OBSERVATIONS ON THE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI Baruch BRANDL Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, Jerusalem Dedicated to the memories . \ of Prof. Shmue1 Yeivin, Mr. Shalom Levy and Ms. Ephrat Yeivin Despite their great importance, the Tel Erani excavations have only been fragmentarily and haphazardly published 1. But since Erani is central to any argument concerning the Early Bronze Age in Canaan, and particularly with regard to the relations of Egypt and Canaan during that period, scholars have been forced to resort to the existing fragmentary published material. Various attempts have been made to reconcile stratigraphic, typological and chronological difficulties. Most recently, Weinstein (1984) has contributed substantially with his synthetic study of the implications of Erani for Egyp~-Canaan relations. With the passing away of Prof. Yeivin, Mr. Levy and Ms. Yeivin, the task of preparing the final report of the Tel Erani excavations of 1956-1961 was suggested to the present writer 2. This colloquium represents the first time that primary results and conclusions of this work are presented in public. The following discussion is based on both old publications and a partial examination of the material itself and will focus on four main topics: - the cultural and chronological milieu i - the beginnings of urbanization at Erani i 1. See below the list of publications of the excavators s. Yeivin, E. & s. Yeivin, and G. Ciasca. 2. I would like to thank Mr. Abraham Eitan, director of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (!DAM), and Dr. Ze'ev Yeivin for offering me the task of preparing the final excavation report and for permission to make this presentation. The generous assistence of other colleagues in IDAM should also be acknowledged, particularly that of Mrs. Varda Sussman, Curator, and of Mrs. Zila Sagiv and Mrs. Gara Amit for supplying photographic services. Special thanks are due to Mr; David Ilan for translating and editing the manUscript and for his fruitful comments, to Dr. Benjamin Sass for his valuable remarks on the draft, and to Ms. Ruchama Bonfil for drawing some of the objects and correcting a few of the original drawings. All drawings and photos are by courtesy of !DAM, unless otherwise noted. -357 - BARUCH BRAND!. FIG . 1. - Aerial photograph ofTel Erani taken in 1959. View to the West. FIG 2. - Aerial photograph ofTel Erani taken in 1959. View to the South. - 358- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI FIG. 3. - Te1 Erani, the excavation areas of the 1956-1960 seasons (Yeivin 1960d : fig: 1). - Egyptian-Canaanite relations (as reflected especially by the large quantities of Egyptian pottery) ; - the question of the fortifications: their date and character. Each one of these subjects will be dealt with in the following order: S. Yeivin's interpretations, the other expedition members' opinIons (when expressed), other scholars suggestions, and finally my own. Wherever necessary, illustrative material has been included, some of which has been corrected or adapted. It must be emphasized· that the interpretations offered here are only preliminary and may change somewhat with further study. -359 - BARUOI BRANDL Chronology The large number of preliminary notes and articles published by Yeivin include an almost bewildering variety of chronologies. In particular, he repeatedly changed the chronological or cultural attributions of various strata in Area D. To complicate matters further, various scholars have attempted to reconcile contradictions and have suggested alternative schemes of their own. In order to make things clear it is worth tracing the development in Yeivin's and others' stratigraphic analyses and chronologies. At the end of this section, I will propose my own scheme to summarize the site's stratigraphy. Yeivin IS interpretations (a) In the first season of excavation at Tel Erani seven strata were recognized in Area D, ranging from the late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age (Yeivin 1956: 259). (b) By the second season it was supposed that the two uppermost strata were EB II, and that the second stratum included five phases. An EB I stratum was also discerned at this time (Yeivin 1957: 264). (c) In another description of the results of the second season, Yeivin (1958b: 245) indicated that the two upper strata contained EB I and EB II material. (d) In are report following the third season, by which time eleven of the final twelve strata had been uncovered, the followingstratigraphy was given (Yeivin 1958c: 275): Strata I-II - EB 11 StratUm III EB I Strata IV-XI Chalcolithic (e) In the fourth season virgin soil was encountered and 13 strata determined (Yeivin 1959 : 270), but Stratum XIII was subsequently cancelled (Yeivin 1960d : 194). (f) In the preliminary report of the first three seasons (compiled in 1958 but published in 1961), Stratum IV was said to represent the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze (Yeivin 1961a : 8). (g) In another publication dealing with the first three seasons of excavation at Erani (also published some years after its writing), other strata were also attributed to this transitional stage: Stratum V and perhaps Stratum VI (Yeivin 1960a : 16). (h) Following the fourth season Stratum VI was removed from the transitional stage. I:Iere is Yeivin's (1960b: 394) stratigraphic interpretation after the fourth season: Strata I-II EBH Stratum III EB I Strata IV-V Chalcolithic - EB transition Strata VI-XII Chalcolithic (i) The Chalcolithic strata were assigned to the Late Chalcolithic period in the preliminary report (Yeivin 1961a : 8, but written in 1958). (j) Elsewhere, StratumXII was called Middle Chalcolithic and the other strata of that period were said to be contemporary with the Ghassulian...;Beersheva stage but to belong to another culture (Yeivin 196Od: 193-194,198; 1965: 355) . .,360 - OBSERVATIONS ON TIffi EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI (k) In a 1965 lecture Yeivin (1967b: 45, 48 n. 30) proposed Stratum V to be Egyptian and remarked the presence of EB III sherds in Stratum I 3. (l) In preparing the entry on Tel Erani for the Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land Yeivin seems to have been influenced by Hennessy (see below) when dealing with the upper strata: - the EB III was relegated to the uppermost phase of Stratum I and called Phase 0 (Yeivin 1970: 597; 1979: 341 n. 10) ; - Stratum IV - previously belonging to the Chalcolithic/EB I transitional phase - moved to the end of the EB I (Yeivin 1970 : 598; 1975: 95) ; - thus Yeivin seems to have dated Stratum III to EB 11, in contrast to the view he expressed until 1967, that Stratum III was EB I (Yeivin 1967b: 48). Yeivin's (1970) final proposal took the following form: Stratum I (Phase 0) EB III Strata I-Ill EB II Stratum IV endofEB I Stratum V Egyptian Strata VI-XII Chalcolithic The interpretations of other expedition members Different views were held by three other members of the Erani staff. These were never published but were later cited by other scholars: • Z. Yeivin (in Ben-Tor 1969 : 3) : Stratum VI Late Chalcolithic/ early EB I Strata V-IV first half of EB I Stratum III second half of EB I Stratum II first half of EB II Stratum I second half of EB 11 • Sh. Levi (in Ben-Tor 1969: 3) : Stratum VI Post-Ghassulian Chalcolithic Stratum V Egyptian material including the Narmer serekh Strata IV-Ill EB I Strata 11-1 second half of EB 11 (following a gap in the first half of the EBII) • E. Yeivin (in Gophna 1972: 51 n.21) • Stratum IV EB II Other scholars suggestions As mentioned above, a number of scholars have entered the foray and made alternative suggestions but part of their conclusions were based on insufficient and confused primary data. 3. This innovation was probably induced by the doctoral dissertations of Hennessy and BeI)-Tor. Hennessy (1967: 14 n. 53,22 nn. 130-131,23 n. 153,72 n. 61, pIs. 13: 1, 7, 60: 1) had dated the combed jars and Kenyon's A3a type bowl to the EB III, and Ben-Tor described one bowl of the Khirbet Kerak family (Ben-Tor 1969: 3,96,105[7], fig. 13 : 5 [our corrected Fig. 8 : 1]). - 361- BARUCH BRANDL \J ~ ~ ~ ~ IJ ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 '---~ i ;~ " ... -.... -# ..: (;:---2; ~ ' .. ::-- ... 8 10 cm 9 FIG. 4. - Chalcolithic pottery from various strata in Area D. 2 3 6 6Il?t\\ ~V 4 5 7 8 10cm 9 FIG. 5. - Pottery from an early phase of the Early Bronze Age I, from Area D. - 362- OBSERVATIONS ON TIlE EARLY BRONZE AGE STRATA OF TEL ERANI 2 3 4 ( , 5 6 7 8 10cm FIG. 6. - Early Bronze Age III pottery from Stratum I in Area D. - 363- BARUCH BRANDL • Hennessy (1967 : 9 n. 25, 13 n. 43,14 n. 53,16 n. 65, 21 chart 1) We have already indicated that J.B. Hennessy was the first to do so; here is his stratigraphic interpretation: Stratum I EB III Strata I-Ill EB 11 Stratum IV EB I (Kenyon's terminology) Strata V-XII . Proto-Urban • Ben-Tor (1969 : 3) Stratum V the city.with the most abundant Egyptian material Strata IV.,.I11 EB I Strata 11-1 " EB 11 But in a summary table at the end of the above study, the author presented a somewhat different scheme (Ben-Tor 1969 : 155): Stratum V EB I Strata IV-I1 EB 11 Stratum I '. EB 11 > EB III (?) • Miroschedji (1971 : 63il:. 75,74, 79-80 n. 51, figs. 21-23) :) Strata XI-IX ghassoulien final, contemporary with the northern epoque pre-urbaine, phase 1 Strata XI-VIII epoque pre-urbaine, phase 2 Strata VII-VI epoque pre-urbaine, phase 3 • Gophna (1974: 121-128, 151, 153): Strata XII-IX Early EB I Strata VIII-V Late EB I Strata IV-I EB 11 Stratum I :{partially) EB III • Miroschedji (1976: 20 n.