7) (Stern 1982: Type A2). It dates fron all parts of the country throughout the Persian period. Our the 5th-4th centuries BCE, and was also found at Yoqne'an examples come from the earlier part of the period. (Ben-Tor eta/. 1983: 45, Fig. 8:6). Fig. 2.1:8 is a small bowl with high to low disk base, rounded wall, and sharply inverted rim (Stern 1982: 94, Fig. TypeD 112, Type AI). Examples have also been uncovered in the new excavations at Tell Qiri (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Bowl of a well-known type, whose characteristic feature is ' 18, Fig. 2:23), Tell Keisan (Briend and Humbert !980: Pl. fairly sharp carination of the wall (Fig. 2.1 :9). The bow 20:6), Tel Michal (Herzog 1989: 141, Fig. 9.16.4), and appears in a wide range of variations in the base, which i' Yoqne'am (Ben-Tor et a/. 1983: 45, Fig. 8.4). The bowl sometimes convex (as in our case) and sometimes flat or' resembles its larger predecessor, but most examples occur in concave disk. Parallels from other sites indicate that it wa' contexts dating from the mid-5th to the end of the 4th cen­ widely distributed throughout Palestine during the entin turies BCE. The smaller type is undoubtedly a copy of an Persian period (Stern 1982: 95, Fig. 116, Type A-5). Thi' Attic prototype. bowl is well represented at Qadum, where it is ascribed tc the second half of the 5th century BCE (Stern and Mager 1984: 16, Fig. 5:4-7), and at Tell Qiri (Ben-Tor anc TypeB Portugali !987: 18, Fig. 2:26), where it is dated to the sam( Bowl with ledge rim (Fig. 2.1 :3-5) (Stern 1982: 94, Fig. 14, period. Our bowl comes from Area AI, phase 6, which i' Type A3). It is also found in the recent excavations at Tell attributed to the 4th century BCE. 52 TypeE Beersheba, Arad, and 'En Gedi (Aharoni and Aharoni 197 6). It is now also certain that most of these early vessels 'his type (Fig. 2. I :6) is clearly an imitation of the Attic fish are either East Greek imports (in the opinion of the present late, which is usually considered to belong to the Hellenistic writer) or Cypriot (according to other scholars).