Decorated Philistine Pottery: An archaeological and archaeometric study 9781841719733, 9781407329987

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of figures
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Part 1 Iron Age Philistia and the Philistine Pottery Wares
Part 2 Technological Aspects of Iron Age Pottery Production
Part 3 Archaeometric Methods and the Methodology of Provenance Studies of Ceramics
Part 4 The Archaeometric Results and their Interpretation
Part 5 Philistine Pottery Production and the Iron I/Iron IIA Transition: Present Schemes and Suggestions for Future Research
Conclusions
Appendix A: Precision and accuracy of the Bristol ICP laboratory
Appendix B: Comparison of INAA and ICP results
Appendix C: List of samples taken and the archaeological data
Appendix D: Chemical compositions of samples according to ICPMS/ICP-AES
Appendix E: Petrographic descriptions of thin sections of the samples
Abbreviations
References

Citation preview

BAR S1541 2006  BEN-SHLOMO  DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Decorated Philistine Pottery An archaeological and archaeometric study

David Ben-Shlomo

BAR International Series 1541 B A R

2006

Decorated Philistine Pottery An archaeological and archaeometric study

David Ben-Shlomo

BAR International Series 1541 2006

ISBN 9781841719733 paperback ISBN 9781407329987 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719733 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents List of figures ........................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Part 1: Iron Age Philistia and Philistine pottery wares........................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. The geographical, historical and cultural framework .............................................................................. 4 a. Geographic framework .............................................................................................................. 4 b. Philistia and the Philistines in the textual sources .................................................................... 4 c. The Iron I Philistine material culture......................................................................................... 10 3. Description of the major sites.................................................................................................................. 11 4. The Philistine Pottery .............................................................................................................................. 11 a. History of research .................................................................................................................... 22 -Iron I Philistine pottery ................................................................................................................ 22 -Iron II (LPDW) ............................................................................................................................ 23 b. Fabric characteristics of Iron I Philistine pottery ...................................................................... 23 c. Typology of Iron I Philistine pottery......................................................................................... 25 d. Decoration of Iron I Philistine pottery ...................................................................................... 44 e. Typology of Iron II Philistine pottery (LPDW)......................................................................... 46 f. Influences and typological development of LPDW ................................................................... 69 5. The chronological framework of the Philistine pottery .......................................................................... 76 a. Iron I.......................................................................................................................................... 76 b. Iron II (LPDW) ......................................................................................................................... 79 6. Geographic distribution of Philistine pottery .......................................................................................... 82 a. Iron I.......................................................................................................................................... 82 b. Iron II (LPDW) ......................................................................................................................... 83 7. Intra-regional differences in Philistine material culture .......................................................................... 87 8. The ethnic aspects of the Philistine culture ............................................................................................. 88 9. Archaeometric studies of Philistine pottery............................................................................................. 89 a. History of research .................................................................................................................... 89 b. The archeological questions to be answered by archaeometry in this study ................................................................................................................................... 91 Part 2: Technological aspects of Iron Age pottery production ............................................................................ 92 1. The pottery production sequence: description and terminology.............................................................. 92 2. Iconographic and textual evidence of ancient pottery production ........................................................... 95 3. Archaeological evidence of pottery production in the southern Levant during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.............................................................................. 96 4. Reconstruction of pottery production according to ethnoarchaeology .................................................... 113 5. Summary: Technological evolution in Iron Age pottery production....................................................... 116 Part 3. Archaeometric methods and methodology of provenance studies of ceramics...................................... 118 1. The general principles of pottery provenancing ...................................................................................... 118 2. Chemical methods: principles and limitations......................................................................................... 120 a. Instrumental Neutron Activation (INAA) ................................................................................. 121 b. Induced Coupled Plasma (ICP): General Principles ................................................................. 122 c. Procedure of ICP Analysis in this Study ................................................................................... 124 d. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)....................................................................................................... 127 3. Elements selected for chemical grouping ................................................................................................ 128 4. The formation of compositional groups: Statistical analyses .................................................................. 129 5. Mineralogical Methods: Thin Section Petrographic Analysis (TSPA).................................................... 134 6. Geological setting of the region and the various sites in the study.......................................................... 137 Part 4: The archaeometric results and their interpretation................................................................................. 144 1. Sampling strategy .................................................................................................................................... 144 2. The chemical groups ............................................................................................................................... 146 3. The petrographic groups.......................................................................................................................... 165 4. Results of analysis according to sites sampled ....................................................................................... 179 a. Sites from Philistia ................................................................................................................... 179 b. Sites from the regions bordering Philistia (“peripheral”).......................................................... 193 c. Sites from southern Israel.......................................................................................................... 198 d. Sites from northern Israel.......................................................................................................... 199

i

5. Results according to the typological groups............................................................................................ 200 6. Discussion. Intra-regional provenance studies: pushing archaeometric analysis to its limits? ......................................................................................................... 203 Part 5. Philistine pottery production and the Iron I/Iron IIA transition: present schemes and suggestions for future research................................................................................................................................................... 205 1. Production and trade patterns of Philistine pottery during the Iron Age ................................................. 205 2. The Iron I-Iron IIA ceramic transition and relationships between pottery, technology and society ........................................................................................................................... 208 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................... 211 Appendix A: Precision and accuracy of the Bristol ICP lab...................................................................................... 213 Appendix B: Comparison of INAA and ICP results.................................................................................................. 217 Appendix C: List of samples taken and the archaeological data................................................................................ 222 Appendix D: Elemental composition of the samples................................................................................................. 232 Appendix E: Petrographic description of the samples ............................................................................................... 252 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................... 271 References................................................................................................................................................................. 272

ii

List of figures Part 1: Figure 1.1. Figure 1.2. Figure 1.3. Figure 1.4. Figure 1.5. Figure 1.6. Figure 1.7. Figure 1.8. Figure 1.9. Figure 1.10. Figure 1.11. Figure 1.12. Figure 1.13. Figure 1.14. Figure 1.15. Figure 1.16. Figure 1.17. Figure 1.18. Figure 1.19. Figure 1.20. Figure 1.21. Figure 1.22. Figure 1.23. Figure 1.24. Figure 1.25. Figure 1.26. Figure 1.27. Figure 1.28. Figure 1.29. Figure 1.30. Figure 1.31. Figure 1.32. Figure 1.33. Figure 1.34. Figure 1.35. Figure 1.36. Figure 1.37. Part 2: Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4. Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6. Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8. Figure 2.9. Figure 2.10. Figure 2.11. Figure 2.12. Figure 2.13. Figure 2.14. Figure 2.15.

Location and map of Philistia............................................................................................................. 5 Tel Ashdod excavation areas............................................................................................................... 12 Ashdod settlement size during the Iron Age. ...................................................................................... 12 Iron I Ashdod: Area G, Stratum XIIIb (upper), Area H, Stratum XIII (lower left), Area H, Stratum XII (lower right) (after T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 4). .......................................... 13 Iron II Ashdod: Area M, Stratum IX (after Ashdod IV: Plan 6). ........................................................ 14 Iron II Ashdod: Area D, Strata IX-VI (after Ashdod II-III: Plan 8). ................................................... 14 Tel Ashkelon (after Stager 1993:107). ................................................................................................ 15 Ashkelon Grid 38, Phase 19 schematic plan. ..................................................................................... 16 Plan of final Iron Age level at Ashkelon (after Stager 1996). ............................................................ 16 Tel Miqne-Ekron excavation fields..................................................................................................... 17 Tel Miqne, Field I, Stratum VIIA........................................................................................................ 17 Tel Miqne, Field IV: 1. Stratum VIIA; 2. Stratum VIB (after T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 2); 3. Stratum V-IV (after T. Dothan 1998a: Fig. 7); 4. Complex 650, Stratum IB (after Gitin 1998a: Fig. 11). ................................................................................................................................... 18 Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation areas (after Maeir 2003)........................................................................ 20 Tell es-Safi/Gath Safi settlement size during the Iron Age: Iron I (top), Iron IIA (middle), Iron IIB (bottom) (after Uziel 2003, according to pottery distribution in survey). ............................. 20 Tell es-Safi/Gath, Area A, Stratum A3. .............................................................................................. 21 Destruction layer of Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi, Area A..................................................................... 21 Iron I Philistine forms. ....................................................................................................................... 27 Iron I Philistine open forms................................................................................................................. 29 Iron I Philistine closed forms. ............................................................................................................. 33 Various Philistine Monochrome fabrics from Ashdod and Tel Miqne. .............................................. 34 Philistine pottery from Ashkelon. ....................................................................................................... 35 Iron I Philistine samples from Ashdod, Qasile, Aphek and Dan......................................................... 37 Iron I Philistine samples from Tel Miqne............................................................................................ 39 Philistine pottery from Tell es-Safi and Azor...................................................................................... 41 Coastal Iron Age II forms (according to Gitin 1998a: Figs. 3-6). ....................................................... 49 LPDW bowls and kraters. ................................................................................................................... 51 LPDW kraters. .................................................................................................................................... 55 LPDW closed forms. .......................................................................................................................... 57 LPDW amphorae................................................................................................................................. 59 LPDW amphorae and amphoriskoi. .................................................................................................... 61 LPDW jugs.......................................................................................................................................... 65 LPDW jugs. ........................................................................................................................................ 67 Various LPDW vessels and related forms........................................................................................... 71 LPDW vessels from Safi and other sites. ............................................................................................ 73 Samples taken as reference. ............................................................................................................... 75 Map of sites with Iron I Philistine pottery........................................................................................... 81 Map of sites with red slipped/degenerated Philistine and LPDW pottery. ......................................... 84 General components of kilns (after Killebrew 1996: Fig. 2)............................................................... 94 Distribution of LB-Iron Age workshops (after Wood 1990: Fig. 16) ................................................. 96 A potter’s workshop in a cave near Tel Lachish (after Tufnell 1958: Pl. 92). .................................... 98 Iron IIB kilns from Ashdod, Area D (after M. Dothan 1971: Plan 12). .............................................. 100 Reconstruction of the potter’s workshop in Ashdod, Area D.............................................................. 101 Iron IIA Kilns from Ashdod, Area M (After M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 4). ........................... 102 An Iron IIC kiln from Ashdod, Area K, Stratum VI (after M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.14). ........................................................................................................................................... 103 Plan of the Kfar Menahem site............................................................................................................ 104 General view (top) and close-up of kilns(?) (bottom) from the Kfar Menahem site. .......................... 104 Slag and vitrified clay from Kfar Menahem........................................................................................ 105 Cylindrical loom-weights (‘spools’) from Kfar Menahem.................................................................. 105 Potter’s tools from Tel Miqne-Ekron. ................................................................................................. 106 Potter’s tools from Lachish (after Tufnell 1958: Pl. 49:15). ............................................................... 107 Stratum VIIA kiln from Miqne (4104): plan, photo and reconstruction (after Killebrew 1996, 1998b). ................................................................................................................................................ 108 Stratum VI kilns from Miqne, Field INE (after Killebrew 1996)........................................................ 109 iii

Figure 2.16. Figure 2.17. Figure 2.18. Figure 2.19. Part 3: Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5. Figure 3.6. Figure 3.7. Part 4: Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2. Figure 4.3. Figure 4.4. Figure 4.5. Figure 4.6. Figure 4.7. Figure 4.8. Figure 4.9. Figure 4.10. Figure 4.11. Figure 4.12. Figure 4.13. Figure 4.14. Figure 4.15. Figure 4.16. Figure 4.17. Figure 4.18. Figure 4.19. Figure 4.20. Figure 4.21. Figure 4.22. Figure 4.23. Figure 4.24. Figure 4.25. Figure 4.26. Figure 4.27. Figure 4.28. Figure 4.29. Figure 4.30. Figure 4.31. Figure 4.32. Figure 4.33. Figure 4.34. Figure 4.35. Figure 4.36. Figure 4.37. Figure 4.38. Figure 4.39. Figure 4.40. Figure 4.41. Figure 4.42.

Kilns from Tell en-Nasbeh (McCown 1947: Figs. 52b, 60)................................................................ 109 Kilns from Megiddo (Guy and Engberg 1938: Figs. 84, 89) (Kiln 23 on the bottom)........................ 110 Kiln G from Sarepta (Pritchard 1975: Fig. 14).................................................................................... 111 Kilns from Miletus (top, after Niemeier 1997: Fig. CXLVI:a) and Kommos, Crete (bottom, after Shaw et al. 1997 Fig. CXVII:b). ........................................................................................................ 117 A schematic illustration of INAA (after Potts 1987). ......................................................................... 121 A schematic mass spectrometer (Potts 1987: Fig. 16.21).................................................................... 123 A schematic illustration of ICP-MS apparatus (Potts 1987: Fig. 20.2). .............................................. 124 Geological map of Philistia (after Sneh et al. 1998)............................................................................ 139 Soil map of Israel (after Shahar et al. 1995:23)................................................................................... 141 Soil/clay types of southern Israel (Master 2003: Fig. 8). ................................................................... 142 Limits of loess soil in southern Israel (Goren et al. 2004: Fig. 14:1). ................................................. 143 Classification of samples analyzed by archaeometric methods. ......................................................... 144 Map of Israel with sites that were sampled. ........................................................................................ 145 Location of clay samples near Tell es-Safi (CS1-6, left) and near Tel Ashdod (CS7, right). ............. 145 Classification of samples according to chemical subgroups. .............................................................. 146 Bivariate elemental ratios plot according to subgroups (Ti/Dy-Ce/Dy).............................................. 146 Bivariate plot of Ta vs. Sm of subgroups 1 and 2. ............................................................................. 149 Bivariate plot of Ta vs. Sm of subgroups 1 and 2 with 95% confidence ellipses. .............................. 149 PCA scatter plot (two principal components) with Major Groups I-III (left) and 95% confidence ellipses of Major Groups I and II (right). ............................................................................................ 153 PCA scatter plot (two principal components) with Chemical Subgroups 1-7. .................................... 153 Two principal components with 90% confidence ellipses of subgroups 1-5. ..................................... 154 Dendogram showing sub-division of Major Chemical Group I according to cluster analysis (Euclidean distance; Ward’s method). ................................................................................................ 155 PCA scatter plot showing Chemical Groups 1-7 using ratio values (X/Dy). ...................................... 156 PCA scatter plot showing Chemical Groups 1-7 using ‘corrected Ca factor’ values. ......................... 156 PCA scatter plot showing Major Groups I-III using only ICP-AES elements (Al, Fe ,Mg ,Ti ,K , Na ,Co, Cr ,Mn ,V).............................................................................................................................. 158 PCA scatter plot using “subtracted log” values (dilution free) showing ware groups......................... 158 PCA scatter plot with grouping according to best relative fit values (BRF) showing also chemical subgroups............................................................................................................................. 158 PCA scatter plot according to chemical subgroups, only Group 4 (4A+4B) is normalized according to dilution (according to best relative fit=BRF).................................................................. 158 Multi-dimensional scaling using Mahalanobis distance, showing chemical subgroups...................... 159 Loading of different elements on three major components of PCA. .................................................. 160 PCA scatter plot of wasters from production sites according to Goren et al. 2004. ........................... 160 PCA scatter plot (using ratio values, X/Be) of groups of wasters from Goren et al. 2004 (left), and 95% confidence ellipses according to sites (right). ...................................................................... 161 Discriminant analysis plot according to chemical groups. .................................................................. 163 Discriminant analysis plot according to TSPA groups........................................................................ 163 Discriminant analysis plot according to typological groups................................................................ 164 Discriminant analysis plot according to sites sampled........................................................................ 164 Proposed provenance of samples according to chemical grouping. .................................................... 165 Classification of samples according to petrographic groups. .............................................................. 165 Proposed provenance of samples according to TSPA. ........................................................................ 165 Petrographic Fabric A1. ...................................................................................................................... 166 Petrographic Fabric A2. ...................................................................................................................... 168 Petrographic Fabrics A3, B1 and clay sample 7.................................................................................. 169 Petrographic Fabrics B1-B3. ............................................................................................................... 170 Petrographic Fabric C1. ...................................................................................................................... 171 Petrographic Fabrics C1 and C2.......................................................................................................... 172 Petrographic Fabrics C2 and C3.......................................................................................................... 173 Petrographic Fabrics D1-D3 and clay sample 1. ................................................................................. 174 Petrographic Fabrics E1 and E3. ......................................................................................................... 176 Various petrographic fabrics. .............................................................................................................. 177 Comparison of chemical and petrographic groups. ............................................................................. 182 Comparison of chemical and petrographic provenancing. .................................................................. 185 Provenance of samples from the Philistine city sites (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tell es-Safi and Miqne)... 187 Chemical and petrographic classification of samples from Kfar Menahem........................................ 188 iv

Figure 4.43. Figure 4.44. Figure 4.45. Figure 4.46. Part 5: Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2.

Chemical and petrographic classification of the different Philistine wares......................................... 192 PCA scatter plot of Philistine Monochrome pottery according to different fabrics. ........................... 201 PCA scatter plot of LPDW vessels and reference material according to sites. .................................. 202 Provenance of LPDW samples............................................................................................................ 203 Provenance of vessels from the Philistine cities: the Iron I compared with the Iron II. ...................... 206 Iron Age trade patterns in Philistia. .................................................................................................... 207

Appendices: Figure A.1. Calibration graphs for fourteen elements analyzed by ICP-AES (Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, Ti, K, Mn, V, Sr, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Cr). .................................................................................................................. 214 Figure B.1. ICP-INAA calibration graphs (Fe, Na, Eu, Ta)................................................................................... 218 Figure B.2. ICP-INAA comparison graphs (Co, Sm, Yb, Hf). .............................................................................. 229

v

Acknowledgements This work is based on a revised version my Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I wish to thank my supervisors Aren Maeir and Ilan Sharon for their assistance and support during the work on this study. I wish to convey my warm thanks to Trude Dothan and Sy Gitin the directors of the Tel Miqne-Ekron Project for allowing me free access to the material from Tel Miqne and their consistent assistance, advice and support in many aspects. Similarly, I wish to thank Aren Maeir for giving me all the support and data I required regarding the material from Tell es-Safi and also Oren Ackermann and Joe Uziel for their assistance. I want to thank Larry Stager for allowing me to sample pottery from Ashkelon, and Ross Voss and Dan Master for their assistance. I wish to thank all other excavators and researchers who allowed me to sample pottery for analysis from their sites: T. Barako (Tel Mor), Y. Baumgarten (Yad Mordechai), R. Deffonzo (Khirbet el-Qom), Y. Gadot (Aphek), Z. Herzog and L. Singer-Avitz (Arad and Beer Sheba), D. Ilan (Dan and Tel Nagila), Y. Israel (Kfar Menahem), A. Mazar (Tel Batash, Tell Qasile and Tel Rehov), S. Wolff (Tell Hamid), and the Israel Antiquities Authority. Several of the illustrations are by the courtesy of the IAA, The Leon-Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, The Tel Rehov expedition, David Ilan and Ryan Defonzo. It is a pleasant duty to thank all the colleagues who assisted me with important remarks and advice. In the archaeometric field: David Adan-Bayewitz, Frank Asaro, Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Yuval Goren, Yan Gunneweg, Hans Mommsen, M. Weider and Joe Yellin. In the archaeological field: Jay Rosenberg, Itziq Shai and especially Alex Zukerman. Thanks also goes for the various curators assisting me in the collection of the data: Debby Ben-Ami and Alegre Sabriago of the IAA and Michal Dayagi-Mendels and Ossi Misch-Brandl of the Israel Museum. My apologies to anyone I have forgotten. The chemical analysis was made possible by a grant of the European Community for Access to Research Infrastructure: Action of the Improvement of Human Potential Program (contract HPRI-1999-CT-00008). Thanks go also to the ICP laboratory staff at Bristol University, Tony Kemp and Cung Choi. Financial support was also given by the Aims Budiks Foundation, the Perlman Foundation and the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University.

vi

Introduction The main concern of this study is the Philistine decorated pottery, its production centers and trade patterns. These issues are examined by both archaeological and archaeometric tools. In the recent twenty years or so, a considerable amount of data was accumulated on the Philistine sites, especially from the excavations at Tel Miqne-Ekron, and the new excavations at Ashkelon and Tell es-Safi. This material adds up with the data published from Tel Ashdod, some of which was, however, only recently studied in detail. Thus, although a vast literature already exists on the Philistines, their material culture and related issues, there has been very little study that systematically combines all this data. This study examines the Iron Age Philistine material culture in general and the Philistine pottery in particular from a holistic approach. The Philistine phenomenon is defined and described in Part 1 from its various aspects: the historical background, the archaeological evidence and its social and ethnic aspects. The Philistine phenomenon is seen as an episode encompassing the entire Iron Age and not only the Iron Age I. Therefore, aspects of the material culture and historical evidence relating to the Iron Age II (the Iron IIA in particular) are discussed and integrated with the richer data available on the Iron Age I. The important place of the Philistine pottery within this framework is demonstrated. The typology, chronology and geographic distribution of the Iron I Philistine pottery is updated. The Late Philistine Decorated Ware pottery (henceforth, LPDW), previously known as ‘Ashdod Ware’, is typologically, geographically and chronologically defined. This ware includes mostly vessels of Iron Age II ‘coastal forms’, which are decorated in red slip, vertical burnish and black and white paint. The cultural background of this pottery group is discussed and its importance to the development of the Philistine material culture is demonstrated. The different Philistine city sites are compared according to the archaeological evidence during the different stages of the Iron Age. The Philistine pottery, thus, illustrates four consecutive stages spanning the 12th to the 8th centuries BCE: the Philistine Monochrome pottery, the Philistine Bichrome pottery, the degenerated and red-slipped Philistine forms and the LPDW pottery. In order to clarify specific archaeological questions concerning the different fabrics of the Philistine pottery and intra-regional trade patterns of these wares an archaeometric study was undertaken. As Philistine pottery was probably an important cultural and ethnic component of the Philistines, the identification of production centers and trade patters of this pottery, throughout the Iron Age, can illuminate socio-economic, technological and other aspects of the Philistine society. To a lesser extent inter-regional trade patterns and other aspects were also examined. Part 2 describes and discusses the updated archaeological evidence of pottery production and workshops in the southern Levant during the end of the Late Bronze Age (henceforth, LBA) and the Iron Age. Ethnographic research is utilized to describe the pottery production sequence, technological aspects and modes of production and distribution of pottery. The archaeological and ethnographic data is combined in order to attempt a reconstruction of technological and social characteristics of pottery production in Iron Age Philistia. The archaeometric study includes altogether 325 samples, mostly from the four excavated Philistine pentapolis sites with an emphasis on LPDW and reference material from the Philistine cities. An attempt was made to identify compositional profiles of the different Philistine sites and, thus, follow the trade patterns of Philistine pottery between them. The study included mineral analysis of nearly the entire data set of the samples by thin section petrography (henceforth, TSPA). Chemical analysis by Induced Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission and Mass Spectrometry (henceforth, ICP-AES/ICP-MS) was undertaken on 225 samples. In addition earlier analysis by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (henceforth, INAA) of Philistine and other Iron Age pottery was taken into account. The field of identifying the origin or provenance of ceramic material in antiquity has been developing in the past fifty years or so. Although many studies are continually undertaken and published, methodological discussions are rare, especially concerning the area of the southern Levant. As this study is a provenance study of a geographically and geologically limited area, which can pose certain difficulties in identifying intra-regional production centers, such a methodological discussion was called for, and is presented in Part 3. Chemical methods for provenancing pottery are treated in more detail as they involve more complicated procedures. This study employed a relatively new chemical method: ICP-AES/ICP-MS. A systematic evaluation of aspects relating to the procedures of this method and their significance for pottery provenance studies have not yet been made, and therefore was called for. The chemical data is analyzed and interpreted by employing various statistical methods, either uni-variate or multi-variate. Various methods and procedures of multi-variate statistical analysis (henceforth, MVSA) were discussed in relation to their significance to pottery provenancing. The use of mineral methods for provenancing pottery has a longer history of research, but certain methodological aspects of this field are still developing. The geology and soils of the region are described with an emphasis on Philistia. The advantages and drawbacks of the various chemical methods and TSPA are discussed.

1

In Part 4 the archaeometric results are presented. Various compositional groups were formed according to the chemical analysis and various MVSA treatments of the raw elemental data. In the same time petrographic groups were formed independently and compared with the chemical groups. The results can be divided into clearer distinctions between several compositional profiles and more vague and intermediate results. The combination of chemical grouping, TSPA and archaeological considerations is used in order to attempt and clarify some of the problems. In particular, a compositional profile of the coastal Philistine cities (Ashdod and Ashkelon) is compared with the profile of the inland Philistine cities (Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es-Safi/Gath). The provenancing of the pottery is made on the basis of the grouping and characteristics of the relevant reference groups (pottery from kilns of groups of common undecorated forms). The archaeometric results are discussed vis-a-vis the archaeological questions posed, and the typological and geographical attributes of the samples. Part 5 combines the archaeological and archaeometric results and attempts to evaluate those from a broader cultural, technological and historical perspectives. Suggestions for future research, following the issues studied here, are proposed.

2

Part 1 Iron Age Philistia and the Philistine Pottery Wares projects were launched during this period in three main Philistine cities: Tel Miqne-Ekron, Ashkelon and Tell esSafi/Gath. The Philistine material culture was usually discussed against biblical and other texts. However, only recently analysis of socio-cultural aspects of this phenomenon was introduced as well (Bunimovitz and Faust 2001; Yasur-Landau 2002).

1. Introduction This first part of the study presents the archaeological evidence and its interpretation, as relates to the Philistine Iron Age pottery in Philistia and neighboring regions. This study combines the material culture of the Iron Age I with the Iron Age II, considering the entire ca. 600 year period of the Iron Age of Philistia, as one broad cultural unit. The geographical, cultural and historical framework is defined and presented first with a review of the relevant textual evidence throughout the Iron Age. The components of material culture related to the Philistines are presented in general. The stratigraphy and architecture of the main Philistine sites: Tel Ashdod, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Ashkelon and Tell es-Safi/Gath is presented according to published and unpublished data. This is followed by a typological description of the Iron Age I and II Philistine pottery. Subsequently, the chronological framework and geographical distribution of the pottery is discussed. An evaluation of cultural and ethnic aspects of the combined Iron Age I-II Philistine pottery is presented. A short survey of previous archaeometric studies of these wares concludes this part with an account of the specific archaeological issues to be examined by archaeometric methods in the present study (the results are presented in Part 4).

The multitude of studies accumulating on this subject stands in some contrast to the archaeological data existing on this issue, especially in form of final excavation reports. The latter has not increased considerably during these years and is far from complete. The archaeological data should naturally be based on excavations of the five Philistine cities: Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron and Gath. Gaza, because of its dense population and political situation was never extensively excavated and the Iron Age levels are only known from probes (Humbert 1998; Burdajewicz 2000). The site of Tel Ashdod, excavated during the 1960’s and early 70’s is still by far the most extensively published (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967; M. Dothan 1971; M. Dothan and Porath 1982, 1993; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). The site of Tel MiqneEkron was largely excavated during the 1980’s and 1990’s but only short reports and articles were yet published (e.g, Gitin and T. Dothan 1987; T. Dothan and Gitin 1993; Bierling 1998; T. Dothan 1998a, 2000, 2003; Gitin 1998a); no major final report has yet been published. Ashkelon is being excavated for the past twenty years by The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon but no final report came out yet. Tell es-Safi/Gath is being excavated for the past eight years, and recently some material has been published (Shai 2000; Maeir 2001; Maeir and Ehrlich 2001; Uziel 2003; Shai and Maeir 2003; Maeir 2003, in press a, in press b; limited information can also be obtained from the 1899 excavations of Bliss and Macalister [1902], Avisar 2004) Thus, despite the thousands of pages published so far on the issue of the Philistines and their material culture, the unknown is greater than the known.

The Philistine material culture is one of the most typical examples in the archaeology of the Levant where we have the case of a combination of historical records (both biblical and extra-biblical), and a distinct material culture appearing in a limited geographical and chronological context. Thus, this may be indeed considered as a characteristic case of the ‘pots and people’ connection. This is further emphasized by the fact that the Philistine material culture represents cultural elements alien to the local Canaanite cultures—elements originating from the Aegean region and Cyprus, and brought to Philistia by a group of immigrants during the beginning of the 12th century BCE.

This overview will survey the published and unpublished data on Philistine cities and regional sites manifesting the cultural phenomenon of the Philistines in the historical, cultural, geographical and chronological aspects. As there is already a vast literature on the subject new data and issues more directly related to the issue of pottery production and the Philistine wares will be focused on, while other aspects will be surveyed with less detail. Nevertheless, an attempt will be made to present a

Both the historical and archaeological evidences relating to Iron Age Philistia and the related issue of the 13th-12th century BCE ‘Sea Peoples’, have been treated in numerous occasions. While in last 100 years this subject has attracted the interest of many scholars (e.g., Macalister 1914; Alt 1944; Tadmor 1966; M. Dothan 1972; Alt 1975; Barnett 1975; Nibbi 1975; Sandars 1978) it has become indeed a ‘hot’ subject in Near Eastern archaeology in the past two or three decades, since T. Dothan’s (1967; 1982) seminal work.1 Major excavation

forthcoming; major articles include: Mazar 1985b; Singer 1985, 1988, 1994; Bunimovitz 1990; Beitak 1993; Finkelstein 1995; Stager 1995; Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996; Killebrew 1998b, 2000; Barako 2000; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004; another indication is the 34[!] articles in the popular Biblical Archaeology Review journal relating to the Philistines/Sea Peoples during this period.

1 A selection of works includes: books and dissertations: Brug 1985; Mazar 1985a; Bierling 1992; T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992; Ward and Joukowsky 1992; Noort 1994; Ehrlich 1996; Gitin et al. 1998; Killebrew 1998a; Oren 2000; Barako 2001; Mazow 2005; Artzy et al.

3

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY comprehensive picture of the Philistines and Philistia during the Iron Age, focusing on the similarities and differences between the Philistine cities. The published data, mostly from Ashdod (and partly from Tel Miqne), will be combined with more recent data from Tel Miqne, Tell es-Safi and Ashkelon. 2. The geographical, framework

historical

and

concerning Philistia and the Philistines in detail, both biblical and external, date to the Iron Age I and the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, most archaeological data defining the Philistine material culture dates to the early Iron Age (400 years earlier than the external sources). Thus, the Iron IIA (10th-9th centuries) seems as a gap in both archaeological and secure textual evidence. Ehrlich have summarized all texts referring to the Philistines in the 10th-8th centuries (i.e. biblical and Assyrian) (1996) in an attempt to bridge this gap and outline a suggestion for a more comprehensive Iron Age history of the Philistines in Philistia (see also Shai in press).

cultural

a. Geographical framework (Fig. 1.1) The region of Philistia is geographically defined here as the coastal strip and inner coastal plains lying between Nahal Gerar or Wadi el Arish in the southwest2 and the Yarkon river in the north (Nir 1989:97). This region is 70 km long and about 27 km wide in the south narrowing to 15 km in the north (Fig. 1.1). While the western boundary is well defined by the Mediterranean Sea, the eastern boundary of this region is less clear, especially in its southern part (Nir 1989:201). It can be defined topographically as the area west of the foothills of the Judean Shephelah, which is defined as the coastal plains or inner plains. The geological definition is more distinct, and is based on the boundary between the Quaternary sediments of the coastal plains and the Eocene formations exposed in the Shephelah (Nir 1989:97).

Egyptian, Ugaritic and Hittite sources: The Sea Peoples, and the Philistines among them are mentioned in Egyptian, Hittite and Ugaritic texts dated to the last quarter of the first millennium BCE. In addition, the names of Philistine cities sites are mentioned in numerous Egyptian texts of the Late Kingdom.3 In the Amarna letters, Gaza is mentioned as a main Egyptian post in Canaan. Gath and Ashkelon were probably city-states during this period (Aharoni 1987:135-140; Goren et al. 2004:279-280). Ashdod is not mentioned in any of the Late Kingdom texts; this is possibly because the city was loyal to Egypt and therefore was not fought with during this period (M. Dothan 1992; M. Dothan and Porath 1993:10) or by mere chance. Ashdodites or ‘adaddy are mentioned in Ugaritic texts in a relation to an Ugaritic merchant named Šukuna and were probably merchants from Ashdod (Schaeffer 1962:142,145; M. Dothan and Freedman 1967:8; M. Dothan 1971:19); in another document Lady Ašdadaya is mentioned.4 Three inscribed plaques from the Megiddo LBA ivories mention Kerker, a female singer in the Ptah temple at Ashkelon (Loud 1939:12-13, Pl. 63).

Three of the major Philistine cities, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gaza, lie on the coastal strip itself, directly on or several km from the Mediterranean Sea (defined here as ‘coastal Philistia’). The other two cities, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es-Safi/Gath, lie inland on the border between the Shephelah and the inner coastal plains. Tel MiqneEkron is just to the west of the border between the inner plains and the Shephelah and Tell es-Safi/Gath is just to the east of it, already within the Shephelah. However, as the environmental and geological surroundings of these two sites are similar, they are considered as being in the same geographical unit (defined here as ‘inner Philistia’). The region of Philistia can be divided also roughly to northern Philistia (Ashdod and northwards) and southern Philistia (the area of Ashkelon and Gaza on the coast and Tell es-Safi).

During the late 13th and 12th centuries BCE several Egyptian literary sources comprise the main non-biblical historical source for the Philistines and the other Sea Peoples. As most of these texts have been previously extensively reviewed by T. Dothan (1982:1-13) and others (Macalister 1914; Nelsen 1943; Barnett 1975; Kitchen 1973; Nibbi 1975: Brug 1985:5-52; Singer 1988;

b. Philistia and the Philistines in the textual sources The historical evidence on Iron Age Philistia is not uniformly spread throughout the Iron Age. The affairs of the ‘Sea Peoples’ appears in various Egyptian, Ugaritic and Hittite sources dated to the late 13th-12th centuries BCE and later, and possibly deals with historic events in the southern Levant during the late 13th-early 12th centuries. While most of the other textual sources

3

Ashkelon is already mentioned in the execration texts of the early second millennium BCE (Aharoni 1987:118). For a recent discussion of the Amarna letters relating to this region see Goren et al. 2004:270-301. 4 N. Na’aman suggested that the Ashdadites (adddy) of Late Bronze Age Ugaritic texts originated from Enkomi in Cyprus, which was known as Ashdad in the thirteenth century BCE—and not from Tel Ashdod (1997:610). This proposal draws on the absence of Ashdod in Late Bronze Age Egyptian texts. Na’aman further suggests that the Late Bronze Age city located at Tel Ashdod was Tianna of the Amarna letters. In the Iron I of the twelfth century BCE, Tel Ashdod was settled by Enkomites and was consequently named Ashdod. This proposal is problematic as most of the Ashdadite names in the Ugaritic texts are West Semitic, as the name Ashdad itself. The name Alashiya, at times identified as Enkomi, also figures in the same texts. Moreover, the biblical renaming of a site usually leaves reference to its earlier name as well (e.g. Laish-Dan) (see Ben-Shlomo 2003:102). The identification of LBA Ashdod at Tel Ashdod seems to be supported by the petrographic analysis of the Amarna letters as well (Goren et al. 2004:292-294).

2 It is not completely clear what is the political border of Philistia in the south and the geographical border is unclear as well. It should be noted that Philistine pottery was found as south as Tell Abu ez-Zuweyid in northern Sinai (Petrie 1937: Pls. XXXI:23,32,36, XXXIII:23u; T. Dothan 1982:25). Generally, Philistia is often defined according to the political borders mentioned in the bible in relation to the Philistines (T. Dothan 1982:16-17), and not defined strictly on geographical terms. The political boundary of Gaza under the Assyrians may have been just to the south of the city (see Na’aman 2004:60-64).

4

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

The eastern Mediterranean Philistia

Figure 1.1. Location and map of Philistia.

5

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Cifola 1994) including the matter of the origin of the Sea Peoples, this issue will not be dealt with detail here. The Philistines are not mentioned in Late Kingdom texts before the reign of Ramesses III, though other Sea Peoples are. In the annals of Ramesses II, the Sherden are mentioned as mercenaries (?) in relation to the battle of Qedesh. According to reliefs dated to Merneptah (his 5th year) the Sherden, Sheklesh, Lukka, Tursha and Akawasha are described as “Foreigners from the Sea” and as enemies of Egypt, joining the Libyans, or participating in various raids (Stager 1985).5 The Pršt (Philistines), and Tjekker are first mentioned as invaders in a Ramesses III text. In a letter to Ugarit the king of Alashiya advises Hamurappi of Ugarit to prepare his army against the Sherden, coming from the sea (Yon 1992:115). In Hittite texts of the 13th c. BCE the Lukka are mentioned as sea raiders causing much damage (Hoffner 1992).

in the close of the Late Bronze Age (Casson 1971:38; Raban 1988; Wachsmann 2000).7 The Egyptian sources emphasize the strength of the Sea Peoples and their successful subjugation. Papyrus Harris I, dated to the end of the reign of Ramesses III, states as follows: “…I extended all the frontiers of Egypt and overthrew those who had attacked them from their lands. I slew the Denyen in their islands, while the Tjekker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Weshesh of the sea were made nonexistent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Their military classes were as numerous as hundred-thousands. I assigned portions for then all with clothing and provisions from the treasuries and granaries every year (ANET:262).”

The documents from the reign of Ramesses III (11841153 BCE—low chronology) are more detailed. In his eighth year the Medinet Habu reliefs and the inscriptions related to them are the most informative source concerning the Sea Peoples both visually and verbally (see, e.g., T. Dothan 1982:5-13; O’Connor 2000). The Sea Peoples are described as coming by land and sea after destroying Alashiya and Hatti and reaching Carchemish. Civilian population is included, indicated by women and children in carts and seems to reflect a phenomenon more demographically significant than a mere battle (Sweeny and Yasur-Landau 1999). Both a sea and a land battle are described.6

This text, together with the mentioning of the Sherden as Egyptian mercenaries during the days of Ramesses II and Mernephtah and the Medinet Habu descriptions, led scholars, already sixty years ago, to the view that there was a firm connection between the Egyptian administration and the Philistines (or other Sea Peoples), and that the latter were settled in Philistia by the Egyptians after the eighth year of Ramesses III (Alt 1944:216; Kitchen 1973:60; Albright 1975; Aharoni 1987:214; T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992:63; see also O’conner 2000). A singular historical document that may date to the Iron IIA is the Pedeeset statuette (inscribed on a 12th Dynasty statue) that mentions the “commissioner of Canaan and Philistia” (Steindorff 1939:31-32; Kitchen 1986:588 on the date; Na’aman 1998b:266). This object probably reflects the Philistine-Egyptian relations and the status of Philistia in this stage (on an equal level as Canaan); however, as noted, the date of the inscription may be later in the Iron II as well.

T. Dothan notes various items depicted in the Medinet Habu reliefs as being of Aegean origin according to parallels from depictions of warriors from Greece, Crete and Cyprus (T. Dothan 1982:5-13). These include the feathered headdress, the rounded shield, body corselet, sword types, and ships with duck-shaped bows (see also Wachsmann 1998:177-194,300). The depiction of the different peoples with different ships and headdresses also may imply they had some ethnic identity. Special attention was given to feathered headdresses of the Sea Peoples (Philistines, Tjekker and Denyen) with similar depictions appearing on a Middle Minoan IIIB disk from Phaistos, Crete (see also Macalister 1914:83-87), a seal from Enkomi and anthropoid coffin lids from Israel. The Sherden are depicted with horned helmets. The ships of the Sea Peoples were noted to show new innovations, especially the brailed rig, possibly brought to the Near East by the Sea Peoples themselves or by the Canaanites

The Onomastikon of Amenope mentions the Sea peoples together with the Philistine cities (Gardiner 1947:24): Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza (Nos. 262-264); Sherden, Tkr and Pršt (Nos. 268-270); although the mentioning of the peoples is in proximity there are several names inbetween. This text is dated to the late 12th century and possibly all three Sea Peoples mentioned represent the Philistines, which were the only one to survive into this later period (Aharoni 1982:190). The Wenamon tale text (ANET:25-29; Macalister 1914:29-37), dated approximately to 1100 BCE, tells the story of a merchant arriving at Dor in which the Sikkil (Tkr) are ruling, with their prince Beder. This text implies that the Sikkil settled

5 In the famous “Israel” inscription of Merneptah Ashkelon is mentioned as being taken together with Gezer and Yeno’am. 6 There is no consent regarding the location of the sea battle, either in the Syrian coast or in the delta region (Nelson 1943; Nibbi 1975:45). According to Nibbi’s view the Sea Peoples origin—“the big green” is from this area of the delta as well (see also Sandars 1978:117-138). It should be noted that not all the statements in the Egyptian texts can be necessarily viewed as historic truths, especially the declaration that the Sea Peoples were completely subjected by Ramesses III (Wood 1991:49; Redford 2000:8-13).

7 Raban brings up several innovations in the field of seamanship during the late 13th century BCE (1988). These include the building of deep ports built of ashlar masonry (as the ones at Dor and Kition); the brailed rig, enabling long distance travel in the open sea; composite anchors with three holes, enabling safer anchorage and the use of large ‘seaborne’ pithoi (as the ones with wavy relief decoration), originating in Cyprus. The combination of all these elements appearing in a narrow time span, although not all proved to originate in the Aegean/Cypriote world, may indicate the influence of the Sea peoples.

6

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Bauer 1998).11 In relation to this issue the exact geographical origin of each of the Sea Peoples was often discussed, but will not be elaborated here. In this study it will suffice to regard the Philistines as a people originating in the Aegean and Cypriote sphere (including western Anatolia).12

in some point at Dor and possibly also in the Sharon area (Stern 1993; 1998; 2000) including the site of Tel Zeror (Kochavi 1993:1526). Thus, as the Philistines settled in Philistia further south, the north as the Akko valley was proposed to be inhabited by the Sherden (or Denyen) (Aharoni 1982:185; M. Dothan 1986:12; 1989a:64).8 However, on the whole, the archaeological and textual evidence for the settlement of the other Sea Peoples north of Philistia is very meager and insecure.

Biblical sources: The relatively detailed references to the Philistines in the biblical text may shed some light on various cultural and political aspects of this group, notwithstanding the debate on the historicity of these narratives. The biblical narrative was naturally the cause of much of the archaeological interest in the Philistine material culture in the past and present, and was normative in much of the scholarly view of this culture. This narrative in the books of Judges and Samuel describes mostly the Iron Age I, the period of the Judges and early monarchy. Both the nature of the stories and the lack of relevant external textual sources pose many questions regarding their historicity. However, they may be possibly used to reconstruct some of Philistia history during the Iron IIA or later (B. Mazar 1986:63-82; Ehrlich 1996:24-56; Machinist 2000). The origin of the Philistines is described as from the sea or as Aegean/Cretan–from Caphtor/Caphtorim, on several occasions (as Gen. 10:14, Jer. 47:4, Amos 9:7; though Finkelstein [2002c] interprets this as referring to a much later period).13 The land of the Philistines is located in the southern coastal plain, often described as a ‘buffer’ between Egypt and Canaan (Gen. 21:32; Ex. 13:17; Josh. 13:2-3 with all the five Philistine cities mentioned). Avimelech king of Gerar of the Philistines is mentioned as well in Gen. 26. The first reference of the Philistines as a political entity is probably when Shamgar is described as fighting them (Judg. 3:31).

The arrival of the Sea Peoples and the Philistines to the southern Levant is described by several scholars very dramatically. Stager describes two waves of a coordinated attack of the coast in a ‘D-Day’–like event (Stager 1991:35). Barako described the sea borne migration (2003a, 2003b), while Yasur-Landau (2002; 2003) describes a terrestrial migration of large amounts of civilian population (as an ‘exodus-like’ event).9 These more dramatic descriptions rely only to a small measure on direct textual or archaeological evidence and although any suggestion would be speculative at this stage, it seems more reasonable that the phenomenon of Philistine settlement in Philistia was a gradual process during several decades, probably to a large extent from the sea, as this is the easiest way from the Aegean (and the only way from Cyprus).10 Many scholars have attributed the collapse or the ‘crisis years’ of the final 13th century BCE kingdoms in the eastern Mediterranean, the Argolid, Anatolia, Cyprus (Iacovou 1998) and the southern Levant (especially Ugarit, Yon 1992:120) to the raids of the Sea Peoples as well (Drews 1993:49-72, after Maspero 1896 and others; also Sandars 1978:179-196; Ward and Joukowsky 1992;

The Philistine cities are mentioned often in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings in relation to their conflicts with the Israelites (the majority of the citings are in the books of Samuel). According to this biblical narrative the Philistines managed to conquer most of the hill country at a certain stage (especially 1Sam 4). On other occasions they are described together of the other peoples of Canaan (Judg. 3:3, often together with Ammonites: Judg.

8

Another suggestion relates the Denyen or Danai to the tribe of Dan (Yadin 1968:22; Stager 1991:42 with references therein). Zertal proposed that the site of El-Ahwat on Mount Carmel represents a settlement of Sea Peoples from Sardinia—possibly the Sherden (Zertal 2001). Finkelstein, recently criticized this interpretation (2002a); this issue will not be elaborated here. 9 Yasur-Landau argues for the significant land immigration for several reasons: the boats of this time could carry mostly rowers, apparently men, and thus could not bring large quantities of civilian family population (2002:94,143). As the Medinet Habu reliefs show women and children in the sea people crowd, his conclusion is that most came by land through Anatolia and the Cilician gateway; the carts depicted are also of Anatolian type. The initial origin preferred by him is the Dodecanase (2002:244). However, for population coming from Cyprus, sea travel is the only option. Its seems reasonable that both sea and land routes were used, and we probably cannot settle in this stage which of the routes was more dominant. 10 If, for example, every week a shipload of immigrants would arrive to Philistia (containing about 50 people), then in 20 years 50,000 people would have arrived (see Barako 2003a:64). Yasur-Landau discusses the various estimates of the total number of Philistine immigrants (ranging from 10,000 to 50,000) and reaches a sort of compromise of about 20,000 people (2002:204). The depictions on the Medinet Habu reliefs indicate Philistine male warriors together with Syro-Canaanite women and children (depicted with ‘Philistine’ headdress; Sweeney and YasurLandau 1999:138-139); this can indicate that the Philistine population even in the early stage was mixed with the Canaanite, and thus, the total Philistine population could have been larger in relation to the amount of immigrants arriving by sea.

11 Other explanations for the late 13th century BCE collapse included earthquakes, plague, droughts and iron technology (see Drews 1993). 12 The debate concerning the origin of the Philistines and the Sea Peoples is a long and unresolved one, and is beyond the scope of this work (for reviews see Singer 1988; Yasur-Landau 2002:207-211). Various suggestions have been raised as the Aegean (T. Dothan and others), Crete (Macalister 1914:1-28) Cyprus (Killebrew 1998b:401402, 2000), western Anatolia (Singer 1988, relying also on etymology of Philistine/Sea Peoples names; Niemeier 1998), the Dodecanase (Yasur-Landau 2002) or even possibly associated with Asiatic populations (Nibbi 1975:82,105,140). Some scholars suggest that the Sherden people originated from the island of Sardinia (M. Dothan 1986, 1989a; Vagnetti 2000; Zertal 2001); this is because both of the similarity of the names and appearance of Mycenaean-like material culture in LBA Sardinia. 13 Note also the Karti and Palti (e.g, 2Sam 8:18?, 15:18, 20:7, 1Kings 1:38,44), usually referred as King David’s body guards (see, B. Mazar 1986:85). Finkelstein relates these to Greek mercenaries of the 7th century BCE (2002c:148-150).

7

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY 10:11). The Samson story (Judg. 15-16) brings many details on the Philistines: their center is Gaza with the Dagon temple, its architecture may be seen as an Aegean Megaron with two supporting pillars in the entrance (Judg. 16:29), and the term Sarnei Plishtim (‫)סרני פלשתים‬ is often mentioned, probably meaning the leaders or officers (possibly related to the Greek word Tiranos). Evidence of Greek marriage customs have also been suggested to appear in the story of Samson (A. Yadin 2002). Ashkelon is mentioned in relation to its market (2Sam 1:20), possibly alluding to its importance as a commercial center. The Philistines are described bringing the Arc to the Dagon Temple at Ashdod (1Sam. 5).14 Ba’al Zebub is mentioned as the deity of Ekron (2Kings 1:2-3). In a later list Ekron is noted as a city in the northern frontier of Judah (Josh. 1:18, 15:11). Gath is mentioned as the hometown of Goliath (1Sam 11), and was possibly the strongest Philistine city at a certain time. Achish king of Gath is mentioned in David’s time (1Sam 27:2).

bible as quite similar to the local Canaanite one. This includes Ba’al Zebub of Ekron and the Dagon temple of Gaza and Ashdod mentioned above (T. Dothan 1982:2021; Singer 1992; Mazar 2000).16 Assyrian and Babylonian sources: Most external texts dealing directly with the Philistine city states (though usually not mentioning a ‘Philistine’ entity by name) are dated to the 8th-7th centuries and relate to the Assyrian rule in Philistia which started in Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign in 734 BCE (see, e.g., Tadmor 1966; Na’aman 1998a, 2003). It seems that the Philistines cities preserved a degree of independence under this rule as tributebearing states. The trade between the Philistine cities (Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod), the southern Egyptian delta and the northern Phoenician ports (as Byblos, Arvad, Tyre and Sidon) probably attracted most of the Assyrian interest (Tadmor 1966:87-88; Gitin 1995:62-63, 2003a; Master 2003:49-51 with more references therein). Their participation in campaigns either against Judah or revolts against Assyria is minimal during the initial years of the Assyrian rule (Ehrlich 1991). During the reign of Sargon II there were several rebellions against Assyria, probably with some Egyptian support. In 722/721 king Hanun of Gaza joined such a rebellion with other cities, and was suppressed by Sargon in 720. The siege of Ekron by Sargon II is depicted on his palace walls at Khorsabad. In 712 BCE Yamani, probably a commoner, replaced the king of Ashdod (after Azuri and his brother Ahimetu were overthrown) and revolted against the Assyrians (Tadmor 1958; 1966:94; Na’aman 2003). Yamani is mentioned as a Greek and the name is also reminiscent of the term Greek in Semitic languages, but was more probably a Philistine from the local population of Ashdod. This revolt, although swiftly terminated by Sargon II, who destroyed the city in 712, leaving a basalt victory stele of which fragments were found in the excavation (Tadmor 1971), reflects the relative power that Ashdod had in that time.

As regards to the Iron Age II, it is mentioned that Uzziah, king of Judah (785-733 BCE), made war against the Philistines, destroyed the walls of Gath and Ashdod and built cities in the territories of Ashdod (2Chron. 26:6); this passage shows the strength of Ashdod during the 8th century. Ashdod is mentioned in the biblical text as one of the late Iron Age Philistine cities, together with Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron (Jer. 25:20; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:6). These references exclude Gath, which probably did not exist as a large city during the 7th century BCE (see below). The Philistines and their cities are also mentioned in various prophetic texts, usually reflecting their territorial conflicts with the Israelites (Gitin 1998b; Haak 1998). Finkelstein associates the description of Goliath’s armor with Homeric texts (2002c:142-148), thus, indicating a Philistine-Greek connection in the Iron Age IIC (maybe in relation to Psamtich’s mercenaries). Various aspects of the Philistine culture and sociopolitical structures may be derived from the biblical narrative if we view it of any historical value (see Macalister 1914:87-90; T. Dothan 1982:13-21). These aspects include political order: the structure of five independent city-states (each headed by a Seren?)—the Pentapolis, possibly with a shifting dominance of one of the cities. This structure is said to reflect the control of a military aristocracy (T. Dothan 1982:17 possibly to be derived from the Mycenaean culture of the LHIII; for a somewhat different definition see Yasur-Landau 2002:6186; see also Finkelstein 2002c:137-142). Special military organization and weaponry are possibly described in the Goliath narrative (1Sam 17; T. Dothan 1982:19). Craft specialization in metallurgy is also alluded to in 1Sam 13:19.15 The religion of the Philistines is described by the

After Sargon II’s death in battle numerous rebellions broke at against the Assyrian administration; Ekron and Ashkelon joined in. These were crushed by Sennacherib’s well-known campaign to Philistia and Judah in 701 BCE. In the Sennacherib annals Ashdod is mentioned together with other Philistine cities, especially Ekron, where the Assyrian king reinstated the original King Padi after a local revolt (possibly supported by Judah).17 It seems that 1998:299-300 on the alleged Cypriote origins of this technology). However, there is no clear evidence for Aegean metalworking in the Jordan Valley or other regions in the Levant in this period (Negbi 1991). Moreover, the introduction of iron and steel to a substantial effect occurs only later during the 10th century BCE (Sanders 1978:176177; Waldbaum 1978, 1980:82-91; Snodgrass 1980; Stech-Wheeler et al. 1981). 16 The Aegean aspects of the Philistine religion only emerge from the archaeological finds: foremost the goddess Potgaya from the Ekron inscription, and the Aegean like female figurines (and possibly bovine) from Ekron, Ashdod and Ashkelon. For a discussion of Dagon as the god of the Philistines, with its possible Aegean links see Singer 1992. 17 It appears, therefore, that Assyrian policy was to restore pro-Assyrian Philistine rulers to the throne in their own cities, rather than to destroy

14

Interestingly a Dagon temple at Ashdod was recorded to be burned by Jonathan the Hashmonean some 600 years later! (Macc. 10:77-78). 15 This record of Philistine specialization led some to conclude that iron metallurgy was introduced by the Philistines or the Sea Peoples (Wright 1939; T. Dothan 1982:20; Tubb 2000; though see Sherratt 1994,

8

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES the Assyrians were more lenient with the Philistine cities, preserving their independence to some degree as a buffer zone between Assyria and Egypt and even transferring territory from Judah to the Philistine cities (Tadmor 1966:97). In the Assyrian sources the cities of Philistia seem to be mentioned as independent states, each one with its king. Ekron (amqar[r]una) and its king Ikausu is listed in the annals of Sargon II and Esarhaddon. The flourishing of Ekron as evidenced by the archaeological record is probably related to a stronger connection with the Assyrian administration (e.g., Gitin 1989, 1995; 2003a). During the reign of Esarhaddon it seems that the Philistines were an important ally of Assyria as in the war against the Egyptians the Assyrian army is camped in Ashkelon (Tadmor 1966:100; note that by 663 BCE the Assyrians under Ashurbanipal have captured Thebes in the depth of Egypt). The kings and the city of Ashdod are mentioned in texts from the reigns of Sennacherib, Essarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal (ANET:287,291,294), spanning most of the 7th century BCE.18

affinities represented by the Ekron inscription, appearing as late as the early 7th (according to Gitin 1989: Fig. 2.15; or the late 8th c. according to Na’aman 2003:85): both the king of Ekron and its main goddess have Aegean names (Schäfer-Lichtenberger 2000; Yasur Landau 2001).21 Another question is in what way did the political organization of the Philistines change and evolve throughout the Iron Age. The starting point is that the Philistine cities were some sort of city-states. This seems to be indicated in the biblical descriptions, although the Philistines are often mentioned as a collective (as in 1 Kgs 15:27, 16:15-17). During the Iron IIA this situation may have continued (Singer 1994:333; Shai in press) with shifting dominance of the cities. A possibility of a more centralized monarchy type of organization is also suggested (B. Mazar 1986:63-82; Machinist 2000:57-59), with some similarity to the situation in the hill-lands. Finkelstein divides the territories of Philistia according to settlement patterns in relation to the five Philistines cities indicating separate city-states (2000:166-173, Fig. 8.3).

Other textual evidence related to the Philistines include non-Semitic names or words as the title sar. Possibly interpreted as Aegean are the name dggrt from an inscription found at Ashdod Stratum IX-VIII (Naveh 1985:16-17, Pl. 2:D; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.89:8) and several other names appearing on Iron IIB ostraca (Naveh 1985; Kempinski 1987; Eph‘al 1997).19 The Ekron inscription: The royal inscription found in the Temple-Palace Complex 650 at Tel Miqne (Stratum IB) has great historical and cultural implications (Gitin et al. 1997:7; Naveh 1998; Demsky 1997). It was set by Achish king of Ekron and dedicated to a goddess ‘Potgaya/Pontnia’; it reads: “The house (which) Akhayush (Ikausu/Achish), son of Padi, son of Ysd, son of Ada, son of Ya’ir, ruler (sar ‫)סר‬ of Ekron, built for Pythogaia (Ptgyh), his lady. May she bless him, and protect him, and prolong his days, and bless his land.”

At the end of the 9th century BCE, Adad-Nirari III campaigned against Damascus, as described in the “Calah Slab.” (Tadmor 1973:148-149); the inscription mentions that several states sent him tribute, including Sur (Tyre), Sidon, Bit-Humri (Israel), Edom, and Philistia.22 Thus, Philistia is treated as an integral political entity. This situation seems to change in the Iron IIB (8th-7th c) as each of the cities becomes more independent, having its own policy. For example Ashdod alone rebels against Assyria in the end of the 8th c. while Ekron remains loyal, and Ashkelon and Ekron are treated differently in the Sennacherib’s campaign (Ehrlich 1991:55-56). During the last decades of the 7th century BCE, while the Assyrians withdrew from the region and the Egyptians gained power, the independence of Philistia could have risen (in similarity to that of Judah under Josiah). However, not enough evidence is available for this time slot, except the flourishing of Ekron, archaeologically evidenced in Stratum IB. Herodotus mentions that Ashdod (referred as Azotus) was sieged by king Psamtich I (663-609 BCE) for no less than 29 years (Herodotus, Histories II: §157; Malamat 1950:221). Ashdod is also mentioned as one of the six coastal sites in the prism of Nebuchadnezar (ANET:308). Gath is not mentioned in the later 7th century texts; this is probably a result of its becoming a small and unimportant settlement annexed to Judah (Rainey 1975:74*-75*). Around the year 600 the

The king, who built the temple complex and dedicated the inscription, is probably the Ikausu of the Essarhadon text (this is an Aegean name similar to the name of the king of Gath mentioned in the bible, 1Sam 21:11-16). Achish also mentions his father Padi, mentioned in Assyrian texts as well, and three generations before him.20 Most important, however, is the strong Aegean completely the original settlement and replace it, contra to Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001:256) and Na’aman (2001:263). 18 For texts relating to to Gaza under the Assyrians see Na’aman 2004. 19 Note though that Zadok views several of these names as Iranian and relates them to Sargon II’s deportation of Iranian population into Philistia (Na‘aman and Zadok 1988:41-44). 20 Na’aman concludes that Padi instated a new dynasty in Ekron following the Assyrian intervention (2003:82-83). However, this seems less probable as he mentions three forefathers of Padi, which were most probably also kings of Ekron (or otherwise why mention them in such an inscription?). Nevertheless, there were probably two factions in Ekron in the late 8th-early 7th c.: those apposing Assyria, favoring the revolt, together with Hezekiah (thus capturing Padi in Jerusalem), and those of the ruling Philistine dynasty, supported by Assyria.

21 The term potnia probably means ‘the lady’ in linear B texts, although the inscription probably names the Greek goddess Pytogayah (SchäferLichtenberger 2000:90-91). The Ekron inscription is a possible evidence for a ‘Philistine dialect’ of Hebrew as well (Sasson 1997:629-631). 22 Contra to the later Assyrians kings from the 8th century BCE, AdadNirari did consider Philistia as one entity and did not relate to each city individually. The determinatives that appear before the names of the states are URU (contra to the determinative “kur” [māt] referring to a geographical unit [Eph‘al 1997]), and apparently Philistia was in the same rank as larger political unit as Israel or Edom, possibly with Gath at its head (Shai in press).

9

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Philistines cities of Ashdod, Ekron, Ashkelon and Gaza were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (Malamat 1950:222223).

major focus of this study and will be described below in detail. Small finds typical of Philistia, showing possible Aegean connections, include ivories, jewelry, and possibly cylindrical loom-weights25 and incised bovine scapulae. A different diet with emphasis on pig and a possible rise in cattle usage is also in evidence in Philistine sites (for Tel Miqne and Ashkelon see Hesse 1986; 1990; though a somewhat different data, in Lev-Tov 1999:14-15).26 Various burial customs were also mentioned as having some Aegean connections, notably the graves in Tell Farah (S) (Waldbaum 1966; T. Dothan 1982: Chapter 4; Brug 1985:149-164) and possibly cremation burials at Azor (M. Dothan 1989b; Ben-Shlomo in preparation).27 Other related objects include seals from Ashdod with possibly Aegean related Linear or Cypro-Minoan signs (T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992:153; Stieglitz 1977; Keel 1994:21).28

During the Persian and Hellenistic periods, Philistia was probably still viewed as a geo-political entity, although the Philistines as a people ceased to exist. Nevertheless, in 6th century BCE Babylonian texts deportees from Philistines cities seemed to have been still housed in specific quarters or geographical regions. Settlements near Nippur were probably named after Gaza (Hasatu) and Ashkelon (Iskalanu) as they were populated by exiles from Philistia (Zadok 1978:61). Eventually, the term Philistia survived, well after the disappearance of the Philistines, in the Roman period and then into modern times in the name of the lands of Israel as Palestine (probably as result of Herodotus’ descriptions of the region denoted as Syria-Palestine, Eph’al 1997). c. The Iron I Philistine Material Culture The Philistine material culture encompasses various aspects of the archaeological record. These elements, showing various degrees of Aegean or Cypriote characteristics, appear in a clear time-space slot of Philistia in the Iron I.23

Cooking vessels and simple loom-weights in Aegean style are more indicative of immigration as they represent domestic activities not related to commerce or high valued objects (Yasur-Landau 2002:171-4,183-5). These aspects, together with the diet change illustrated by animal bones and possibly by botanic remains (as the lathyrus sativus/cicera, Kislev and Hopf 1985:141-143; Mahler-Slasky 2004), are especially important in ascertaining the Philistine material culture as a culture representing immigrants from the west.29 Generally, the material culture components can be divided into two groups: 1. Those with more distinct and direct Aegean characteristics, which clearly represent the immigrant nature of the population of Philistia during the Iron Age I; 2. Components illustrating a degree of mixture of various traditions: Aegean and local (Canaanite and Egyptian).

It has been suggested that the Philistine cities show a distinct urbanization during the initial Iron I in relation to other sites in this period. This is attested by expansion of the settlement, the designation of areas within the city according to function, and the erection of fortifications (T. Dothan 1992:96-97).24 This is sometimes seen as a uniform Philistine phenomenon (Stager 1995:345; Barako 2000:522-524), with parallels in the same period in Cyprus (Iacovou 1998). However, while this is true for Tel Miqne-Ekron (T. Dothan 1998a; 2000), it is much less so for Ashdod, while the situation concerning Gath and Ashkelon is not yet clear (see below). Philistine material culture elements include architectural components as the ‘megaron’ plans of rooms and buildings (long-rooms with two pillars and a hearth inbetween, T. Dothan 1992:96; 2003:200-202; see also at Tell Qasile, Mazar 1986) and various types of hearths and tubs (T. Dothan 2003:202-206; Karageorghis 2000:266274). Distinct pottery wares include the Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome wares, Aegean type anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines (YasurLandau 2001; Ben-Shlomo in press a) and possibly specific technological aspects of pottery production (Killebrew 1998a; 1999, see below). Undecorated pottery includes cooking vessels, such as cooking jugs and possibly kalathoi kraters. The Philistine pottery is the

The description presented above represents the conservative or traditional view of the Philistine material culture advocated mainly by Moshe and Trude Dothan 25

See below, Part 2, on other aspects of the cylindrical loom-weights. The animal bones were systematically studied only in Tel Miqne– Ekron and Ashkelon. Several limited reports on faunal remains from Ashdod cannot be indicative of diet patterns (the animal bones were probably not systematically collected in the field). Remains of the mass burials of Stratum VIIIb in Area D contained mostly cattle (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967:138; Haas 1971); reports of faunal remains from Areas G and H indicate sheep/goat, pig and cattle (Guilday 1971; Kolska-Horowitz 1993; Maher 2005); but, as noted, these are only small, non-representative samples (as is the report on the animal bones from Tell Qasile, Davis 1985). 27 Tubb (2000) suggested the settlement of Sea Peoples in the Jordan Valley (especially at Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh) according to burial customs (in jars/pithoi), metallurgy and other material culture; however this view is not widely accepted (Negbi 1991:227-228). 28 Note though that the seals and bullae from Iron I Ekron (currently processed by the author) show no Aegean influences. 29 Yasur-Landau (2002:4) gives a complementary approach of dealing with social parameters rather than a material culture ‘check-list’. His approach examines typical parameters of an immigrant society according to historical and ethnographic evidence in other cultures (2002:10; see also Berry 1997:7-12 for definition of acculturation process; see Burmeister 2000 for discussions on models of migration processes and their representation in the archaeological record). 26

23

For summaries of these elements see e.g., T. Dothan 1982, 1998; Ehrlich 1996:13-21, Bunimovitz 1999 and Yasur-Landau 2002. These aspects will be mentioned here, but only the Philistine pottery and related issues will be dealt in detail. 24 Finkelstein studied the settlement patterns of the LBII and Iron I Philistia. According to the decrease in number of rural sites during the Iron I he also infers a rise of urbanization in Iron I Philistia (Finkelstein 1996b:233-236).

10

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES (1992; T. Dothan 1982) and A. Mazar (1985b) and accepted with various modifications by most other scholars as well (as Stager 1995; Bunimovitz 1999; Barako 2000; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001; Yasur-Landau 2002). This view generally sees the Philistine phenomenon as representing a group of immigrants arriving from the west—either Greece, Cyprus, the Aegean coast of Turkey, or combinations of these—to Philistia during the beginning of the 12th century BCE, and bringing various aspects of their material culture with them. A relation to the fall of the Mycenaean culture in the west and the records of the Sea Peoples in Egyptian and other sources is often assumed, as is the relevance of the general description of the philistines in the Bible, especially in the books of Judges and Samuel.

context or presence in an Iron I site, cannot be defined by merely a handful Philistine-style decorated pottery sherds, but by the accumulation of various aspects of material culture attesting Aegean or western connections or by dominant quantities of Philistine pottery. 3. Description of Philistine city sites A description of the main results of the excavations of the Philistine city sites, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es-Safi/Gath follows.34 The description includes site location, size and major Iron Age architecture and finds. Ashdod Tel Ashdod is located in the industrial zone south of the modern city of Ashdod, 4.5 km east of the shoreline (map reference 118.129), near of the Nahal Lachish tributaries (its ancient port was probably located in the nearby Tel Mor or Ashdod Yam). The tell is about 34-36 hectares in size (340-360 dunam) with an upper tell of 8 hectares (elevation 52 m, 15 m above its environments) (Figs. 1.21.6). Excavations were conducted in seven seasons during 1962-1972 on behalf of the Israel Departments of Antiquities and the Carnegie Museum in Pitsburgh and directed by M. Dothan, D.N. Freedman and J. Swager. In total 6500 sq.m. were excavated in eight major areas (A, B, C, D, G, H, K and M) and several smaller sections (E, F) (Fig. 1.2). This was the first time a Philistine city was systematically excavated, and there was no question as to the identification of the tell as Ashdod since the Arab village Isdud retained the name.

Other views of the Sea Peoples phenomenon also appear. Artzy relates the Sea Peoples more strongly to the LBA fringe groups of sailors and merchants in the eastern Mediterranean (1997, 1998:445), turning to piracy in the transition into the 12th century BCE. Sherratt views the Sea Peoples culture including the Philistine one not necessarily as one of immigrants at all (1998; in press), but as a reflection of merchants or other groups continuing LBA traditions in the Levant30. The sea-going merchants and/or pirates are described as continuing to control the sea commerce during the Iron I. However, they settled down, thus, manufacturing their own pottery similar to LBA Aegean/Cypriote types (Sherratt 1998).31 In this case this population could be seen as related to the Canaanites and other ethnic groups of the southern Levant in the LBII rather than to immigrants from the Aegean region.32

While there was some ceramic evidence of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze periods, the earliest architectural remains are from the MBIIC, reached only in Area G (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:9,19-26), indicating that the site was then settled only on the acropolis, occupying an area of 8 hectares. The LBA (especially the thirteenth century BCE) is represented in Areas A, B and H as well as in Area G Strata XX-XIV (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:10-13,27-49). In Area H there was a limited exposure of Stratum XIV (M. Dothan 1971:155; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.1) but this period is attested by at least three strata in a nearby trench and by finds which include imported Mycenaean and Cypriote sherds. During the Late Bronze Age II, Ashdod was apparently a fairly large settlement, distinguished by several remarkable Egyptian artifacts of

While the issue of the Sea Peoples in general is beyond the scope of this work these views are quite difficult to accept in relation to the Philistine phenomenon. This is in light of the multitude and variability of the Aegean related material culture recovered in the Philistine city sites (a comprehensive discussion was brought in Barako 2000, Sharon 2001:589-601, Yasur-Landau 2002 and T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:45 and will not be repeated here).33 However, it is important to note that a Philistine 30 See also Sandars 1978; Bauer 1998; Kling 2000 relating to Myc. IIIC:1b pottery in Cyprus. 31 This view is based to a large extent on the similarities between the description of various groups of sea going peoples in the LBII— Nomads of the Sea—and the Sea Peoples of the 13-12th c. Also a strong emphasis is given to the processes in Cyprus, where imitations of Mycenaean wares along with other new aspects of the material culture (cyclopic walls, burial customs etc.) start to appear in the 13th century and continue into the 12th (see also Cook 1988). This view minimizes the ethnic aspects of the Sea Peoples phenomenon while emphasizing its social aspects. Earlier, Sandars also insinuated such a scenario separating between the reports on immigration from the west and the archaeological evidence in Iron I Philistia (1978:201-202). 32 Earlier Bunimovitz (1986; 1990) disputed the entire concept of a philistine material culture (though later proposed a much more conservative view, Bunimovitz 1998, 1999; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001), while Brug questioned various alleged Aegean elements of this material culture (1985:135-144). 33 Note also that the destruction of several major commercial centers in the southern Levant, notably Ugarit, and the cessation of Aegean and

Cypriote imports during the 12th c. BCE, further questions the possibility that the population of the southern coast of the Levant continued the LBII merchant society. 34 There is hardly any information on the Philistine levels of Gaza. However, according to several probes an Iron IIC destruction level was recorded, similar to the 604 BCE destruction level at Ashkelon (Humbert 1998).

11

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 1.2. Tel Ashdod excavation areas. the thirteenth and the beginning of the twelfth centuries BCE (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:9-11).35 Iron I remains were evidenced in Areas A, C, G, H and possibly B and K, but with the exception of Areas G and H (Fig. 1.4), were merely fragmentary or unclear (M. Dothan 1971:25-31). In Area H the sophisticated layout of the buildings and the rich finds in Strata XIII-XI seem to allude to the prosperity of these Philistine dwellings (Fig. 1.4, M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plans. 2.52.7, Figs. 2.18-2.25). Most of the Iron I settlement (Strata XIII-XI) was located on the acropolis and its slopes, expanding to the east towards the beginning of Iron IIA (Strata X-IX; Fig. 1.3): a massive wall and gate were then erected in Area M (Stratum Xb: M. Dothan and Porath 1982). In Area G the early (b) phase of Stratum XIII overlay the debris of LBA Stratum XIV (Fig. 1.4:upper; M. Dothan and Porath 1993:53-55, Plan 8). Strata XIIIb-a illustrate a

Figure 1.3. Ashdod settlement size during the Iron Age. series of small rooms adjacent to a casemate wall or a thickened wall construction. Some of the walls are reused LBII walls. In the southeast there is an open area/courtyard with installations. Stratum XII is better exposed both in Areas G and H (Fig. 1.4:lower right), preserving complete buildings and floor levels, and representing two phases. In Area G a courtyard house is adjacent to the casemate wall (?). In the courtyard (hall?)

35

These include an inscribed door lintel noting the ‘kings’ fan bearer’ (Kitchen 1993:109-110, Fig. 37) and a Ramesses II glass inlay (Barag 1993) from Area G Strata XII-XI, an alabaster vessel bearing a fragmentary cartouche reading ms from Area H (M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Fig. 3.8:12) and a fragment of a Ramesside statue from near the site (Schulman 1993). The weight of this evidence may imply the presence of an Egyptian official during the reign of the nineteenth dynasty.

12

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.4. Iron I Ashdod: Area G, Stratum XIIIb (upper), Area H, Stratum XIII (lower left), Area H, Stratum XII (lower right) (after T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 4). (5337) is a pillared hall flanked by rooms on either side. This building yielded a rich assemblage of small finds including figurines, gold objects, ivories, jewelry and scarabs (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005:26-28, Plans 2.6-2.7). The building excavated south of the street (5128) was of similar plan although not so affluently furnished. The subsequent, and latest Iron I settlement is that of Stratum XI, sub-divided into XIb and XIa. Stratum XIb has more substantial remains than Stratum XIa, which represents an architectural decline (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plans 2.8-2.9). The western and northern parts of this stratum were largely eroded and, therefore, most of the buildings had only partly been recovered. On the eroded western edge of the excavated area a fragment of a massive wall was uncovered, possibly part a city wall that went out of use in Stratum XIa. Iron II city walls were revealed in Ashdod both in Area G, Stratum X (M. Dothan 1971:136; M. Dothan and Porath 1993:92) and in Area M, Strata X-VII (M. Dothan and Porath 1982).

there were a clay tub and a fire installation (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:70-72, Plan 10, Pls. 22-23). In Area H, two different phases of Stratum XIII were detected only in limited areas, as the floor levels in most cases had not been reached (vs. the situation in Area G). Thus, the Late Bronze Age destruction was also barely in evidence in Area H. Nevertheless, Stratum XIII displays a well-planned city comprising two main blocks of structures facing a main street, which ran along the western slope of the tell (Fig. 1.4:lower left). This general plan of Areas H and K is preserved throughout the Iron Age (see M. Dothan 1993c; Ben Shlomo 2003: Fig. 1; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plans 1.2-3). The general layout of the buildings in Area H Stratum XII is similar to that of Stratum XIII with two adjoining buildings north of the street and one south of it. One comprises a large courtyard and a unique apsidal structure located inside the courtyard (Fig. 1.4:lower right; Building 5233; M. Dothan 1971:159, Plan 21; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.5, Figs. 2.15-2.16). The other building

13

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 1.5. Iron II Ashdod: Area M, Stratum IX (after Ashdod IV: Plan 6).

Figure 1.6. Iron II Ashdod: Area D, Strata IX-VI (after Ashdod II-III: Plan 8).

14

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Ashkelon Several excavations and probes have been conducted in the site of Tel Ashkelon, located on the Mediterranean coast, 16 km north of Gaza (map reference 107.119), since the early 20th century (Pythian-Adams 1921, 1923; Stager 1991, 1993). The early excavations exposed in various sections four or five strata, which were identified. The lowest was of LBII, covered by a fire destruction level; two Philistine levels were identified (the upper marks a decrease of Philistine Bichrome pottery) covered by another fire destruction layer (the upper two layer were post-Iron Age) (Pythian-Adams 1921, 1923; T. Dothan 1982:35-36). The Leon Levy Expedition to Tel Ashkelon have been ongoing since 1985. As no final report has yet been published the data on the site is based on various short publications (Stager 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2004) and personal communications. The Iron Age remains have been excavated mostly in the southwestern corner of the tell. However, it is reported that the Iron I Philistine city expanded to 60 hectares and was fortified, probably along the line of the MBIIB fortifications (Fig. 1.7).

No gap was discerned between Phases a and b of Stratum XI in Area H, though Stratum XIb shows signs of destruction. The accumulation of Stratum XI in Area H is thicker than in Area G, possibly reflecting a somewhat longer duration, analogous to Strata XIIa and XI in Area G. Although the general plan of the remains, including the street, is retained, Stratum X marks a clear break in the material culture of Tel Ashdod, as red-slipped pottery almost totally replaces Philistine Bichrome pottery. In the Iron IIA and IIB (Strata IX-VII) Ashdod becomes a larger and probably more important city. The city is expanded and fortified, as the remains in Area M show (Fig. 1.5). During the 8th century it reaches its peak as the remains from Area D in the southern lower city with an industrial potter’s quarter (Figs. 1.6, 2.4-2.5) and possibly cultic area illustrate. This area was destroyed during the late 8th century BCE, probably in relation to Sargon II campaign in 712 BCE (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967:130-136; M. Dothan 1971:86-92) and evidence of mass burials was recorded.36 Stratum VIII in Area H shows complete buildings continuing the well-planned quarter of the Iron I. In Area M there is a sequence of gates and fortifications from Stratum X to Stratum VIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:7-30). Strata VII and VI, representing the 7th century in Areas D, H, K and M illustrate a decline in architectural remains; the gate in Area M continues to survive with minor alterations is Stratum VII, but was destroyed after it (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:34,41).37 Stratum XIIIb in Area H and Stratum XIII in Area H mark the initial appearance of Philistine Monochrome pottery together with early Iron I local pottery forms and no Cypriote or Mycenaean imports. Strata XIIIa-XII in Area G and Stratum XII in Area H include both Philistine Monochrome and Philistine Bichrome pottery; Philistine Monochrome is probably only residual in Stratum XI; in this stratum the Philistine Bichrome is predominant in the assemblage. Philistine Bichrome disappears in Stratum X and red-slipped pottery and Late Philistine forms, LPDW, appear. These continue to appear in Strata IX-VIII. The Iron Age II levels of Ashdod yielded somewhat homogeneous pottery assemblages, with only minor changes between the Iron IIA and early Iron IIB.

36 New salvage excavations north of Tel Ashdod conducted by the IAA reveal a massive brick construction, possibly an Assyrian palace or stronghold built (on a podium?) in the vicinity of the city (probably in relation to Sargon II’s conquest); the destruction of this complex is tentatively dated to the 7th century (Sudilovsky 2004; E. Cogan-Zahavi personal communication). According to pottery from constructional fills of the complex the area was probably also settled during the Iron IIA; at that stage this area could have been part of the lower city of Ashdod (E. Cogan-Zahavi and P. Nahshoni personal communication). 37 Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz suggested that the site of Ashdod was not occupied during the 7th century BCE and that Strata VII-VI represent late 8th/early 7th century occupation (2001). This suggestion is very problematic in light of the 7th century texts mentioning Ashdod (see Ben-Shlomo 2003:101-102).

Figure 1.7. Tel Ashkelon (after Stager 1993:107).

15

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY structures were exposed, though none are complete. The buildings seem to have been built along a street and included various installations. One of the buildings contained a large hall with a rectangular hearth in its center and a bathtub in the corner (upper Fig. 1.8; see T. Dothan 2003:204, Fig. 15). A smaller building (lower part of Fig. 1.8) may have had a similar plan. This phase yielded Philistine Monochrome and a small amount of Philistine Bichrome (similar to Miqne Stratum VIB and Ashdod Stratum XII). Phases 18 and 17 are characterized by Philistine Bichrome pottery, though red-slipped pottery already appears in Phase 17. Phase 16 probably represents the beginning of the Iron IIA, with very few Philistine Bichrome sherds (residual?) and red slipped pottery (including possibly LPDW). There is not much evidence on most of the Iron IIA-B (9th-8th) centuries at Ashkelon, although according to sherds these periods appear in the site. An 8th century underground silo is reported from lower Grid 38. A large part of the 7th century city destroyed by the Babylonians at 604 BCE was excavated (Fig. 1.9; Stager 1996; Master 2001, 2003:51) and yielded large amounts of 7th century Aegean imports. This area was possibly the commercial center of the port of Ashkelon; the structures uncovered may have included storage houses of pottery (see Fig. 1.9).

Figure 1.8. Ashkelon Grid 38, Phase 19 schematic plan. In Grid 38, a series of structures were dated to the Iron Age and yielded Philistine pottery (see Stager 1991:3334; Fig. 1.8).38 These structures lie most probably directly on an LBII stratum, which was possibly destroyed (uncovered in the 2004 season, Stager personal communication). The lowest Iron I stratum, Phase 20, yielded relatively large amounts of Philistine Monochrome pottery, of these a few are of fine fabric (see below). This phase had Canaanite forms typical of the early 12th century and no Philistine Bichrome. Phase 19 is separated by a distinct fill but continues the same architectural orientation (Fig. 1.8). In this phase, several

Figure 1.9. Plan of final Iron Age level at Ashkelon (after Stager 1996).

38 The description of the Iron I-IIA remains in Grid 38 at Ashkelon is based mainly on personal communication with L. Stager and R. Voss, and I am indebted to them for this information. The dating of the phases is only tentative as the material is yet to be processed (see Stager 2004).

The finds from Iron I Ashkelon contain many Aegean elements in addition to the Philistine pottery. These include Aegean type female figurines (Psi and Ashdoda 16

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES types, Stager personal communication), cylindrical loomweights, incised scapulae, a stone tub and a high proportion of pig bones from The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon (Stager 1991:37).

city, which included the olive oil industrial zone on the crest of the southern slope, where the gate and city wall were exposed; and Field X in the northwest corner of the site, in which another portion of the Iron I city wall was discovered.

Tel Miqne-Ekron Tel Miqne-Ekron is located about 35 km southwest of Jerusalem and 4.5 km east of Kibbutz Revadim (map reference 1315.1356), to the north bank of Nahal Timna (Fig. 1.10). It is ca. 20 hectares (200 dunams) in size, of which 4 comprise the upper city (the tell lies 7 m above its environments). In 1957, an intensive survey by Y. Naveh suggested its identification as Biblical Ekron (Naveh 1958). The identification of the site was confirmed by the royal dedicatory inscription found in 1996 (Gitin et al. 1997). The site was excavated so far for 13 seasons, during the years 1981-1996, as a joint project of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research headed by Profs. Trude Dothan and Symour Gitin (see, e.g., Gitin and T. Dothan 1987; T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992:239-254; T. Dothan and Gitin 1993; T. Dothan 1998a; Gitin 1998a; T. Dothan 2000; T. Dothan 2003; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:3-4, Fig. 2).

The occupation of the site includes ceramic evidence spanning the Chalcolithic-MBIIA periods, and architectural remains from the MBIIB/C until the end of the Iron Age. Remains of a Roman occupation were also uncovered. Stratum X represents the MBIIB-LBI, Strata IX-VIII the LBII, Strata VII-IV the Iron I, Strata IV-III39 the Iron IIA, Stratum II the Iron IIB and Stratum IC-IB the Iron IIC. The lower city was occupied during the Middle Bronze Age II (Strata X), Iron Age I (Strata VIIIV), and late Iron Age IIB (Stratum I). All these strata are represented in the upper city, which also contained the Late Bronze Age (Strata X-VIII) and Iron Age IIA-B (Strata III-II), which are not represented in the lower city. Limited Roman and later remains were found in Fields IV and V.

LBII, Iron I, (Iron IIA), Iron IIB-IIC Iron I, (Iron IIC) Iron I Iron IIC Figure 1.11. Tel Miqne, Field I, Stratum VIIA. Remains of early Iron I structures and a series of pottery kilns were uncovered in Field INE in Strata VII-VI (altogether 1025 sq.m. excavated in this area). Stratum VIIA is the earliest context in Field I in which Philistine Monochrome was discovered (Fig. 1.11). Ann Killebrew notes in a few places, the initial Iron I layer (Stratum VIIB or Phase 9D), just above the LBII destruction (Stratum VIII), did not contain Philistine Monochrome pottery (Killebrew 1986:8-9; 1998b:383). Remains of the

Iron I, Iron IIC

Figure 1.10. Tel Miqne-Ekron excavation fields.

39 The Iron Age IIA is seen in this study as a long period covering the 10th and 9th centuries (see Table 1.2). Strata X-IX at Ashdod and Stratum IV at Ekron are seen as a transitional Iron I/IIA horizon as the pottery includes many early Iron IIA forms (Ortiz 2000; T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b); this is in some difference than the preliminary reports of the excavators (e.g. T. Dothan 1989; Gitin 1989), see below.

The main fields of excavation (Fig. 1.10) include Field I on the northeast acropolis, the upper city; Field IV in the center of the lower city, Field III in the southern lower 17

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

1. Str. VII A.

2. Str. VI

3. Building 350 (Str. V-IV)

4. Building 650 (IB) Figure 1.12. Tel Miqne, Field IV: 1. Stratum VIIA; 2. Stratum VIB (after T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 2); 3. Stratum V-IV (after T. Dothan 1998a: Fig. 7); 4. Complex 650, Stratum IB (after Gitin 1998a: Fig. 11). representing Iron I remains; 1225 sq.m. were excavated in the upper part representing Iron IIC). A series of Iron I structures were built on top of the Middle Bronze Age remains. In Stratum VIIB, a single-room structure (357) with two pillar bases and a rectangular hearth was exposed, surrounded by an open area with several installations (Fig. 1.12:1t). In Stratum VIIA another single-room building (352) with a large brick-lined silo in it was added (Fig. 1.12:1). In Stratum VIB these two structures were incorporated into a large architectural complex: Building 352 was turned into the entrance room to the large building 351, and building 357 continued to be used with minor alterations (Fig. 1.12:2). To the north and east of building 351 other structures were

city wall were also found in this field, probably relating to Stratum VIIA or VI. A small room from Stratum V was interpreted as cultic according to its finds (T. Dothan 1989:9, Fig. 1.7; T. Dothan 2003:208, Fig. 17). Several pottery kilns were identified on the eastern edge of Field I and assigned to Strata VII and VI (Fig. 1.11; see discussion in Part 2.3, Figs. 2.14-2.15). The late Iron I/early Iron IIA, represented Stratum IV, was nearly absent from this field, while this area is the only area to clearly attest the late Iron IIA and the early IIB (9th-8th centuries BCE, Strata III-II). Field IV is situated in the central part of the lower tell (Fig. 1.12; 625 sq.m. were excavated in the lower part 18

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Table 1.1 The main Philistine sites (area in dunam) (see also Finkelstein 2000: Table 8.2; Uziel 2003: Table 3) Site/period Miqne/Ekron

Late Bronze 40

Iron I 200 fortified

Iron IIA 40

Iron IIB 40

Ashdod

80 fortified?

100 fortified?

220 fortified

260 fortified

Ashkelon

60

?

?

Safi/Gath

Areas A,E 270

500-600? Fortified? Areas A,E 230

Areas A,C 500

Areas A, F 250

Iron IIC 200 olive oil/temple complex 220/260 open areas fortified?? Commercial quarter ?

Bichrome pottery (see Table 1.2). The later strata were largely eroded in this field. Generally, Stratum VII at Tel Miqne marks the initial Iron I with Philistine Monochrome and early Iron I local forms (no Cypriote or Mycenaean imports); Stratum VIB includes both Philistine Monochrome and small quantities of Philistine Bichrome pottery. Strata VIA-V mark the dominance of Philistine Bichrome (Philistine Monochrome is residual) (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Table 1). Strata VA-IVA include some Philistine Bichrome but mostly degenerated Philistine pottery and marks the appearance of red-slipped pottery (roughly contemporary with Tell Qasile Stratum X, Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b). Strata III-IIB yielded LPDW forms and typical Iron IIA-IIB pottery, while Stratum ICB represents the end of the 8th and the 7th centuries (Gitin 1998a). Stratum IC is associated with the Assyrian period, in which Ekron was a center of olive oil production (Gitin 1995, 2003a). Stratum IB, represents the following period of the 7th c. BCE, showing much continuity with the Stratum IC remains.

erected; in one of them (353) several installations, including basins, hearths and tabuns, were found (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 2:2-4). The architectural stages are correlated by the development in the pottery assemblage: in Strata VIIB-A Philistine Monochrome pottery is found in significant quantities, while in Stratum VIB the Philistine Bichrome pottery is introduced (T. Dothan and Gitin 1993:1053-1054; T. Dothan 2003:193-194; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:4). Later in Strata V-IV a large public building (Building 350, Fig. 1.12:3), recently identified by T. Dothan as a temple (2002, 2003), was built with deep stone foundations and included a main pillared hall with installations and three rooms to the east with benches and special finds on them (T. Dothan 2003: Figs. 4-6). This building, and the adjacent structures were violently destroyed in Stratum IVA (see Ortiz 2000 for the material of Stratum IV). After a long gap, during most of the Iron IIA and Iron IIB, but in the same location, a monumental temple-palace structure is built in Stratum IC of the 7th century BCE (Fig. 1.12:4; Building 650, sized 38 x 57 m.; Gitin 1998a, 2003b: Figs. 1-2). The royal inscription, dated to the erection of this structure, was found in its cella. Stratum IB is destroyed by the Babylonians in 604 BCE.

Tell es-Safi/Gath The site of Tell es-Safi is identified by most scholars as Gath (e.g., Rainey 1975; Aharoni 1987; Schniedewind 1998).40 The site lies on the border between the Judean Shephelah and the coastal plains near the southern bank of Ha’elah river (map reference 135.123). The site was surveyed and excavated briefly in 1899 by Bliss and Macalister (1902; see also Stern 1993; Avisar 2004)41, surveyed by Aharoni and Amiran (1955), M. Israel (1963) and M. Dayan (Ornan 1986; see also Uziel 2003:8). From 1996 the tell is excavated by an expedition headed by A.M. Maeir of Bar Ilan University (Maeir 2003:237-246). Up to the 2004 season, excavations have

Field III is situated in the southern part of the lower tell (altogether 900 sq.m. were excavated here). The first notable Iron Age remains are from Stratum VI including structures containing an assemblage of Monochrome and Bichrome Philistine forms. In Stratum V a large public building with plastered bricks was excavated; similar architectural remains continue in Stratum IV. In the Iron IIC, this area became the industrial zone of Ekron containing over 115 olive oil installations (Eitam 1985). The city wall and gate was located in this area; these were probably erected in Stratum VI and continued through the Iron I and rebuilt in the 7th century BCE. The material from this area still awaits further research.

40 Kitchen (1973:62) and Stager (1995:343) questioned this identification as the site it too close to Ekron and suggested Tel Haror (on account of few Philistine Monochrome sherds found there). 41 Bliss and Macalister’s excavation was conducted mostly on the northern and southwestern parts of the Tell (Avisar 2004:164). They reported a ‘temple of the Pre Israelite Period’ (1902:31-34). According to a reanalysis of the 1899 excavations this may possibly be a domestic structure of the Iron I (Avisar 2004:37-46). Portions of a city wall (Bliss and Macalister 1902:30-31) may date to the Iron IIA (Avisar 2004:3037).

Field X, on the western slope of the lower tell (200 sq.m. excavated), yielded remains of a city wall with adjacent structures (Bierling 1998). Two strata bearing Philistine Monochrome pottery were correlated with the general Strata VIIB-A while Stratum VI contained Philistine

19

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 1.13. Tell es-Safi/Gath excavation areas (after Maeir 2003).

Figure 1.14. Tell es-Safi/Gath Safi settlement size during the Iron Age: Iron I (top), Iron IIA (middle), Iron IIB (bottom) (after Uziel 2003, according to pottery distribution in survey).

20

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES phase (representing the 7th c.), conforming with he identification of Tell es-Safi as Gath, as the city lost its independence in the 7th century BCE. Temp Strata 2-1 (Stratum A1) represent various modern remains.

been conducted in three major areas, A, C and E (Fig. 1.13).42 Area A (Fig. 1.13) is located on the eastern slopes of the tell. The earliest architectural remains reached so far in this area are from the Iron I (Temp. Stratum 7-8). These strata were, however, exposed in small areas; nevertheless, Philistine Monochrome sherds of various fabrics were found (Uziel 2003: Pl. 3:1), as were cylindrical loom-weights and bovine scapula, testifying to the various components the Philistine material culture. Philistine Bichrome was also found in the excavation and survey (Uziel 2003: Pl. 3). The Iron I-IIA transitional phase and early Iron IIA (Stratum A5-A4) were exposed in larger areas including floor levels. It seems that the site expanded during this period (Fig. 1.14, Uziel 2003; Uziel and Maeir 2005). In these phases degenerated Philistine forms together with some Bichrome and early forms of red slipped pottery were found with only minor amounts of LPDW pottery. Although the differences between Strata 6 and 5 could have implications on the understanding of the Iron I/IIA transition, it seems so far that these two phases yield similar finds and are relatively closely dated.

Figure 1.15. Tell es-Safi/Gath, Area A, Stratum A3.

The main phase excavated in Area A is dated to the latter part of the Iron IIA, Temp. Stratum 4 (Stratum A3, Fig. 1.15). It was uncovered to an extent of over 1200 sq.m. and included a destruction layer with many complete vessels (over 500) on the floors (Fig. 1.16). Most of the buildings seem to have had some industrial/agricultural function with several agricultural installations (Fig. 1.15). In the eastern part a street was defined, probably continuing from the Iron I. The main structure, probably two storied, was excavated to the west of the street. Another partial building was excavated to the east of the street. The pottery includes red-slipped pottery (similar to Lachish Level IV and Tel Miqne Stratum III) with a large assemblage of LPDW pottery (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004, Shai et al. in press), Cypro-Phoenecian vessels (especially Black on Red juglets), ‘pre LMLK’ jars (Shai and Maeir 2003), and other types of Iron IIA coastal tradition pottery (Shai 2000; Maeir 2001). The excavators dated this destruction to Hazael in the end of the 9th century BCE, thus, creating another “datum line’’ in the Iron Age prior to the Sennacherib 701 destruction of Lachish Stratum III (Maeir 2003:244). Above the Stratum 4 destruction there were patchy remains of Temp. Stratum 3 (Stratum A2, Iron IIB) correlating to Lachish Level III (finds include LMLK stamps). There are hardly any Iron II remains above this 42 In the 2004 season a new excavation area was opened on the acropolis, Area F, in which a destruction level dated to the late 8th century (Temp. Stratum 3) was exposed. Until 2004 a general temporary stratigraphy was employed for the site, referring to all excavation fields together (see, e.g., Maeir 2003). Recently, towards the publication of the first volume of final reports, the stratigraphy of Area A was finalized, and therefore the final strata for this area are used here: Stratum A1=Temp. Stratum 1-2; Stratum A2= Temp. Stratum 3; Stratum A3= Temp. Stratum 4; Stratum A4-A5= Temp. Stratum 5-6.

Figure 1.16. Destruction layer of Stratum A3 at Tell es-Safi, Area A.

21

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 1.2. Comparative chronological chart of final LBII-Iron I strata in southern Israel according to high chronology (mostly according to Mazar 1985b: Table 1; Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming a) (MC=Monochrome, BC=Bichrome) Period/site

Ashdod Area G XIV

Ashdod Area H XIV

Miqne Field I VIIIB

Miqne Field IV --

10-9

LBII-IrIA (Suggested by Finkelstein)

--

XIV??

VIIIA-VIIB?

--

-

Iron IA (12th c.) Iron IA/B (12th c.)

XIIIb XIIIa-XII

XIII XII

VIIA VI

VIIB-A VIB

Iron IB (11th ) Iron IB (11th ) Iron IB/IIA (early 10th?)

XII XI Xb?

XIa-b XIa-b XI?

VI-V V V

Iron IB/IIA (early 10th?)

Xb?

X

Iron IIA (10th c.)

X

th

LBII (13 c.)

Safi

Ashkelon Grid 38

Qasile

Batash

Pottery

--

VI

21?

--

--

8? 8-7

20 19

---

---

VIA VC-VB VA-IVB

7 7 6?

18 18 17?

XII XI X

V? V V

(IV)

IVA

5-6

16

X

IVB?

X

(IV-III)

(IVA?)

5

15

--

IV

LBII imports No LBII imports, no Philistine pottery Phil. MC Phil. MC+BC Phil. BC Phil. BC Phil. BC +degenerat ed Phil. degenerate d+ red slipped Red slipped+ LPDW(?)

Tel Mor

Lachish

Tel Sera’

Aphek

Pottery

6 5

VII VI

X IX

X12 X11

Period/site

Beit Mirsim

Gezer

LBII (13th c.) LBII-IrIA

C C

XV XIV

Beth Shemesh IV IVA?

Iron IA (12th c.) Iron IA/B (12th c.) Iron IB (11th ) Iron IB (11th ) Iron IB/IIA (early 10th) Iron IB/IIA (early 10th) Iron IIA (10th c.)

B1 B1

XIV XIII

III? III

5 4

VI Gap

IX Gap?

X11/gap Gap?

LBII imports No LBII imports, no Philistine pottery Phil. MC Phil. MC+BC

B2 B2 A1

XII XI X

III III III?

4 4 3?

Gap Gap Gap?

VIII VIII VIII

X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9

Phil. BC Phil. BC Phil. BC+degenerated

A1

IX?

IIB?

3

V?

VII

X10-X9

A1

VIII

IIB

3

V-IV

VII

?

Phil. Degenerated+ red slipped Phil. Degenerated+ red slipped

Area E is located immediately to the east of Area A, on a lower terrace. Earliest remains includes structure with floors from the EBII-III period (Temp. Stratum 11). Here Late Bronze Age remains were exposed just under the surface (Temp. Strata 9-10) as the upper phases were eroded. Two or three architectural phases were defined and dated to the 13th century BCE (Maeir 2003:241-242). The stratum representing the initial Iron I, characterized by only Philistine Monochrome pottery, is not yet clearly identified; possibly Temp. Stratum 8. Iron I pits with Philistine Monochrome and mainly Bichrome pottery were dug into these strata (Temp. Stratum 7).

4. The Philistine Pottery a. History of research Iron I Philistine pottery Philistine pottery is the better known, more abundant and most distinct component of the Philistine material culture. Philistine Bichrome pottery was recognized as such for the first time in the beginning of the 20th century by F.B. Welch (1900) and then by D. Mackenzie in his excavation of tombs at Beth Shemesh (Mackenzie 191213). R.A.S. Macalister after his excavations at Gezer published much Philistine Bichrome pottery (1912) and integrated it in the concept of the Philistine culture (1914; see review at T. Dothan 1982:94, Sharon 2001:560-576). Philistine Bichrome pottery, initially defined according to its decoration, is a distinct ware with black and red decoration over white slip depicting various imaginative decorative motifs. This ware was subsequently identified at the 1930s excavations at Beth Shemesh by E. Grant (Grant 1929, later Wright 1966). Pythian-Adams excavated soundings at Ashkelon with some Bichrome Philistine pottery, for the first time in a historical Philistine city (1921, 1923). During the late 1940’s, in the

A trench was identified around the tell by aerial photographs (Area C; this feature is 2 km long). Area C6 was located in the trench and was opened to date and characterize it. The results show that it was dug, used, and subsequently went out of use during the Iron IIA, and that some cultic activity was evident in this area (Maeir 2003:245-246). This trench may be related to the siege of Hazael, before the destruction of Stratum 13.

22

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES excavations at Tell Qasile, another assemblage of Philistine pottery was discovered (B. Mazar 1950-51). The excavations at Tell Qasile incited T. Dothan, and later M. Dothan, to study the Philistine material culture, especially the pottery, in a more systematic way. This resulted in the work of T. Dothan, ‘The Philistine and Their Material Culture’ (1967; 1982), creating the typological framework for the Philistine Bichrome pottery and other aspects of Philistine material culture, and focusing on its Aegean origins.

appearance of Philistine Monochrome (or Myc. IIIC:1) pottery, the second by Philistine Bichrome pottery, the third by red slipped and degenerated Philistine forms and the fourth commencing in the beginning of the Iron IIA, by the Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW, the socalled ‘Ashdod Ware’). Iron II Philistine decorated pottery (LPDW) Although the existence of this pottery has been noted in the past, it has not yet been studied in depth and its typological definition, chronological range, cultural affiliation and provenience are insufficiently known.

The earlier phase of Philistine pottery, the Philistine Monochrome or Mycenaean IIIC:1(b) pottery was recognized only later on. Philistine Monochrome sherds were first discovered in Area H of Tel Ashdod in 1968 (and later in Area G) and it was realized that a unique class of pottery is present in the earliest levels of the Iron Age I. It was characterized by a monochrome decoration, lack of white slip and finer clay. This ware was seen as similar to Mycenaean IIIC pottery from Sinda (Furumark 1944; 1965) and especially to early 12th century Mycenaean IIIC pottery that had just been published from Enkomi (Dikaios 1969). Therefore, in the beginning, it was thought it was imported from Cyprus (M. Dothan 1972). The INAA results of several Monochrome sherds from Ashdod, already published in 1971 (Asaro, Perlman and M. Dothan), showed that these sherds were not imports, but were made from clay sources from Philistia including clays used for the later Philistine Bichrome ware.43

During the excavations at Tel Ashdod in the 1960s, M. Dothan and Freedman defined a then new type of decorated pottery as the “Ashdod Ware” (1967:130-131). Although its designation implies that the ware is unique to Ashdod, it was found at other Iron II sites on the southern Coastal Plain as well. According to the excavators, the decoration had a “resemblance to CyproPhoenician ware.” However, based on the differences between the two wares, M. Dothan and Freedman defined “Ashdod Ware” as a distinct ceramic group. In subsequent reports on the excavations at Ashdod the ware was sometimes defined as having a “black decoration on a red-burnished slip” and it was noted that it did not have parallels (M. Dothan 1971:113). Over the years, vessels decorated in the LPDW style have been found at several sites, in most cases in Iron IIA contexts. So far no earlier attempt has been made to examine this pottery group as a distinct assemblage, i.e., to define its typology, chronology, distribution and production centers. The discovery of a large assemblage of LPDW vessels in Tell es-Safi Stratum A3 during the late 1990’s was a turning point in the study of this ware. A comprehensive definition, study, and analysis of this pottery group is carried by I. Shai, A. Maeir and the author, and the initial results have been published (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004). This pottery group is one of the main concerns of this study.

During the early 1980’s the Tel Miqne-Ekron project was initiated and already in the acropolis in Field I a large amount of Philistine Monochrome pottery was discovered. This material too was chemically analyzed by INAA (Gunneweg et al. 1986) and petrography (Killebrew 1998a, 1998b) and was found to be locally produced. In addition, the pottery was found in relation to several kilns. Philistine Monochrome pottery from Field I at Miqne was studied and published by Ann Killebrew (1998a; 1998b; 2000), and recently a more detailed study incorporating data from Ashdod and Tel Miqne Fields I, III, IV and X was published (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004).

b. Fabric characteristics of Iron I Philistine pottery Although the Philistine Monochrome pottery is very limited in its appearance (typologically, chronologically and geographically) it illustrates a rather wide variation of clay fabric. This phenomenon was noticed in the past (T. Dothan 1982:98,113; M. Dothan and Porath 1993:5556; T. Dothan 1998b:154; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:31) but was not well defined or studied, nor was sufficient emphasis placed on its implications. This issue is one of the major concerns of this study. According to the visual appearance of the clay of the Philistine Monochrome pottery it can be divided roughly into a fine fabric and a regular fabric; the ‘regular’ fabric includes two or three fabric types as well. The visual grouping takes into account several parameters as color, homogeneity, grain size, inclusions and firing (illustrated by the appearance and color of the core of the sherd). Various technical aspects of the decoration are also considered. It is acknowledged that this description has a

T. Dothan presented a sequence including a ‘Mycenaean IIIC:1b prologue’ and three phase Philistine Bichrome model (1982:96). The first phase is the floruit of the ware (early to late 12th c.), the second shows a slight decline (late 12th to middle 11th c.) and the third a ‘degenerate’ phase (middle 11th to early 10th c.) (Table 1.3). The sequence suggested here represents a longer period and is divided into four stages: the first stage is marked by the 43 It was also suggested at that stage by Moshe Dothan that the Philistine Monochrome pottery represents an earlier (late 13th - early 12th c.) wave of Sea Peoples arriving to Philistia (T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992:162; M. Dothan 1993d), possibly in relation to the sea battle with the Sea Peoples described in the Medinat Habu reliefs. Thus, the Philistine Bichrome pottery reflects the culture of the Biblical Philistines settling later during the 12th c. BCE.

23

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 1.3 Typological stages in Philistine pottery Pottery

Main characteristics

Main sites(strata)

Period

LBII

Cyp. and MycIIIB imports

LBIIB

Monochrome (Mycenaean IIIC:1b) Philistine Bichrome

‘Pure’ Aegean style: whitish clay (partly) and monochrome decoration Aegean style with Cypriote, Canaanite and Egyptian influences; white slip and red and black decoration Degenerated Philistine forms; red slipped with black decoration Coastal forms; distinctive decorative technique

Miqne (VIII); Ashdod (XIV); Safi (T.S. 10-9) Miqne (VII-VIB); Ashdod (XIII-XII); Ashkelon (20-19); Safi (T.S. 8?) Miqne (VIA-V); Ashdod (XIIIa-XI); Ashkelon (19-16); Safi (T.S. 7)

Chronology c. BCE Late 13th

Iron IA

Early 12th

Iron IB

Late/mid 12th11th

Miqne (VB-IVA); Ashdod (X); Safi (A5-A4); Ashkelon (16) Miqne (IV-II); Ashdod (XVIII); Safi (A3); Ashkelon (16-15)

Iron IB/IIA

Late 11th– Early 10th

Iron IIA-B

10th-8th

Degenerated/ Red-slipped LPDW

This fabric seems to be somewhat more common at Tel Ashdod (Strata XIII and XII). At least as common is another regular fabric with a reddish/reddish-brown color, high firing (similar to the clay of Bichrome pottery) and with more inclusions, but not as sandy as the gray fabric; the decoration is always in red (see Fig. 1.20; this fabric is referred here as ‘reddish Philistine Monochrome’ pottery; Group C in M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). It should be noted that all forms and decorative motifs characterizing the Philistine Monochrome pottery appear in all fabrics, and this distinction is related only to technological and/or clay-source factors. Another possible technological property of the Monochrome pottery is their production on a fast wheel (Killebrew 1998a:244,247; 1998b:400), differentiating it from LBII Canaanite pottery (see Part 2.1 for discussion). It was one of the main aims of this study to examine the fabric variability of this pottery with the aid of archaeometric methods, in order to clarify whether it represents a different provenance, and/or is it related to technological reasons.

very strong subjective aspect; nevertheless, further petrographic and chemical analysis carried in this and other studies (see Part 4.5), substantiate these fabric categorizations. The fine fabric (Fig. 1.20; henceforth referred to as ‘fine Philistine Monochrome pottery’; Group A in M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005; see also T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:31-32, fine and coarse fabrics) is a very welllevigated fabric, shows no coarse temper, and is of very light brown, whitish or buff color—evidently representing a calcareous clay. It is well-fired usually with no core (implying it was fired in an oxidizing environment), although not necessarily fired at a high temperature. The ware often has a metallic and sometimes egg-shell properties and it is also of higher hardness. The monochrome decoration is of a dark- or reddish-brown shade and the fine patterns are well executed and the surface is smoothed. Another variant of this fabric has a pinkish color (see Fig. 1.20; designated as pink Philistine Monochrome pottery). All in all, the fine Philistine Monochrome fabric is more similar to imported Late Bronze Myc. IIIB fabric, although still visually distinct from the Mycenaean fabric in most cases. The fine fabric comprises approximately 10% of the Monochrome pottery at Ashdod but larger percentages at Tel Miqne (about 50%, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:31), and is so far very rare at Ashkelon (see below on the implications of this).

The fabric of Philistine Bichrome pottery is much more homogenous than the Philistine Monochrome. It is usually reddish-brown or grayish, with a moderate amount of small inclusions. The fabric is highly fired, but often has a core, possibly caused from by less oxidized firing (or to some extent the existence of more organic material, see Part 2.1). In most cases it cannot be visually differentiated by other types of contemporary pottery found at Philistine sites (of Canaanite forms). Rarely, Philistine Bichrome vessels show a fabric that is more similar to the Philistine Monochrome fine fabric—these are termed as ‘fine Philistine Bichrome’. Similar fabrics appear for the degenerated and red slipped Philistine pottery; in these pottery groups the finer fabric disappears.

The ‘regular’ Philistine monochrome is comprised of two main fabrics. This fabric is not as well-levigated and light colored as the fine fabric. The vessels occasionally have a darker core, absent from the fine fabric. Of these one fabric has a grayish (or greenish-gray) color and sandy texture; the decoration is in a very dark brown shade (see Fig. 1.20; referred here as gray Philistine Monochrome Ware; Group B in M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005).

24

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES c. Typology of Iron I Philistine pottery44 The presentation of Philistine pottery will be somewhat different here than in other previous studies (Killebrew 1998b, 2000; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004). There, the earlier Philistine Monochrome (or Mycenaean IIIC:1b) was discussed as a separate phenomenon than the later Philistine Bichrome, while here the description will be more continuous (in similarity to T. Dothan and Zukerman in press a).45 The entire Iron I Philistine pottery is seen here as an integral and progressive phenomenon, with repercussions to the Iron IIA. The Iron I pottery is divided into three chronologically consecutive styles: Philistine Monochrome, Bichrome and degenerated/red slipped (Table 1.3). Most types appear is all styles, though not all (Table 1.4); the decoration on the other hand shows stronger differences between the styles (Table 1.5). Thus, for example, bell-shaped bowls are an Iron I Philistine type with a certain development through this period in the Monochrome, Bichrome and degenerated styles.46 The Iron II Philistine ware (LPDW) displays a change in repertoire of vessel forms and decorative techniques, and will be described separately.

repertoire, and can be considered a “restricted Philistine” type.47 Carinated bowls with strap handles (CSHB; Fig. 1.17:3,6; Samples: AS32, AS33, AS45, MQ3, MQ58): These are conical or shallow angular bowls (FS295) with carination and everted or rounded rim and two horizontal strap handles (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:7, Type BC, Figs. 5:10-11, 6:1-7). A larger variant of this form has a diameter of ca. 24-30 cm and high carination (Fig. 1.17:6; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Type B); Type C is the more common variant which is ca. 12-15 cm in diameter and has a sharp carination at mid-body. At Ashdod, a group of coarser and thicker-walled carinated bowls with flat ring or disc base was also found. The CSHB are either undecorated or decorated with simple horizontal bands on rim and interior and a spiral on the interior base. Small carinated bowls (Fig. 1.17:3) were found in Miqne, Ashdod (for both see Killebrew 2000; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:7-8 and references therein), Ashkelon (Stager 1995: Fig. 3:41-43,48) and Tell es-Safi/Gath (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 35:7-8).48

Bowls Rounded sided bowls with horizontal handles (Figs. 1.17:1-2, 1.23:1; Sample MQ15): This type is not very common, appearing so far only at Tel Miqne-Ekron (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:7, Type A, Fig. 5:1-9). The bowls have a diameter of ca 20-30 cm, everted rim, ring base, and hemispherical/shallow body (FS296/FS294). Horizontal handles are attached just below the rim. This type clearly does not continue to the Philistine Bichrome

Bell-shaped bowls (Fig. 1.17:4-5)49: The most common Philistine pottery form is by far the bell-shaped bowl (henceforth BSB) also termed skyphos (FS284). This dominant form comprises about half of the Philistine Monochrome assemblage (Killebrew’s Type AS4; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:8-12, Type D, Figs. 6,8,9-13; here, Fig. 1.17:4-5). These bowls have a deep hemispherical body, the rim usually everted, with a ring or concave base and two horizontal handles with a rounded section. There are variations in size and shape, especially of the body profile. Sizes vary from small (diameter 8-12 cm) to medium (diameter 12-18 cm); larger bowls are rare and more common of Bichrome BSBs. In Monochrome pottery many of these bowls are undecorated or decorated only with inner and/our outer bands (usually near the rim). A large group of these was found in L4106 of Stratum XIIIb at Area G of Ashdod. In other cases the decoration consists usually of a main register delimited by horizontal bands with various

44 As the Iron I Philistine pottery has been presented by the works above, its presentation in this work is not exhaustive (especially the detailed parallels) and attempts to be as brief as possible. The typological plates (Figs. 1.17-1.19) are also as schematic as possible. However, as there is a relatively large amount of data, the discussion has to be still somewhat lengthy. On the other hand the LPDW typology discussed in the following section attempts to be more detailed (as are the figure plates, Figs. 1.22-1.34, illustrating as many examples for each form as possible). However, as the material existing from this group is so far lesser than in the Iron I. 45 It should be noted that in the initial descriptions of the Philistine pottery by T. Dothan (1982:94-96, Table 2) an attempt to create such a typological structure was also made. This was, nevertheless, before the full recognition of the earlier Monochrome style. 46 Recently, T. Dothan and Zukerman suggested an even more continuous terminology—Philistine 1, 2 and 3 (forthcoming a; see also T. Dothan 1982:290, Table 2). Although, this terminology creates a break from the well-known terms in research it has distinct advantages. It simplifies the description of the pottery, emphasizes the phenomenon of a local Philistine culture and creates flexibility for further finer typology. While the Monochrome style illustrates the affinities to its Aegean and Cypriote prototypes, the degenerated style is the furthest from this prototype. Therefore, in this study, the general description of the Philistine pottery will be in the form of T. Dothan and Zukerman (forthcoming a), while the Monochrome typology will follow T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004 within this larger assemblage. As the recent works of T. Dothan and Zukerman cover the typology of most of the Iron I Philistine pottery, no new typological numbering was given in this work, and the type numbers of T. Dothan and Zukerman are referred to when relevant. Additional Philistine Bichrome examples from Miqne were given from Tel Miqne Field IV forthcoming report (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b). Reference to Late Helladic form-types of Furumark’s work (FS) and decorative motifs (FM) will also be made.

47 A ‘restricted Philistine type’ can be defined as an element of material culture restricted either to the initial Philistine stage (Monochrome stage or Iron IA) or to the major Philistine city sites. 48 A variation of this form, having a rounded carination and a cymaprofile (Miqne Stratum VC, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 6:3), was found in a relatively small numbers in stratigraphically later assemblages of Philistine Monochrome pottery in Miqne Strata VI-V and Ashdod Stratum XI (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.43:18-21). This form could be considered a later development of a carinated bowl shape, which preserved some of the characteristics of this type. However, in general this form as such does not continue to appear in Philistine Bichrome pottery. 49 Philistine Monochome samples: AK4, AK13, AK15, AS25, AS26, AS31, AS44, AS46, AS51, AS53, AS54, AS58, MQ7, MQ8, MQ9, MQ10, MQ13, MQ14, MQ30, MQ32, MQ33, MQ34, MQ36, MQ42, MQ54, SF41, SF49; Philistine Bichrome samples: AK16, AS35, BM2, MQ4, SF47.

25

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.17. Iron I Philistine forms. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Site Miqne Miqne Miqne Miqne Miqne Miqne Miqne Qasile Azor Azor Safi Qasile Miqne Miqne Ashdod

Ware MC MC MC MC MC MC BC BC BC Deg. Deg. RSP ND ND ND

Type BL A BL A CSHB (C) BSB (D) BSB (D) CSHB (B) BSB BSB Shallow bowl BSB BSB BSB Kalathos CJ CJ

Sample No./publication/ref. Killebrew 2000: Fig. 12.1:3 Killebrew 1998b: Fig. 10:9 D & Z 2004: Fig. 6:1 D & Z 2004: Fig. 6:14 D & Z 2004: Fig. 5:7 D & Z 2004: Fig. 3:10 MQ4 Dothan 1982: Fig. 2:6 Dothan 1982: Fig. 54:2 Tomb D20 (68/1) 530203 Mazar 1985a: Fig. 29:14 D & Z 2004: Fig. 11:2 D & Z 2004: Fig. 16:4 Ashdod V: Fig. 23:6

*For abbreviations see Appendix C; Deg.=degenerate Philistine; D & Z= T. Dothan and Zukerman;

26

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

2

1

4

3

6

5

Philistine Monochrome

7

9

8

Philistine Bichrome

10

12

11

Degenerated and red slipped Philistine

13

14

Figure 1.17. Iron I Philistine forms.

27

15

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.18. Iron I Philistine open forms. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Site Miqne Ashdod Miqne Miqne Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Qasile Qasile Ashdod Ashdod

Ware MC MC MC MC MC MC BC BC RSP Deg. RSP Deg.

Type BS KR (E) BS KR (E) Cup Tray (L) Cup (O) Kylix (G) BS KR BS KR KR BS KR KR KR

Sample No./publication/ref. Killebrew 1998b: Fig. 7:14 AS57 D & Z 2004: Fig. 12:5 D & Z 2004: Fig. 12:4 Ashdod VI: Fig. 3.10:23 AS55 Ashdod V: Fig. 27:1 Ashdod V: Fig. 27:4 Mazar 1985a: Fig. 40:7 Mazar 1985a: Fig. 46:6 Ben-Shlomo 2003: Fig. 4:4 Ashdod VI: Fig. 3.45:14

28

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

3

1

6

4 5

2 Philistine Monochrome

7

8

Philistine Bichrome

9

10

11 Degenerated and red slipped Philistine

Figure 1.18. Iron I Philistine open forms.

29

12

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY motifs. Other bowls, though rarer, have more elaborate motifs as spirals: running, antithetic, stemmed or parallel,tongues: stemmed or antithetic, suspended halfcircles etc. (see T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:35-41).

Bell-shaped bowls appear in the degenerated and red slipped Philistine pottery as well (Fig. 1.17:10-12). It is not surprising that the dominant Philistine form would have both the chronologically and stylistically widest range as the geographically largest distribution. The degenerated BSB is characterized by smaller handles, often adjoined almost vertically to the body of the bowl, rather than lying horizontally; they are also located somewhat higher. These bowls are either undecorated or red-slipped without burnish. Examples for degenerated bell-shaped bowls come from Ashdod, Strata XI-X (e.g., M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 74:3), Tel Miqne, Stratum IV (e.g., Ortiz 2000:162-163, Fig. 7:1-5), Tell Qasile, Strata XI-X (Mazar 1985a: Figs. 24:12-13, 34:6), Azor (Figs. 1.17:10, 1.24:13-14) and Aphek, Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003: Pls. V.36:13, V.39:9). Examples for red slipped BSB come from the same strata in these sites (Miqne: Ortiz 2000: Fig. 7:6; Qasile: Mazar 1985a: Figs. 25:11, 29:1415, 34:9; Aphek: Gadot 2003: Pl. V.47:10; Ashdod: M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 74:2; M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 45:1, 47:10).

It should be noted that this form, which is so common in Iron I Philistia, is practically absent from the repertoire of the LBII Aegean imports including mainly closed vessels (Leonard 1994; Table 1.4; Wijngaarden 2002:13-15,31124). This can be seen as an indication that the Philistine Monochrome pottery does not continue LBII imports and their imitations, but is a new and unrelated phenomenon. Monochrome or Myc. IIIC BSBs appear, however, in 12th century contexts at various coastal and Syrian sites as Akko (M. Dothan 1989a: Figs. 3.1-3.2), Sarepta, Ras Ibn Hani and Tarsus, Tell Afis and Tell Kasel (for references see Killebrew 2000:236-237).50 Even though the vessels seem quite similar to their parallels from Philistia (according to the illustrations) only archaeometric analysis will determine whether these vessels were made in Syria, imported from Philistia or imported from other regions.

Shallow bar-handled bowls (Fig. 1.17:9): This is a type appearing only in Philistine Bichrome pottery (T. Dothan 1982:185-188, Type 13, Figs. 54-55, references therein). The bowl is open, shallow with a simple rim and flattened or concave base and one bar handle. In several cases its interior has an elaborate bichrome decoration of a stylized lotus motif, and radial and concentric lines (Ashdod: M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.68:l; Azor: M. Dothan 1961: Pl. 35:11).52

Bell-shaped bowls continue to be dominant in the Philistine Bichrome pottery; many examples come from Miqne Strata VI-V (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pls. 40, 57), Ashdod Strata XII-XI (e.g., T. Dothan 1982:98-106; M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 26, 40:1-2) and Tell es-Safi (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 35; from surveys, M. Israel 1963; Uziel 2003; Fig. 1.24:8-9). Recently published examples come from Aphek Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003: Pl. V.33:7-9) and Tel Yarmut, Strata IV-IIIA (Jasmin 1999: Pls. 82,84); several examples come from Tel Keisan and Dor (Gilboa 2001:401-413, Pl. 14.1; Gilboa et al. in press). In most cases distinct morphological differences can be identified between the Monochrome and Bichrome BSBs. The Bichrome bowls are usually larger (small 10 cm or less in diameter bowls cease to appear), have a less slender profile with thicker ring base and the rounded profiled tend to be more carinated; the handles are often thicker. Naturally, the decoration changes, with the chalky thick or buff thinner white slip and black and red decoration. Usually most details are in black (including stripes on the handle) and only the horizontal bands are in red. The inner spirals, as other Mycenaean motifs disappear, while spiral drawn are not perfectly antithetic and are more carelessly drawn in most cases.51

Bell-shaped kraters (Fig. 1.18:1-2,7-10)53: Philistine kraters are in general bell-shaped, or derivative from this form. Complete examples of Philistine Monochrome kraters are very rare, while in Bichrome assemblages they become more common. The vessels have a bell-shaped body, a thickened inward slanting rim (occasionally concave, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 17:7,10), horizontal handles and a ring base. Monochrome bellshaped kraters are often very small with a diameter of 1520 cm and appear in Miqne Strata VII-VI and Ashdod Strata XIII-XI (and possibly Ashkelon) (T. Dothan and

other forms) is relative in nature and often according to the form and fabric together with decoration when possible, or unattainable with small fragments. 52 T. Dothan described this form as a hybrid of a Canaanite form, probably Egyptian derived (the shape imitates ivory and wooden bowls, T. Dothan 1982:188), and Philistine decoration tradition with Egyptian derived motifs (as the lotus design). This form appears also in the later red slipped Philistine pottery at Tell Qasile Strata XI-X (Mazar 1985a: Figs. 18:20-23, 29:9, 33:35) and Azor (M. Dothan 1961: Pl. 35:11) where it has a decoration of black stripes on the rim and handle, and may be considered again a Canaanite form. 53 Philistine Monochrome samples: AK11, AK14, AS27, AS28, AS29, AS30, AS57, MQ16, MQ17, MQ28, MQ31, MQ35, MQ37, MQ39, MQ53, MQ55, SP1; Philistine Bichrome samples: AK1, AK3, AK5, AK6, AK12, AP1, AP2, AP3, AS36, AS37, AS38, AS56, BM1, BM3, GZ5, GZ6, GZ7, GZ8, MQ6, M57, SF44, SF45, SF46.

50

Bell-shaped bowls with slight carination and linear decoration were found at Tell Kazel in the final LBII/early Iron I level, Stratum 6 (Badre et al. 1994:332, Fig. 55:d-e, with a reference there to similar bowls from Tell ‘Arqa). Another group of Myc. IIIC/Monochrome bell-shaped bowls appears in Tell Afis, Syria, in various Iron I levels, especially 9 and 8 (Bonatz 1998:217-219, Figs. 1-5). It is defined and paralleled there to imported pottery, ignoring the Philistine Monochrome pottery parallels from Philistia. 51 It should be noted though that several Bichrome bowls do not have white slip or are decorated in red only and therefore the colors of decoration are not always an indicative feature; this is especially true when smaller sherds are considered. Moreover, several of the bichrome decorated bowls are closer in form and fabric to the Monochome bowls. Thus, the distinction between Monochrome and Bichrome BSB (as in

30

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Zukerman 2004:12, Type E, Figs. 16-24, references therein).54

carinated body and degenerated horizontal handles (Ashdod Stratum X, Ben-Shlomo 2003: Fig. 4) or carinated bell-shaped with vertical handles from Tell Qasile, Stratum X (T. Dothan 1982:197, Type 18, Fig. 60; Mazar 1985a: Figs. 40:5,7, 46:8-9,11) or at Azor (Fig. 1.24:16, with receptacles for figurines). These are often decorated with carelessly drawn spirals. There are also examples of non-Philistine krater forms with spiral decoration (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 47:1). An interesting example is a carinated red slipped krater from Dan with a typical Philistine bird depicted on it (Biran 1994: Fig. 102; Ilan 1999: Pl. 59:1). A type of small globular kraters/large bowls with white slip and red horizontal bands, appearing in the late Iron I and early Iron IIA is probably related to the degenerated Philistine bell-shaped krater form as well (Fig. 18:12; e.g. at Batash, Strata VIV, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:59, Type KR3, Pl. 2:12; Ashdod, Stratum X, M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Figs. 2:5,12 7:9, 1993: Fig. 45:14).

The Philistine Bichrome kraters (Fig. 1.18:7-8) are much larger and deeper, reaching a diameter and depth of 40-45 cm. Their shape becomes less rounded with a slight body carination (see T. Dothan 1982:106-115; Mazar 1985a:90-92, Type 2). Rims are thickened or flattened, either horizontal or slightly oblique, sometimes inwardsbulging (Types 2a and 2b at Tell Qasile, Mazar 1985a:90). The larger kraters have more vertical profiles with horizontal thickened rims. Both Monochrome and Bichrome kraters are usually elaborately decorated.55 Philistine Bichrome kraters are the second most common Philistine form after BSB, both in number and in geographical distribution and appear at Tel Miqne, Strata VIA-V (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pls. 4143, 58), Ashdod, Strata XIIIA-XI (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 21-22, 27 among many other examples), Tell es-Safi, Temp. Str. 8-7 (Fig. 1.24:3-4; other examples come from M. Israel [1963] and Uziel [2003] surveys) and Ashkelon, The Leon Levy Expedition, Phases 19-18 (see Fig. 1.21: AK12). This type appears also at many other sites in Philistia, the southern coast and the Shephelah (see T. Dothan 1982:106-115 for references) as Azor, Tell Qasile, Strata XII-XI, Tel Mor, Tell Farah (S), Beth Shemesh Stratum III, Tel Batash, Stratum V (Kelm and Mazar 1995: Fig. 5.12), Tel Yarmut, Strata IV-IIIA (Jasmin 1999: Pls. 82,84), Aphek, Stratum X10X9 (Fig. 1.22:17-18; Gadot 2003: Pls. V.33:10-12, V.41:2) and other sites. Few examples of ‘derivative forms’ appear at Dan (Biran 1994: Fig. 102; Ilan 1999:93-95, Pl. 59:1-8) and Tel Keisan (see below, Gilboa 2001:401-413, Pls. 14.1-3; Gilboa et al. in press).56

Rare open forms Kylikes (Fig. 1.18:6; Samples: AS47, AS55): This type is represented by only few examples, and is restricted to the Philistine Monochrome pottery (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:22, Type G, Figs. 27:1-3, 28; Aegean parallels therein). The only complete example is from Ashdod, Area H, Stratum XII (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 27:1; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.13). The vessel is very small (8 cm height, 8 cm diameter) with two small vertical loop handles stemming from the rim and concave base; it is decorated with inner and outer bands. Other examples come from Ashdod Stratum XIIIb (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 17:7; M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 24:16, though defined there as Myc. IIIB) and Tel Miqne, Strata VIIA-VIA (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 27:2-3). This form should be seen as a “restricted” Philistine form.

Degenerate bell-shaped kraters (Fig. 1.18:9-12) include medium sized white slipped kraters with much less decoration and degenerated almost vertical handles as at Tel Sippor, Stratum I (Biran and Negbi 1966: Fig. 5:3,5) or Aphek Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003: Pl. V.37:12). Another group is of red slipped kraters with more

Cups (one-handled bowls, Fig. 1.18:3,5): This is a very rare type appearing in the Philistine Monochrome pottery (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28, Type O; Aegean parallels therein). Examples come from Ashdod, Stratum XII (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.9:23) and Miqne, Stratum VI (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 27:7), and possibly from Tell es-Safi (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 35:9). They are characterized by a bell-shaped body, decorated by horizontal bands and one vertical handle decorated by several stripes.

54 Bell-shaped kraters appear in the LHIIIB-IIIC Aegean, and in Late Cypriote IIC-IIIB in Cyprus, as well as in Ras Ibn Hani 12th Century BCE context (T. Dothan 1982:106-115; Kling 1989:109-126; Killebrew 2000:239, and references therein). 55 The Monochrome vessels have motifs as fish, birds, stemmed spirals, stemmed tongues, and cross-hatched triangles or lozenges arranged in panels. The latter is known in Late Cypriote IIIA-B as the Levantine Panel style, becoming even more common on Philistine Bichrome kraters (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming a). There are several stylistically transitional Philistine Monochrome/Bichrome kraters (see Tel Sippor, Biran and Negbi 1966: Fig. 6:7, and Miqne, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 19:2). These usually have red and black decoration without white slip, or brown decoration with self slip. 56 The decoration of the Bichrome BS kraters is often very elaborate with birds, spirals, triglyphs, loops, chevrons, double axe, lozenges and Maltese cross being the major motifs; fish, triangles and other motifs appear as well. The thickened rim is often decorated with black stripes or a continuous black or red band. The typical surface treatment includes a thick chalky white slip on the external body and rim; the decoration is mostly in black with horizontal bands delimiting the decorative register, and other details in red.

Tray (Fig. 1.18:4): Another unique form appearing in Philistine Monochrome pottery is the “tray” (Killebrew 2000:240, Fig. 12.3:2; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28, Type L), with one example from Stratum VIIA at Miqne. Closed forms Monochrome Jugs (Fig. 1.19:2; Sample MQ38): These jugs have usually a trefoil, high neck and globular body with a loop handle connecting rim and shoulder (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:22, Type H, Fig. 27:8-16). As no complete example is known a full description 31

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.19. Iron I Philistine closed forms. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site Miqne Ashdod Ashdod Miqne Miqne Miqne Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Miqne -Ashdod Qasile Qasile

Ware MC MC MC MC MC MC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC RSP RSP RSP

Type SSJ (I) JG (H) FB (J) SUJ (K) Pyxis (M) BOT (N) SUJ SSJ JG JG BOT AMPS Pyxis SSJ SSJ SSJ

Sample No./publication/ref. D & Z 2004: Fig. 13:1 Ashdod V: Fig. 13:5 Ashdod V: Fig. 15:4 D & Z 2004: Fig. 14:2 (MQ12) D & Z 2004: Fig. 30:9 D & Z 2004: Fig. 30:10 Ashdod V: Fig. 31:2 Ashdod V: Fig. 32:2 Ashdod VI: Fig. 3.53:2 Ashdod VI: Fig. 3.53:1 Ashdod V: Fig. 20:9 MQ5 Dothan 1982: Fig. 18:3 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 74:12 Mazar 1985a: Fig. 35:2 Mazar 1985a: Fig. 35:3

32

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

1

2 5

4

3

6

Philistine Monochrome

9 8

10

12

14

11

Philistine Bichrome

13

16

15 Degenerated and red slipped Philistine Figure 1.19. Iron I Philistine closed forms.

33

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

MQ30

Pink Philistine Monochrome

Ashdod

Miqne

MQ28

Fine Philistine Monochrome fabric

MQ60

AS27

Ashdod

Ashdod

MQ41 AS57

Reddish Philistine Monochrome fabric

Gray Philistine Monochrome fabric

Figure 1.20. Various Philistine Monochrome fabrics from Ashdod and Tel Miqne. 3.53:2-3), Tell Fara’h (S) and Azor (T. Dothan 1982: Figs. 45-48; with several other examples from collections therein). Another variant of this form has a similar shape but is smaller (Fig. 1.19:9; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.53:1). The decoration often includes a lotus motif in black and red over the white slip on the neck, and other motifs as birds and a variety of geometric motifs. The bulging neck and flat base, as well as the lotus motif, are features of Egyptian ceramics; the general body form belongs to the local Canaanite tradition, while the decoration is typically Philistine. Some Canaanitetradition jugs with ovoid body, a short wide neck and a ring base are decorated in a Philistine style (T. Dothan 1982:185-191, Types 14-16, possibly also her Type 5). These jug types hardly appear in red slipped Philistine pottery, and are rare in general.

cannot be given. Decoration includes horizontal bands on inner and outer rim, neck and shoulder and wavy line on handle. Examples come from Tel Miqne, Stratum VIIA (T. Dothan and Zukerman: Fig. 27:9-16) and possibly from Ashdod Stratum XIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 13:5). This jug type does not continue to appear in Philistine Bichrome pottery. Philistine Bichrome jugs: These include jugs appearing only in Philistine Bichrome pottery, illustrating in most cases Canaanite or Egyptian influences (Fig. 1.19:9-10). One type has a globular body, a tall slightly everted neck, and a strap handle from rim to shoulder and a flat base (T. Dothan 1982: 172-185, Type 12). In several cases the neck is slightly bulging in the middle. Examples come from Ashdod, Strata XIIIa-XI (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 20:7; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 34

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

AK21 (MC, SSJ) AK11 (MC, BS-KR)

AK7 (BC, SUJ)

AK15 (MC, BSB)

AK12 (BC, BS-KR)

Figure 1.21. Philistine pottery from Ashkelon. Juglets: T. Dothan defined Type 8, a pinched bodied juglet, appearing at Tell Jemmeh and Tell Farah (S) (1982:157-160), Tel Miqne, Stratum VC (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pl. 59:11) and Tell Qasile, Stratum XI (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 24:19). This type is very rare.

and Tel Miqne, Strata VIIA-VI (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 30:1-2).57 Philistine Bichrome SSJ are much more common and have either an ovoid body or, less frequently, a single or double carination. The loop handle predominates, but a basket handle also appears on some examples. Examples with a second strainer inside the neck are rare (as Tell Qasile, Mazar 1985a: Fig. 35:1). The bichrome decoration is often very elaborate and dense with paneled designs, which depict birds, spirals, lozenges, Maltese crosses, checkerboard, etc. Examples come from Ashdod, Strata XII-XI (as M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 32:2; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.25, 3.52), Tel Miqne, Strata VIA-V (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pls. 45:7, 59:9), Tell es-Safi (T. Dothan 1982: Fig. 21.1), Tell Qasile, Stratum X (Mazar 1985a: Figs. 35:1-2, 51:1), Azor, Tell Farah (S), ‘Eitun and the ‘Orpheus jug” from Megiddo Stratum VIA (Loud 1948: Pl. 76:1) (see T. Dothan 1982:132-155, Type 6 for

Strainer-spouted jugs (Fig. 1.19:1,8; Samples: Monochrome: AK9, AK21, AS34, AS50; Bichrome: AK10, AS42, BM4): Strainer spouted jugs (henceforth SSJ, also termed ‘beer jugs’; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:24, Type I) are rare in the Philistine Monochrome pottery, reach their peak in Philistine Bichrome, and appear in various forms of degenerated Philistine pottery as well. In the Monochrome phase, the few examples have a globular body, a short neck, a loop handle from rim to shoulder, and a wide slanted strainer funnel. The decoration includes horizontal bands, stemmed spirals and tongue and a bird. Examples come from Ashdod, Strata XIIIb-XII (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 17:10; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.3:11, 3.12:7),

57 This form (FS155) appears in Cyprus in Late Cypriote IIIA-B contexts continuing into Cypro-Geometric period, and in the Aegean in the Late Helladic IIIB-C period (T. Dothan 1982:154-155; Kling 1989:153-158 and references therein; Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 33:246).

35

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.22. Iron I Philistine samples from Ashdod, Qasile, Aphek and Dan. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Site Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Qasile Qasile Dan Aphek Aphek Aphek Aphek

Ware MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC BC BC BC BC BC Deg. BC

Type BSB BSB BSB BSB BSB BS KR BS KR BSB Kylix SSJ SSJ SUJ SUJ Pyx-JG JG SUJ BS KR BR KR KR Pyxis

Sample No. AS52 AS51 AS53 AS54 AS58 AS29 AS30 AS31 AS47 AS50 AS34 AS49 AS48 QS5 QS4 DN6 AP1 AP2 AP3 AP5

36

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.22. Iron I Philistine samples from Ashdod, Qasile, Aphek and Dan.

37

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.23. Iron I Philistine samples from Tel Miqne. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Ware MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC BC BC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC

Type BL (A) CSHB (B) CSHB (B) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BSB (D) BS KR (E) BS KR (E) BS KR (E) BS KR (E) Kalathos BS KR BS KR BS KR (E) SUJ (K) BSB (D) BS KR (E) BS KR (E) SUJ (K) JG (H)

Sample No. MQ15 MQ58 MQ3 MQ8 MQ9 MQ36 MQ10 MQ13 MQ7 MQ33 MQ34 MQ14 MQ16 MQ35 MQ55 MQ17 MQ52 MQ57 MQ6 MQ28 MQ56 MQ54 MQ37 MQ53 MQ11 MQ38

38

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.23. Iron I Philistine samples from Tel Miqne.

39

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.24. Philistine pottery from Tell es-Safi and Azor. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Azor Azor Azor Azor

Ware MC BC BC BC BC MC BC/Deg. Deg. Deg. BC BC BC Deg. Deg. RSP Deg.

Type BSB (D) BSB BS KR BS KR SSJ SUJ (K) SSJ BSB BSB BS KR BS KR BS KR BSB BSB SSJ BS KR

Sample No./publication/ref. SF49 SF47 SF45 SF46 400898/19 SF42 530202 Uziel 2003: Pl. 3:2 Uziel 2003: Pl. 3:3 Uziel 2003: Pl. 3:5 Uziel 2003: Pl. 3:4 Uziel 2003: Pl. 3:6 Tomb D87 (87/5) Tomb D9 (39/4) D74/3 Tomb D88

40

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.24. Philistine pottery from Tell es-Safi and Azor. 41

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY overview and references of the Bichrome SSJ).58 The designs on the vessel from Tel ‘Eitun (T. Dothan 1982: Pl. 62, stemmed tongues, fish, birds, dots, etc.) are executed in a style which is especially close to the Philistine Monochrome decoration and can be regarded as an intermediate decorative style.

Monochrome pottery. The stirrup jars have a globular body and a ring base, two loop handles, a false spout and a vertical cylindrical spout rising to the same height as the false one (FS170-171/173-177)(T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28 Type K, Figs. 31-34; Killebrew 2000: Type AS11); they are less squat in shape than the Myc. IIIB examples.59 The decoration is either linear or more elaborate with semi circles and tongues. Examples come from Ashdod (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.14), Tel Miqne, Strata VIIB-VIA (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Figs. 31-34) and Tell es-Safi (Fig. 1.24:6).

Degenerated Philistine strainer jugs are characterized by carinated, or, less commonly, globular body, and a basket handle (T. Dothan 1982:191-194, Type 17 with references) (Fig. 1.19:14-15). The spout is elongated, or short and triangular in its vertical section. Such examples come from Ashdod, Stratum X (M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Fig. 3.72), Tell es-Safi (Fig. 1.24:5,7), Tell Qasile, Stratum X (Mazar 1985a: Figs. 35:2,3, 36:1, 50:23) and Azor (Fig. 1.24:15). The red-slipped SSJ have a smaller, more carinated form and are decorated in black stripes and bands and some geometrical motifs. A variation appearing at Tell Qasile has four basket handles converging in a button-like top recalling a ‘false spout’ (Mazar 1985a:65 Fig. 35:2). Many late examples of this type may reflect fresh Cypriote and Phoenician influences and this is one of the few forms that could have been passed on to the LPDW of the Iron IIA as several SSJ examples carry the LPDW decoration (see below).

Philistine Bichrome stirrup jars are more common and retain their morphological characteristics; the decoration is typically white slip and bichrome. Examples come from Ashdod, Strata XII-XI (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 31; M. Dothan Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.51) Tel Miqne, Strata VI-V (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pls. 29, 68:13), Ashkelon (Figs. 1.21: AK7) and other sites in Philistia, such as Gezer, Beth Shemesh, Azor (see T. Dothan 1982:115-125, Type 3, references therein), Tell Qasile, Strata XI-X (Mazar 1985a: Figs. 21, 31:2, 37:16, 38, 51:2-3). No plain or redslipped examples of this form are known.

‘Feeding bottle’ (basket-handled spouted jar)(Fig. 1.19:3; Samples MQ41, SF43): This type of vessel has globular or ovoid body, ring base, short cylindrical spout applied on the shoulder, elongated neck, everted rim, and a basket handle (FS162). Several examples are attributed to the Philistine Monochrome pottery mainly on the basis of context (as at Stratum XIIIb in Ashdod, M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 15:4,10; Miqne, Stratum VI, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:24, Type J, Fig. 30:6, Aegean parallels therein). The Monochrome decoration is always linear, and is often rather carelessly executed; the vessels are usually covered with grayish-green wash. Other unpublished examples come from Tell es-Safi, Temp. Stratum 6 and Ashkelon Phase 19.

Bottles (Fig. 1.19:6,11): Bottles are closed elongated vessels with a narrow neck and no regular handles. They appear in several forms: cylindrical, horn shaped and wide, mostly in Philistine Bichrome pottery but also in red slipped forms60 (T. Dothan sees them as Cypriote related forms, 1982:160-172, Types 9-10). 61

59 The false spouts are usually solid, separately made and attached to a cut hole in the jar’s body (see T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 38; contra to many of Myc. IIIB and LBII local imitations stirrup jars with hollow wheel thrown false spouts; see Leonard et al. 1993). 60 There is one possible example of a Philistine Monochrome bottle (Fig. 1.19:6, a base fragment from Miqne, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28, Fig. 30:10, Type N). Philistine Bichrome bottles come from Ashdod, Stratum XIIIa (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 20:9), Tel Miqne (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pl. 76:2), Tell Qasile, Stratum XI (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 30:23; a red slipped example-Qasile Stratum XI idem: Fig. 30:22), Tell es-Safi, Tell Farah (S), Azor and Gezer (see T. Dothan 1982:160-168, Type 9, Fig. 34 and references). Red slipped bottles also appear at Megiddo Stratum VIB (Loud 1948: Pls. 73:9, 1472:3). Horn-shaped vessels come from Tel Miqne, Stratum VA (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pl. 76:3-4, No. 3 is redslipped), Tell Qasile, Stratum XI (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 31:1), Beth Shemesh and Megiddo (see references in T. Dothan 1982:168-172, Type 10 Fig. 40; there they are compared to stone and ivory objects). A possible additional type of bottle decorated in Philistine Bichrome style is wide-bodied; a single example comes from Tell Qasile, Stratum XII (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 17:27). 61 T. Dothan also includes the gourd-shaped vessels in this group (Type 11), but as the vessels show no Aegean affinities both in form and decoration, they were excluded here. Another closed vessel without handles appearing in Philistine Bichrome pottery is the goblet, as in Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985a:49-51, Fig. 32:7,9); however, this is a Canaanite form, continuing traditions of the LBII. Iron I pilgrim flasks and flasks with a ‘spoon’ mouths are also sometimes decorated in black and red over white slip similarly to Philistine Bichrome pottery; nevertheless, as this Canaanite form is also similarly decorated in the LBII it was not included in the typology (they are not in included in T. Dothan’s 1982 typology as well).

Most of the Philistine Bichrome feeding bottles have the same body shape, while some are globular or slightly carinated. They are predominantly coated with white slip and bear linear monochrome decoration (rarely, isolated spirals). Some Iron IIA specimens are covered with red slip and can be related to the late Philistine degenerated pottery as at Ashdod, Stratum X (Fig. 1.19:13; BenShlomo 2003:93, Fig. 4:7; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 74:12; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 45:1). Stirrup jars (Fig. 1.19:4,7; Samples: Monochrome: AS48, AS49, MQ11, MQ12, SF42; Bichrome: DN6): This very well known Aegean form, common in the LBII imports found at Levantine sites, is quite rare in the Philistine 58

A richly decorated bichrome SSJ was found also at Deir ‘Alla Phase A (Franken 1969: Fig. 47:4). Its decoration shows a mixture of typical Philistine Bichrome Motifs and local variants (as the birds). An undecorated and linearly decorated SSJ were found at Cave A4 in the Baqa‘ah Valley survey (McGovern 1986: Fig. 53:41-42).

42

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Amphoriskoi (Fig. 1.19:11; Sample MQ5): Amphoriskoi only appear in very limited numbers in the Philistine Bichrome and the degenerated assemblages. These vessels have an ovoid body, a wide mouth with everted rim, and two horizontal handles (T. Dothan 1982:125131, Type 4 with references; Tel Miqne, Stratum VIA, T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b: Pl. 45:2-3).

handle from rim to shoulder, sometimes high slightly above rim, and the minority has two handles. Most cooking jugs have soot marks on the exterior (usually on one side) attesting to their use as cooking vessels (see T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 37). As the kalathos krater, this type appears together with both Monochrome and Bichrome styles spanning most of the Iron I. In Tel Miqne, to a large extent, it clearly replaces traditional Canaanite open cooking pots in Strata VII-VI. In Stratum V it still appears, but the open local type returns (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:30). At Ashdod the situation is less clear and it seems that the Canaanite cooking pots did not completely give way to the cooking jugs at any stage. This type seems to be almost restricted to the Philistine cities, with examples at Ashdod, Strata XIIIbXI (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:58, Figs. 17:4-5, 34:2; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.5:19 3.28:7-11, 58:6-13), Tell es-Safi, and Ashkelon, The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon (Stager personal communication). The cooking jugs from Tel Miqne also illustrate use of different temper than the Canaanite cooking vessels; in the latter the dominant temper is calcite and shell while in the former, quartz (Killebrew 1999); the different temper is possibly aimed to adapt them to slow-heating cooking. A complementary technological study on the Tel Miqne and Ashdod cooking jugs will clarify this issue.

Pyxis (Fig. 1.19:12; Samples: AK8, AP5, QS5): Philistine pixides are biconical or with double carination, and have a wide mouth with everted rim, two horizontal handles, and a ring base. A Philistine Monochrome Pyxis (or straight-sided alabastron, FS96; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28, Fig. 30:9, Type M) is represented by one shoulder fragment from Tel Miqne (Fig. 1.19:5). Another example comes from Aphek Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003: Pl. V.40:6; Fig. 1.22:20).62 Undecorated Aegean forms This group includes straight-sided kraters (also termed kalathoi, lekanae or basins) and globular cooking jugs. These two forms have clear Aegean and Cypriote affinities but are not part of the decorated Philistine corpus and thus described separately.63 ‘Kalathos’ kraters: These are conical kraters, 24-35 cm in diameter, with a thickened or hammerhead rim, straight sided body, two horizontal handles and flat (rarely concave) base (Fig. 1.17:13; Samples: MQ29, MQ52; Killebrew 2000: Type AS6; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:16,21, Figs. 25-26, Type F-Basins, Aegean parallels therein). This type appears alongside both Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome styles. Examples come from Ashdod, Strata XIIIb-XI (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 90:10; M. Dothan and Porath 1993:88, Fig. 41:5; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.28:36), Tel Miqne, Strata VIIA-VI (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 25:2,4) and Tell es-Safi. The appearance of this type in Philistia seems to be restricted to the Philistine cities64 and illustrates a distinct immigrantcharacter material culture component, as this pottery type diverges from the more elaborate decorated tableware which is more likely to be imitated or traded.

Cooking jugs appear in the Aegean and Cyprus during the late 13th and early 12th century BCE (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999:131,135,186-188; see other parallels in T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28). The appearance of Aegean cooking vessels in Philistine cities further strengthens the ethnic demarcation of the Iron Age I immigrants arriving in Philistia, as these are vessels more related to conservative behavioral traditions, as cooking and eating habits, rather than to mere trade in fashionable decorated pottery (Killebrew 1998b:397, 1999; YasurLandau 2002:172-174).65 Nevertheless, somewhat similar jugs are also occasionally found in other Iron I sites as Beth Shemesh, Stratum III (Grant 1938: Pl. LXI:27-31), Tell ‘Eitun (Edelstein and Aurant 1992: Fig. 2, Fig. 10:9, 11), Tel Sippor (Biran and Negbi 1966: Fig. 5:8), Aphek, Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003:123, Pl. V.34:10) and Hazor, Area BA, Stratum 11 (Yadin et al. 1961: Pl. CCXXXVI:20, 21). It is possible that this type was introduced to other non-Philistine sites at a later stage in the Iron I. This vessel illustrates a different mode of cooking—mostly of liquids or stews, in an indirect and slow heating (from the side) (see YasurLandau 2005). Its occurrence at these sites may attest to local inhabitants experimenting with this different cooking device, rather than to the presence of Philistine population, especially if other elements of the Philistine material culture do not appear.

Cooking jugs (Fig. 1.17:14-15; Sample MQ40): Cooking jugs have a globular to ovoid body, rounded mouth, 1012 cm wide, with an everted or slightly thickened rim (rarely triangular), short neck, rounded shoulders and disk or ring base (Killebrew 1999; 2000: Type AS10; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28-31, Figs. 36-37 Type P, references therein). Most examples seem to have one loop 62 Several pyxis-related forms with Philistine Bichrome decoration appear as well as a Pyxis-flask/jar in Tell Qasile Stratum XII (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 11:26). A red slipped globular pyxis was found in Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 19:14). This vessel has typical Philistine decoration motifs of concentric semi-circles. 63 For a different view combining these with the decorated forms see T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:7. 64 A similar vessel was reported from Aphek, Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003:113, Pl. V.33:20). However, the shape of the vessel from Aphek is more rounded, unlike other kalathoi.

65 Yasur-Landau also sees these vessels, together with the cylindrical loom-weights, as attesting the presence of Aegean women in Philistia, and their importance in the evolvement of the ‘Philistine identity’ (2002:174,184).

43

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 1.4: Comparison of pottery forms appearing on Mycenaean IIIB imports, Philistine Monochrome, Bichrome and degenerated/red-slipped wares. Form/motif

LBII MycIIIB imports

Philistine Monochrome

Philistine Bichrome

Bell shaped bowl Bell shaped krater Carinated bowl Bar handled bowl Chariot krater Kylix Stirrup jar Feeding bottle Strainer spouted jug Monochrome jug Egyptian jug Bottle Pyxis Piriform jar Pinched juglets Kalathos Cooking jug Hedgehog vessel Askos Female figurines Bovine figurines

+ + + + + + +

+ + + + + + +rare + ? ? + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

Terracottas: Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels and figurines Although terracottas such as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels and figurines are usually not included in the regular pottery assemblage a note on this material is called for, as they are made from the same raw material as other Philistine pottery forms and illustrate distinct Aegean morphological or decorative characteristics. Terracottas related to Philistine Monochrome pottery are zoomorphic vessels in the shape of a hedgehog (Bierling 1998:23-25, Pls. 4:1,10a, Ben-Shlomo in press a) and a small, bird-shaped askoi (T. Dothan 2003: Fig. 4; BenShlomo in press a). These wheel-made vessels are highly faithful, both in form and decoration, to the Aegean LHIIIB-C and Cypriote prototypes, and are made of fine Monochrome fabric. Another group that should be noted are decorated female figurines (of the Psi type)66 and bovine figurines (Fig. 1.20; Samples: MQ59, MQ60). The bovine figurines are decorated in linear/spine motifs parallel to Aegean and Cypriote examples (French 1971:151-152,155-157, Fig. 11; Ben-Shlomo in press a). Several of these are made of fine Philistine Monochrome fabric while others are of regular Monochrome fabric. All the Philistine Monochrome terracottas noted above appear so far only at Tel Miqne. Some Aegean type Psi figurines are decorated in the bichrome style, while there is even a red-slipped example of such a figurine from

Philistine Degenerated/Red slipped + + + + + + + + + + -

Ashdod (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 65:10). The Ashdoda type figurine both resembles Aegean iconography in its modeling and is decorated in the Philistine Bichrome style (Hachlili 1971:129; for Aegean and Cypriote parallels of the figurines seated on a throne see T. Dothan 1982:234-237; French 1971:167-172; Yasur-Landau 2001).67 The multitude of terracotta types, often associated with cult (as at the temples of Tell Qasile; T. Dothan 1982:219-229; Mazar 2000), is clearly related to the Philistine pottery traditions, both in decoration and form. The Philistine terracottas thus reinforce the evaluation of this pottery as an ethnic marker having some symbolical and ideological value for the Philistine population (see also Sharon 2001:600-602: Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996:96; see below). d. Decoration of the Philistine Iron I pottery Until recently only the decoration of the Philistine Bichrome pottery was systematically studied (T. Dothan 1982:198-218), illustrating both its Aegean sources and later Canaanite and Egyptian stylistic influences. 67 Also to be noted are zoomorphic vessels of local Canaanite forms in shapes of bovines, birds etc. and decorated in typical Philistine Bichrome style (e.g., Tell Qasile: Mazar 1980: Figs. 34, 39; see other examples in Ben-Shlomo 1999, Ben-Shlomo in press a), and zoomorphic head-shaped cups mostly of lions decorated in Philistine Bichrome style (T. Dothan 1982:229-234). Also noted are kernoi with vessels and spouts decorated in Philistine Bichrome decoration. As of yet, there are no Monochrome examples of these terracotta types. The discussion of Philistine/Aegean and Canaanite ceramic iconographic traditions attested in Iron Age Philistia is a complex issue and is clearly beyond the scope of this work.

66

These appear at Ashdod (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 34:2; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.36:1-2), Tel Miqne (Ben-Shlomo in press a) and Ashkelon (Stager personal communication). The Ashdod and Ashkelon examples are associated with the Philistine Bichrome style.

44

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES However, T. Dothan and Zukerman have now also described and analyzed the decorative syntax of the Philistine Monochrome style (2004:35-41), including the relevant Aegean and Cypriote parallels. Therefore, the discussion of Philistine pottery decoration in this study will be brief and concise.

although they note certain parallels in developments as in the elaboration of later LHIIIC pottery).68 The decorative motifs are placed in horizontal registers— one on open vessels and two on closed ones (belly and shoulder). The most common motifs include: horizontal lines, single, antithetic (separated by a vertical wavy line) and stemmed spiral, antithetic and stemmed tongues (separated by various motifs), quirks, suspended semicircles, circles and half circles, birds, fish, checkerboards, lozenges and triglyphs (Table 1.5). Other, rarer, motifs are hatched circles, horizontal wavy lines, chevron, zigzag, tassels (FM72). Human depictions on Philistine pottery are very rare; the only examples are the Orpheus jug from Megiddo (see above), the ship with rowers depicted on a sherd, and the Philistine Bichrome ‘Monster Krater’ both from The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon (Fig. 1.21: AK12; Wachsman 1998:131-133, Figs. 7.7,17; 2000:135, Fig. 6.29). Animal depictions appearing are basically only birds, more common, and fish, rarer. The relative frequency of the various motifs differs in the Philistine assemblages, and between the different cities themselves (Table 1.9), and definitely in relation to the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery from the Aegean and Cyprus.69

Technique: Philistine monochrome vessels are generally unslipped. However, in several cases a thin ‘self slip’ or wash occurs (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:3, n.37). The decoration is in one color or two shades or brush thickness of the same color, mostly brown to dark brown, but also reddish brown (especially on the reddish fabric type), with a matte finish. It should be noted that several Philistine Monochrome vessels, especially small BSB and CSHB are undecorated. Philistine Bichrome vessels have a very typical decoration technique: a thick chalky-white or cream slip and red and black decoration. However, all these elements do not appear in all Philistine Bichrome vessels; i.e. some vessels are without slip, have a partial slip, a diluted slip or are decorated only in one color (either red or black). The suggestion that the earlier Philistine Bichrome vessels had the thicker white slip, while thinner more diluted slip is characteristic of a later stage (Raban 1991) is not substantiated by the evidence from Philistine sites. Both types of slip occur together. The use of white slip and bichrome decoration can be interpreted in several ways. As the fabric of Philistine Bichrome vessels was made of a reddish-brown clay, the white slip was needed to create the light color imitating Mycenaean pottery. On the other hand, white slip with red and black decoration was popular in the Canaanite pottery throughout the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE, thus it attests a return to local Canaanite customs (T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b). The two explanations can be combined as well.

Many of the motifs appearing in Philistine Monochrome pottery continue to appear in the Bichrome style, although usually a decrease in the quality of execution can be seen, as in the precision of the spirals (which are facing the same direction instead of antithetically; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:41-42). Several motifs do not appear in the Bichrome style, especially the suspended semicircles, stemmed spirals and tongues and many of the rarer motifs (see Table 1.5). Some vessels with white slip and use of black color have also typical Monochrome motifs; these were termed intermediate (as a jug from ‘Eitun and a bowl from Ashkelon: T. Dothan 1982:102,153; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:41). On the other hand, many motifs are introduced in the Philistine Bichrome style. In most cases these new motifs are either developments of the Aegean motifs, reflecting other

In degenerate Philistine pottery decoration only in black is more common and the slip deteriorates in its execution. Some of the vessels from this group are slipped with a thin red slip, usually not burnished, and decorated in black. The red-slipped Philistine pottery shows both the disintegration of traditional Philistine pottery techniques and influences coming from the Phoenician and/or local pottery traditions of the Iron IIA, as red slip becomes the common surface treatment (T. Dothan 1982:194; Mazar 1985a:83-86; Mazar 1998).

68 T. Dothan and Zukerman suggested that in Philistia there is an initial phase of Philistine Monochrome ‘linear style’ (2004:36); in this style bell-shaped and carinated bowls and kraters are decorated only with horizontal lines and simple spirals. This style, appearing in fills below Stratum VIIB in Field INE at Miqne and Locus 4106 at Ashdod Area G, is supposedly correlated with a LHIIIC early linear phase in the Aegean. The problem is that, notwithstanding finer stratigraphic separations at Tel Miqne, the time span of the appearance and development of the Philistine Monochrome style in Philistia is too short (about 30-60 years) for such inner changes to be viably and securely recorded by the archaeological record. Moreover, Monochrome vessels with linear decorations appear just as well in later contexts as Strata VIIA-VI in Miqne and XIIIa-XII at Ashdod. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to treat the linear Monochrome decoration as one of the forms of Philistine Monochrome decoration motifs. 69 Although most of the motifs have good parallels in the Aegean world, and mostly in Cyprus (especially Enkomi; see T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004 for parallels), these are unique Philistine variations and compositions.

Motifs: The decorative motifs of the Philistine Monochrome pottery show strong relations to Mycenaean IIIB2 and IIIC:1 pottery from the Aegean and Cyprus. However, it is not clear to what extent these motifs can link us to specific sites in these areas. Therefore, the chronological-stylistic divisions and sub-divisions used in the Aegean pottery cannot be applied to the Philistine pottery of the Iron I (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:45,

45

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 1.5 Comparison of decoration motifs appearing on Philistine Monochrome, Bichrome, intermediate and Philistine red-slipped forms. Motif Horizontal bands Hanged semicircles Stemmed Tongues Stemmed spirals Running tongues Hatched spirals Antithetic spirals Running spirals Drops Hatched Triangles Scales B pattern Semicircles Complex spirals Triangles Lotus Lozenges Hatched lozenges Chevrons Axe Crisscross Checkerboard Malta cross Vertical zigzag Delicate zigzag Human Bird Fish Tree

Monochrome + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +? +? + + + + + +?

‘Intermediate’ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +rare + + -

Bichrome + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +rare + + +

influences (Canaanite or Egyptian70) or are hybrid or agglomerative compositions of various motifs. There are hardly any cases yet for clear connections between the Bichrome motifs and later Aegean styles (as the LHIIIC Middle).

Red slip + + ? + + +? + + +rare +

Red-slipped and degenerated Philistine pottery show a dramatic decrease in the quality and quantity of motifs. Usually the only motifs remaining are poorly executed spirals, branches and some geometric motifs. Otherwise non-Philistine geometric motifs are used on these forms. There is, however, one example of a typical Philistine bird appearing on a red-slipped krater at Dan, Stratum V (Biran 1994:141, Fig. 102).

It was suggested in the past that the Philistine Bichrome style shows two phases: an initial, unsophisticated stage, and a later fully developed stage with more complex decoration including more elaborate motifs as birds (T. Dothan 1982:217; Mazar 1985b). However, in light of both the Monochrome and Bichrome material from Ashdod and Tel Miqne, and the Philistine Bichrome from Tell Qasile, such a typological sequence is not substantiated. Sophisticated Philistine Bichrome decoration appears already in Ashdod Strata XIII-XII, Tel Miqne, Stratum VI and Tell Qasile, Stratum XII. Nevertheless, there may be an increase of the relative proportion of the Philistine pottery within assemblages of later Iron I strata at Ashdod and Tel Miqne (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.35, 3.52; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Table 1).

e. Typology of Iron II Philistine pottery (LPDW) The pottery ware presented here appears in Philistia in the periods immediately after the disappearance of ‘classical’ Philistine pottery of the Iron I. Although the forms characterizing the Iron I Philistine pottery, having roots in the Aegean world, disappear in this stage, a certain type of decorated pottery can be defined, which is distinct to Philistia. This type of pottery, termed also ‘Ashdod Ware’ (see above), will be described below, and is suggested to be termed Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW) (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004; Shai et al. in press71).

70 For example: the lotus motif and elongated triangles is known to be an Egyptian influence (T. Dothan 1982:215). Palm trees and branches are usually considered a Canaanite influence (T. Dothan 1982:215-216).

71 Major sections of the discussion of the LPDW here are based on the 2004 article.

46

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Table 1.6: LPDW forms: typology classes Class

Bowl BL1 Bowls BL2-BL4 Kraters KR1-3 Kraters KR4-5 Amphorae Amphoriskoi Bottles Jars Jugs JG1-3 Jugs JG4-5 Juglet Zoomorphic vessels Kernoi Figurines

Included in streamlined (‘classical’) Typology No No Yes No Yes No ? Yes Yes No Yes No No No

Suggested Chronological span

Geographical Distribution

Iron IIA Iron IIB Iron IIA Iron IIA (early?) Iron IIA Iron IIA-B ? Iron IIA-B Iron IIA-B Iron IIA-B Iron IIA Iron IIA-B Iron IIA-B Iron IIA-B

Philistia Philistia Philistia Philistia Philistia and Shephelah Southern Palestine Ashdod Philistia Philistia Mostly Philistia Tell es-Safi/Gath Philistia Mostly Philistia Philistia

Based on these two principal characteristics—decoration and form—two kinds of typology can be formulated: a streamlined typology that includes only “coastal” forms with the unique decoration, and an extended typology that includes vessels attributed to the LPDW group only on the basis of their decoration, but morphologically they are not types that are characteristic solely of the coastal plain (see Table 1.6 for the distinction according to types; nevertheless, the entire typology will presented together, for simplicity). Although the classification of vessels belonging to the “extended typology” group is less definitive (being based on decoration and not form), they are nevertheless applicable for the recognition of this ware. This definition of the ware is somewhat similar to the definition of Philistine Bichrome pottery. There, a kernel group of Aegean type vessels with bichrome decoration is defined together with other forms (Canaanite, Egyptian or hybrid), which are identified as Philistine only on the basis of their decoration (T. Dothan 1982: Group I vs. Groups II-IV). Thus, the unique, and readily identifiable decoration enables one to distinguish this ware, even when not appearing on a coastal plain vessel forms.72

Definition The predominant defining feature of LPDW pottery is the readily identifiable surface treatment and decoration technique. The typical surface treatment includes red slip and meticulous vertical hand burnishing on all or part of the vessel, or, in some cases, wheel burnishing. The painted decoration is applied over the red slip and usually includes horizontal black bands on various parts of the vessel, often with white bands in between the black bands. Rarely, other decorative motifs appear as well. The appearance of the fabric is relatively uniform, with a reddish-brown or orange color, highly reddish fired (usually no core). Several of the vessels seem to be made of finer clay, better levigated than the usual ware; these finer vessels also often have a more lustrous burnish (e.g., Fig. 1.34: 2,7). Another significant characteristic of LPDW pottery is its appearance on vessel forms that can be classified as coastal or Philistine coastal types (Fig. 1.25) (for the general definition of this assemblage, see Gitin 1998a:165-167, Figs. 3-6; Shai 2000:127-128, Pl. 4). Therefore, the identification of LPDW is based on four components: 1. Iron Age II ‘Philistine coastal’ forms; 2. Thick dark red slip; 3. Meticulous vertical hand burnish; 4. Painted black and/or white decoration (usually bands). Although not all of these features must appear together, at least two should. Whereas other contemporary coastal ceramic groups may show certain similarities to the LPDW, there are clear distinctions. For example, the slightly earlier “Philistine Red Slip” style (see above, in the discussion of ‘degenerated’/red-slipped Philistine pottery) appears on Iron Age I Philistine forms and lacks the thick dark slip and the meticulous vertical burnish. The Cypro-Phoenician pottery (as the Black on Red ware) usually has a lustrous red slip and a meticulous horizontal wheel burnish; it appears, in most cases, on a different range of pottery forms.

Bowls The definition of LPDW bowls is somewhat problematic, as most LPDW bowl forms do not clearly belong to the streamlined typology of coastal forms. Nevertheless,

72 The typology presented here is similar to the one in Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004, except several additional vessel types, not yet published, mostly from Tel Miqne and Tell es-Safi/Gath (2004 season). The majority of the Iron IIA material from sites in Philistia has not yet been published in form of final reports, although quite a few excavations yielded relevant material culture (see Table 1.8; examples for important unpublished/partly published assemblages are Ashkelon, Tel Miqne, Strata IV-II, Tel Sera’, Strata VIII-VII, Beth Shemesh Stratum II, Ruqeish cemetery and site, Gezer, and Tell Qasile Strata IX-VIII [B. Mazar excavations]). Therefore, this typology and discussion should be regarded as a preliminary one.

47

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.25. Coastal forms of Iron II forms from Tel Miqne (Gitin 1998a: Figs. 3-6). No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Type Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Jug Jug Jug Krater (as KR3) Cooking jug Cooking jug Chalice Juglet Juglet Bottle Jar (JR1) Jar (JR1) Jar

48

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.25. Coastal Iron Age II forms (according to Gitin 1998a: Figs. 3-6).

49

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.26. LPDW bowls and kraters (KR1). No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Site Safi Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Miqne Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Gezer Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Safi Ashdod

Type BL1 BL2A BL3 BL1 BL2B BL3? BL4 KR1A KR1A KR1A KR1B KR1B KR1B KR1B KR1C

Sample No./publication Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004: Fig. 1:1 AS16 AS17 Ashdod V: Fig. 45:9 MQ18 Ashdod 4: Fig. 13:18 Ashdod I: Fig. 42:15 Ashdod IV: Fig. 14:14 GZ2 AS22 Ashdod I: Fig. 36:13 AS12 AS13 SF5 AS7

50

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.26. LPDW bowls and kraters.

51

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY several bowl types with the typical LPDW decoration appear in Philistia.

Kraters Globular kraters: Globular kraters are probably the most prominent though diversified LPDW form. Krater types include large kraters with a globular body, wide vertical neck and two handles attached from the rim to the shoulder (KR1, Fig. 1.26:8-15, Samples: AK20, MR1, RQ7). In many cases these vessels have a pinched ring base.74

Rounded bowl: Type BL1 is a large rounded bowl with grooves below the ledge (hammer-head) rim and a ring base (Fig. 1.26:1,4). The decoration consists of hand burnished red slip (inner and upper outer part) and groups of inter-spaced black and white stripes on the flat rim. This bowl is very common in Tell es-Safi Stratum A3 (Maeir 2001: Fig. 6:12; termed sometimes the ‘Safi bowl’, Amiran 1969:199, Photo 210). An example of this large hemispherical bowl appears in Ashdod Area G, Stratum Xa (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 45:9). Its size varies, and larger examples are over 40 cm wide and 20 cm high. The general shape though is common in Iron IIA sites of southern Israel (Amiran 1969: Pl. 63:8-9). Carinated bowls: Type BL2A is a carinated bowl with a wide flattened or everted rim (Fig. 1.26:2, Sample AS16) that occurs at Ashdod, Stratum VI (Area H, M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.107:7) and similarly shaped bowls have been reported from Tell Qasile, Stratum VII (Mazar 1985a: Fig. 55:25) and Ramat Rachel (Aharoni 1962: Fig. 25:1). A somewhat similar bowl was found at Tel Miqne, Stratum III (Gitin 1998a: Fig. 3:13).

This type has at least three variants: one has a large body with a vertical neck (KR1A, Fig. 1.26:8-10; Samples: AS22, GZ2, SF1); the second is smaller, carinated and has a short neck (KR1B, Figs. 1.26:11-14; Samples AS7, AS12, AS13, SF5) and the third, which also has a high vertical neck, is characterized by handles that are attached from the neck to the shoulder (KR1C, Fig 1.26:15). Krater type KR1 was found at Ashdod, Strata Xb-VIII (for Type KR1A: M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 53:16-17, 54:1, 88:20; for type KR1B: M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 36:13; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 7:13-14; M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 44:8; for Type KR1C: M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Figs. 3:1-2), and at Tell es-Safi Stratum A3 (Fig. 1.34:11). The variant of KR1A seems to be limited to the late Iron IIA-Iron IIB. Other examples of similar kraters come the cemetery of Ruqeish (Culican 1973: Fig. 4:R23; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983: No. 8), Ashkelon (Fig. 1.34:13) and Tel Mor (Barako in press).75

A large bowl or small krater of a related shape appears at Tel Miqne Stratum IIB (BL2B; Fig. 1.26:5; Sample MQ18). It has a more closed shaped than BL2A, a high carination, an everted neck and a simple rim; the base was not preserved (possibly rounded). The decoration includes wheel burnished red slip and horizontal black bands.

The second globular krater type (KR2, Fig. 1.27:1-3) has a globular body, a short vertical neck, two slanting horizontal handles, and a slightly inverted simple rim, typical of kraters from the Philistine coastal plain. This type appears in Ashdod, Strata VIII-VII (M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 40:3-5, 50:2, 53:16, 88:20, possibly Fig. 37:20 without bands; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Figs. 13:19, 20:2; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.89:9; possibly similar also M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 42:4-6). A later variant appearing in Ashdod, Stratum VI has a ring base (Fig. 1.27:2 and possibly other examples in Fig. 1.27:3-7; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 54:1). Another example comes from Ruqeish (Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983: No. 7). The shape appears also without LPDW decorative style (as M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 40:6-7) or with black and red bands (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 59:17). The slanted horizontal handles maybe reminiscent of Iron I Philistine horizontal handles of bell shaped kraters.76

Type BL3 (Fig. 1.26:3, Sample AS17) is a shallow open bowl represented by a single example from Ashdod, Stratum VI (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.107:9; possibly also M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 52:5; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 13:18—Fig. 1.26:6). Types BL2A-B and BL3 appear in the Iron IIB-C and might illustrate certain influence of Assyrian pottery forms (for possibly similar Assyrian forms see Oates 1959: Pl. XXXV:18 or 20; Gilboa 1996: Fig. 3:14). Fragments of small carinated bowls with a simple rim and knobs applied above the carination line are decorated in LPDW style and appear in Tell es-Safi and Ashdod (BL4; Fig. 1.26:7; M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Figs. 41:5, 42:15; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 52:15-16; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.88:5); another possible example comes from Tel Batash Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 93:2). These bowls are decorated by red burnished slip and white and black bands near the rim.73

74 The base is created by pinching the lower part of the body of the vessel while it is still thrown on the wheel, rather than applying a separately-made ring on the base. The same of base appears on amphorae and jugs of the LPDW group. This type of base is wellknown in the Phoenician ceramic repertoire (see, e.g., Chambon 1980: 165, Fig. 44: Anderson 1990:46, Fig. 8). 75 A Globular krater from Jewish Quarter Area A Stratum 9, with red and white bands is possibly of Type KR1A (De Groot et al. 2003:23, Pl. 1.1:23). 76 In her discussion of the finds from Beer Sheva, Stratum II, SingerAvitz describes a similar krater type (1999:22). Petrographic analysis determined that the origin of the clay of which this krater was made from the northern Negev or southern Shephelah (Singer-Avitz 1999:24).

73 Also to be noted is a chalice of stand fragment from Qitmit of the Iron IIC decorated in red slip and black and white bands (Beck 1995:159, Fig. 3.108:191); another possible example comes from the Jewish Quarter (De Groot et al. 2003: Pl. 1.13:5,8).

52

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES General morphological parallels for both krater types KR1 and KR2 come from Phoenician sites, such as Akhziv (Dayagi-Mendels 2002:118, Fig. 5.4, K1), from cemeteries on the Lebanese coast (Sa`idah 1966: Fig. 17; Chapman 1972: Figs. 20, 32) and from Cyprus (Karageorghis 1970: Pl. CCIV:5, 18-24). In some cases these vessels are associated with cremation burial urns. Holemouth krater: Another krater type in the LPDW style is a holemouth krater with a globular body, rounded base, and triangular, ridged or slanted rim (KR3, Fig. 1.27:8-9; Samples: AS4, BT2); the decoration is of black and white bands in the upper part. Undecorated examples of this type are common in Philistia during the Iron Age IIA and the beginning of the Iron Age IIB. Examples of the form come from Ashdod, Strata X-VIII (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 36:6; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Figs. 7:12, 20:1; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.89:5-7) and Tel Batash, Strata IV and III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:65-6, Type KR20, Pl. 17:22). As this is a coastal form (see Fig. 1.15:10) the red slipped examples should be included in the LPDW ‘streamlined’ assemblage.

2005: Fig. 3.71:7). It should be noted these jars have often four handles, a rare feature in “regular”, nonLPDW, sack-shaped jars. Other examples come from Gezer (Fig. 1.28:3; Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 31:12), Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Gil`am (Stern 1970: fig. 6:6). A possible variant of the vertically burnished jar, having more carinated body, was found in Batash, Stratum III (Fig. 1.28:4; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 92:15). Another type of vertically burnished jars, possibly related to the LPDW is a smaller carinated jar with a high neck (JR2, Fig. 1.28:7; Sample MQ22, Tel Miqne, Stratum IB) (see also Amiran 1969: Photo 244). Amphorae Globular amphora (AM, Fig. 1.29): One of the most prominent LPDW forms is the globular amphora (AM1A, Figs. 1.29:1-7, 1.30:1-3, 1.34:4,10,14; Samples of Type AM1: AS2, BM5, GZ1, MG1, QS1, RQ1, RQ2, RQ5, RQ9, RQ10, SF7, SF12, SF14, SF16, TS1; possibly MQ19, MQ20). These vessels have a globular body, a wide, high, and vertically-oriented neck, a ridged or triangular rim, a pinched ring base, and two loop handles attached from a ridge at the middle of the neck to the shoulder. The vertical burnish occurs on the neck and sometimes on the body as well. The decoration consists of horizontal black and sometimes white bands of varied width on the body and neck. This type occurs in a wide variety of sizes, from small (about 20 cm high) to large (up to 40 cm high). A variant of this form has a rounded base (AM1B, Figs. 1.29:8, 1.34:12), and is larger— balloon-shaped.

Kraters of other forms: Two additional krater types occasionally occur with the LPDW decoration and may relate to Iron I krater forms. One is a hemispherical krater from Gezer, Stratum VIII (KR5, Fig. 1.27:12; Dever 1986a: Pl. 47:3), possibly recalling the shape of Philistine bell-shaped kraters. The other krater type is a small carinated krater with a thickened rim, two loop handles, and a ring base from Tell es-Safi, Stratum A3 (KR4, Fig. 1.27:10-11, Samples SF3, SF4; two additional examples of this type are surface finds, and are exhibited in the museum of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem). Type KR4 is somewhat similar to other typical Iron IIA red-slipped kraters (Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001:62, Type KR14), and has a decoration reminiscent of BL1 of groups (three?) of inter-spaced black and white stripes on the rim. However, the rounded body and rim is also somewhat similar to Philistine bellshaped kraters. Thus, this could be another morphological link between the Iron I and late Philistine pottery. In addition several globular vessels with basket handles from Tell Hamid and Ashdod also carry LPDW decoration (Fig. 27:14-15).

Amphorae of this type that occur without red slip but with vertical burnish could also be associated with LPDW (as examples from Tell es-Safi, Fig. 1.29:2-3; three or four additional examples of these amphorae are surface finds from the tell, and are exhibited in the Museum of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem). All the examples from Ashdod have a pinched ring base and come from Strata X-VII (Fig. 1.19:1; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.73:7; for neck fragments of possibly another such an amphora, see M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Figs. 41:19, 42:10; M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 41:22, 56:2326, 101:2). Two complete examples from Ashdod are smaller and have somewhat different proportions and everted rims (Fig. 1.29:9-10; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 46:6; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 21:10). Based on the finds from Ashdod, the chronological range of these vessels extends beyond Iron IIA, possibly as late as Stratum VIII (second half of the 8th century BCE).

Jars The ovoid jars typical of the coastal plains in the Iron Age IIA-B (Fig. 1.25:17-18) appear in several cases with vertically-burnished red slip and at times with black and white bands on the neck and/or shoulder (JR1, Fig. 1.28:1-6; Samples: AS18, GZ3, MQ21). This type appears at Ashdod Area D, Stratum VIIIb (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 43:5, probably no. 1 too, Fig. 57:10; possibly M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 14:8 as well) and Area H, Stratum X (Fig. 1.28:2; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo

Several examples of LPDW globular amphorae come from Tell es-Safi, Stratum A3, of these four or five are complete vessels (Ornan 1986:100-102, No. 49 top row; Maeir 2001: Fig. 10:1-3; another amphora was recovered in a survey conducted by Amiran and Aharoni, 1955; Sample TS1, Fig. 1.29:4). A nearly complete example with black and white bands on the neck should be added from the new season at Safi. Other examples show some morphological variation (especially in rim shape) as those

In addition to its decoration, its shape (similar to LPDW Type KR2) is typical of the coastal region, and thus this may be an LPDW vessel.

53

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.27. LPDW kraters. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Site Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Batash Safi Safi Gezer Ashdod Hamid Hamid

Type KR2 KR2 KR2 KR2? KR2? KR2? KR2? KR3 KR3 KR4 KR4? KR5 KR1? KR? KR?

Sample No./publication Ashdod IV: Fig. 20:2 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 54:1 Ashdod VI: Fig. 3.63:9 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 53:17 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 40:5 Ashdod I: Fig 42.6 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 53:16 AS4 BT2 SF3 SF4 Dever 1986: Fig. 47:3 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 54:2 HM8 HM7

54

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.27. LPDW kraters.

55

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.28. LPDW closed forms. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Site Ashdod Ashdod Gezer Batash Ashdod Miqne Miqne Ashdod Safi

Type JR1 JR1 JR1 JR1? JR1 JR1? JR2 BOT1 BOT2

Sample No./publication Ashdod II-III: Fig. 43:5 AS18 GZ3 Batash II: Pl. 92:15 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 43:1 MQ21 MQ22 AS1 720037/1

56

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.28. LPDW closed forms.

57

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.29. LPDW amphorae. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Site Ashdod Safi Safi Safi Beth Shemesh Tel ‘Amal Gezer Safi Ashdod Ashdod

Type AM1A AM1A AM1A AM1A AM1A AM1A AM1A AM1B AM1A AM1A

Sample No./publication AS2 SF6 SF7 TS1 BM6 Levy and Edelstein 1972: Fig. 11:6 GZ1 SF16 Ashdod IV: Fig. 21:10 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 46:6

58

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.29. LPDW amphorae.

59

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.30. LPDW Amphorae and amphoriskoi. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Site Ruqeish Ruqeish Ruqeish Ashdod Ashdod Miqne Miqne Hamid Hamid Miqne Miqne Safi Beer Sheva Beer Sheva Beer Sheva Qom Batash Ruqeish

Ware LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW? RSP/LPDW? RSP/LPDW? LPDW LPDW RSP/LPDW? RSP/LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW?

Type AM1A AM1A AM1A AM1/JG AM1/JG AM/JG AM/JG AM1/JG1 AM1/JG AM/JG AM/JG AMPS1B AMPS1A AMPS1A AMPS1A AMPS1B AMPS AM

Sample No./publication RQ2 Culican 1973: Fig. 2:R8 RQ9 Ashdod I: Fig. 42:10 AS6 MQ19 MQ47 HM1 HM5 MQ51 MQ48 SF15 BS2 BS4 BS I: Pl. 74:16 KoM4 BT8 RQ3

60

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.30. LPDW amphorae and amphoriskoi. 61

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY from Gezer, Stratum VIA (Fig. 1.29:7, Gitin 1990: Pl. 19:4 with everted rim and larger handles), Beth Shemesh, Stratum IIA (Fig. 1.29:5, Grant 1934: Pl. XXI: bottom, with a widening rim), Tell Qasile, Stratum VII (Fig. 1.34:14; B. Mazar 1951: Pl. 34:C, see below), Tel Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:78, AM7), Ruqeish tombs (Fig. 1.30:1-3; Culican 1973: Fig. 3:R13, R14, R17; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983: Nos. 1315), Megiddo, Stratum V (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 22:129, Type AM1B), Tel ‘Amal, Stratum IV (Fig. 1.29:6, Levy and Edelstein 1972: Fig. 11:6), a tomb at Madaba (Piccirillo 1975:217, Fig. 2:2) and possibly from Tel Miqne, Stratum IV (Ortiz 2000:199, Fig. 15:11-13).

sherds with remnants of no or one handle could be assigned either to AM1 or JG4B (as Ashdod, Stratum IXVIII, M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 89:1; see Fig. 1.30:4-11). As with the amphorae, this type appears in a wide range of sizes. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between types AM1 and JG4B, especially when they are represented by small sherds. Jug type JG4B is also found at Phoenician sites, primarily in burial contexts (Sa`idah 1966: Figs. 23-24; Chapman 1972: fig. 29:157; see below). Amphoriskoi (Fig. 1.30:12-17): Several ovoid amphoriskoi are decorated in the LPDW style, although this form may not be considered as a Late Philistine form on account of its geographical and chronological distribution (Amiran 1969:250; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:128). These vessels seem to represent a somewhat later form, dating to the late Iron IIA and Iron Age IIB (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:214). Amphoriskoi of various sizes (usually under 25 cm in height) have a cylindrical body narrowing in the lower part (Fig. 1.30:12-17). Two handles are located on the shoulder and the base is pointed, rounded (Type AMPS2), or button-shaped (Type AMPS1). There is, however, a large variability in the morphology of this rather rare form. These vessels are often decorated with vertically burnished red slip and horizontal black and white bands. The amphoriskoi from Ashdod are smaller and more elongated than those found at other sites and have a pointed or rounded base. One example coming from Ashdod, Stratum VIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 14:9). Other examples with clear LPDW decoration come from Tell es-Safi (Fig. 1.30:12), Tel Miqne-Ekron, Stratum II, Tel Batash, Stratum III (Fig. 1.30:17; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 22:12) and Tel Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932: Pl. 36:7, Sample TBM1).

It should be noted that the cemetery of Ruqeish yielded several variants of globular amphorae, decorated with vertical red or buff burnish, and related to the LPDW AM1 type. These include an AM1 amphorae with three or four handles (Fig. 1.30:2-3, Culican 1973: Figs. 1:R2, 2:R8; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983: Nos. 9,10,12), and globular amphorae with slanted horizontal handles and knobs (Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983: No. 6).77 Amphorae of similar shape but void of red slip appear at Be’er Sheva, Stratum IV (Aharoni 1973: Pl. 55:12) and Megiddo, Stratum V (Loud 1948: Pl. 89:1,2).78 Similar amphorae, red burnished and decorated in black bands, were found in Area L at Hazor (Stratum VI—the Iron IIB), but were described as Cypro-Phoenician ware (Garfinkel 1997:275, Figs. III.39:27-28, III.46:3). It should be noted that a development of this form appears as late as the end of the Iron Age IIB-Iron IIC at various sites, but without decoration, in Philistia as at Tel Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:78, Type AM7) and Tel Miqne-Ekron, Stratum IB (Fig. 1.35:7, Gitin 1998a: Fig. 4:14) as well as in other sites (Tell elFar`ah(N), Stratum VIId: Chambon 1984: Pl. 46:8a; a burial cave near ‘Askar in Samaria: Magen and Eisenstadt 2004: Pl. 15:2; Hazor: Bonfil and Greenberg 1997: Fig. II.54:33).

This form may also be influenced by Assyrian pottery traditions, which begin to appear at this time (see, e.g., Gilboa 1996) but is also noted to represent a continuation of Canaanite forms of the Iron I (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:128). It can be associated with LPDW due to its distinctive decoration, though the form itself is not coastal. One variant of this type has a button base (AMPS1A, Fig. 1.30:13-15, three examples from Beer Sheva) and another a rounded base (AMPS1B, Figs. 1.30:12,16).

A form similar to the AM1A amphorae is a globular jug with a handle from a ridge in the middle of the neck to the shoulder (JG4B, Fig. 1.31:12). In many cases smaller 77

The vessels from Ruqeish were related to as Phoenician or ‘Ruqeish ware’ (Oren et al. 1986:86-87; Oren 1993a:1294). This relation was supposedly corroborated by the multitude of cremation burials in the site, seen as a Phoenician funerary tradition. However, it is highly probable that most of these vessels could be included in the LPDW group. The appearance of the vessels is somewhat different from LPDW vessels from Philistia: it shows more orange color fabric; the slip is often buff. Several of these vessels were analyzed by ICP and TSPA in this study in order to examine their provenance, and their relation to the LPDW group. 78 In the new Megiddo excavations, Level H-3, which correlates to Stratum IVA of the Oriental institute excavations (Finkelstein et al. 2000:300) two additional vessels may be related to the LPDW—a typical coastal jug with two handles that ended in the middle of its neck (Finkelstein et al. 2000: Fig. 11.46:60, and a juglet with two handles and flat base (Fig. 11.46:2). Unlike the jug, the juglet type is not a coastal type, however, both vessels have black bands, while the jug is also burnished.

As noted, the amphoriskos form is quite common in later Iron IIB contexts at sites throughout southern Israel, such as Beer Sheva, Stratum II (Aharoni 1973: Pls. 67:1, 72:17, 74:16), Arad, Stratum XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: Fig. 7:4,6), Khirbet el-Qom (Fig. 1.30:16; R. Defonzo, personal communication) and Tell el-Far`ah (N), Stratum VIIb (Chambon 1984: Pl. 61:31). A selection of these vessels from several southern sites was analyzed by archaeometric methods in this study in order to examine the possibility of a common production center (Samples: AR1, BS1, BS2, BS3, BS4, BT8, KoM4, SF15, TBM1; see below). 62

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Another jug type has a large globular body, a short narrow neck, and a pinched ring base (JG2, Fig. 1.31:2-3; Samples AS3, AS19, BT3). A complete example is a large globular jug with a narrow neck from Ashdod, Area H, Stratum, X-IX (Figs. 1.31:2; M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Fig. 3.85:4); a complete example of this jug type from Tell es-Safi has smaller dimensions and a wider neck with a ridge in its middle (Fig. 1.34:8; another example, a surface find, is exhibited in the Museum of Kibbutz Kfar Menahem). Both JG1 and JG2 jugs have a decoration of vertical red burnish and a variable number of relatively thin black horizontal bands over the body.

Bottle: A unique example of a drop/date-shaped vessel appears at Ashdod (BOT1 Fig. 1.28:8; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.73:1; Sample AS1). This is a unique vessel in both shape and decoration coming from Area H L6205 (designated Stratum X-IX). This is a complete, very fine, thin walled ‘drop-shaped’ handleless vessel, defined as a bottle. The neck flares, the body is drop- or date-shaped and the base rounded. The redslipped vessel (outside and partly inside) is wheel burnished. The decoration consists of black horizontal bands, two near the rim inter-spaced by a white band, one on the shoulder, and two bands on the body also interspaced by a white band and a lower black band. The shoulder has a black band superimposed by white-painted droplets. This decoration mode possibly represents an attempt to imitate faience or glass vessels. Eight concentric black circles with two or three white circles painted over them decorate the base of the vessel.

Type JG3 may be described as a smaller version of JG1, though the proportions are different. The vessel has a globular body, a wide, inward-slanting, vertical neck, and a ring base (JG3, Fig. 1.31:7-8; Sample BT1). This type appears at Tel Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: Pl. 1:20) and Ashdod, Strata X and IX-VIII (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 42:13; M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 44:9; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.93:3). These jugs are decorated by red burnished slip and black and white bands on the body.

The shape of the so far unique LPDW “bottle” (BOT1) may either relate to Assyrian forms (see Gilboa 1995:13, Fig. 1.7:7; Lines 1954: Pl. XXXVIII:3; Oates 1959: Pl. XXXVII:78) or imitate Egyptian jar forms (e.g., Nagel 1938: Fig. 10:14-15). In any event, both the decoration technique and the colors used are in the LPDW tradition. Thus, it would appear that this vessel illustrates a blend of local and foreign influences.

Other globular jugs from Ashdod include also JG4 (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 41:27; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 14:10), and a ridged rim of Type JG1 appear occasionally as well (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 41:19; M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 41:26, 89:1). All of the above examples derive from Strata IX-VIII contexts.

Miniature bottle (BOT2): Two unique LPDW vessels of a similar form were uncovered in the 2004 season at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Fig. 1.28:9; Stratum A3). These could be termed as miniature bottles or situlae. They have a 8-10 cm cylindrical body with relative wide flaring neck; the lower part is bulging with a rounded base. Two pierced handles are attached to a ridge just below the neck, indicating the vessel was suspended. The decoration consists of red slip and alternating black and white bands. On the basis of their peculiar shape these vessel could have been of a cultic nature.

Of the non-streamlined types are globular jugs with either a mushroom, pinched, or simple rim, pinched ring base which are at times decorated in the LPDW style (JG4, Figs. 1.31:11-15, 1.32::1-9; Samples: AH1, AR2, GZ4, HM3, KM2, KM18, RH1, SF10, SF11, SF18). Most of the jugs also have a pinched ring base, while they can be divided into sub-types on account of their rim shape. A body of such a jug was found at Ashdod Area M, Stratum VIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 14:10) and Tel Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 8:6). Fragments of a form resembling the Phoenician “mushroom-necked” jugs (Bikai 1987: pl. XI:195-196) also appear (denoted as Type JG4C; M. Dothan 1971: Pl. 60:3, Figs. 41:24, 46:5); a complete example probably appears at Kfar Menahem (Sample KM2, Fig. 1.34:14, see below).

Jugs Globular jugs (Figs. 1.31-1.32): Various jugs appear with LPDW decoration, although only a few of the forms can be considered as belonging exclusively to this group or of clear coastal forms (as are JG1-3). Nevertheless, most of the jugs have a globular body. Type JG1 is a common Iron Age IIA coastal type, with a globular body, wide neck, and ridged rim (JG1, Fig. 1.31:1; Samples: HM1, KoM3, MS1). It should be noted that although this jug occasionally occurs without surface treatment (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:112-13, Type JG22), the majority of the examples have a red slip and vertical burnish. Examples come from Ashdod, Stratum VIIIB (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 41:26-27, no. 25 is possibly a variant with a longer neck and shorter body), Tell esSafi (a complete example; see also Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 49:5), Tel Batash, Strata IV and III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pls. 22:19, 88:11) and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Ayalon 1995:172, Fig. 14:11-12).

Another variation of the rim of JG4 may be trefoil (Type JG4A, Figs. 1.32:4). While plain-rimmed JG4 jugs with the handle connected between a ridge in the middle of the neck and the vessel shoulder seem more common (Type JG4B; Fig. 1.31:12; Ashdod Strata Xb and VIIIb, M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 46:5; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 3:8, 10-11, unstratified Fig. 11:2; Tel Batash, Stratum III, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 88:12). Several of these jug forms (especially the mushroomshaped rim) are often considered Phoenician or Cypro-

63

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.31. LPDW jugs. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site Ashdod Ashdod Batash Qom ‘Ajrud Ashdod Batash Ashdod Miqne Batash Batash Batash Qom Safi Batash Ashdod

Ware LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW

Type JG1 JG2 JG2 JG2? JG2 JG4 JG3 JG3 JG/AM JG1 JG JG4B JG4? JG4 JG JG4B

Sample No./publication/ref. Ashdod II-: Fig. 41:26 AS3 BT3 KoM1 Ayalon 1995: Fig. 14:11 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 89:1 BT1 Ashdod IV: Fig. 8:3 MQ20 Batash II: Pl. 22:9 Batash II: Pl. 22:10 BT14 KoM2 520045 BT5 Ashdod IV: Fig. 3:8

64

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.31. LPDW jugs.

65

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.32. LPDW jugs. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Site Ashdod Safi Gezer Safi Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Rehov Safi Safi Safi Miqne Miqne Nagila Hamid Batash Hamid ‘Ajrud Nagila Batash Batash

Ware LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW RSP/LPDW? RSP/LPDW? LPDW? LPDW LPDW? LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW

Type JG4B JG4B JG4B? JG4A JG4B JG4B JG4 JG4 JG4 JG5 JGT1 Varia 1 JG JG JG JGT? JG JG4? JG JG JG4? sherd

Sample No./publication/ref. Ashdod IV: Fig. 8:4 Basket 520109 GZ4 SF10 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 46:3 AS20 AS23 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 41:27 RH1 Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004: Fig. 3:7 SF8 SF17 MQ44 MQ45 NG1 HM2 BT7 HM3 Ayalon 1995: Fig. 14:12 NG4 BT4 BT6

66

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.32. LPDW jugs. 67

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY and a flask with LPDW decoration was found in Tell esSafi Stratum A3 (Fig. 1.33:4). However, this form appear somewhat earlier too, as at Qasile Strata XI-X and Tel Miqne, Stratum IV (Zukerman and T. Dothan forthcoming b: Pl. 95:16, 96:9; Figs. 1.33:6-7; Samples MQ43, MQ46) and may be related to Phoenician types of the late Iron I/early IIA horizon.79

Phoenician (Bikai 1987: Pl. V), and their attribution to the LPDW group is based solely on the surface treatment and decoration. Globular jugs decorated in the LPDW style appear in northern sites as at Rehov, Stratum VI (Fig. 1.32:9; Mazar personal communication; the vessel, complete except the rim, has horizontal black and white bands on the upper body; Sample RH1), Sarepta (Pritchard 1975: Fig. 63:11) and Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XIII:82, Sample AH1). There are many examples of fragmentary globular jugs with LPDW decoration coming from Ashdod, Miqne, Nagila, Batash and other sites (see Fig. 1.32:5-9,15-22). The exact type of these vessels cannot be ascertained.

Other jugs and closed vessels: Other rare types that occur with LPDW decoration are a small jug with a wide neck and a rounded base (JG5, Fig. 1.32:10; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 3:8); a cup-shaped vessel with a ring base from Tell es-Safi, Stratum A3 (Varia 1, Fig. 1.32:12; Sample SF17), and a pyxis from The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, Phase 16 (R. Voss, personal communication, Fig. 1.33:9; Sample AK19). In addition, other jug forms, some with long narrow necks are decorated in red slip and black and white decoration (see examples from Miqne, Batash and Tell Hamid, Fig. 32:13-16). A Pomegranate vessel from Tell Qasile Temple Stratum X is also decorated in the LPDW style (Mazar 1980:116, Fig. 46:a).

Strainer Spouted jugs (SSJ, Fig. 1.33:1-3): Several examples of strainer spouted jugs from early Iron IIA contexts are decorated in the LPDW style. At Tel Batash, Stratum IV (V/IV transition), a red slipped strainer spouted jug (and an additional unstratified example) was described as “Ashdod Ware” (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:122, Pl. 11:16,19). Another example of a SSJ with vertical hand burnish and black and white band decoration comes from Tel Miqne, Stratum IV (Fig. 1.33:2, Sample MQ50; Zukerman and T. Dothan forthcoming b: Pl. 107:11); a possible example comes also from Tel Nagila, Stratum IV (D. Ilan pers. com.; Sample NG2, Fig. 1.33:3). A red slipped SSJ with vertical burnish was found in a burial cave at Taiyibe (Yannai 2002:*40, Fig. 7:2). However, both the character and form of this vessels and their early context (at least at Tel Miqne, together with red-slipped Philistine pottery), may relate this type to the final Iron I degenerated Philistine pottery rather than to the LPDW pottery. Otherwise, this form may be considered as one of the few direct morphological links between the Iron I and the Late Philistine decorative ware assemblages. Later, during the Iron IIB-C, SSJ become a rather popular form in Judean sites, especially in burial assemblages (e.g., Yezerski 2004:213, Pl. 5:1-3, and references therein).

Terracottas Although terracottas are often not included in ceramic vessel typology, they can add an important aspect to the phenomenon of LPDW (similarly to the treatment of Iron I Philistine terracottas). As in the Iron I Philistine wares, we see that the Philistine decoration transcends to other forms, usually related to the cultic sphere, as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic terracottas and possibly stands. An important group that should be included in the LPDW corpus is various terracottas including anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels and kernoi (Type ZV/K, Fig. 1.33:10-11) and possibly figurines (FG1, Fig. 1.33:12). These are usually decorated in red slip (hand burnished in the larger examples) and black and/or white decoration, mostly stripes.

Juglets: A small jug or juglet with burnished red slip and LPDW style decoration of black and white bands comes from Tell es-Safi, Stratum A3 (JGT1, Fig. 1.32:11, Sample SF8). Although the neck and rim of the example from the Tell es-Safi/Gath excavations has not survived, an unprovenanced juglet of this type (purportedly from Tell es-Safi/Gath, currently located in the Israel Museum, Dayagi-Mendels 1999:60, photo, lower left) has a trefoil rim and a long, conical neck. Clearly, this form is an imitation of or closely related to a well-known Phoenician type (e.g., Bikai 1987: Pl. 14: 355, 360). Thus, this form was termed juglet mainly because of its resemblance to Phoenician juglet forms; note also that it is made of finer clay.

An unpublished fragment of an anthropomorphic vessel comes from Stratum III at Tel Miqne, Field ISW (Object No. 6585, Fig. 1.33:13); it has the typical red vertically burnished slip and black and white decoration.80 Both the 79 There is a certain uncertainty to what extent to include lentoid and jug flasks with red slip and concentric circles in white and/or black in the LPDW typology; this form may be related to the Phoenician Bichrome repertoire (Mazar 1985a:74-77, Type FL5, in relation to the Tell Qasile assemblage and parallels to Tell Abu Hawam, Stratum III). See also discussion in Gilboa 1998:423 and concerning Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 79:10). 80 The object from Tel Miqne comes from Surface 28110 (Basket ISW.28.285) (with a possibly additional fragment from Locus 28061, No. 6602, Basket ISW.28.296). It is comprised of a wheel made body (probably of a 5-6 cm diameter) with an arm and a breast applied on it: the arm with incised fingers is holding the breast). The fragment from Tel Miqne could have come from a female-shaped libation vessel (such a complete vessel was found at Tell Qasile, Mazar 1980:78-81, Fig. 18). The depiction of the arm supporting the breast may be in general resemblance to Judean and Canaanite female figurines of the Iron Age (Kletter 1996).

Flasks (Fig. 1.33:4-8; Samples: SF13, MQ43, MQ46): Flasks are also decorated in the LPDW style in several occasions. These include a lentoid flask decorated in the LPDW style that was found in Ashdod Area G, Stratum X (Fig. 1.33:5; M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 46:5) 68

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES context and the appearance of this object fit well the LPDW ceramic group. Additional fragments of anthropomorphic vessels decorated with red slip and black band, though with no white decoration, come from Ashdod, Stratum VII (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 65:7,9). A figurine of a man holding a lyre from an unstratified context at Ashdod is also decorated in the LPDW style (Fig. 1.33:12, M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 62:1).

figurines, to date most have been found at Ashdod. The shape of the animals and the vessel types are similar to those appearing in Philistine Bichrome tradition while the decoration is in the LPDW style. On the other hand, attributes indicative of the influence of Cypro-Phoenician pottery are also present. For example KR1A and KR2 are quite similar to Cypro-Phoenician types, as is the juglet from Tell es-Safi (JGT1). As black decoration applied on a burnished red slip is often considered as a technique introduced by Phoenician potters (e.g. T. Dothan 1998b), other earlier Phoenician assemblages should also be examined in an attempt to determine which pottery tradition influenced the other. Therefore, it is not yet clear whether the burnished redslip and painted decoration reach Philistia via Phoenicia or vice-versa? Mazar showed that burnished red slip vessels do not appear in Phoenicia prior to the 11th century BCE (1998:377), more or less at the same time that it appeared in Philistia, implying that the burnished red slip style appearing on LPDW vessels might have originated in Philistia. Similarly, at Dor, as at other Phoenician sites, burnished red slip is rare in the Iron IIA (Gilboa 1998: 414). Moreover, as noted above, the Cypro-Phoenician pottery usually has a more lustrous, wheel-made burnish as opposed to the vertical hand burnish of the LPDW. Therefore, it may very well be that the LPDW decoration does not originate from the CyproPhoenician cultural, even if at later stages there may have been some influence on this style. It was also suggested that during the Iron IIB the potters in Philistia were influenced by Greek pottery forms (Stern 1973:11).

Zoomorphic vessels and kernoi (ZV/K, Fig. 1.33:11-12; Samples: AS15, AS24, HM9) with LPDW decoration occur in relatively large quantities in Ashdod, Strata XVIII with fragments in Strata VII-VI as well, especially in Areas D and H. Most are head-spouts or other spouts from kernoi (M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 68:1, 6, 69:1-6, 70:1, 3, 71:8; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.61:34, 9-10, 3.69:1).81 Actual zoomorphic libation vessels, probably depicting bovines, also appear in this ware (Fig. 1.33:11; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 72:1; M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Fig. 3.25); a complete example was found in an unstratified context at Tel Miqne-Ekron (BenShlomo in press a: Fig. 12). A head spout with a long neck in the LPDW style was published from Tel Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 8:11); another example comes from Tell Hamid (Wolff and Shavit in press: Fig. *6:2; Sample HM9). Zoomorphic figurines fragments with LPDW decoration appear in Ashdod as well; one is a bovine head from Stratum X (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.80:6) and others from later Iron II strata are probably of bird vessels/figurines (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 42:18; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 92:7). A cylindrical stand decorated in the LPDW style comes from Megiddo Stratum V (Loud 1948: Pl. 148:3).

Due to an insufficient amount of relevant, well-published material, the fine-tuned typological developments of the LPDW are yet difficult to identify. However, it seems that in the earlier Iron IIA, forms related to Philistine Iron I forms still appear, some are connected to red-slipped and degenerated Philistine forms; later on, during the late Iron IIA, this ware appears on coastal, and some Phoenician-related forms. In this stage the LPDW style may be considered fully developed. During the Iron IIB (8th century BCE) the LPDW decoration style also appears on other forms, some possibly influenced from the Assyrian repertoire. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that both the LPDW decoration and forms are the outcome of influences from both the earlier Iron Age I Philistine ceramic traditions and contemporaneous Cypro-Phoenician and other traditions (for other Phoenician influences in Iron IIA Philistia, see T. Dothan 1998b).82

f. Influences and typological development of LPDW Several attributes of the LPDW appear to indicate continuity or links with the Iron I Philistine pottery. These include the general concept of painted bichrome decoration and the horizontal handles. Bowl BL1 and a krater from Tell es-Safi (KR4 Fig. 1.27:10) are decorated on the rim with several groups of black bands on a white slip, which recalls Philistine Bichrome decoration. However, overall the decoration itself bears some resemblance to Phoenician pottery, as already suggested by M. Dothan and Freedman (1967:130-131). Several of the LPDW vessels (e.g., Types KR1B-C and KR4) appear to be morphologically related to pottery forms common in the Iron I Philistine tradition. The bell-shaped kraters (KR4 and KR5) and the krater with horizontal handles (KR2) both indicate such a connection. Strainer spouted jugs decorated in the LPDW style may also be a link between the Iron I and Iron II Philistine wares. Another ceramic group that suggests the influence of Philistine traditions is zoomorphic vessels, kernoi, and

82 In her study of the Iron Age Cypro-Phoenician pottery, Schreiber (2003) suggests that the Philistine red slip (2003: Figs. 7, 8:1-7) and LPDW (Ashdod Ware) (2003: Fig. 8:8-10) are localized phenomena in Philistia and probably evolved from each other (Schreiber 2003:13). Interestingly, such a combination of influences continue in Iron IIB examples of LPDW, with some of the forms—such as bowl BL2 and bottle BT1—possibly influenced by Assyrian shapes.

81

An interesting motif appearing on few bovine head spouts is a white circle on the forehead with black stripes covering it. This motif might have a symbolic or religious meaning (as M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 68:1,3,6, 69:1-6; possibly a sun disk between horns, as in Egyptian apis bulls).

69

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.33. Various LPDW and related forms. No. Site Ware 1 Miqne RSP/LPDW 2 Miqne LPDW 3 Nagila RSP/LPDW 4 Safi LPDW? 5 Ashdod LPDW 6 Miqne LPDW? 7 Miqne LPDW? 8 Batash LPDW? 9 Ashkelon LPDW 10 Miqne LPDW 11 Ashdod LPDW 12 Ashdod LPDW 13 Ashdod LPDW AV=Anthropomorphic vessel

Type SSJ SSJ SSJ Flask Flask Flask JG-Flask JG-Flask Pyxis AV ZV Kernos Figurine

Sample No./publication/ref. MQ49 MQ50 NG2 SF13 Ashdod V: Fig. 46:5 MQ46 MQ43 BT12 AK19 Object No. 6585 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 72:1 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 68:6 Ashdod II-III: Fig. 62:1

70

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

2

1

3

5

4

7 6

8

9 10

Miqne #6585

13 11

12

Figure 1.33. Various LPDW vessels and related forms.

71

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Figure 1.34. LPDW vessels from Safi and other sites. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Safi Ashkelon Qasile Kfar Menahem Kfar Menahem

Type JG4B JGT1 AMPS1B AM1A JG4 Varia 1 JG5 JG2 JG4A AM1A KR1B AM1B KR1 AM1 JG4 JG4C

Sample No. SF8 SF15 SF7 SF17 SF9 SF10 SF6 SF5 SF16 AK20 QS1 KM18 KM2

72

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

1-12: Tell es-Safi

AK20

13 KM18

15 QS1

14

Figure 1.34. LPDW vessels from Safi and other sites. KM2

16

73

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 1.35. Various samples taken as reference. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Site Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Miqne Batash Safi Safi Batash

Ware RS RS RS Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain RS RS

Type BL BL BL JG “JGT” JR AM1 CP JG JGT BL

Sample No. AS21 AS10 AS11 AS14 AS5 AS8 MQ23 BT13 SF28 SF29 BT9

74

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.35. Samples taken as reference.

75

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY The initial Philistine settlement dates to the last days of the Egyptian presence in southern Palestine (the traditional view, held by most scholars—the high chronology), possibly in relation to settling of the Philistines by the Egyptians as described in Papyrus Harris I (e.g. Albright 1975; Singer 1985:114; Mazar 1985b). 2. The initial Philistine settlement dates to after last days of the Egyptian presence (the low chronology, e.g., Finkelstein 1995); 3. There were two waves of Philistine settlement: an earlier one characterized by Philistine Monochrome pottery, dated to the years of Egyptian hegemony (before Ramesses III 8th year) and a later wave characterized by the Philistine Bichrome pottery dated to the last years of the Egyptian presence and later (this view, an ultra-high chronology, was proposed mostly by M. Dothan and not accepted by other scholars85).

5. The chronological framework of the Philistine pottery This study embraces a relatively long period of time, at least five hundred years—the Iron I, Iron IIA and Iron IIB. The Iron I is defined here as the 12th-11th c. BCE, the Iron IIA as both the 10th and 9th centuries, the Iron IIB spans the 8th c., while the late 8th, 7th and early 6th centuries BCE are defined as the Iron IIC. This scheme is similar to the one suggested by Aharoni and Amiran (1958).83 This time span has stimulated many of chronological debates in the past decades, especially the ‘low’ versus the traditional ‘high’ chronologies. Most debates refer to the problem of absolute chronology, although relative chronology dealing with the correlation of strata and pottery assemblages is far from agreed on as well. These extensive debates probably derive from the scarcity of textual finds from the relevant strata, the relatively few final reports dealing with the Iron Age material culture in Israel, as well as from more political or ideological reasons related to the perception of the biblical narrative and the history of Israel.

Thus, the relative chronological sequence of late LBIIearly Iron Age southern Palestine includes four stages according to the traditional high chronology (as presented in Mazar 1985b, 1990: Table 6; see here Table 1.1): 1. The final LBIIB with Mycenaean IIIB and Cypriote imports (as Ashdod XIV, Miqne VIII, Lachish VII); 2. The Philistine Monochrome pottery phase (i.e., Ashdod XIIIb/XIII, Miqne VII-VIB), which is partly parallel to the post-import stage at non-Philistine sites (as Lachish Level VI and Tel Sera’ IX; see Yannai 2004:10601062)—this horizon is contemporary with the last days of Egyptian presence; the Canaanite pottery of this phase shows strong resemblances to late LBII forms (denoted by Mazar as Iron Age IA); 3. The Philistine Bichrome phase, spanning the most of the Iron I (Ashdod XIII-XI, Miqne VIA-V, Qasile XII-XI, denoted by Mazar as Iron IB); 4. The degenerated Philistine and red slipped phase (Miqne VA-IV, Qasile X, Aphek X10-X9), dated to late Iron I (Mazar 1990: Table 6).

The chronological debates focus on two relatively short periods: the beginning of the Iron I, or the LBII-Iron IA transition, and the beginning of the Iron IIA or the Iron IB-Iron IIA transition. In other words, the chronological questions relating to Philistia are the date of the first settlement indicated by the appearance Philistine Monochrome ware, the date of the appearance of the Philistine Bichrome ware, and the date of the end of the Philistine Bichrome ware, marking the end of the Iron I. Although the full scope of the ‘high-low’ Iron Age chronological debate will not be dealt here, a general overview and relevant propositions will be presented. a. Iron I The chronology in Iron I Philistia is strongly linked with the date of the end of Egyptian occupation in Palestine and its temporal association to the date of the Philistine settlement.84 There are three views on this association: 1.

According to the low chronology, another stage is added before the appearance of the Monochrome ware, resulting in a lowering of the Philistine Monochrome dates by about 70 years (Finkelstein 1995, 1998; 2000; Ussishkin 1985).86 This stage is defined by the horizon of Lachish, Level VI (Ussishkin 2004:60-73), Tel Sera’, Stratum IX, Aphek X11, Jaffa Lion Temple, Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum B1, Gezer XIV, and possibly Tel Mor, Strata 56, Beth Shemesh, Stratum IVA, Miqne, Phase 9C-D in Field INE (Killebrew 1986:8-9) and Stratum XIII in Ashdod Area H (according to Finkelstein and SingerAvitz 2001). In all of these sites there are assemblages, which are later than the LBII and include no

83 This scheme was also accepted by A. Mazar (1990:296), Herr (1997) and other scholars, save for the 9th c. BCE which they designate to the Iron IIB. Fritz also limits the Iron IIA to the 10th century (1994:75). Nevertheless, the similarities between the 10th and 9th century pottery assemblages are well recognized (Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998:30; Mazar 1999; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001:143). Recently, Herzog and Singer-Avitz have proposed a very similar scheme of the Iron IIA in southern Israel, dividing this roughly 200 year long period into early and late Iron IIA (2004:209-210, Table 1). 84 While the chronology in the Levant has implications on those of Cyprus and the Aegean, it is very difficult to draw any conclusions from the Aegean and Cypriote chronologies on Levantine chronology. Aegean chronologies are often based mainly on stylistic developments of selected decorated pottery wares. Thus, the fine-tuned divisions between LHIIIB2-LHIIIC Early-Middle (e.g., Mountjoy 1986, 1999; Betancourt 2000) or Mycenaean IIIC:1a-b/2 styles (Furumark 1941) and their respective comparisons with the Philistines wares (in forms and decorations), have little affect on establishing the chronology in Iron Age Philistia in my opinion. It is more likely that the sequence in Philistia should be used as a guideline for Aegean chronologies. Nevertheless, suggestions for correlation of the Iron I Philistine sites with the Aegean 12th century chronology were presented (Warren and

Hankey 1989:166-167 and Table 2 in T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004) based mainly on Mountjoy’s scheme of Mycenaean pottery (1986:9097, 1999:15-18,38-41). The Philistine Monochrome stage can be roughly paralleled with the LHIIIC Early and the Philistine Bichrome with the LHIIIC Middle/Late. 85 See T. Dothan 1982:295-6; M. Dothan 1989a; T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992:169; (T. Dothan 2000:156—suggesting four waves); see also Stone 1995:14, Fig. 1. 86 Finkelstein’s low chronology for the Philistine settlement actually follows up Aharoni’s earlier suggustions (1982:184-185).

76

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Monochrome or Bichrome pottery. Moreover, Lachish, Level VI and Tel Sera‘, Stratum IX are dated to the years of Ramesses III or later, according to textual finds (Goldwasser 1982, 1984; Oren 1993c; with a date of year 22+x of a Pharaoh at Tel Sera‘ IX; on Lachish VI hieratic inscriptions see also Sweeney 2004).87 The bowls with hieratic inscriptions from Tel Sera’ also indicate the intensity of Egyptian influence in the early part of the Iron I in these sites.

In relation to the Iron I/IIA transition we are entering a new ‘high-low’ chronology debate. Here the problem is more general, including both southern and northern Israel, as this period is associated with the issue of the United Monarchy. As yet most of the data in this case is concentrated in the north. This issue is also strongly related to the matter of the historicity of the United Monarchy as described in the bible, i.e., the days of David and Solomon. Yadin (1970; 1972; Mazar 1990:380-387) dated the six chambered gates in Hazor Stratum X, Megiddo, Stratum IVA and Gezer, Stratum VIII (Yadin 1959; Dever 1985, 1986b: Table 1) to the date of Solomon, that is the early 10th century BCE, in relation to the verse in 1Kings 9:15. Concerning the south, the date of the destruction of Stratum X at Tell Qasile is crucial for dating the final appearance of Philistine Bichrome pottery in Philistia. However, the nature of this stratum, mainly including an assemblage of a temple, may not be indicative for other sites. Another crucial landmark is the Shishaq campaign dated around 925 BCE and its relation to various destruction levels in the southern Levant (for review see B. Mazar 1986; Na’aman 1998b; Finkelstein 2002d).89

Thus, Finkelstein and Ussishkin conclude that Philistine Monochrome pottery appeared only after the reign of Ramesses III or even after Ramesses VI (according to the statue base with his name from Megiddo; see, Singer 1988-89), i.e. around 1130 BCE, thus, dating the initial Philistine settlement to this date. The Philistine Bichrome stage is dated respectively several decades later. Actually, Mazar and Finkelstein agree on most of the relative chronology designating a clear horizon of material culture in between the end of the LBII horizon and the Philistine Bichrome horizon. As Mazar sees the appearance of Philistine Monochrome pottery in the different sites as related to cultural and ethnic factors, Finkelstein sees it solely as a chronological parameter. According to some scholars, supporting the high chronology, the absence of Monochrome pottery is explained by ethnic boundaries separating Philistine cities from Egyptian strongholds in the beginning of the 12th century representing a coexistence of several cultural entities (Wood 1991:52; T. Dothan 1992:97, 1998a; Dever 1992:108; Stager 1995:342; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001).

A number of roughly contemporary strata mark a new ceramic horizon (Megiddo VB, Hazor X-IX, Taanach IIB-A, Tel Miqne IVA, Ashdod X, Batash IV, Qasile Stratum IX-VIII, Gezer VIII, Lachish V, Arad XI and other strata, see Mazar 1997:160, 1998:373-377, Table 3; Kempinski 1989:89-94; see Tables 1.1, 1.8). This horizon is characterized by the red burnished pottery appearing with a specific array of forms and the disappearance of Iron I decorative traditions as the Philistine Bichrome (although the Phoenician Bichrome in the north continues). It was thought to represent the initial Iron IIA—the period of the United Monarchy during the early 10th century BCE (see also Part 5.1). This scheme was accepted by the majority of scholars until it was recently challenged by Finkelstein, who suggested, again, a lower chronology (1996a, 2002a). He proposed that the Iron IIA horizon is to be dated to the 9th, rather than the early 10th century BCE. The association of extensive building and fortifications with the period of the united monarchy is respectively undermined (see also Wightman 1990). It seems that according to this chronology most strata, previously seen to be destroyed by king David around 1000 BCE, are now dated to around the Shishaq campaign of 925 BCE. Various studies refuted the low chronology (as Mazar 1997; Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998; Ortiz 2000:324-330; Kletter 2004), while other data seems to support it (Gilboa and Sharon 2003). This debate has now entered a new stage as more radiocarbon dates of the relevant strata are published and analyzed. This came to light especially in relation to the data from Tel Dor, supporting an ultra-low chronology, as opposed

It is not easy to chronologically compare the early Iron Age data between southern and northern Palestine, especially since the southern sequence is largely based on the Philistine wares, which are very rare in the north. However, such an attempt was made concerning the data from Megiddo. While T. Dothan (1982:70-80) stressed the appearance of Philistine Bichrome sherds in Stratum VIIA related to the last Canaanite city (see also Kempinski 1989:77), thus dating the Bichrome phase to the very beginning of the Iron I, Mazar (1985b) showed that these sherds came only from contaminated loci.88 The Philistine pottery from Megiddo Stratum VIA (and Stratum S-2 at Beth Shean) together with late Iron I forms (e.g., red slipped and degenerated Philistines forms) may correlate it to Tell Qasile, Stratum X, thus, linking southern and northern pottery assemblages of the late Iron I sites in Israel (Kempinski 1989:89-92; Mazar 2002:274,277).

87

Most absolute dates pivot around Ramesses III 8th year; this being 1991/1975 BCE depending on the various Egyptian chronologies (see, e.g. Table 1 in Mazar 1985b; Kitcen 2000); the low Egyptian chronology is used here (Wente and van Siclen 1976). 88 Mazar also sees the Tell Farah(S) cemetery 900 (with no Philistine pottery) as predating the 500 cemetery which yielded Philistine Bichrome (Mazar 1985b:97-98; see also a similar conclusion by McClellan 1979:72-73).

89 Note, though, that the Shishaq campaign may have not resulted in a substantial destruction of the sites mentioned in the list (Na’aman 1998b:276).

77

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY to data from Tel Rehov, supporting a high chronology.90 In any way it becomes clearer that the Iron IIA period had a long span of more than a century, and therefore continued well into the 9th c. BCE (see discussion above). However, the date of the commence of this period is still in dispute, whether it is in the very beginning of the 10th c. (ca. 1000 BCE) or later.

problematic scenario than a geographical distribution of the Philistine Monochrome pottery according to ethnic or cultural guidelines (Bunimovitz and Faust 2001:2-3). The Philistine Monochrome pottery, relatively rare even in some Philistine Pentapolis sites, is still almost absent outside them, and must have had a more limited market than the successive Bichrome pottery.91 Thus, the absence of Philistine Monochrome from several sites in southern Israel should not imply a lowering of the chronology of the initial Philistine settlement (see also Kletter 2004:3334).

The new low chronology for the date of the initial Philistine settlement in the Iron I seems to pose more problems than it solves. Finkelstein perceives the relation of pottery to chronology in a very strict sense. That is, if a certain pottery type, which is dated to a certain period, is absent from another site, a chronological gap is immediately inferred. Negative data, often incidental, becomes crucial for dating entire horizons in this way. The differences in the various suggestions for the date the beginning of the Iron I are quite large; a separate post LB-pre Monochrome horizon may shift the dates by about 70 years. This is problematic as in settlements as Tel Batash V, Beth Shemesh III and Tel Sippor where the LBII is succeeded immediately by a stratum with Philistine Bichrome (see Table 1.2). Furthermore, there is no real evidence of such an intermediate phase in Ashdod Areas H or G (Ben-Shlomo 2003:84-87) or in Tel Miqne Field I, while the excavations in The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon (Phases 21-20) and Safi also show no signs yet of such a phase. Finkelstein assumes such a considerable gap in every site lacking Philistine Monochrome pottery, thus, according to the low chronology many sites in the Shephelah would be uninhabited during the Iron IA. This is a far more

Concerning the high-low chronology of the Iron I/IIA transition it seems that as time is passing the two chronologies become closer differing in only about 50 years or less (Finkelstein 2004:187). The attempt to relate the archaeological remains to very specific historical events, namely the reigns of David and Solomon is problematic. On the other hand, the Shishaq campaign well documented by Egyptian and biblical reports, dated to about 925 BCE, is sought as another anchor. It seems now that the Iron I/IIA transition is closer to the Shishaq date (Finkelstien 2002d:129) than to the year 1000 (David conquests), even according to the data provided from the advocates of the high chronology. However, the synchronization between the various destruction horizons in the major sites, especially in northern Israel, is far from accomplished.92 The data from the south is even poorer. It seems that, at least in southern Israel, strata often associated with latter part of the Iron I, as Ashdod X, Miqne IVA, Batash IVB(?), Arad XII (see Singer-Avitz 2002:110-114) and Tell es-Safi A5-A4, continue into the 91 Bunimovitz and Faust (2001) have shown that ‘ethnic demarcation’ can cause considerable variations in the material cultures of adjacent sites. 92 It seems that in this case the discussion on the chronology of the 10th century has passed the limit of archaeological resolution (see also Kletter 2004:44-45), both according to stratigraphic and ceramic evidence, which seems to be about +/-50 years. Even if radiocarbon dating can have a better resolution of say +/-25 years, it is meaningless in light of the coarser archaeological resolution.

90

At Tel Dor an Iron I-IIA ceramic sequence was obtained (Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Sharon and Gilboa in press). The Iron I sequence was refined in accordance with the four various well documented strata at Dor including several excavation areas and two destruction levels. According to typological seriation excluding the very early Iron IA (hardly excavated) the horizons defined were: late Iron IA, Iron IA/IB, early Iron IB, late Iron IB, transition Iron IB/IIA and Iron IIA (Gilboa and Sharon 2003:14-17). These are not related to Mazar’s terminology of the Iron I (1985b), but are phases related to local and Phoenician forms and decoration styles. Thence, this sequence was attempted to be generalized for other Phoenician sites as Tel Keisan, Sarepta and Tyre. Although the differences between adjacent horizons are not always clear-cut, even in Dor, this is the first successful attempt for such a refinement of the Iron I sequence.

The archaeological resolution or error estimate is a complex issue was never studied in depth in quantitative terms to my knowledge (for a more general discussion of such methodological issues, see, e.g., Schiffer 1975; Harris 1979:92-99); this is in spite of the fact that archaeological observations do produce quantitative statements regarding chronology. The error can derive from various sources even in the most controlled archaeological situations. For example, if a clear destruction level on a floor is defined in a certain locus, the generalization into an all-site (or even all-area) ‘stratum’ of a synchronized date is problematic—both in the actual identification of a destruction in a certain context and in the assuming of different loci being contemporaneous. Thence, the error is transferred to typology of pottery and the comparing of assemblages from different contexts and then from different sites. From the beginning, any secure context can have artifacts earlier than its destruction and to a lesser extent (hopefully) intrusions from later contexts. The minimal life span of a specific pottery form should also be considered, as is the assumption of a directional or even linear process in the development of pottery forms (see e.g. Wood 1990:86-88). All these considerations together seem to produce an error more significant than +/- 25 years, as the dominant error should always be the largest one. See also Sharon 1995 on archaeological and mathematical treatment of absolute dating at Dor, based on pottery and coins from the Persian-Roman periods in Areas A and C.

In the next stage the various transitions were dated by relatively numerous radiocarbon dates. The results were of an ultra-low chronology (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: Tables 21-22), dating the Iron IA/B transition to 975 BCE (the former still with Philistine Bichrome pottery) and dating the Iron IB/IIA to 850 BCE. These dates are 50 years lower than Finkelstein’s low chronology dates. The authors stress, though, that these may not be final and may not represent the Iron I-IIA horizons on a larger geographical scale (Gilboa and Sharon 2003:72). In contrary to this, a large group of radiocarbon dates were published from Tel Rehov (Mazar and Carmi 2001). In this site in the Beth Shean Valley, three Iron IIA strata were uncovered (VI-IV), with wellpreserved destruction levels. The dates are somewhat in between the traditional high chronology (dating the beginning of the Iron IIA to 1025/1000 BCE) and the lower chronology, showing various dates within the 10th century; the Iron IIA continues however clearly into most of the 9th century (see a different interpretation of the same dates by Finkelstein 2004).

78

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES Iron IIA (Mazar 1990: Tables 6-7; Qasile X is probably somewhat earlier, though). These strata include degenerate and red slipped Philistine forms but also redslipped formed typical of the early Iron IIA; this horizon may be also termed as an Iron I/IIA transitional phase (see Tables 1.2, 1.7-8). As chronology is not the main concern of this study, relative terms (as early Iron I, Iron I, transitional Iron I/IIA, early/late Iron IIA etc.) will be used attempting to avoid issues of absolute chronology as far as possible. When used, absolute dates will follow the high chronology.

Another problem with the stratigraphy of Ashdod is the definition of Stratum IX. This stratum is barely in evidence in Area D, appears to be somewhat artificial in Area M (Ussishkin 1990:78-82), and does not exist at all in other areas. Thus, as Stratum IX is not an architecturally independent stratum, Stratum X must represent the primary Iron IIA occupation level (in Areas G, H, and M). Stratum IX at best may be defined as a transitional phase of material culture representing the late Iron IIA. In Area H, two loci (especially Locus 5117; see M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 2.34-35), which postdate the Stratum X levels but predate the Stratum IXVIII floors, represent this phase. The large pottery assemblage recovered from these contexts (Pits 5117 and 6205, attributed to Stratum X-IX) includes several complete LPDW vessels (as Figs. 1.28:8, 1.29:1, 1.31:2) and seems to parallel to the assemblage from Tell es-Safi Stratum A3. Apparently, LPDW pottery also occurs in the Iron IIB Strata VIII, and to a lesser extent in Strata VII-VI. Most of the forms that appear in this period differ from the “classical” LPDW forms, and may reflect later “foreign” influences (such as Assyrian or Judean). To summarize, LPDW seems to continue to appear at Ashdod at least until the Assyrian conquest by Sargon II, 712 BCE, i.e., Stratum VIIIb. Thus, the wide chronological range of the pottery forms in several contexts in Ashdod (as in Areas D and H) is largely responsible for the consequent extension of the chronological range of the LPDW.

b. Iron II (LPDW) The chronological framework of the LPDW pottery is based initially on the four excavated Philistine cities, and especially Tel Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath, and to a lesser extent of other well-dated strata of Iron II sites, as Tel Batash and Gezer from southern Israel (Tables 1.71.8). The site of Ashdod is a major center of LPDW vessels but its publication illustrates several stratigraphic difficulties. The earliest appearance of LPDW at Ashdod is in Stratum Xb in Area M, the first Iron IIA stratum (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:10-11). Subsequent stratified examples were reported from Strata X through VIII, to which several, possibly residual, sherds from Stratum VI can be added. The ware appears mainly in Areas D, G, HK, and M. Although LPDW pottery occurs throughout the Iron Age strata, it seems that it is especially common in Iron IIA (Strata X-IX). The main exception is the large assemblage found in Stratum VIIIb in Area D. The destruction of Stratum VIII in Area D is dated to Sargon II’s campaign in 712 BCE (M. Dothan 1971:21). Most of the LPDW vessels derive from the earlier, local-phase-3b of this stratum, still later than that of other strata that yielded LPDW, both in other excavation areas at Ashdod, and at other sites, and may be considered as the latest major appearance of this ware.

A preliminary study of the finds from Tell es-Safi/Gath shows that pottery with LPDW decoration was found mostly in loci attributed to Stratum A3, a well-defined stratum dating to the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE (Shai and Maeir 2003:110-114; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004). This dating is quite secure, according to the stratigraphic position of this stratum: on the one hand, it is sealed by Stratum A2, which is characterized by finds similar to the Lachish Stratum III cultural horizon (late 8th century BCE; see, e.g., Zimhoni 1990; Ussishkin 2004:83-90); and on the other hand overlies Stratum A5-A4, which is typified by finds dating to the early Iron II (paralleled at Tel Batash, Stratum IV; see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:156). On the whole, the pottery from Stratum A3 is without doubt earlier than the typical mid- to late- 8th century assemblages, exemplified by Lachish Stratum III. Several architectural units were excavated in this stratum and at least two architectural sub-phases were discerned (see above and Maeir 2001; 2003).

According to the excavators (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:52), Stratum X represents the very beginning of Iron IIA, although most of the material published from this stratum seems to represent a longer chronological span, since the forms are be comparable to assemblages from contexts that have been dated to the 10th-9th centuries BCE.93

As noted above, Tel Miqne/Ekron, Stratum IVA contains red-slipped Philistine forms and possibly LPDW as well. However, clearer examples occur in Stratum III and IIB dated by the excavators to the late 10th – 9th centuries BCE (Gitin 1989). Examples from Stratum IB are usually fragmentary and may be residual. Tel Miqne-Ekron, Stratum IV probably reflects the transitional period between Iron I and Iron IIA, which, according to the traditional chronology, should be dated to the end of the

93

It has recently been suggested that the earliest Iron Age IIA phase (the late 11th-early 10th century, equivalent to Tell Qasile Stratum X) is absent at Tel Ashdod (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001, who suggest an occupational gap in this period). However, this phenomenon can be explained without assuming a gap in occupation during Iron IIA. Since there is no destruction at the site at the end of the Iron I, the Iron IIA Stratum X has a long chronological range and represents all the Iron IIA phases. Accordingly, only a limited number of vessels from the lower fills of this stratum (e.g., in Area G, Phase 6), representing the earliest Iron IIA phase (equivalent to Tell Qasile Stratum X), while the majority of the Stratum X finds are from the final stage of this stratum (for a detailed discussion, see Ben-Shlomo 2003:91-95).

79

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 1.7: Iron Age sites in Philistia with LPDW Site/Pottery Ashdod Tell es-Safi/Gath

Philistine Bichrome XI Temp. Str. 7

Tel Miqne Tel Batash Gezer Beth Shemesh Tell Qasile

VC-B V IX III XI-X

“Degenerated” and Redslipped Philistine Ware Xb A5-A4 (Temp. Str. 6-5) VA-IV V VIII IIB? X

LPDW

Some LPDW

X-IX A3 (Temp. Str. 4) IVA-III IV VIII-VI IIB IX?

VIII A2? (Temp. Str. 3) III-II III V? IIA

Table 1.8: Chronological comparison of late Iron Age I, Iron IIA and Iron Age IIB sites in Philistia Site\ Period(date) Ashdod Tell es-Safi/Gath Tel Miqne Lachish Tel Batash Gezer Beth Shemesh Tell Qasile

End of Iron Age I (11th century BCE) XI Temp. Str. 7

Iron Age I/IIA Transition (11thearly 10th centuries BCE) Xb? A5-A4

VC-B -V IX III XI

VA -? VIII IIB? X

11th/ beginning of the 10th centuries BCE (Ortiz 2000:210).

Iron Age IIA (10th-9th centuries BCE) X A5-A4

X-IX A3

IVB-A V IV IVB? IV VIII VII-VI IIB --? IX

Iron Age IIB (8th century BCE) VIII A2

III

II III III V IIA VIII

Iron IIA, 9th c.). Nevertheless, Level IV, reported as having four phases and a long duration, seems to be the major stratum of the Iron IIA (Ussishkin 2004:78-82,416, Table 9.1). The pottery assemblages of Safi, Stratum A3, Ashdod, Strata X-IX, Batash, Stratum IV and possibly Tel Miqne Stratum III are very similar to Lachish IV and Tel ‘Eitun (Zimhoni 1997b). Aside from the LPDW and LMLK-like/pre-LMLK jars this horizon is characterized by later forms of the Iron IIA, showing hardly any Iron I morphological remnants; the red slip is thicker and the burnish more common. The destruction of Stratum III of Lachish is well dated to the occupation of Sennacheriv at 701 BCE (Ussishkin 1982, 2004:83-90). Thus, if we regard Lachish IV as a cultural horizon, it has a span of the late 10th to the early/mid 8th centuries BCE (see also recently Herzog and Zinger-Avitz 2004); but if the chronology of the excavators is accepted Lachish IV should commence somewhat later, maybe in the 9th c., leaving a time slot for Stratum V.

There is no sufficient data on the exact dating Iron IIA from Ashkelon, represented by Phases 16-15; two LPDW vessels were sampled from Phase 16. Phase 17 already includes red-slipped Philistine pottery, but it seems that Phase 16 marks the beginning of the Iron IIA. As said, the evidence from Ashkelon is not yet clear. At Tel Batash LPDW appears initially in Stratum IV and continues to some extent in Stratum III. These strata are respectively contemporary with Lachish Strata V-IV and III respectively (Ussishkin 2004:76-83), giving a range of 10th-late 8th centuries; however, LPDW, seem to be more common in Stratum IV. Strata VII-V at Gezer gives a similar time frame. Beth Shemesh Stratum IIB probably dates to the early Iron IIA, however, the LPDW vessels recovered from the 1920-30’s have only a general Stratum II context.

Taking all the data to mind, especially the well-stratified assemblage from Tell es-Safi and the Ashdod material, it seems that the range of the LPDW covers most of the Iron IIA periods and the Iron IIB until the Assyrian campaigns of the late 8th century. The main phase in which this ware appears is probably the latter part of the Iron IIA and the early Iron IIB, roughly the 9th-8th centuries BCE. In absolute dates this would be 1000-701 BCE according to traditional chronology, while according to lower chronologies, ca. 925-701 BCE (Finkelstein 1995, 1998, 2002a).

A site, which is extremely important for the chronology of the Iron II in southern Israel, although it probably yielded no LPDW pottery, is the site of Lachish.94 Level V at Lachish represents the Iron IIA (Aharoni 1975; Zimhoni 1997a; Ussishkin 2004:76-78 dating it to the 94

An exception might be the red burnished amphoriskoi (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 91:417-428) and a jug fragment from Level IV (Zimhoni 2004: Fig. 25.19:3). Interestingly, Lachish did not yield Iron I Philistine pottery as well; possibly this site was entirely outside of the Philistine influence throughout the Iron Age.

80

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES

Figure 1.36. Map of sites with Iron I Philistine pottery.

81

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY 218; Raban 1991). However, these concentrations of Philistine pottery can reflect isolated Philistine groups of people or an increase of the popularity of Philistine tableware among the Canaanite population as well.

6. Geographic distribution of Philistine pottery a. Iron I (Fig. 1.36) The geographical distribution of the Philistine Monochrome pottery (Killebrew 2000; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:44-45) and Philistine Bichrome pottery (T. Dothan 1982:25-90,217-218, Map 2; Wood 1990: Fig. 17; Sharon 2001:574; T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming a) were discussed in detail elsewhere and will be only summarized and updated here. In the initial stage, the Monochrome pottery is restricted to the Philistine pentapolis sites with sporadic appearances in Tel Haror and Tel Sippor. The appearance of Monochrome ware in Akko, Tel Keisan and other further northern sites as Megiddo, Ras Ibn Hani, Tell Afis and Sarepta, should be examined in relation to its provenance. This pottery could be locally made (several examples were found in the kiln area at Sarepta), and may be associated to other Sea Peoples (see above). On the other hand, trade from Philistia should be considered as well as importation from the Aegean or Cyprus, as at Beth Shean (Hankey 1966) and Tell Keisan (Balensi 1981).

The third level of appearance is in various sites in the hill land (as Tell en-Nasbeh, Shiloh, Beth El), southern Israel (Beer Sheva, Tel Masos) and northern Israel (Akko, Dan, Keisan, Dor, Hazor, Beth Shean, Afula, Megiddo, Tel Qiri, Yoqneam etc.).95 These occurrences are usually sporadic with only few sherds at a site and probably represent occasional trade.96 Generally, the geographic distribution of the Philistine pottery still shows that the appearance of large quantities of this ware is indeed an ethnic marker, which correlates with other components of the Philistine material culture. Respectively, the wider distribution of the Philistine Bichrome, probably occurring in a later stage, should not necessarily reflect their ceasing to have an ethnic symbolic value, as an object can have various contemporary meanings. The wider distribution of the Philistine Bichrome pottery can be explained by the larger time span in which this pottery was produced and by its more diversified assemblage of forms and decorative motifs, having more appeal to nonPhilistine customers. Moreover, this ware, contrary to the fine Monochrome ware was made of a more common fabric type, thus, probably more mass produced and maybe cheaper (see Part 4.5).

The Philistine Bichrome pottery clearly has a wider distribution with three levels of frequency. In the Philistine pentapolis sites, it is a major and dominant ware, constituting around 50% of the assemblage at Ashdod and Tel Miqne (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004, forthcoming b; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005) with many complete examples and variability of forms. Other sites within Philistia show also a relative high proportion of Philistine Bichrome pottery in Iron I levels, though not as dominant. These include Tell Farah(S), Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928: Pls. LXIII-LXIV; van Beek 1983:16), Tell Ajjul, Tel Mor and Gezer (see T. Dothan 1982 for other references). In sites in the middle coastal plains—the Yarkon basin Philistine Bichrome pottery is also relatively common. These include Tell Qasile, Azor, Aphek and Tel Jerishe. On the eastern limits of Philistia—Batash (Kelm and Mazar 1995:95-104), Beth Shemesh, Tel Yarmut, Tel Beth Mirsim and ‘Eitun and to a lesser extent on the southern limits at Tel Masos and Beer Sheva it appears in various quantities. Complete examples do appear in these sites, and the frequency seems to be up to about 10-20% of the assemblage, notably at Tell Qasile with 24-14% in strata XII-X (Mazar 1985a:105, Table 11). There seems to be concentrations of Philistine Bichrome vessels in cemeteries as Tell Farah(S), Azor and ‘Eitun; probably in higher quantities than in the related occupation levels of these sites. Note that in surveys of small sites in the Shephelah (Gezer region) no Philistine pottery was found (Shavit 2000:216-217).

The issue of Philistine Bichrome pottery in northern Israel has received some additional attention recently (Ilan 1999:93-95,208-210; Gilboa 2001: 401-413; Gilboa et al. in press97), discussing mainly pottery from Tel Dan, Tel Dor and Tel Keisan. It seems that the Bichrome pottery from the northern sites can be divided into two groups. 1. Classical Philistine Bichrome forms, mostly closed vessels or bell-shaped bowls, that are assumed to be imported from Philistia. 2. Related forms, which are sometimes of Canaanite or hybrid characteristics or represent apparent copies of Philistine vessels; these vessels have various decorations (as birds or geometric motif) resembling or identical to Philistine motifs. It was assumed by some scholars that these vessels are mostly made locally in the north and are associated to the existence of other Sea Peoples as the Sikila and the Shardanu (see T. Dothan and M. Dothan 1992:105; Stern 1998:349; 2000; for a different view Gilboa and Sharon 2003:9,31; Gilboa et al. in press).98 95 See T. Dothan 1982:50-90 for references for most of these sites; see Stern 2000 for northern Israel sites. An addition to that is a complete bell-shaped bowl from Jenin, which is attested to be made of non-local clay (Glock 1987:106, Fig. 1:8). 96 Note a different conclusion concerning Tell en-Nasbeh (Gunneweg et al. 1994, discussion below). 97 I wish to thank A. Gilboa for making this article available to me for reference. 98 Several Philistine Bichrome vessels from Tel Dor (altogether only 17 were found in the site, dated all to the Late Iron IA—Gilboa and Sharon 2003: Table 1), either containers or bowls were shown by TSPA to be produced in southern Philistia (Gilboa et al. in press), while a few other vessels were produced in the region of the site or brought from the Lebanese coast (possibly from sites as Sarepta). Interestingly the

These two regions are also referred as ‘Core Philistia’ and ‘Greater Philistia’. The spread of Philistine Bichrome pottery to the Yarkon basin (‘Greater Philistia’) or even to the northern inner valleys of Israel was seen as evidence for the expansion of Philistine political power in the Iron IB (Wright 1966:74-78; T. Dothan 1982:21782

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES In Tel Keisan, Philistine Bichrome is somewhat more common than at Dor, and possibly, Monochrome ware appears as well (though it is probably imported Myc. IIIC, Balensi 1981). Above 60 Philistine sherds were reported (Burdajewicz 1994), but only a smaller group are of clear Philistine Bichrome forms. These sherds appear as early as Stratum 13 (dated according to the excavators to the first quarter of the 12th c.) and as late as Stratum 9 (late 11th c.) (but the dates of these strata can be lowered some 50 years, Gilboa and Sharon 2003: Table 10). Twenty of the 26 sites surveyed and excavated in the western Jezreel valley yielded Philistine Bichrome sherds (Raban 1991). Although this includes several larger sites as Tel Yoqne’an, Tel Qiri, ‘Afula and Tel Qasis, interestingly, a number of smaller sites are also included (as Be’er Tiveon, Horvat Hazin and others). Raban notes also the appearance of both Philistine Monochrome and degenerated—‘Philistine 3’—forms in the southern part of the valley (1991:23,25). The question is whether this phenomenon indeed represents the settlement of a Philistine population in this area during the Iron I, or that these vessels arrived through trade along the main routes of the country. A provenance study on this pottery can possibly resolve this question. If the Philistine vessels are locally produced in the Jezreel valley they are more likely to represent Philistine population moving in with their potters or an increasing influence of the Philistine culture.99 Surely, the issue of Philistine and Philistine related pottery in northern Israel requires further study.

1948: Pl. 78:19, a carinated krater) and Tel Kinneret, Stratum V (Fritz and Muenger 2002: Fig. 7:1, a bellshaped bowl). The decrease in dominance of Philistine pottery within the assemblages at Philistine sites may conform with a process continuing during the Iron IIA, when the successive style, the LPDW, becomes even less dominant in the pottery assemblages. b. Iron II (LPDW in southern Israel) (Fig. 1.37) The short survey of the sites in southern Israel in which evidence for LPDW occurs presented here, is followed by an attempt to assess the frequency and chronology of this ware at these sites. The order is: the major Philistine cities, sites in Philistia and other sites from south to north. Ashdod: Since there is no statistical data on the Ashdod pottery assemblage, it is difficult to determine the relative frequency of the various LPDW types. From reviewing the plates, however, it appears that decorated kraters and jugs are the more predominant types. In any case the LPDW comprises a smaller part of the assemblage than the Philistine Bichrome in the Iron I strata. For the description of LPDW vessels from Ashdod see the typology section above. Tell es-Safi/Gath: Stratum A3 yielded an extremely rich assemblage of finds, including over 500 complete or restorable ceramic vessels of all classes, as well as numerous other objects. LPDW vessels from this stratum at Tell es-Safi/Gath account for approximately 10% of the entire pottery assemblage. Most of the LPDW vessels are closed forms and the most common class is the jugs. It should be stressed that, as opposed to LPDW from most other sites, due to the stratigraphic context of this assemblage (a well-defined destruction level), its study is based primarily on complete and/or restorable vessels (Shai forthcoming, including quantitative analyses).

The geographical distribution of degenerated and redslipped Philistine pottery has not yet been studied in detail. It seems that both these groups, especially the redslipped Philistine ware, appear mostly in the Yarkon basin, i.e. Tell Qasile Strata X and IX (see above), ‘Izbet Sartah Stratum II (Finkelstein 1986: Figs. 14:18, 17:2-3, 19:12, 20:1,14), Aphek Stratum X10-X9 (Gadot 2003: Pl. V.69:1,3) and the Azor Cemetery (M. Dothan 1961; BenShlomo in preparation100; Fig. 1.24), and to a lesser extent in the Philistine cities as Ashdod, Tel Miqne and Tell es-Safi. Other examples from Philistia come from Tel Sera’ (Oren 1982:162) and Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928: Pl. L:23u,23y,24p-q, degenerated bell-shaped bowls/kraters). Nevertheless, it seems much data from various relevant sites is yet to be published. Moreover, the relative frequency of these types is lower in its core sites as well (as at Tell Qasile, see Mazar 1985a:45-47). On the other hand, examples of degenerate and redslipped Philistine pottery appear in the northern valleys as at Megiddo, Stratum V (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 31:155, a bell-shaped krater) and Stratum VIA (Loud

Tel Miqne: LPDW pottery was found in Tel Miqne-Ekron Strata IVA-II. To date, though, the only detailed report on the Tel Miqne-Ekron excavations in which LPDW has been published is the study of the pottery assemblage from Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV (Ortiz 2000; see also T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b). From an examination of the plates it seems that several LPDW vessels can be noted. All of these examples are of closed vessels with a red slip and decorated with black and white bands (Ortiz 2000: Figs. 14:12; 15:1, 5, 11-12). Only eight vessels are decorated in LPDW style, representing only 0.04% of the total assemblage from Stratum IV. These include four amphorae (Ortiz 2000: Fig. 15:10-13), one jug (Fig. 15:1), and three jug fragments (Fig. 15:8-9, 16).

amount of Philistine pottery from the excavations at the alleged Sea Peoples site of Dor is much less than that found in sites in the Jezreel valley (Raban 1991, see below). 99 At Akko, as noted above, only few Philistine Monochrome were found (M. Dothan 1989a:60; E. Marcus pers. com.). However, one Monochrome sherd was reported to come from a kiln (M. Dothan 1988:297). 100 The material from the excavation at Azor by M. Dothan during 1958 and 1960 is currently being prepared for publication by the author.

While the ceramic assemblages from Strata III-II have not yet been published, LPDW sherds have been found in Strata III-I contexts (see above). Since no complete vessels of this class were found in these strata, it is difficult to determine whether these sherds are residual or

83

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 1.37. Map of sites with red slipped/degenerated Philistine and LPDW pottery.

84

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES not. Examples of the types found at Tel Miqne-Ekron are bowls (BL2B), jars (JR1, JR2), Amphorae/jugs (Fig. 1.30:6-7,10-11), Amphoriskoi (AMPS) and anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels (see above). It seems Tel Miqne might turn out to be a major and interesting source of LPDW.

Strata VI-V (see Tables 1.7-8; also Dever 1986b: Table 1). The Stratum VIII assemblage from Gezer includes several vessels decorated in the LPDW style (see above, e.g., Dever 1986a: Pl. 47:3). This stratum is dated to the second half of the 10th century BCE. In Stratum VIA, dated by Dever et al. to the 8th century BCE (1974:73; 1985),102 yielded several additional LPDW decorated vessels (see above) including kraters, an amphora, a jug and a jar.

Ashkelon: According to L.E. Stager (personal communication) several LPDW vessels have been excavated at The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon and include a krater fragment and a pyxis from Phase 16, which have been analyzed in this study (R. Voss, personal communication; Samples AK19, AK20, see above). However, Iron Age IIA pottery from Ashkelon has not yet been published.

Tell Hamid: Tell Hamid, a recently excavated site in the northern Shephelah, produced several sherds of LPDW pottery, most of which were found in Stratum VI, dated by the excavators to Iron IIA (Wolff and Shavit in press). Among these sherds are necks of amphorae or jugs (Wolff and Shavit in press: Figs. 18:12, 24:19), a zoomorphic head spout (idem Fig. *6:2), possibly a neck of a juglet (idem Fig. 18:13) and body sherds.

Tel Batash: At Tel Batash, Stratum V is the first Iron I stratum after the LBII Stratum VI. This stratum yielded a certain amount of Philistine Bichrome pottery (Kelm and Mazar 1995:95-104). Stratum IVB may represent an earlier phase of the Iron IIA (early 10th century, parallel to Miqne IV?), but Stratum IV is clearly of an Iron IIA character (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:273-276).101 Among the published pottery from Tel Batash is a jug (LPDW Type JG3) with two black horizontal bands bordered by white bands, painted on red slip (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 1:20), found in Stratum IV, as were jug fragments with a similar decoration (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:117). Most of the limited number of vessels with LPDW decoration at Tel Batash derive from Stratum IV though several LPDW sherds come from Stratum III as well (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:158; Stratum IV: Pls. 9:11, 12:16, 79:15, 81:20, 85:16; Stratum III: Pl. 93:2). In addition two red burnished jugs, JG1 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 88:11) and JG4B (Pl. 88:12), were found in Stratum III.

Kfar Menahem: The site of Kfar Menahem is located about 2.5 km to the west of Tell es-Safi/Gath, to the north of the Ha’elah river; a salvage excavation was conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority under the supervision of Y. Israel in 2001 and uncovered what appears to be a series of rectangular pottery kilns (see discussion in Part 2.3). A JG4C jug with a mushroom shaped rim and vertical red burnish was found near one of the kilns (Fig. 1.34:16; Sample KM2; another possible example of this type is Sample KM18, Fig. 1.34:15) Ruqeish: Tell Ruqeish is located on the coast south of Gaza. Most of the pottery published from Ruqeish derives from tomb contexts, some relating to cremation burials (Culican 1973; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983). Among this pottery are vessels that are quite similar to LPDW forms (Culican 1973: Fig. 2:R7; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983:51-2, 54, Nos. 8-9, 19), but with several noteworthy differences. First, the painted bands on the vessels are only in black (there are no white bands); second, many of the vessels lack the red slip and the color of the clay is often lighter as well; and third, the most important difference, there are morphological disparities (see above; e.g. the amphora in Fig. 1.30:18, Sample RQ3).

Beth Shemesh: The relevant strata from Beth Shemesh are probably IIB-A. An amphora of Type AM1 found at Beth Shemesh (Grant 1931: pl. XII: upper [#1672]; Amiran 1969: photo 240) and was attributed to an “early Iron Age context” (Grant 1931: pl. XII). Another globular amphora decorated in the LPDW style comes from Stratum II (Fig. 1.29:5; Grant 1934: pl. XXI: lower). From the new excavations of Beth Shemesh possible LPDW fragments are reported from fills below IIA (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001:136-139).

According to Culican, this assemblage should be dated to the 9th century BCE (1973:99-100), while Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels date the tomb assemblages from Ruqeish to the last quarter of the 8th century BCE (1983:56). Oren on the other hand have dated the settlement at Ruqeish (Phases III-IV; Oren 1993a) to the second half of the 8th century BCE (1986:89-90). Despite the differences noted above, it is clear that the Ruqeish assemblage is roughly contemporary with LPDW elsewhere. New data from the excavation at the settlement by E. Oren should be examined, along with

Gezer: The Iron I is well attested in Gezer, in Strata XIIIXI. Finds include a relatively large quantity of elaborate Philistine Bichrome pottery (Macalister 1912; T. Dothan 1982 for references; Dever 1986a, 1986b, see above). The Iron IB-IIA transition is possibly represented by Strata XIX, the Iron IIA by Strata VIII-VII and the Iron IIB by 101 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen argue for a 10th century date for Stratum IV, with a possible continuance to the early 9th century (2001:274-276, Table 55). Thus, according to them, although many pottery types are similar to the Lachish IV assemblage, a gap should be present as Batash Stratum IV is too thin for this time span. As the forms are still more similar to the Iron I tradition the gap was placed in the 9th century BCE.

102 Finkelstein dates Gezer Strata X-IX (late Iron I) to the 10th Century BCE and the first Iron IIA stratum, Stratum VIII, to the 9th century BCE (Finkelstein 2002b:282-84), but see Dever’s response to this (2003:266-270).

85

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY salvage excavations of tombs by A. Biran (1974), as this site seems to have strong potential for this pottery group. Tel Mor: The site of Tel Mor lies in the vicinity of Tel Ashdod and probably served as the main seaport of the area (today in the modern port of Ashdod). The site was excavated by M. Dothan during 1959-60 and represents finds from the Middle Bronze through the Hellenistic periods, the main feature is a LBA fort (M. Dothan 1960). It is now being published by Tristan Barako (in press). Several sherds of LPDW were found in Stratum 3, probably dated to the Iron IIA, and include a Krater Type KR1 fragment (Samples MR1-4).

while the Iron IIB is Strata III-II (Aharoni 1973). Several LPDW vessels were found at Beersheba, Stratum II, which is dated to the end of the 8th century BCE (SingerAvitz 1999:10-12), similar to Lachish III. These are possible KR2 kraters and amphoriskoi (see above; Fig. 1.30:13-15). Arad: Two vessels that possibly belong typologically to the LPDW group were found in Stratum XI: one is a jug with a rounded body, the upper part of which is missing, and the other an amphoriskos of Type AMPS1 (SingerAvitz 2002: Fig. 7:4,6). Neither vessel is slipped, but both are vertically burnished and have a black decoration. Singer-Avitz considers also the pottery assemblage Stratum XII to be similar to that of Stratum XI and paralleled by those from Lachish V, Stratum IV and Beer Sheba, Strata V-IV (2002:113), though it was originally dated to the Iron I (Aharoni 1973; M. Aharoni 1993:82). The rarity of LPDW at Arad is noteworthy and it is present only in Stratum XI, and not later.

Tell Zeitah: As at Tell es-Safi/Gath, an extensive destruction level dated to Iron IIA was found at Tell Zeitah. The pottery assemblage includes several LPDW vessels of them one AM1 amphora and two complete amphoriskoi of a small and large sizes (R. Tappy, personal communication). Tell Sera‘: In his very brief summary of the excavations he directed at Tell Sera‘, Oren noted the presence of LPDW vessels, which he described as “Ashdod pottery painted with black and white bands on a red background” (1982:163). These vessels were found in Stratum VIII, dated to Iron I (Oren 1988:134, 1993c), which would mean that this is one of the earliest appearances of LPDW. However, it should be noted that Oren mentions that there are three phases in this stratum (1988:134), and it can be assumed that the LPDW is associated with its latest phase. Additional information on these vessels must await the publication of more detailed reports.

Tel Nagila: Very few finds dating to Iron II were found at Tel Nagila (Amiran and Eitan 1965), but most remains of this period were probably located on the fringes of the site. The Iron IIA pottery that was found (mainly of Stratum IV) is quite similar to the assemblage from Tell es-Safi/Gath Stratum A3, and includes several fragments of LPDW vessels: a krater, jugs, and possibly an amphora AM1 and a SSJ (see above; D. Ilan personal communication; Fig. 1.33:3). El-Khirbe: In his brief discussion of the Iron II pottery assemblage from this Judean fortress located east of Jerusalem, Hizmi mentions jugs that are decorated with red, white, and black bands (2002:105). In the final publication one such globular jug is presented (Hizmi 2004: Pl. 1:6, possibly no. 5 as well); this vessel may be related to the LPDW group, though it lacks the vertical red burnish.

Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Ayalon published two vessels decorated in the LPDW style (1995:172, Fig. 14:11-12), both jugs (Type JG1; Fig. 1.31:5). Petrographic analysis of these jugs indicated that it originated in the Shephelah (Ayalon 1995:194). Ayalon dated the ‘Ajrud assemblage to somewhere between the end of the 9th century BCE and the beginning of the 8th century BCE (1995:198), a conclusion that is supported by the 14C dating (Meshel, Carmi and Segal 1995).

Khirbet el-Qôm: At Khirbet el-Qôm several LPDW jugs were reported (R. Defonzo personal communication) from Holladay’s excavations in an early 9th-8th century BCE 8-m deep cistern (1971:176). Of these four vessels, amphoriskoi and jugs, were sampled (Samples KoM1-4). ‘Izbet Sartah: Stratum II at ‘Izbet Sartah, located east of Aphek, was dated to the late 11th century (Finkelstein 1986:201); the pottery includes, however, red slipped and burnished pottery typical of the early Iron IIA. Possible LPDW vessels, appearing together with degenerate and red-slipped Philistine forms, include a globular jug and an amphora (?) neck fragment (Finkelstein 1986: Figs. 15:18, 23:19). A red slipped and vertically burnished SSJ should also be noted (idem: Fig. 19:12).

Tel Masos: Two vessels with burnished red slip and a black decoration were published from Tel Masos, Stratum II: a juglet and a pyxis (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Pl. 143:4-5); another jug (Pl. 137:8) has dense vertical burnish. These vessels are possibly related to the LPDW pottery. Since these vessels were found in Area H, Stratum II, which the excavators correlate to Megiddo, Stratum VIA and Qasile, Stratum XI, they should be dated to the end of the 11th century BCE (Fritz and Kempinski 1989:89).103 Beer-Sheba: In the site of Beer Sheba the Iron I is represented by Strata IX-VI, the Iron IIA by Strata V-IV,

Tell Qasile: Tell Qasile is a major site in relation to Philistine pottery. This is due to several reasons: the existence of three well excavated Iron I strata in the temples of Area C with Philistine Bichrome pottery (Strata XII-XI, Mazar 1980, 1985a, 1986, 2000; see

103 However, L. Singer-Avitz (personal communication), who is presently analyzing the finds from Tel Masos, believes that Stratum II is paralleled by Lachish Stratum V and Beersheba Stratum VII. This dating for the LPDW samples from Tel Masos seems more likely.

86

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES above for specific references) and the comprehensive final reports available.

ware is much more common (in Field INE the general quantity of Monochrome is 50%, 52-50% with cooking jugs and kalathoi in Field IV, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Table 1, of it about 50% is fine ware, see p. 31), while in selected loci of Ashdod Area H it is about 10% (of it only about 10-15% is fine ware; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.4, 3.35, 3.42). Moreover, several rarer types of Philistine Monochrome appear only at Ekron, as the Type A rounded sided bowls, and Types L, M, N and O, or rare, closed vessels (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004:28). There are also several decoration techniques (inner slip) and motifs that appear, so far, only at Tel Miqne (see Table 1.9).105 Fine Monochrome Psitype female figurines and decorated Aegean-style bovine figurine (Ben-Shlomo in press a) appear also only at Tel Miqne; there is also no evidence of incised scapulae or a rise in pig bones in Iron Age I Ashdod, contrary to Ekron.106 Several ivories from Ekron have Aegean characteristics (T. Dothan 1998a:159), while at Ashdod, the Iron I ivories show only Canaanite and Egyptian traditions (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 38; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs. 3.39, 3.41).

However, only one vessel from Stratum VII is most probably related to the LPDW group (Fig. 1.34:14, Sample QS1; Maisler [Mazar] 1950-1951:205, Pl. 34C).104 It is of certain significance that there is no clear LPDW apart from this vessel in Tell Qasile Strata IXVIII. This fact may possibly reflect that the degenerated and red-slipped Philistine style of Qasile Stratum X was contemporaneous to a certain extent with the LPDW pottery of the Iron IIA in Philistia. Other options are possible as well: there could be a gap in a part of the Iron IIA at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985a); or possibly the LPDW should be sought in the unpublished material from Areas A and B. 7. Intra-regional differences in Philistine material culture The Philistine material culture is often seen as a relatively homogenous culture characterizing all pentapolis sites (for Ashdod and Miqne see T. Dothan 2000:145; Stager 1995:345, the ‘urban imposition’, see above). However, certain differences between the cities are noticeable, especially between Ekron and Ashdod on which there is more data (Yasur-Landau 2002:285-286). The most noticeable difference is in the size of the settlement (see Table 1.3 and Figs. 1.2, 1.7, 1.10, 1.14). Ekron rises to a size of 20 hectares in the very beginning of the Iron I (Stratum VIIB), built on a relatively small 4 hectares LBII city. In Ashdod, on the other hand, the size of the first Iron I city (Stratum XIII), is very similar to the LBII city, expanding only to the upper tell (8 hectares) (see Fig. 1.3). Moreover, while in Ekron there is clear evidence for fortifications in this stage, at Ashdod, these are not clearly illustrated at least until Stratum XI. While at Ekron this large-scale settlement persists until the end of the Iron I and is destroyed and diminishes in the Iron IIA, at Ashdod the site begins to expand during the Iron IIA (Stratum X in Area M) including fortifications. It reaches it peak in the Iron IIB (8th c., in Area D, with 28 hectares), and decreases in the 7th century when Ekron becomes again a 20 hectares or more fortified settlement.

The situation in the other two cities excavated, Ashkelon and Tell es-Safi/Gath, is not yet completely clear. At Ashkelon it is reported the settlement is expanded and fortified in the Iron I but it is not clear in what stage within this period this occurs (Stager 1991). At Tell esSafi the Iron I data is yet very partial, but it is clear according to surveys that the main expansion of the settlement is during the Iron IIA (probably during the 9th century). The areas of the LBII and Iron I settlements are quite similar (Fig. 1.14; Maeir in press b; Uziel 2003). There is a decline in the 8th century and a sharp decline in the 7th century—similar to the picture in Ashdod. These differences between the Philistine cities have been noted to challenge the ‘five city alliance’ model of Philistia (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001:239). However, the singularity of the material culture and its relative dominance in these four excavated sites still stands out as representing a defined cultural identity in comparison to other contemporary sites. Most material culture elements still appear in all the cities, and hardly anywhere else. Thus, these more subtle differences should be explained by mechanisms inside Philistia.

There are also more subtle differences between the material culture of Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod in the initial stages of the Iron I. Ashdod seems to lack several more ‘pure’ or restricted Aegean-type elements appearing mostly in the initial phase at Ekron (see Table 1.9). This includes the quantity and quality of the fine Philistine Monochrome pottery: at Ekron the fine Monochrome

The differences between the Philistine cities during the Iron Age can be explained through two mechanisms. The first mechanism relates to the situation concerning the local Canaanite population and the Egyptian influence at the sites in the time of the arrival of the Philistines. It seems that in Ashdod there was a stronger Egyptian influence, and possibly a larger Canaanite population

104 The shape of the vessel is somewhat similar to LPDW amphorae of type AM1, although there are quite a few differences. It is larger and squatter than other Type AM1 vessels, its ring base is applied and not pinched, and there are two knobs on top of each handle. The decoration is of particular interest. The vessel has a uniform burnished (vertically on the neck) red slip, that is quite similar to the LPDW style; the painted decoration includes black and white bands with a schematic depiction of a galloping horse (seemingly made with a cut frame), also in white, partly overlapping the bands.

105 On the other hand several motifs that appear at Ashdod do not appear at Ekron, and thus, this can be accounted for by different workshops or styles of individual potters or as mere chance. 106 It should be noted that no detailed study of the animal bones from Ashdod was carried, neither these were systematically collected in the excavation; see above.

87

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 1.9: Various elements of the Philistine material culture from Tel Miqne and Ashdod. Monochrome pottery forms Type A bowls Types B-K Types L-M-N-O (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004) Cooking jugs Kalathoi Decorative motifs (Monochrome) Inner slip Hanged semicircles Stemmed Tongues Stemmed spirals Running tongues Hatched spirals Drops Hatched Triangles Delicate lozenge Complex spirals Bird

Tel Miqne + + + + +

Ashdod + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + + + +

Fish

+

+

Other elements Monochrome Psi figurines Ashdoda figurines Monochrome bovine figurines Incised scapulae Pig bones Loom-weights Aegean style ivories

+ + + + + + +

+ ? + -

continuing from the LBII to the Iron IA (according to the historical evidence this situation could have occurred also at Gaza and possibly at Ashkelon). This can be explained by the importance of these sites in the LBII as ports and outposts on the Via Maris. On the other hand, the inland cities of Ekron and Gath had a lesser importance to the Egyptian administration. Therefore, even though the coastal cities were possibly reached before the inland ones by the Philistines (especially if they came by sea), the material culture in these locations was less influenced, at least in the initial stage.107 Thus, the Philistine element at Ashdod was relatively smaller in number and weaker, while other elements (representing Egyptian and Canaanite cultures) were stronger. Therefore, although a Philistine culture was established at Ashdod at the very beginning of the Iron I, it became more dominant only in later stages. At Tel Miqne-Ekron (and possibly at Gath) the Philistines came upon a weaker local population and thus their impact was larger already in the very beginning. It should be noted though that this hypothesis should be further tested according to new data that will come from the Ashkelon and Tell es-Safi excavations.

II; see also Shavit 2000:215-226, Dagan 1992:257, Lehmann 2003:133, for the general rise in site strength in the Shephelah during the Iron II). This mechanism is evidenced mainly during the Iron IIA onwards, when the political structure of the Philistine city-states is possibly more crystallized. This is a power balance between the cities, namely when one of the cities is stronger the others are weaker. This power balance can be especially noted between Ashdod, Gath and Ekron in the 10th-7th centuries according to both historical evidence (see above) and archaeological record (mainly site size and fortification): during the 9th century Gath is stronger, during the 8th (and probably 10th) Ashdod seems stronger (see also Finkelstein 2002d:116) and during the 7th Ekron is stronger (possibly joined by Ashkelon). Other possible reasons for the differences between the material culture of Philistine cities may be related to regional production centers of Philistine pottery during the Iron I. There could have been more specialized workshops for higher quality Philistine pottery in one or more of the Philistine cities, exporting this ware to the other cities. This issue calls for the provenance study with archaeometric tools that was carried in this study and will be dealt in detail below.

The second mechanism suggested is a power balance most probably achieved between the different Philistine cities in each phase of the Iron Age (especially the Iron

8. The ethnic aspects of the Philistine culture: An Iron Age I-II integration

107

Yasur-Landau also proposes that different groups of Aegean immigrants coming from different regions in the Aegean, arrived at different cities, thus explaining the subtle cultural differences (2002:256); also noted by him is a difference in territorial hierarchy, being of a higher ranking in the inland cities (244).

The Philistine phenomenon and its material culture have often been described in ethnic terms, especially

88

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES and other forms were never included in the Philistine ceramic repertoire. Thus, these were obtained from the local Canaanite assemblage in any case. The material culture of the Iron Age I Philistine sites shows distinctive Aegean characteristics, decreasing during the following phases of the Iron Age. On the other hand, the texts from the later period of the Iron IIB-C evidence the existence of Philistine political and cultural entities, either as a federation or as city states. This is illustrated by the Assyrian and Babylonian texts and the Ekron inscription as shown above. The only supposedly Iron I record of the Philistines as an ethnic entity is from the Bible, but the texts probably reflect, to a large extent, a reality of later periods, the Iron IIA or even Iron IIB-C, with possible oral transfer of events from earlier periods (Talshir 1999; Hurvitz 2000; Finkelstein 2002c; Mazar 2003; the historical aspect of the Iron II Philistines, according to the texts, was reviewed by Ehrlich 1996, 1997).

concerning the Iron Age I (as in T. Dothan 1982; Mazar 1985b:104-107; Ilan 1999:207-210; Killebrew 1998a:260-264,267; Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996; Bunimovitz 1999; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001; Yasur-Landau 2002). Ethnicity is basically a modern term, relating fundamentally to the way a certain group of peoples perceives itself together with its distinct biological and cultural characteristics (Barth 1969:11). Nevertheless, broader ethnic characteristics are used in Near Eastern archaeology and the interpretation of its ancient cultures (see e.g., Kamp and Yoffe 1980; Dolukhanov 1994; Emberling 1997:320-324; Joffe 1999). It is a well known reality that it is very difficult to make connections between the archaeological record and ethnic definitions or observations (for discussions see Banks 1996; Dolukhanov 1994:14-33; Emberling 1997, and extensive bibliography therein; see also Jones 1997; Killebrew 1998a:263; Kletter 2004:29-31). Although there is no way to determine whether the Philistine people perceived themselves as such, several clear ‘ethnic’ attributes as territory, culture, language and religion may be related to the Philistines in various stages.

This reality calls for a description of the Philistine history throughout the Iron Age bearing in mind that this phenomenon existed at least until the Babylonian conquest (see also Stone 1995; Herr 1997:162-164; Gitin 1997, 2003b). Thus, an intensive investigation for an Iron II material culture of the Philistines should be made as well. One of the major components of the material culture was described here—the LPDW. The LPDW pottery, which occurs primarily at Philistine sites during the Iron IIA and early IIB, replaced, to a certain extent, the traditional Iron Age I Philistine decorated pottery from both a functional and symbolic point of view. There are, however, significant differences, since, based on the currently available data, the latter is much less frequent in the respective assemblages, with LPDW representing 10% or less of the contemporary assemblages, and Iron I Philistine decorated pottery more than 30% (Stager 1995:334; Bunimovitz 1990:212; M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005, see above). Thus, despite some similarities, this strongly suggests that the symbolic and functional role of LPDW during Iron II was different from that of the Iron I Philistine decorated pottery.

As an immigrant culture, an emphasis was put on an attempt to define different stages, represented by the material culture, from the initial contact with the new area, to its supposed ‘assimilation’ in its hosting culture. However, it seems, that often a too rigid correlation was assumed between the development in material culture, namely pottery, and the degree of cultural and social assimilation of the Philistine people. The stages described by T. Dothan were initially three: initial Bichrome, developed Bichrome (showing also Canaanite, Egyptian and Cypriote influences) and debased/degenerated Philistine pottery, illustrating the final assimilation with the Canaanite culture (T. Dothan 1982:218, 295-6, Table 2). After the Philistine Monochrome pottery was recognized, is was seen to represent the earlier stage (Mazar 1985b), while according to M. Dothan an earlier “wave’’ was added correlating this pottery. The wider distribution of Philistine Bichrome pottery during the late 12th and 11th centuries was seen by some as evidence for the enlargement of Philistine influences and political power (T. Dothan 1982:295-6; for Gezer, Singer 1985:114-116). However, as noted above, simple trade and a rising popularity of Philistine decorated pottery as tableware (replacing Canaanite and LBII decorated form in these cases) can explain this phenomenon just as well. Mazar (1985b) described two stages: an early stage of the Monochrome pottery and a later stage of the Bichrome, which illustrates the beginning of influences from the local cultures.

The phenomenon of combining a unique decorative technique with various forms deriving from different ceramic traditions seen in both Iron I Philistine ware and the LPDW can be viewed as a continuation of the “eclectic” nature of the Philistine material culture (Philistine Bichrome pottery attests influences of Aegean, Cypriote, Egyptian, and Canaanite traditions, T. Dothan 1982:217-18; LPDW pottery reflects Phoenician, Assyrian and possibly Judean influences). On the other hand the LPDW pottery can be seen as an expression of the cultural transformation of Philistine culture, which gradually incorporated local Levantine aspects, reflecting, what has been seen as a process of acculturation (Stone 1995), or ‘creolization’ (see Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004) but not assimilation. Thus, the Philistines material culture is characterized by a production of fine decorated ware in both Iron I and II horizon. This is in contrast to pottery traditions of other areas in Israel (identified with other

While pottery wares may be good chronological indicators, they may not be as sensitive to cultural, social, economic and political changes. It should be noted that in all stages the Philistine pottery assemblage does represent all classes of vessels but is restricted to open form of tablewares and several small containers. Cooking vessels may be added but storage vessels, flasks, juglets, lamps 89

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY ethnic groups, Faust 2002), especially in the Iron IIB, which do not include decorated pottery.

Philistine ethnic entity came to a political end at the Babylonian conquest and to a cultural end during later stages of the consequent exile at Babylonia.

According to T. Dothan (e.g., 1982:296) and Bunimovitz (1990:219) the Philistine material culture was completely assimilated during the Iron II. In this process the ethnic group eventually looses its distinct identity. Iacovou also describes a similar process, contrasting it with the situation in Cyprus, where the Aegean element gained the upper hand during the 11th century BCE (1998:337-340; see also Muhly 1984). As noted, a different process, that of ‘acculturation’ (Stone 1995), or ‘creolization’ (Maeir in press a) has been suggested as well for the Iron Age Philistine culture. This process is represented by an amalgamation of two or more cultures, creating a new one.108 As seen in other aspects of the material culture, an ongoing process in which unique Philistine attributes were combined with local elements can be discerned until the very end of Philistine culture in the late 7th century BCE. Aegean components in Iron Age II Philistine material culture can be identified in the few morphological links between the Iron I Philistine pottery and the LPDW and in later types of Aegean style figurines (see Yasur-Landau 2001 on the late Ashdoda figurines). Nevertheless, most of the elements of the Iron II Philistine material culture may have no Aegean characteristics at all, as apparently these were not perceived as being of importance any more in Philistia during this period. These parameters may have been more important in the initial stage, when the Philistines were a relative small and less influential group of immigrants, in order to preserve their identity (Yasur-Landau 2002:10,22).

9. Archaeometric studies of Philistine pottery a. History of research There are numerous archaeometric studies dealing with Philistine pottery. The earliest study is a petrographic study by Edelstein and Glass (1973), examining Philistine Bichrome pottery, mainly from ‘Eitun, and comparing it to local Canaanite types. The results are interpreted as showing the Philistine vessels to be made of finer higher fired clay, however, local to the area of the Shephelah. After the excavations at Ashdod, Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome pottery was analyzed from the site. Although very large numbers of samples analyzed by INAA are mentioned (about 800 samples altogether, Gunneweg personal communication), the results were only partly published.109 Initially, several Philistine Monochrome sherds from Area H were analyzed. It was shown that this pottery is not imported from Cyprus, and it resembles other wares of Philistine Bichrome from Ashdod and ‘Eitun (Asaro et al. 1971; Perlman et al. 1971; Asaro and Perlman 1973). During the 1980’s a group of Philistine Monochrome pottery (mostly of the fine fabric) from Tel Miqne Field INE was analyzed by INAA (Gunneweg et al. 1986), showing essentially the same results; a limited attempt was made to differentiate between clay originating in the Ekron and Ashdod areas (see discussion in Part 4.2-4.3). The same pottery group from Miqne was analyzed by TSPA by Ann Killebrew and compared to the contemporary and earlier LBA Canaanite tradition vessels (1998a, 1998b). This showed some specific technological attributes of the Philistine Monochrome pottery. The subject of firing temperature was not clearly resolved, however (Killebrew 1998a:247248). Reports on Philistine Bichrome pottery from Tell Qasile (Yellin and Gunneweg 1985), Gezer (Hughes and Smith 1986) and Tell en-Nasbeh (Gunneweg et al. 1994) that were also analyzed by INAA, were published as well and will be discussed in Part 4.4. Philistine Bichrome pottery from Dor was analyzed by TSPA (Gilboa et al. in press).

To summarize, the Philistines were on no account assimilated in the local population during the Iron Age II. They maintained a distinct culture, apparent in Philistia and comprised of various aspects of material culture, religion and language (as shown by Stone 1995:24 and Gitin 1997, 2003b—the “smoking gun” phenomenon). While the material culture could be considered as ‘Levantanized’ by the end of the Iron Age I, specific aspects relating to religion and personal names preserve Aegean character later on as well. The existence of the

Several archaeometric studies on Iron II pottery from Philistia and southern Israel were conducted as well. These include pottery from Area M at Ashdod, including LPDW (Perlman and Asaro 1982) and 7th century pottery from Tel Batash (Gunneweg and Yellin 1991), both analyzed by INAA, and the 7th century BCE assemblage from The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon analyzed by TSPA (Master 2001; 2003). Other archaeometric studies relating to Iron Age pottery include INAA of LMLK jars (Mommsen et al. 1984), Black on Red ware (Matters et al. 1983; Brodie and Steel 1996; also Tyre pottery, Beiber

108

The latter term, borrowed from socio-linguistics, describes processes in which a language (usually of a dominated culture), under the influence of another language (usually of a non-dominant culture), goes through a process of transformation, in which elements of both languages are combined to form a new ‘hybrid’ language (e.g., Sebba 1997). Maeir (in press a) has suggested that viewing the transformation of the Philistine material culture through this ‘lens’ affords a richer perspective to the understanding of this cultural trajectory. See, a similar perspective on material culture of provinces of the Roman Empire, defining a creolization process rather than a Romanization one (Webster 2001). One may compare the Philistine phenomenon to the Mongolian Dynasty (the Yuan Dynasty) of 13-14th centuries A.D. in China (though quite shorter-lived than the Philistine culture). While in the beginning the Mongolian character of the administration was more emphasized, later on when this regime took over the entire empire it was asimilated into Chinese culture; several cultural elements were nevertheless still retained, marking its ethnically distinct character (Endicott-West 1989:82).

109 Gunneweg et al. 1986:4 mention 90 Philistine Monochrome samples; Asaro and Perlman mention 148 Philistine Monochrome samples (1973:223): 94 vessels were sampled from Area M and at least 110 from Areas G and H (Perlman and Asaro 1982:72).

90

PART 1: IRON AGE PHILISTIA AND PHILISTINE POTTERY WARES 3. A more comprehensive study of the LPDW production centers within and outside Philistia (as this ware was alleged by some to be of certain Phoenician influence according to its visual appearance). The recently excavated large assemblage from Tell es-Safi/Gath was focused on. The working hypothesis was that this ware was produced in Philistia, but the question was whether it was indeed an ‘Ashdod ware’, produced only at Ashdod. 4. The study will also enable to compare the Iron I with the Iron II Philistine wares in Philistia (i.e. production centers and trade pattern), together with previously analyzed material.

1978), rosette-stamped handles (Yellin and Cahill 2004), collared-rim pithoi from Dan (Yellin and Gunneweg 1989), pottery from Tel Mevorakh (Yellin and Perlman 1987), pottery from the Baq‘ah Valley (McGovern 1986:178-193, also TSPA), Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Gunneweg et al. 1985), City of David (Yellin 1996), Hurvat Qitmit (Gunneweg and Mommsen 1995) and a collection of sherds from the northern Negev and the Nelson Glueck collection (Berry 1986). Petrographic studies include pottery from Iron I Shiloh (Glass et al. 1993), Iron Age Jerusalem (Franken and Steiner 1990:77-98), Lachish potter’s cave (Goren and Halperin 2004; Magrill and Middleton 2004) and collared-rim pithoi (CohenWeinberger and Wolff 2001) as well as less detailed reports on pottery from Beer Sheva (Singer-Avitz 1999:18-20), ‘Ajrud (Goren, in Ayalon 1995:194), Samaria (Crowfoot 1957) and sites in the Negev Highlands (Gorzalczany 2004) (see also Slatkine 1974 on Dan and Timna). A current study by TSPA of fine ware bowls (‘Samarian’) and storage vessels of the Iron II is being conducted by C. Aznar. The recent comprehensive petrographic study of the Amarna letters (and some chemical data of ICP-AES and ICP-MS as well), with a detailed discussion of the Shephelah and the southern coastal plain (Goren et al. 2004), is highly relevant as well. A discussion of relevant aspects in these studies will be made in Parts 3 and 4.

Secondary questions that were put forward for the archaeometric analysis were the nature of several indecisive types or wares, such as the red-slipped Philistine ware and the Iron II amphoriskoi (and preLMLK jars from Tell es-Safi). Identification of production centers of these pottery groups may aid in their typological definition. If they were found to be produced only in Philistine centers, they may be considered indeed as belonging to the Philistine pottery assemblage. A limited investigation of Philistine Bichrome pottery found outside Philistia was also considered: could any new conclusions concerning trade and production of this pottery throughout Israel be achieved (see Wood 1990:60)? Another question was the alleged potters’ workshop from Stratum XIIIb (L4106) of Area G at Ashdod.

Pottery technology in the Iron Age was studied by Kelso and Thorley (Tel Beit Mirsim, 1943), Hammond (Hebron, 1971), Franken (e.g., Deir ‘Alla, 1982), Killebrew (1989; 1996; 1998a; 1999), Wood (1990) and Magrill and Middleton (1997, 2004). This issue will be discussed in Part 2.

Methodological questions set in the study were the comparison between previous INAA and ICP results— both on the elemental level of an individual sample, and on the statistical grouping level. Another issue was the combination and integration of chemical analysis and TSPA of the same pottery vessels, a procedure seldom executed on southern Levantine pottery (see discussion in Parts 3.5, 4.6).

b. The archeological questions to be answered by archaeometric analysis in this study In light of this relative rich history of archaeometric research, especially of the Iron I wares, the questions raised in this study concerning Iron Age Philistine pottery were more specific. Major questions included: 1. Identification of intra-regional production centers and trade patterns in Philistine wares both in the Iron I and Iron II. This study is the first to include pottery from all four excavated Philistine city sites. Were certain Philistine cities exporters of such wares while others were importers? Can a distinct compositional profile be defined for each of the cities? Thus, questions concerning ceramic differences between the cities could be approached from a different viewpoint. 2. A better definition and affirmation of the different fabric types of Philistine Monochrome wares, and their comparison with other Philistine wares. Do the different visual fabric groups represent various treatment and/or firing conditions of the same clay, different clays from the same production center, or clays of different production centers? The working hypothesis was that fine Philistine Monochrome was produced mostly at Tel Miqne-Ekron. 91

Part 2 Technological Aspects of Iron Age Pottery Production Al2O3[39%]·2SiO2[47%]·2H2O[14%]). The edges of the clay crystals tend to bond with various elements such as Fe, Ti, Ca, Mg and Na or other rarer impurities of trace elements as Zn, Ni, Li, P, Cr, Mn etc. (Rice 1987:42-52). Such impurities often are sourced to the parent rock of which the clay weathered (mostly of K feldspar minerals). In addition, ions of certain sizes may replace the Al and Si ions (these include Mg2+, Fe2+ or Fe 3+). These phenomena account for the high chemical variability of clays, especially in trace elements.

This part of the study deals with the pottery production itself and its technological aspects. The sequence of pottery making will be described on a general basis according to known technological parameters and ethnographic data. The material remains evidencing pottery production at various scales during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages will be described with an emphasis on new data, updating Ann Killebrew’s (1989) and Bryant Wood’s (1990) studies some 15 years ago and on evidence from Philistia. This will be followed be a theoretical reconstruction of pottery production and distribution models according to ethnoarchaeological studies. An attempt to apply these models to Iron Age pottery production in southern Israel will be made together with an evaluation of the technological changes in pottery production during this period with emphasis on the Philistine sites.

Several aspects should be noted concerning the variation in the system of quarrying clay in ancient times: 1. Is the clay for a specific workshop quarried from a single or several sources? What is the distance from the clay source (and from temper and paint sources) to the production center? 2. Is the clay quarried by the potters or is it purchased? 3. When is a clay source changed, and how many different clay sources are used in the same time by workshop.

1. The pottery production sequence: description and terminology The main stages in pottery making, or the pottery production sequence essentially do not change from the initial appearance of pottery in the Pottery Neolithic A during the 7th millennium BCE through to modern time (see, e.g., Rye 1981; Rice 1987:113-166; Killebrew 1989:12-100; Henderson 2000:115-141).

Several raw material procurement strategies can be described, ranging from the non-discriminating, through to the more discriminating and specialized. The latter can comprise of the composition of several clays and even importation of clays (Bishop et al. 1982:316-7; Killebrew 1989:15). The clays that are sought can be suited only for specific vessel or ware types. The subject of distance from which clay, temper and pigments is procured was discussed in several studies and in most detail by Arnold (1981; 1985:32-60, Table 2.1), summarizing data from over 100 ethnographic studies around the world. It seems that the maximal distance in most cases would be around 7 km from the site; usually much shorter distances are reported, but larger distances are also known (Arnold 1985:52). The distance for temper is the same while for colorants it could be much higher.

These include: 1. The quarrying of the clay. 2. The treatment of the clay, which may include levigation, drying and soaking, and the addition of temper and/or mixture of clays. 3. The forming of the vessels by hand, wheel or mold or some combination of these techniques. The forming is divided into primary forming of the main body from the clay ball, and secondary forming comprising of the addition of handles, spouts etc. Primary surface treatment (plastic decoration, incisions, burnish, slip and paint) can also be included in this stage. 4. The drying of the vessels in the open air. 5. Secondary surface treatment: paint, decoration. 6. Firing in an open fire or a kiln (after the final drying). Each of these stages, or all of them together, may exhibit various changes due to either functional, technological, chronological or cultural reasons.

There are several degrees of human intervention in the subsequent treatment of the raw clay (see Killebrew 1989:18-23; also Livingstone Smith 2000). At the basic level, the clay may be used as is, with only the addition of water. Generally this is rare, occurring only if the quality of the natural clay is very high (possibly in the case of the Motza marl clay in Judea and Samaria, Goren 1996b:109). The levigation of the clay, resulting in finer grained clay, is very common and can be achieved either by a series of basins with various sizes or a series of narrow channels or pools containing water. The principle is that the larger particles sink to the bottom and the water carries the smaller ones away. Thus, the more stages of soaking pools are present the finer the clay becomes. The water is thence evaporated. The degree of levigation of the clay used may reflect the nature of the raw material,

Clay consists basically of fine-grained weathered rocks (under 2-4 microns, depending on the standard, see Rice 1987: Fig. 2.2), mainly igneous and sedimentary with major components of silica-SiO2 and alumina-Al2O3 based minerals (see Rice 1987:36-43). Clay minerals are sheet silica minerals, derived from feldspars and are usually defined chemically as:

92

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION the type of vessel to be made or technological/cultural traditions.

our case the more important technological differences are the subtle ones. These are reflected by various procedures undertaken by the potter when manufacturing specific parts of the vessel. This would include for example the type of base (string cut, simple, modeled, attached, folded/pinched), the application/insertion of handles, the degree of carination or thickness of walls etc. These more specific attributes of the potter are reflected even more clearly in the surface treatment and decoration of the vessel.3

The other important aspect of clay treatment is the addition of temper to the clay or the mixing of several clays, thus creating a ‘clay recipe’. This is done usually to optimize the plasticity of the clay. Temper will be defined here as any large sized (sand and larger) particles added to the clay.1 Typical forms of temper are crushed calcite or shell, sand quartz, crushed rocks as basalt, grog (crushed sherds), salts, and straw and other organic material. The type and amount of temper can again reflect a combination of factors as the nature and quality of the raw material, specific qualifications dictated by specific vessel types and technological and cultural traditions. While the term clay denotes the raw material, the terms paste or body denote the final product used for vesselmaking by the potter, and fabric denotes the fired ceramic body (see Glock 1975; Killebrew 1989:19).

Surface treatment and decoration of the pottery vessels is undertaken in the second stage of the vessel forming (for secondary forming techniques see summary in Killebrew 1989:64-67; for decoration and surface treatment see Killebrew 1989:69-79). When the vessels are slightly dried to a ‘leather hard’ condition (Rice 1987:64,137), attachments (secondary forming: spouts, handles, decoration etc.) are made, as is the surface treatment. Slipping is the dipping of the whole vessel in paint or diluted paint. Burnishing is achieved by a hard flat tool (such as a worked sherd; see below for such objects from Iron Age sites, Fig. 2.12-2.13) and can be made in patterns.4 Slipping and burnishing are most effective when the vessel is leather dry; paint decoration can be added in this stage, though also on a completely dry vessels or after firing. Most of the surface treatment techniques of unglazed pottery have not changed considerably throughout millennia. Potters’ tools are usually evidence of the secondary forming stage of the pottery (see Killebrew 1989:87-91 for a summary; Figs. 2.12-2.13). These include tools made of reworked sherds pebble or shell used for smoothing or burnishing the vessels; scrapers for extracting clay; tools made of stone (as flint blades), wood or bone for incising and decorating; pins for incising or perforating (Fig. 2.13); wires for cutting, rope for tying and decorating; rugs for covering; mortars and pestles for color grinding and possibly funnels and types of basins.

Forming techniques are the most versatile component of pottery making and are usually regarded as the most sensitive to chronological and cultural changes (Arnold 1981:39-41), as they are the most visible to the culture which consumes the pottery (as to the archaeologist). Pottery can be formed by hand using various methods: simple handling, pinching or coils. Pottery can by made by hand, wheel or by wheel and hand.2 Wheel making may be with a slow wheel (tournette, 15-20 rotations per minute, usually, carrying a low momentum) or fast wheel (tournage) capable of continuous rotation (over 50 rotations per minute; Rice 1987:134-135). The technology of wheels is essential to the analysis of this point (for detailed discussion of various wheel types, their ancient depictions and their presence in the archaeological record see Amiran 1965; Amiran and Shenhav 1984; Killebrew 1989:51-61). The wheel is comprised of the wheel head (on which the clay is placed), the fly-wheel, which creates the rotation (an advanced type is the double wheel, Wood 1990:20-21, Fig. 3), and the pivot which is a socket supporting the fly wheel. The kick-wheel variant, possibly appears by the LBII (Magrill and Middleton 2004:2542), though definitely only in the Persian period (Spencer 1997:63).

Drying is fairly straightforward and usually depends mainly on the climate, vessel size, type, clay type, and space available (for evidence of pottery drying in the archaeological record and ancient depictions, see Killebrew 1989:67-68). Drying can be from a few days up to several weeks and is crucial for successful firing (for ideal conditions, see Kalsbeek 1969:77-78; Rice mentions 12% water or less in the final drying, 1987:66).

Primary forming creates the shape of the vessel from the clay ball; for a summary of various primary forming techniques see, e.g., Fewkes 1940; Franken 1971; Rye 1981; van As 1984; Killebrew 1989:45-49; these include pinching, throwing/drawing, slab or coil construction and molding. The use of the mold for part of the vessel or its complete form is another major technique. However, in

The most complex technological stage of pottery production is the firing. When dried vessels are fired in a temperature of about 550 °C or above, the inter-lattice hydroxyl (HO) water is extracted and the clay undergoes

1 In petrographic thin sections temper or inclusions would be any sand or larger sized particles in the slide whether intentionally added or natural (see, e.g. Goren et al. 2004:5). In some studies, however, supposedly human added material to the clay is defined as temper, while natural inclusions are termed non-plastics (Arnold 1971:39; Killebrew 1989:20). 2 As Middle Bronze Age I jars: neck by wheel, body by hand; zoomorphic vessels have hand-made elements and wheel-made body and spouts.

3 The ethnic, social and symbolic aspects of pottery decoration have been often described in various cultures (see, e.g., Rice 1987:244-272; David et al. 1988). 4 Various techniques of burnishing include continuous hand burnishing, irregular burnishing, pattern burnishing, vertical burnishing and horizontal ring wheel burnishing. Burnish has both a decorative value and reduces the porosity of the vessel and seals it.

93

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY the southern Levant are updraft vertical kilns. In the simplest form, the fuel was mixed with the vessels in one combustion chamber (Fig. 2.1; Olsen 1973:68, Fig. 2). In more developed kilns of this type, several components can be described: 1. A stoking hole for handling the fire and fuel; 2. A fire tunnel linking it to the combustion chamber; 3. A combustion chamber where the fuel was placed: 4. A platform (the ‘vessel floor’) separating the combustion chamber from the firing chamber and supported by one or more pillars; 5. A firing chamber where the vessels were placed; 6. The superstructure of the kilns with exhaust vents and a top cap (Fig. 2.1; Olsen 1973:69, Fig. 3; Swan 1984:29-34). 6. In some cases, a flue system to regulate the heat flow. Pottery kilns are usually built of mudbrick, or partly of stone. They are built above ground or are partly subterranean.

an irreversible process, thus becoming pottery. Here the type of firing should be considered: open fire or closed kiln. Firing in pits may be considered an intermediate technique. The main problem in non-kiln firing is the maintenance of heat temperature. However, the firing of pottery in an open fire is still used until modern times (e.g. at Busira, Bresenham 1985:97, Fig. 13). Several studies from the Near East and other regions showed the process of evolution of pottery kilns from the beginning of pottery production about 8000 years ago to the Iron Age and later periods (for review of kiln types see Delcroix and Hout 1972; Holthoer 1977; Alizadeh 1985; Killebrew 1989:94-95, 129-134; Nicholson 1993). When kilns are used, the shape and structure of the kiln may reflect cultural and chronological factors as well. The firing temperature, duration and environment are important technological components of pottery production.

Beyond the full development of a separate firing chamber (the double chambered kiln), further evolutionary advances in ancient Near Eastern pottery kilns are difficult to identify. There are various shapes and sizes of kilns, ranging from rounded (1.5-2.5 m. in diameter), oval (up to 4 m in length), ellipse and kidney shaped, or square or rectangular (rarer) (see Killebrew 1996:153-156). The shape of the kiln is often dictated by the position of the supporting pillar of the vessel floor; thus if it is attached to the side of the kiln, the shape becomes asymmetrical. It is not clear whether there is any difference in heat efficiency and control among the variously shaped kilns. Vertical updraft kilns are known to achieve better homogeneity in temperature during the firing process, both spatially and temporally, while in order to achieve similar results in horizontal kilns, a more sophisticated planning of the kiln with a flue system is needed (Rhodes 1968:20; Wood 1990:31). It should be noted that kilns of different shapes and sizes often co-exist side by side (see Majidzadeh 1975-77:218-220, concerning modern ethnographic kilns from Iran; Killebrew 1989:130; though see a different opinion in Alizadeh 1985, relating different kiln types to cultural factors). Thus, the differences in kilns may represent cultural and/or functional reasons. The firing process itself has several stages (Rye 1981:105-110; Killebrew 1989:95-99): 1. Water smoking, in which the remaining inter-plate water is driven out of the clay (the temperature in this stage, which is sustained for about two hours, is relatively low). 2. Low temperature decomposition of the clay (up to 350º C). 3. Sintering (when the temperature rises from 400 to 850º C) is the main stage of firing of unglazed pottery, in which the clay minerals decompose and the grains bond together (in the higher temperature above 750º C calcite is decomposed).5 Combustion of organic matter also occurs in this stage. Low oxidizing atmosphere firing of

Figure 2.1. General components of kilns (after Killebrew 1996: Fig. 2). The earliest kilns were vertical updraft ones, i.e., a cylinder built of mud or dug into the ground, and topped by a dome. In an updraft or vertical kiln the combustion chamber is placed below the firing chamber. Thus, the heat flow is vertical, in contrast to a horizontal kiln in which the heat flow is horizontal, as the combustion chamber is be placed to the side of the firing chamber (Fig. 2.1). Almost all the Bronze and Iron Age kilns from

5

In higher temperatures CaCO2 decomposes forming CaO; in the cooling process CaO can combine with water and create pressure that may crack the vessel (also known as “spalling’’). A possible solution to this problem was the addition of salt to the clay or the selection of salty clays (Kelso and Thorley 1943:110-111).

94

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION the iron oxides, and incompletely burnt organic matter inside the clay, may result in a black core in the pottery (Rye 1981:115-118; Rice 1987:334-336, 343-345). This results from a lower degree of oxidation (the amount of available oxygen) during this stage, depending on the duration of the firing, type of fuel, and draft. 4. Vitrification or the melting of the clay, occurring above 900-950º C (although this may occasionally occur in lower temperatures as well). 5. Cooling: from when the maximum temperature is reached and no more fuel is added. The cooling can take from several hours to a week depending on the type of kiln, and it is in oxidizing conditions, unless black vessels are sought.

2. Iconographic and textual evidence of ancient pottery production There are three main sources for information relevant to the analysis and reconstruction of the details of the evolution of pottery production during the Iron Age. 1. Ancient textual and iconographic evidence on pottery production. 2. The archaeological evidence. 3. Ethnoarchaeological studies (including replication studies). Ancient depictions Ancient depictions are discussed in detail by Killebrew (1982; 1989; see also D. Arnold 1993) and thus will be briefly discussed here. Ancient depictions from Egypt spanning the Old to New Kingdoms show various techniques of clay treatment (Killebrew 1982; 1989:21; especially in the Tomb of Kenamun: Davies 1930: Pl. 59; Holthoer 1977:28; and the tomb of Rekhmire, Davies 1943). Wheels, either regular or kick-wheels, are depicted in Egyptian paintings and clay and wooden models from Egyptian tombs (Killebrew 1982; 1989:52-55). It seems that the introduction of the fast wheel came during the MBIIA, originally from Mesopotamia and/or Greece to Egypt (Hodges 1971:59). In the potters’ workshop scene in the tomb of Kenamun, an assistant to the potter is seen turning the wheel. Numerous cylindrical kilns appear in Egyptian reliefs from the Middle Kingdom onwards (Killebrew 1989:99-101). These show the potters loading the kiln, regulating the fire and unloading the vessels (Holthoer 1977:10-13). Similar depictions appear later on Greek vases.

Various analytical techniques are used to determine the maximal temperature achieved in ancient kilns (see, e.g., Tite 1969; Maniatis and Tite 1981; Heimann 1982; Rice 1987:426-436; Killebrew 1989:135-150; 1996:150-153; 1998a:247-248). This is perceived as an important technological indicator (Rice 1987:81-82). Also sought are other thermal and chemical conditions in the kiln (Mayes 1961; Roberts 1963). A most common technique is refiring of the sherds in different temperatures and comparing physical (as color), microscopic and chemical criteria with the original sherd. When differences are seen this means that the maximal original firing temperature was exceeded. Another possibility is to replicate the firing of samples of local clay. Other criteria for estimating firing temperature are the porosity of the fabric, as it decreases in higher temperatures. Chemical analysis includes Mossbauer Spectroscopy, which measures the valance state of the iron atoms (for analysis on Ashdod pottery see Hess and Perlman 1974; see also Maniatis et al. 1982), which also has to be done in comparison to refired sherds. Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) can similarly indicate firing temperatures. Mineralogical analysis (as X-Ray diffraction, Scanning Electron Microscope—SEM and TSPA) can aid in estimating both firing temperature and conditions. Criteria which are used are the quartz alpha-beta phase inversion at 573 ºC (identified by the cracking of the mineral), disappearance of non-isotropic clay minerals and crystalline calcite at 700-850 ºC, as other details (see more in Part 3.5). SEM can effectively identify vitrification stages of the clay, thus, also classifying the general type of clay (mainly calcareous and noncalcareous; see, e.g., Maniatis and Tite 1978). However, these estimates are usually useful in firing temperature well above 800 ºC, possibly not relevant to Iron Age pottery (for other techniques related to thermal characteristics of pottery, see Rice 1987:426-436; Killebrew 1989:146-150).

Written sources In contrast to the large volume pottery vessels occupy in the archaeological record, the ancient written sources from the Bronze and Iron Ages relating to pottery production are very few. Potter’s quarters and guilds of potters are noted in the bible (termed as Yotzrim, ‫)יוצרים‬: In Jer. 19:1 the Gate of potsherds is mentioned, while in Jer. 18:2-7 the house of the potter is probably a workshop. An interesting passage in 1Chron. 4:21 mentions the royal potters workshops at Netayim and Gederah. In Ugaritic texts regarding artisans, there may be reference to potters organized in family related guilds (see also Mendelsohn 1940; Johnston 1974; Heltzer 1982:100; Killebrew 1989:204-206). These records illustrate the existence of potters as a professional group. This group may have had, in some cases, relations also to official state production, at least during the end of the Iron Age, as the passage from 1Chron 4:21 implies. In relation to this passage it has been suggested that such a royal production of Iron II pottery was located in Achzib (Demsky 1966:215). This, as yet, unidentified site was probably located in Judea and may have produced the LMLK and/or pre-LMLK jars (Shai and Maeir 2003:120121, n. 4).

Another important factor relating to pottery firing is fuel supply. This can have environmental and ecological implications, if wood in the vicinity of the workshop is exhausted (Arnold 1985:53-54, 199; for similar process concerning fuel for the metallurgy industry, see Welten 1983). Nevertheless, this aspect is seldom represented in the archaeological record. 95

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY noted that presently the only direct archaeological evidence for pottery production from the Philistine pentapolis sites comes from two instances: Tel MiqneEkron of the Iron I, and Tel Ashdod of the Iron II.

3. Archaeological evidence of pottery production during the LBII and Iron Ages Evidence for pottery production in general and pottery kilns in particular are relatively difficult to come by in the archaeological record. This is due to the poor preservation of the kilns and the workshops, caused by their fast decay (Nicholson and Patterson 1985:231,237238), and their peripheral location within the site (for suggestions for proper identification and excavation of kilns, see Killebrew 1989:150-152). Moreover, in many cases, where pottery kilns can be identified, they are not sufficiently well-preserved for robust reconstruction. Thus, very often, the technological principles of the firing process, as the location of the firing and vessel chambers, the type of kiln and the draft system, remain unclear. The archaeological data can appear in several levels: 1. The highest is an entire workshop including clay preparation, vessel-forming and kiln areas (several workshops can be termed a potter’s quarter); 2. The isolated kiln or series of kilns; 3. Isolated finds as lumps of vitrified clay (often referred to as ‘pottery slag’; see Bachmann 1982:1-4 for slag definitions), wasters (distorted, under-fired or over-fired vessel), potters’ tools, or related installations. There are several published reports, final or preliminary, dealing with evidence for Iron Age pottery production workshops, or more isolated related finds, in Israel. Yet, some excavations that have unearthed Iron Age kilns have not yet been published in detail (as at Haruba, Tell Jemmeh, Kfar Menahem, Yad Mordechai, Mevasseret and ‘Akko). Earlier studies on pottery production and technology in the Iron Age southern Levant include Kelso and Thorley (Tel Beit Mirsim, 1943), Hammond (Hebron, 1971), Leicht (Beer-Sheba, 1975), Franken (Deir ‘Alla, Franken 1969:88-101; 1971; 1982; also Kalsbeek 1969; Vilders 1988; Jerusalem, Franken and Steiner 1990:68-69, 77-98; Franken 2005), McGovern (the Baqah Valley, 1986:64-193), Killebrew (1989; 1996; 1998a; 1999), Wood (1990), and Magrill and Middleton (Lachish, 1997, 2001, 2004). Of these, the most detailed is probably Ann Killebrew’s M.A thesis (1989), and Wood’s study (1990:5-41; see Fig. 2.2). Studies on ancient Egyptian pottery technology include Dorothea Arnold (1993) and Nicholson (1993).

Figure 2.2. Distribution of LB-Iron Age workshops (after Wood 1990: Fig. 16) Haruba/El Arish In Site A-345 in northern Sinai a potter’s workshop related to an Egyptian stronghold was discovered. The workshop included an area with installations for clay preparation and two pottery kilns (Oren 1987:99-106, Figs. 8-9, Pls. G, H; Oren 1993b:1391). One kiln was circular, 1.8 m. in diameter, with remains of a vessel floor and a well-preserved super-structure; the other, also circular, 1 m. in diameter, but not as well preserved.

Nevertheless, the entire information concerning the archaeological evidence of pottery production during the Iron Age, both I and II, has not been updated since the 1990’s. A discussion of these remains and their implications, especially encompassing both the Iron I and II periods, and comparing between them, is warranted. Hence, such a discussion, adding unpublished data, will be presented here. Some of the data on LBII workshops will also be considered (the survey will be according to sites, roughly from south to north). Data from the southern Levant will be compared with the more specific evidence from Philistia and the Aegean. It should be

Deir el Balah The site of Deir el Balah near Gaza was excavated by T. Dothan during 1979-1982. An LBII, Ramesside period pottery workshop was found in the upper LB stratum and was studied by Killebrew (1989:102-112, Ills. 93-127; 1996:139-145). This workshop was probably partly 96

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION additional extension of two walls; remains of a vessel floor and flues were reported. Petrie dates this kiln earlier than the MBII. An oblong kiln measuring about 4.5 x 1.8 m. (0.45 m wide at the mouth) (Petrie 1931:6, Pl. LII:1) was also unearthed. A supporting arch near the mouth was preserved as well, attesting to a separate fire chamber. The date of these kilns is unclear, though the latter is somewhat similar to the Iron I kiln from Tell Jemmeh (Killebrew 1989:123).

related to the anthropoid coffin industry and the nearby cemetery (T. Dothan 1979). The remains of the workshop included a possible clay quarry (Killebrew 1989:16, T. Dothan 1985), which was a 20 x 20 x 4 meter pit, and a soaking/storage place for clay with remains of raw material in the workshop (Killebrew 1989:22). Relatively large amounts of red, yellow and blue colorants were also found and are related to the pottery production (Killebrew 1989:77). Four pottery kilns, all made of bricks, were unearthed. Circular Kiln 540 illustrated several changes in the course of its use, possibly related to changes in its function. Oval Kiln 512 was built above Kiln 540 and its walls were preserved up to 1 m. high with remains of a separate firing chamber. Coffin fragments found in the kilns may imply that coffins, or more probably coffin lids, were fired in it, although these may also be part of the kiln’s construction (Killebrew 1989:106). Oval Kilns 1312 and 1313 were somewhat smaller and not as well preserved. In Kiln 1312 seven miniature bowls were found and were possibly left there after firing. From the remains it is not always possible to determine whether the kilns were two chambered updraft kilns or simpler vertical lined pit kilns.

Lachish Near Tel Lachish, a rock-cut cave containing a potter’s workshop was discovered (Fig. 2.3; Cave 4034, Tufnell 1958:291-293, Pls. 8,92; Wood 1990:36, Fig. 14; Magrill and Middleton 1997, 2001, 2004). Six layers in the cave represent a sequence dating from the 13th to the 12th c. BCE. The main layer, 6, is contemporary with Lachish VII (or Fosse Temple III); Layer 5 is probably contemporary with Lachish Level VI. The entrance to the cave contained unbaked sherds and vitrified clay. A greenish earth and vitrified clay layer in this area (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 92: layer 6A) may indicate the location of the kilns, which were not preserved. One carved pit was probably a seat (Pit C); another smaller rounded pit may have held a potter’s wheel (Pits D). Pits A and B were deeper and contained mainly fragments of trial pieces, a figurine mould, sherds with ochre and stone and bone tools (Fig. 2.13; Tufnell 1958:292). Pit B had rock-cut steps (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 92:6) and was probably a drying chamber and it contained an assemblage of vessels typical of Fosse Temple III (Level VII); the pit included also sherds of imitations of Cypriote Base Ring and White Slip. Some Philistine Bichrome (?) sherds may represent a later Iron I usage of the cave (Tufnell 1958:293). A possible clay quarry was identified south of the tell and was dated to the Iron II (Tufnell 1953:253, Pl. 130).

Tell Jemmeh At Tell Jemmeh Van Beek excavated a pottery kiln, which was on the edge of Petrie’s excavations (van Beek 1977:172; 1983:16; Killebrew 1989: Ill. 165). The kiln was an oval shaped updraft kiln, measuring 3.9 x 2.4 m. The firing chamber and vessel floor, which had two rows of holes and was supported by brick arches were preserved. The upper structure was made of clay. Two flues with square sections were located on the sides of the kiln and provided lateral heating for the vessel chamber and were also used as chimneys. Several Philistine Bichrome sherds found in the kiln and a structure with Philistine Bichrome pottery overlying it dated the kiln to the early Iron Age I (van Beek 1977:173). Van Beek’s termed this kiln as a ‘Philistine kiln’ according to the finds; its structure is relatively sophisticated, though it does not differ in its general shape than other contemporary kilns (possibly similar to Kiln 23 from Megiddo: Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 89; here Fig. 2.17: right). This was probably not the main potter’s quarter of the city in the Iron Age, as above the kiln, domestic Iron Age structures were built; perhaps this was an isolated kiln.

A unique assemblage of various potter’s tools was found in Cave 4034 (Fig. 2.13; Tufnell 1958: Pl. 49:15; Magrill and Middleton 1997: Fig. 1). These include pointed tools, polished pebbles and shells, worked sherds for burnishing and scraping and a polished sherd with remains of red paint. Two potter’s wheel ‘tenons’ (upper parts or pivots) were also found in Pit A (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 49:12-13; Magrill and Middleton 1997: Fig. 6:a-b). One of the pivots was made or amphibole-rich metamorphic rock, possibly originating from Cyprus or Syria (Magrill and Middleton 2004:2540). According to petrographic analysis of the material from the cave, two fabric groups were observed (Magrill and Middleton 1997:68-9, Fig. 5, 2004:2515-2521): one of loess or silty wadi clay with fine sand was used for bowls, jars, and other vessels, and the other of similar matrix, but with additional shell temper, which was used only for cooking pots. A piece of raw clay from the cave contained also similar shell fragments; this is probably a Pleshet formation clay, outcrops of which are located about 10 km from the site (see also discussion in Part 4.3). This shows the different clay recipes used for cooking vessels, and the fact that in

Some of Petrie’s Iron I ‘iron furnaces’ are probably pottery kilns (Petrie 1928:7, Pls. VI, XXV:3-6). It should be noted though that these are large elongated rectangular brick structures (up to 10 m. long, 4-5 m. wide), that do not exactly conform to typical pottery kilns. Nevertheless, the large concentration of sherds and the character of the slag/wasters may point to pottery production. Tell el-Ajjul Three circular kilns were published from Petrie’s excavations in Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie 1931:6, Pl. LIV, Rooms BB and DF). The one in Room DF had an 97

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 2.3. A potter’s workshop in a cave near Tel Lachish (after Tufnell 1958: Pl. 92). observed in the Levant until modern times, as a modern example from the 1930’s shows (Magrill and Middleton 1997:72-73).

this case the temper source was further from the workshop (Magrill and Middleton 1997:70, 2004:2550). Radiographic analysis showed that the vessels from the Lachish cave were thrown by a fast wheel, including the miniature vessels (this can be seen by the spirals of the inclusions; Magrill and Middleton 1997: Fig. 6:c-d; 2001:138-142, 2004:2523,2531 Table 36.2). The lower parts of the cooking pots may have not been made by wheel. Firing temperature was estimated at around 750°C according to re-firing experiments (Magrill and Middleton 1997:71). As noted, no kiln was found, and it was probably located outside the cave. The location of the workshop in a cave on the outskirts of the site may be explained by the need to isolate the smoke from the kilns from domestic areas; an Iron Age workshop within a cave is known from Megiddo as well (see below). In regards to its components, very similar workshops have been

Ashdod Two Iron I kilns or workshops were reported from Area G at Ashdod but their identification as such is questionable. In Stratum XIIIb a concentration of 27 well arranged vessels on a floor (mostly Philistine Monochrome) in Locus 4106 was interpreted as a potter’s store room with a suggestion for a nearby Kiln (Locus 4182) (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:54, Pls. 12, 13:1-2, 14:1). However, there are no clear signs of vitrfication, vitrified clay or ‘pottery slag’, and L4182 is merely a 1 m wide, 20 cm deep pit (for a different interpretation of this space as a kitchen see Yasur-Landau 1999:73-74). Later, in Stratum XII, within a building or courtyard, a rectangular installation was reported as a kiln (L4136, M. 98

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION north or south. However, according to the orientation of the later Kiln 1098, it is possible their opening was to the south.

Dothan and Porath 1993:72, Pl. 22:1-2). The location of this installation within a structure, its shape and the absence of vitrification signs or wasters, seems to indicate the possibility this was a hearth or other type of installation.

The three kilns dating to Stratum VIIIa are 1088, 1164 and 1168 (Fig. 2.4). The kilns were built into and under the eastern wall of the structure. Kiln 1088 measures 2.6 x 1 m. and is an elongated pit adjoining to a rectangular brick structure around; a clay lining, several cm thick, surrounds the kiln. A rounded stoking pit lined with stones was located in the entrance, which was to the east. Inside, several complete holemouth jars were found, located in the rear part of the kiln (M. Dothan: Plan 12; Pl. XXXVI:1). It seems that this load was left inside the kiln as the roof of the kiln may have collapsed upon it. This firing chamber may be reconstructed to be about 1.5 m. high, according to the level of Wall 125 covering it. The vaulted roof of the kiln was not preserved in most cases. Traces of the roof were preserved above Kiln 1088 (described but not seen in photos, M. Dothan 1971:92). It was made of mud and a brick arch. The space behind the kiln (1135) may have been part of the stacking platform. Both Kilns 1164 and 1168 to the north were similarly built and of a similar size, but not as well-preserved. These were also bottle shaped firing pits with rounded stoking pits in the east dug into the walls of the earlier Stratum VIIIb kilns.

Much clearer evidence of pottery production, dated to the Iron IIA-B, was discovered mainly in Areas D (Figs. 1.6, 2.4-2.5; M. Dothan 1971:89-92, 178, Plans 8,10,12, Pl. XXXVI), M (Fig. 2.6; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: 7-8, Pls. I:2, II:3, VIII:3) and K (Fig. 2.7; M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Plan 2.14, Figs. 2.68-69). In Area D a more substantial group of kilns and a workshop was uncovered, while the finds from Areas M and K include more isolated kilns. Especially important to this study is the discovery of LPDW vessels inside kilns in Areas D and M. The group of kilns located in the northern part of Area D can be understood as a pottery workshop or even a potter’s quarter that was located on the southwestern edges of the city. Reconstruction of this quarter according to additional rooms with wasters and vitrified clay, which were uncovered in Squares F-G/10-11 (M. Dothan 1971: Pl. XXXVI:2, Plan 10), reveal a very large complex with and area of about 1500 sq. m. (Fig. 2.5; Wood 1990: Fig. 15). To the north, portions of domestic structures uncovered may have been the living quarters of the potters (M. Dothan 1971:92). Most of the features date to Stratum VIII, the 8th century BCE, with at least two phases of construction (Stratum VIIIa and VIIIb).

At least some of these kilns were probably single chambered as no signs of a vessel floor was found and the vessels were found together with wasters, vitrified clay and clay lumps, in the bottom of the pit. Thus, the pottery together with the fuel, were put into the pit and fired (for a similar kiln at Yad Mordechai, see below). From this aspect, the Ashdod kilns were less sophisticated than other contemporary kilns. Another option is that the vessel floor collapsed and was not preserved in all these cases, while Wood defines some of these as horizontal kilns (1990:32).

The preservation of most kilns included an elongated— ‘bottle-shaped’—pit, which was the firing chamber: Altogether seven kilns were uncovered in Area D (Table 2.1). These include an earlier, Stratum VIIIb series of three kilns, all on the same axis with their entrances facing south. In Stratum VIIIa, a second series of three kilns was built in the same area, but on a 90-degree shift in orientation—entrances facing east. The walls of the structures surrounding the kilns changed accordingly. These kilns were similar in size and shape and were better preserved. Later in Stratum VII, there was a return to another southern facing kiln.

In addition to the accumulations of wasters in the kilns, ashes, vitrified clay, and crushed kurkar mixed with sherds, were found in this area (M. Dothan 1971:90, Pl. XXXVII:2). The waste from the kilns was probably concentrated in pits, which were located at some distance. All of the ash pits excavated in Area D date to Stratum VII (but they could have been in use for a longer time). Perhaps, because the production in Stratum VIII was more extensive, most of the waste was removed to a more distant area beyond the city walls (M. Dothan 1971:90). In Stratum VII it seems that pottery production continued, but was on a smaller scale. Only one kiln, 1098, dates to this stage; it faces the south and has a similar character as the earlier ones: an elongated pit measuring 2.5 x 1 m. As noted, the fact that the pottery production area was smaller, probably resulted in that much of the waste was not situated very far from the kiln, and therefore within the excavation limits—it was concentrated to the south of the area in a series of shallow amorphous ash pits. As most of the potter’s quarter at

The earlier three kilns dating to Stratum VIIIb are 1167, 1169 and 1170 (Fig. 2.4; see Table 2.2). These were not well preserved and only the lower part of the pit of the firing chamber was recovered. The kilns were located in a series of at least four spaces built of brick walls and oriented north-south; the long side of the kilns adjoined the eastern wall of the structure (W131), which may have not been roofed. The northern kiln, Kiln 1167, measures externally 3.3 x 2 m. and internally 2.6 x 1 m. The three kilns, 1167, 1168, and 1098, were built on top of each other (M. Dothan 1971: Pl. XXXVI:1). To the south, Kilns 1169 and 1170 are exactly in the same orientation and are similar in size and shape to Kiln 1167. As only the lower part of the firing pit was preserved it is not certain whether the entrances to the kilns was from the 99

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 2.4. Iron IIB kilns from Ashdod, Area D (after M. Dothan 1971: Plan 12). more fragmentary, only a clay lining and a small stone wall were preserved. To the west, Kiln 7028 (and possibly an earlier one, 7029) were similarly built (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 4). These fragmentary kilns are possibly remnants of another potter’s quarter that predates the monumental fortifications, as these were dug into virgin soil (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:7-8). The building of the gate and the wall in Stratum Xa destroyed them almost completely. If we combine all the kiln fragments, an extensive area of 300-500 sq.m. may be reconstructed. Moreover, vitrified clay, ash layers and wasters were discovered here in large quantities and over large areas. The excavators also suggested that hamra soil was quarried here for bricks and pottery making (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:8). Hence, this raw material could justify the relatively distant location of the workshop. Finds related to the workshop include clay basins (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 6:6, Pl. XI:612), and possibly, a clay stool (idem: Fig. 6:3). Installations 7083 and 7072 located within the Stratum Xa gate are relatively small and unusually shaped, and therefore their identification as kilns is not secure (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:7,16, Plan 5). They are located in a niched room just south of the southern part of the gate. Installation 7083 has a rectangular shape, 1 m. long, with several subdivisions (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:16, Plan 5, Pl. II:3-4); the structure, and the clay and thick plaster lining, may attest that this installation is

Area D was not excavated, only a few related objects, such as wheels, installations, tools, etc., were unearthed. However, several shallow clay basins (M. Dothan 1971: Figs. 44:23, 51:9, 58:15-16) and burnishing tools (Figs. 44:25, 58:21-23) are probably related to the pottery production. Later, in the Hellenistic period, this area was used again for pottery production with two rounded kilns (1089 and 1053, M. Dothan 1971:115, Plan 13). The production of pottery in the Iron Age IIA-B potter’s quarter of Area D at Ashdod continued for about 150-200 years. The changes of orientation of the kilns from stage to stage may be result of constructional constraints relating to other structures (domestic?) that were built nearby. The evidence of pottery production in Area M at Ashdod, near the fortifications in the southeastern part of the lower city, was much less extensive than that of Area D (Fig. 2.6). These remains include only three or four isolated kilns. They date earlier, to Strata X-IX, representing the Iron Age IIA. Several LPDW vessels were found within pottery kilns or in relation to them in Stratum Xb (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:7, Pl. II:3-4; Loci 7027-7028, 7202, 7271, 7277). Kilns 7202 and 7028 seem to be similar to the bottle shaped kilns from Area D, in which vessels and fuel were probably located in the same chamber. The western half of kiln 7202 was in the balk (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 3). Kiln 7277 is even 100

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION

Figure 2.5. Reconstruction of the potter’s workshop in Ashdod, Area D. roof (Fig. 2.7). The sediment within the kiln is comprised of a thick upper layer of vitrified clay, under it a layer of white and yellow ashes, and lower down, a layer of black ashes; the kiln is founded on a layer of stones. The lower wall of the kiln is built of bricks, coated on the inside by a layer of clay. Possible remains of a plastered concave floor were also noted. The reconstructed outer diameter of the kiln is c. 2.10 m, the inner diameter 1.50 m and its opening was from the northwest. Two pits are located south of Kiln 5101 and contain ashes from the kiln. Kiln 5101, a vertical updraft kiln, differs from the rectangular pit kilns of Area D (M. Dothan 1971:92, Plan 12) in its small rounded size, which is more similar to later Persian or Hellenistic kilns at Ashdod (as Kiln 1089 from Area

a kiln, though some of the subdivisions could have been added after it went out of use. This kiln in particular contained several complete LPDW vessels. Installation 7072 is a rounded clay installation, 1 m. in diameter, lined with plaster and built of vertical bricks; it could also have been an oven. In Area K, one kiln (5101) was found in Stratum VI, dating to the end of the 7th c. BCE (Fig. 2.7; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.14). This was a rounded pit filled with vitrified clay and burnt material. A circular accumulation of vitrified clay surrounded by ash layers and pits define this kiln. The section shows remains of bricks in the center of the kiln, possibly fallen from its 101

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 2.6. Iron IIA Kilns from Ashdod, Area M (After M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 4).

Table 2.1: Tel Ashdod Iron Age kilns Kiln No. 1167 1169 1170 1088 1164 1168 1098 7202

Type Bottle shaped pit Bottle shaped pit Bottle shaped pit Bottle shaped pit Bottle shaped pit Bottle shaped pit Bottle shaped pit? Bottle shaped pit?

Area D D D D D D D M

Stratum VIIIb VIIIb VIIIb VIIIa VIIIa VIIIa VII Xb

Period 8th c. 8th c. 8th c. 8th c. 8th c. 8th c. 7th c. Iron IIA

Auxiliaries Workshop, structure Workshop, structure Workshop, structure Workshop, structure Workshop, structure Workshop, structure Workshop Open workshop

7277

Bottle shaped pit?

M

Xb

Iron IIA

Open workshop?

7028

Bottle shaped pit?

M

Xb

Iron IIA

Open workshop?

7029

Fragmentary

M

Xb

Iron IIA

Open workshop?

7083

Rectangular pit?

M

Xa

Iron IIA

7072?

Rounded?

M

Xa

Iron IIA

5101

Rounded updraft

K

VI

7th c.

Reference M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan 1971: Plan 8 M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 3 M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 3 M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 4 M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 4 M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 5 M. Dothan and Porath 1982: Plan 5 M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Plan 2.11

To summarize: The only clear evidence for pottery production at Ashdod is from the Iron II. Especially notable is the large Iron IIB potter’s quarter in Area D and probably another quarter in Area M during the Iron IIA. It should be noted that the kilns at Ashdod are relatively simple (pits without vessel floors) and were possibly used for short periods of time.

D, and Kiln 6039 of Stratum Va, M. Dothan and BenShlomo 2005: Plan 2.15). Similar pottery kilns dated to the Persian period were uncovered at Tel Michal (Herzog et al. 1989:102, Fig. 8.13-14) and Tell Qasile (Kletter and Gorzalczany 2001:96, Fig. 2). Kiln 5101 was also part of a workshop, but probably not a potter’s quarter, as the area in this stage was filled with various agricultural installations and domestic structures.

102

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION

Figure 2.7. An Iron IIC kiln from Ashdod, Area K, Stratum VI (after M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.14). Kfar Menahem (Figs. 2.8-2.11)6 The site of Kfar Menahem is located about 2.5 km to the west of Tell es-Safi/Gath, to the north of the Ha’elah river. Due to the construction of a water reservoir in the area, a salvage excavation was conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority under the supervision of Y. Israel (this site was previously known as Khirbet Shimeon, see M. Israel 1963:236 reporting kiln bricks and loomweights). The area excavated in during 2001 was about 160 sq.m (Fig. 2.8).

ground, stone basins and platforms (Figs. 2.8, 2.9). Within the cells and outside them large amounts of pottery was found, including complete and intact vessels. A thick whitish patina covered most of the vessels. The pottery assemblage from the site is very diversified including bowls, kraters, jars, jugs and juglets. The assemblage can be preliminary dated to the 8th century BCE (P. Nachshoni is currently processing the pottery from this site). On the edges of the excavated site were concentrations of vitrified clay, distorted vessels, and over-fired vessel fragments trapped within the vitrified clay (see Fig. 2.10). Large piles of crushed limestone/chalk were also uncovered, especially in the western side of the site. A small assemblage of stone and metal finds were also uncovered, but what is more intriguing is the very large quantity of various types of ceramic objects usually defined as loom-weights (Fig. 2.11).7

The excavation yielded a complex of brick built rectangular cells, and several installations in their vicinity. Four major units were uncovered (denoted A, B, C, D) and were organized in a symmetrical manner: the northern units A and D are similar to the southern ones B and C. These were each subdivided into three units (denoted 1,2 and 3; Fig. 2.8). The eastern wall is thicker (about 1.5 m.) and limits the complex from the east. Each unit measures about 7.5 x 4.5 m. externally, and 5 x 2.3 m. internally and includes three spaces one large and two smaller ones adjacent to each other. The units were entered through the larger space (Cells A1, B1, C1 and D1) measuring about 2.6 x 2.4 m. The internal, smaller rectangular spaces are divided into a larger space (A2D2) measuring 1.5-2 x 1.2-1.5 m. and a smaller one (A3D3) measuring 1.5-1.7 x 0.6-0.8 m. The internal units were built of thinner brick wall made of brick placed on the long side. In units A and D it is clear that there was a partial opening into the small cell (Units A3 and D3). Most of the brick were burnt to a reddish color.

Three constructional phases were observed in the site, although they reflect mostly minor changes. The main 7 These ceramic objects (usually poorly fired) appear in three forms (all in large numbers): doughnut shaped and pyramidal weights with a perforations, measuring about 10 cm. The third type has no perforation and is slightly smaller, 5-10 cm; it is cylindrical in shape with a slight indentation in the middle (‘spools’) (Fig. 2.10). The two perforated forms are well-known loom-weights types of the Iron II. The third type is usually defined as an ‘Aegean type loom-weight’ (Shamir 1991; Stager 1991:37) found in relatively large quantities in the Philistine pentapolis sites (see Part 1.2c above). The appearance of these cylindrical objects at the kiln site of Kfar Menahem poses some questions as to both the function and the ethnic demarcation of these ceramic objects. Note also that similar loom-weights were found throughout the Iron Age at Tell Afis in Syria (Cecchini 2000:216-219, Fig. 1, and more references for Syria therein). Another possibility is that the cylindrical weights were used as spacers for the vessels in the kiln. However, this does not explain the appearance of the perforated types in the same context. These objects could have had multiple functions; they were intended as weights (or stoppers?) but also used as spacers in the kiln and thus incidentally fired. Sausage shaped objects Lachish may have also been similarly used (Wright 1992:212-218; Ussishkin 2004:1589-1596).

The larger spaces in the entrances had several installations within them, especially Unit B1. These included large hand-made pottery vessels sunken into the 6 I wish to thank Yigal Israel, the excavator of the site, and the Israel Antiquities Authority for supplying me with all of the information on this, as yet, unpublished site.

103

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 2.8. Plan of the Kfar Menahem site.

Figure 2.9. General view (top) and close-up of kilns(?) (bottom) from the Kfar Menahem site. 104

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION

Figure 2.10. Slag and vitrified clay from Kfar Menahem.

Figure 2.11. Cylindrical loom-weights (‘spools’) from Kfar Menahem. larger cell was the vessel chamber and the smaller the fire chamber. This reconstruction is problematic as it is not clear what was the physical connection between the two inner cells (maybe through a system of flues?); another possibility is that both cells were used for vessels (maybe not together?).

differences are in Unit B: here in the earlier stage the unit was divided by rows of installations into three parallel cells. The western, external unit had a small brick made cell in the south. The eastern cell (B2 and B3 in the later phase) was paved with bricks. Nevertheless, in the main phase, Unit B conforms to the general plan of the other units.

Rectangular kilns are uncommon during the second and first millennia BCE in the Levant, most kilns are rounded or kidney-shaped. Moreover, such a complex of at least four contemporary identical kiln units is very rare. One would imagine this type of complex testifies to a more large-scale type of pottery production, possibly relating to a central administration. The rectangular kiln from Tel Miqne (Kiln 4104) is somewhat similar and has also a fire chamber from the side (which is though not clearly identified at Kfar Menahem). Aegean LBA kilns, mostly from Crete, are also rectangular with a fire chamber located on the side (see below). Some Iron Age parallels can be found, especially if they are sought further a field. A vertical updraft rectangular-square pottery kiln was found at Tell Sabi Abyad, northern Syria (Akkermans and Duistermaat 2001). The kiln is dated to the Middle Assyrian period in the 12th century BCE and was located outside the city wall. It measures 2.3 x 2.1 m., the vessel floor is supported by brick arches, which cover the combustion chamber. There is also evidence of a potter’s

The interpretation of the site of Kfar Menahem is not simple. What is clear is the well-planned character of the construction, in which identical units were duplicated creating a symmetrical complex. It is also possible to reconstruct the complex to the west with four similar, symmetrical units, but this is of course speculative. There are strong reasons to see this site as a pottery production workshop with each unit representing a kiln and auxiliary spaces and installations around it. These reasons include the general appearance of the structures—there does not seem to be any other reasonable functional explanation for the complex, the large assemblage of vessels in the cells, the appearance of vitrified clay, wasters and related installations and possibly the crushed lime as well (used as temper?). Thus, the larger unit in the entrance was used for placing the vessels before and after firing (‘stacking surface’). Sunken vessels and basins found here may have been used for soaking and levigating clay. The two inner cells can be interpreted as the kiln: the 105

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

#4046 #4225

#4221

Figure 2.12. Potter’s tools from Tel Miqne-Ekron.

distances from the site. This will be further discussed in Part 4.4.

workshop within the walls (including potters utensils, unfired vessels, wasters and clay); a text from the site mentions professional potters traveling between the villages in the region. This kiln could be paralleled to Kfar Menahem if we argue that at latter the lower combustion chamber was not preserved or not identified. The kilns from the site of Ziyaret Tepe in southeastern Turkey (Matney et al. 2002) also bear some resemblance to the structures from Kfar Menahem. Two rectangular kilns (55-56, Figs. 5, 8) were found in Operation A within a public building (Phase B) and are dated to the Late Assyrian period (1000-600 BCE). This would be an example of a well-planned production center, clearly related to the royal administration. In Operation D an earlier kiln (Middle Assyrian, 1300-1000 BCE) was partly excavated (Matney et al. 2002: 61-2, Fig. 18), it was brick made and 2.6 m. long. The kiln is updraft, though its shape is not clear, there seem to have been two horizontal chambers (see left of photo in Fig. 18 in publication).

Notwithstanding these difficulties, one can still interpret the site as a pottery production center. Absence of significant amount of wasters and raw material could be explained if the kilns were regularly cleaned and the wasters removed to a distant area. Such a well-organized large-scale maintenance may accord with a centralized administrative-related pottery production center. A pottery workshop of this kind may possibly relate to the Aramean army of Hazael in the period of the siege of Tell es-Safi (parallel to Tell es-Safi Stratum A3), or to the Assyrian administration in a later period (parallel to Tell es-Safi Stratum A2). As noted above, parallels further-afield do exist. In the final stage (from which many of the pottery vessels derive), the site, or part of it, may have had a different use. Thus, the kiln loads were not found in situ, most wasters and other tools were removed (or maybe situated in a nearby area, outside the excavation limit) and perhaps some of the vessels are not from the production site, but were brought from elsewhere during this later stage.

As noted, there are quite a few difficulties with the interpretation of the Kfar Menahem site as a kiln site. First, it is not clear where the firing chambers were located (whether these were horizontal downdraft kilns or updraft kilns). Second, the spatial distribution of the wasters and complete vessels does not necessarily point to a logical production sequence in the site (somewhat away from the kilns) and there seemed to have been no assemblages of vessels in situ in the chambers. Third, the amount of vitrified clay and wasters was not very large as would be expected in such a kiln site (no potters tools, raw clay or unfired vessels were reported yet as well). Fourth, there are few known parallels for a type or kilns of this sort in Israel; the location of the site in this spot, away from the settlement, is also somewhat problematic. Fifth, the chemical and petrographic analysis of the samples from the site (total of eighteen samples, see below Part 4.4) do not present a homogeneous picture of one local clay source; moreover, some of the vessels seem to have been made of clay found in various

Tel Miqne-Ekron The excavations at Tel Miqne-Ekron yielded several Iron I kilns and artifacts related to pottery production (of these objects some are of an Iron II context). The kilns were excavated in the higher mound, in Field INE and were described by Ann Killebrew (1989, 1996, 1998a, 1998b) (Figs. 2.12, 2.14-2.15). This area was especially rich in fine Philistine Monochrome pottery. The most wellpreserved installation interpreted as a kiln is Kiln 4104, found in Stratum VIIA of Field INE (Fig. 2.14; Killebrew 1996:146-147, Figs. 13-15); this is also the earliest feature of its kind in the site. Its shape is roughly square (1.4 x 1.1 m) constructed of irregularly shaped bricks. A brick platform (L4103) was found below a debris layer and interpreted as the vessel floor; it had several holes in it and stood on a 50 cm thick brick pillar. The subterranean combustion chamber was 50 cm deep. An 106

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION chambers, each had a supporting brick pillar. This is an unusual feature, maybe showing a certain adjustment to Philistine pottery manufacture (Killebrew 1996:149), although there is no proof for that. Kilns 37015 and 36054 are somewhat smaller and assigned to the final phase of Stratum VI. Kiln 37015 is oval measuring 0.90 x 0.60 m with an elongated central supporting pillar (Fig. 2.15: right); signs of vitrfication were observed in the inner part. Kiln (?) 36054 is an irregularly shaped poorly preserved installation measuring 1.1 x 0.2 m. Most of the Stratum VI fire installations, and especially these latter two, may have been too small to be regular pottery kilns (Killebrew initially concluded that these were cooking ovens, Killebrew 1989:129). The location of the Field INE kilns (Fig. 1.11) could be considered as a 12th c. BCE industrial potters’ center located on the edges of the city, and possibly specialized in producing Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome pottery. The unusual appearance of the kilns and the lack of considerable amounts of vitrified clay and wasters in some of them may be due either to the fact these were not all kilns, or, to the low temperature of firing (according to Killebrew this was typical of the Philistine pottery, 1996:147), or due to a more intensive maintenance of the kilns.

Figure 2.13. Potter’s tools from Lachish (after Tufnell 1958: Pl. 49:15). arched opening and a pit in the eastern part (L4118) could have been the stoking pit of the kiln (the superstructure is reconstructed as a vaulted one) (Fig. 2.14: right). Only a few vitrified clay pieces or possible wasters were found in the kiln or in relation to it. The debris included several vessel fragments of them Philistine Monochrome pieces, but none could be clearly considered as wasters. Moreover, hardly any other signs of high temperatures or vitrification were observed on the walls of the kiln. Killebrew accounts for this by the low temperature, possibly as low as 600°C according to her, used for firing Philistine Monochrome pottery. One could also suggest that careful maintenance and resurfacing of the kiln would also produce a similar effect. In addition no evidence of a workshop (wasters, tools, wheel, clay etc.) were discovered in the vicinity of this feature. If this is a kiln, which seems probable according to its design, it would be a vertical updraft kiln, though of an unusual shape. This shape may have parallels in rectangular horizontal kilns from the potter’s quarter at Miletus and from sites in Late Minoan Crete (Niemeier 1997: Type 3, Pls. CXLIV- CXLV, 1998:31, Fig. 10). The kilns from Kfar Menahem, about 400 years later, show also some resemblance (see above).8

Other finds from Tel Miqne-Ekron relating to pottery production are potter’s tools, such as semicircular ceramic objects with a thumb-hole (Fig. 2.12: center) or oval or polygonal smoothed sherds (Fig. 2.12: right). These could have been used for burnishing and smoothing pottery vessels (Fig. 2.12: left). Smaller sherds were smoothed in various shapes and could also have been potter’s tools, possibly as burnishing tools (Fig. 2.12: right). Sherds that were broken into a quarter circle shape are possibly scrapers for some usage. These tools are found in both Iron I and II contexts in several areas (there are no clear concentrations). To summarize: although the evidence from Tel Miqne may be only the one we have of pottery production in Iron I Philistia, it is somewhat problematic. Not all the installations identified as kilns were necessarily so, mainly on account of lack of vitrification signs and their small size. Only Kiln 4104 seems to reflect a certain difference in kiln technology, compared to evidence from Canaanite sites of the LBII-Iron I.

Four additional kilns of a different shape were discovered in Field INE, Stratum VI (Fig. 2.15; Killebrew 1996:148149, Figs. 16-19, Kilns 36069, 36024, 36054 and 37015). Two oval kilns were built on top of each other in various phases of Stratum VI (Kiln 36069 and 36024 above it, Fig. 2.15: left); only the lower parts of their combustion chamber were preserved. Kiln 36069 has an inner diameter of 1 m with a central supporting brick pillar (Fig. 2.15: center); a stoking hole/pit was preserved to the west (L36072). Kiln 36024 measuring 1.2 x 0.8 m indicated several phases of modifications. The combustion chamber was divided by a wall into two sub-

Beth Shemesh Several installations from Strata IV and III are interpreted by the excavators as iron furnaces (Grant 1934:20, Pls. XII-XIII, Map III; Grant and Wright 1938:39, Pl. VII:2). These could be pottery kilns (the slag reported could have been vitrified clay and wasters), although of an unusual elongated shapes (similar to the installations in Tell Jemmeh). The feature from Stratum III (Grant 1934: Map II:441) is more similar to a pottery kiln with a sunken section in its southern part, possibly representing the fire

8 Another kiln from this phase (Kiln 5049, double chambered?) was possibly recorded in the section.

107

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 2.14. Stratum VIIA kiln from Miqne (4104): plan, photo and reconstruction (after Killebrew 1996, 1998b).

108

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION

Figure 2.15. Stratum VI kilns from Miqne, Field INE (after Killebrew 1996).

Figure 2.16. Kilns from Tell en-Nasbeh (McCown 1947: Figs. 52b, 60) chamber. Thus, Wood interpreted these as horizontal downdraft kilns (1990:31-32, Fig. 10:2-3).

1998). The kiln has an oval shape and measures 5.5 x 3.2 m; the lower part preserved included three walls on either sides of a central channel, which supported the vessel floor. The spacings between the stone walls could have contained fuel for firing and are unusual for Iron Age kilns. The two other kilns, associated with Stratum 1 (late Iron II-Persian) have a more common shape, oval (or ‘horseshoe’) with an elongated supporting pillar (Fig. 1.16: left). They each measure about 4 x 3 m. They were

Tell en-Nasbeh (Fig. 2.16) Three kilns were discovered at Tell en-Nasbeh (McCown 1947:258, Figs. 52B, 60, Pl. 100; Zorn 1993:363-365; Zorn 1998: Figs. 1-2). Kiln 106 is located adjacent to the Stratum 3C city wall (Fig. 2.16: right). It is dated to no later than the 10th or early 9th century BCE or (Zorn 109

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 2.17. Kilns from Megiddo (Guy and Engberg 1938: Figs. 84, 89) (Kiln 23 on the bottom).

110

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION

Figure 2.18. Kiln G from Sarepta (Pritchard 1975: Fig. 14). Hazor A potters’ workshop was identified in Buildings 6063 and 6225 in Area C, Stratum IB, near the LBII stelae shrine (Yadin et al. 1960:101-103, Pl 208; Yadin 1972:76, 82; Wood 1990:35, Figs. 12-13). Although no kilns were found here, several pottery wheels and a ceramic burnisher may indicate a potter’s workshop related to the temple industry. In Area H, Stratum II (LBI), Kiln 2160 has an oval double chamber kiln and a central supporting pillar; a group of miniature bowls with string cut bases is related to this workshop (Yadin et al. 1961: Pls. CXIII:2, CCLXIX:1-15; Yadin et al. 1989:230, Pl. 38).

placed in the area of the Iron Age II gate, which was reused in later periods. Zorn notes another kiln not mentioned in the early report (1993:364, Rm 487), possibly similar to Kiln 106, but contemporary with the later Stratum 1 kilns. A lower part of a potter’s wheel was also recovered (McCown 1947: Pl. 100:6). Megiddo (Fig. 2.17) Several kilns and potters’ workshops were discovered in Early and Middle Bronze Age tombs on the slopes of Megiddo. The tombs were reused as workshops, similar to the cave at Lachish. Kiln 1143 is located in Tomb 1102 (dated to Stage IV); the kiln is part of later activities in the tomb and is possibly dated to the Iron I (Guy and Engberg 1938:27, Fig. 22; Killebrew 1989:119; Wood 1990:22, Fig. 4). It is a circular kiln, 1.5 m. in diameter, built of stones with a narrow supporting pillar. Three relatively large kilns were discovered in Tomb 37 and seem to date to the Iron IIB (Fig. 2.17; Guy and Engberg 1938:74-81, Figs. 84-89, 94; note the holemouth jars): Kiln 33 (2.5 x 1.5), Kiln 22 (4 x 2.5) and Kiln 23 (2 x 1.5 m). Kiln 23 yielded evidence of a flue system: remains of a chimney were located near the supporting wall (Fig. 2.17: right; Guy and Engberg 1938:77, Fig. 89). In the vicinity of Kiln 22, fragments of a potters’ basin were found (Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 87). The kilns are oval with an elongated supporting pillar for the vessel floor (creating a ‘tongue’) and were made of stones lined with mud. Most of the late pottery in the tomb would date these relatively sophisticated kilns to the Iron II.

Sarepta (Fig. 2.18) The most well-documented evidence for an Late Bronze II-Iron Age pottery production center is probably from Sarepta (Pritchard 1975:71-78; Anderson 1987, 1989, 1990; Khalifeh 1988; see also discussion in Killebrew 1989:113-117; Wood 1990:27-28,40). Altogether, 24 kilns and 15 workshops have been identified, most from Sounding X. Archaeological evidence of all the stages of pottery production were preserved here. These features range from the LB II to the Persian period, and this site seems to have been an ongoing pottery production center for 600-800 years, flourishing mainly in the ‘Phoenician period’. Twenty-two of the kilns were uncovered in Sounding X. Here, in an area of about 600 sq.m., a pottery production center, a ‘potter’s quarter’, was erected towards the end

111

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 2.2: The Sarepta kilns Kiln No. A-B C-D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V X AA BB

Description Rounded bilobate Rounded bilobate Rounded bilobate Rounded bilobate Oval bilobate Oval bilobate ? Rounded bilobate ? ? Oval billable? Rounded bilobate ? ? ? Oval bilobate Oval bilobate? ? ? ? “Furnace” Rounded bilobate Rounded bilobate

Phase 5? 5 3 3 2 4

Period 6-4th c 6-4th c Iron I Iron I 13-12th c. Iron II

Auxiliaries Complete workshop Double kiln Double kiln Complete workshop Complete workshop

2

13-12th c.

Complete workshop

3? 3?

Iron I Iron I

Complete workshop

3 1?

Iron I LBII

2? F ?

LBII 13-12th c.

Complete workshop

of the LBA, during the 13th century BCE. Together with the kilns, various spaces and courtyards, used for clay storage and treatment, manufacturing, drying (Anderson 1987: Fig. 16), and storing of the vessels were uncovered, some with benches (Anderson 1987: Fig. 15). Here, piles of finely levigated clay covered the floor, areas with piles of wasters, several ceramic basins for soaking clay, and potters’ tools were also found. Potters’ wheels were not found, but a cemented seat for a socket of a wheel was uncovered just below Kiln G’s stoking pit, in Room 74 (Pritchard 1975:71-2; Anderson 1987:43, Fig. 17). The earliest phase is dated to the LBII (Phase 1, Anderson 1987: 46, Fig. 5). No kilns were preserved from this phase, but a workshop was found, containing a basin (‘cement covered’), a fire pit, and piles of clay. It also had a rounded stone stand, probably a support for a potter’s working table.

Reference Anderson 1987: Fig. 2 Anderson 1987: Fig. 9 Pritchard 1975: Fig. 13 Pritchard 1975: Fig. 13 Anderson 1987: Fig. 6 Anderson 1987: Fig. 8 Anderson 1987 Anderson 1987: Fig. 6 Anderson 1987: Fig. 3 Anderson 1987: Fig. 3 Anderson 1987: Fig. 8 Anderson 1987: Fig. 3 Anderson 1987 Anderson 1987: Fig. 11 Anderson 1987 Anderson 1987: Fig. 7 Anderson 1987: Fig. 12 Anderson 1987: Fig. 11 Anderson 1987 Anderson 1987: Fig. 11 Khalifeh 1988 Pritchard 1975: Fig. 9 Pritchard 1975: Fig. 9

72), a mortar, a wheel pit, and basins were located (Anderson 1987: 43, Fig.6). Perhaps, it was used to mix the clay. Two other kilns (E and F), dated to the Iron I, are placed close to each other with entrances facing one another (the vessels fired in these kilns were probably stacked together). Their plan is somewhat rounder and the lower wall is shorter than that of Kiln G (Pritchard 1975:72-76, Fig. 13). Most of the pottery was collected not within the kilns but from the working areas nearby. In Sounding Y, Stratum F two kidney shaped kilns were uncovered (Kilns AA, BB) and adjacent to them was an open area (‘stacking surface’), large ash pits and some potters tools (Pritchard 1975:45-46, Fig. 9); another possible kiln was found in Stratum D. They could also date to the 13th-12th c. BCE. Chemical analysis (INAA) conducted on raw clay and the vessels from the workshops demonstrated them to be of the same composition (Yellin personal communication).

In most cases, only the lower part of the kilns was preserved, including the firing chamber and parts of the vessel floor. The kilns are usually circular or oval with a bilobate firing chamber with a wall partly dividing it (its function is to support the vessel floor) creating a ‘kidneyshaped’ plan. The better-preserved kiln is Kiln G, (dated to the 13th-12th c. BCE); it has a 2.4 x 1.85 m firing chamber 1.3 m deep (Fig. 2.18; Pritchard 1975: Fig. 14). The external wall was made of stone and the roofing up to 60 cm thick was created from layers of clay. The entrance from the southwest connects it to a stoking room; it was blocked. To the west of the kiln a large courtyard (Room 74) had its walls lined with a thick clay plaster (probably to protect from the workers from the heat and the kilns from rain). In another courtyard (Room

Anderson emphasized the continuity of the workshops and kilns from the LBII down to the Iron II or even later (1987:49, relating this to a continuous Phoenician occupation). It is thus difficult to date the final usage of several of the LB-Iron I kilns, and they may have been used with some repairs in the Iron II as well. During the Persian period, Kiln C-D is also well preserved with a rounded plan (Anderson 1987: Fig. 9). A stoking room is near the southwestern entrance, while on the other side, the loading platform is located. From there is a passage to the courtyard (Room 63), containing a wheel pit, two basins and a pile of clay on the other side. The architectural remains show continuity in all periods; furthermore, pottery from the final LBII through to the

112

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION Persian period is represented in the kilns area. The kilns are built in at least two architectural strata, overlying each other in several places. Moreover, specific kilns have at least three repair stages (each stage decreasing the volume of the kiln). Anderson notes that the earlier kilns tend to be more oval (1987:42). Nevertheless, the general conception of the workshops does not change from period to period and the kilns differ only in minor details. Anderson tends to parallel the kilns and the workshops from Sarepta to Aegean and Phoenician pottery production sites (Anderson 1989:205-206), although parallels from the southern Levant exist as well (as at Megiddo and Nasbeh, see above). Interestingly recent pottery workshops in Lebanon show distinct similarities in the organization of space with the Sarepta workshops, such as at Khaldeh (Anderson 1987:49) and Beit Shabab (Hankey 1968).

ethnoarchaeological research on pottery, notably the works of D.E. Arnold and P. Rice, concentrated in area of central America, cannot be ignored. Many studies related to pottery production were conducted in the 1970-80’s and were strongly influenced by the processual archaeology (e.g., Arnold 1985; Rice 1984, 1987; Kramer 1985). Fewer studies were conducted in the Near East, especially in Palestine (see, Glock 1982, Salem 1999). Ethnographic studies cover all aspects of pottery production, distribution and consumption in relative detail (see Costin 2000 for summary). There should be a separation between more general methodological principles of human behavior, which can be paralleled also from more distant ethnographic parallels, and more specific phenomena, which should be treated with more care and paralleled with geographically and culturally related populations.

Other Iron Age kilns There are various other short reports on LBII-Iron Age pottery workshops or kilns; often their date is not completely secure. At ‘Afula, an Iron II pottery kiln was reported above the Iron I Stratum III (M. Dothan 1993b:38). At ‘Akko in Area A/B an oval kiln was initially dated to Stratum 7 the 8th c. BCE (M. Dothan and Conrad 1978:265). This kiln was plastered inside. However, in a later report, it is dated to the Iron I, with a better-preserved oval kiln below it dating to the LBII/Iron IA (M. Dothan and Conrad 1979:227). This was probably a bilobate kiln with a thick supporting pillar (M. Dothan 1988:297; 1993a:20-21). Late Bronze Age pottery kilns are also recorded from Area K at Akko (M. Dothan and Conrad 1983:114). At Arad, a pottery workshop with three kilns was reported from Stratum XII of the Iron I/early IIA (Aharoni 1967:270). Remains of Iron IIC kilns include remnants of a kiln (rounded?) in the site of Mevasseret (N. Fieg, personal communication). A kiln from the same period was excavated at Yad Mordechai (Baumgarten forthcoming). The remains include a rectangular 2.7 x 1.75 m pit lined with bricks and filled with pottery vessels and vitrified clay (possibly similar to the Ashdod Area D kilns). An area with 22 kilns, though mostly not dated, was mentioned in a tributary of the Aijalon river north of Gezer (Bullard 1970:110-111, Fig. 10).

Technological changes and stability As noted above, pottery production is a relatively conservative technology, not often changing substantially in traditional societies (see, e.g., Kramer 1985:92-95). One of the reasons for this stability may be the relatively unchanging requirements demanded by most domestic ceramic vessels through ages. Therefore only new demands or new traditions, which may be caused by ethnic, cultural or other changes may be more influential on pottery production technology.9 Another reason is possibly the relatively limited degrees of diverse technological options in pottery production.10 Decoration is probably the aspect of pottery most sensitive to cultural and chronological changes; form is somewhat less sensitive, while technological aspects of pottery, either clay selection, clay treatment or firing, seem to the least sensitive to these changes (Rice 1987:464-465). On the other hand, external causes, such as availability of raw materials and fuel supply, can dictate technological aspects to a large extent. This approach was emphasized by Arnold as being of foremost importance and termed ‘cultural ecology’ (see Matson 1965; Arnold 1985:13-15,35-97 on ceramic ecology; see Sillar and Tite 2000 for a general review of scientific methods and technological choices11). Another term used in this context is ‘site catchment analysis’ (see also Goren et al. 2004:6-9, with Clay-Temper-Factor defined for each site). An additional approach attempts to use ‘flow structures’, potentials and other terms taken from physics in order to explain ceramic exchange and interaction (van der Leeuw 1981). In this model, various factors as population and duration of interaction are treated as variables in a potential field.

4. Reconstruction of pottery production according to ethnoarchaeology Ethnographic parallels are often used in archaeology to explain various phenomena or even prove certain assumptions (see Anderson 1969; Hodder 1982:185-190, 1986:103-117; on the use of ethnoarchaeological parallels in archaeology of pottery production see, e.g., Glock 1982; Kramer 1985). However, it is clear these parallels cannot be used without restraints. The same is true for the use of ethnoarchaeology in reconstruction of pottery production in the Iron Age. Wood already noted that such parallels should be limited to the Near East, the Aegean or Egypt (1990:13). Nevertheless, a bulk of

9 On components of technological knowledge and its transformation see Schiffer and Skibo 1987:596-601. 10 A turning point to this is naturally the introduction of electrical kilns and wheels in modern days. 11 Another example is the change in pottery production in relation to the exhaustion of certain clay sources in Sardinia (Annis 1985:253).

113

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Vessel form characteristics, which display technological aspects, are usually related to function (Smith 1985; Rice 1987:226-232; Killebrew 1989:162-166). These include: thickness—size related, usually attested in storage vessels; resistance to mechanical stress is usually related to better firing; thermal behavior is required by cooking vessels (thermal shock); this feature is dictated by composition (Rice 1987:229-240; e.g., temper used: grog, calcite, shell, zircon rutile, feldspar, hornblende and augite may be added; see also Part 3.5); porosity/permeability/density—in relation to liquid contents and can be effected by firing or surface treatment as slip or burnish (rough treatment is used as well to avoid slippery texture).

the technical aspects of pottery cannot be explained by environmental and functional factors alone; thus, the cultural and social aspects are to be regarded as well. The demand for pottery can also change in relation to availability and popularity of alternative materials (mainly plastic, Arnold 1985:160-162), though this phenomenon is not relevant for the Iron Age Levant. Imported goods may raise new needs from the public, thus changing ceramic production. Motor habit patterns may prevent innovation (Killebrew 1989:170), and thus, the wheel is resisted (see, e.g., Arnold 1985:221-223, taking several decades to be accepted); beliefs and tradition, or religion and dietary costumes, can influence change as well. It should be noted that while in ethnographic studies, factors governing technological change can be isolated and defined, in archaeological studies, this is much more complex, as several factors can operate together without hardly any way for the archaeologist to control or isolate any specific one.

Changes in pottery production must relate to both producers and consumers who can create pressures for innovation, especially if a higher demand for a certain pottery ware occurs. Efficiency can be improved in aspects such as clay collecting, forming (though this does not change much after the fast wheel was introduced), and firing. Another aspect is related to gender: a female vs. a male work force (Arnold 1985:22612). Little innovation is expected in pottery production also because potters are often of poor classes, not influencing society and do not have the capital for initiating innovations. Negative pressure, such as lack of demand for decoration, form variability, etc. will result eventually in a more standard pottery production. Ethnographic studies show that changes are primarily related to population size and density; however other factors influence stability and change of technological aspects of pottery making (Nicklin 1971; Rice 1984:241-250, Table 2; van der Leeuw 1999:121-131). These include resources— exhaustion would cause change; efficiency—need or demand for mass production would cause change; diet— new foods may cause change; ritual behavior— religious/cultural changes would cause change (mostly in relation to artifacts though; value systems—change in social values/position may cause change). Low socioeconomic status of potters reported from certain societies (Arnold 1985:196) usually promotes stability unless there are changes in market demand (thus, only change in population demand and size would cause change, Rice 1984:255-273).13 It should be noted that although most of the ethnographic studies display a processual approach, emphasizing these materialistic factors, other aspects should not be ignored. For example, a study of pottery in northern Cameroon (Livingstone Smith 2000) shows how

Modes of production Van der Leeuw has divided pottery production into six different modes (1976:394-396,402-403): household production, household industry (domestic but specialized); workshop industry (professional industry); large-scale industry (and individual industry). This division is accepted, more or less, by most scholars (e.g., Hodder 1981; Peacock 1981; Arnold 1985:226-231; Rice 1987:180-184; Killebrew 1989:177-187; Wood 1990:3344; Maeir 1997:174-176). Household production is characterized by hand-made production of vessels upon need with no investment except time. In household industry there is still little investment but vessels are used also as exchange commodities. According to ethnographic studies, pottery making will still be done by women, though men may assist as well. This happens often when there is some unemployment in the major subsistence activities such as agriculture (Arnold 1985:226). Most Iron Age pottery production is assumed to be of workshop industry level or higher, although household production would naturally be much less easily detected in the archaeological record.14 This industry, already professional, is the first to use the wheel and invest more capital in kilns and other infrastructure.15 The production in a workshop (workshop industry) is with specially designated area for the various activities— clay storage, clay treatment, vessel forming, drying, firing and storage. Workshop potters, men and women alike, do not have usually other means of subsistence (Arnold

12 On the gender of LBA Cypriote potters there are several suggestions; while Hankey proposed most potters were women (1983), Waltz (1985) showed that most evidence in the Near East points to a male domination of this trade. However, London (1987) suggested that pottery making was not gender-related. 13 Note that various social aspects of the pottery industry recorded in ethnographic studies may not be relevant to the Southern Levant and Mediterranean region. In certain periods, potters were clearly in a relatively high socio-economic status, as the Attic pottery producers in classical Greece and possibly Mycenaean pottery producers in the LBA. In these cases the pottery made had a high demand in distant regions, a situation not occurring in the ethnographic studies of Latin America.

14

Household industries always continue to exist no matter how industrial the products are produced. An example can be brought from 20th century Palestinian pottery, produced by women in their home (Salem 1999). 15 Note that as early as in Ubaid Tell Abada (5th mill. BCE) the use of updraft kilns pottery was made in a professional specialization mode; nevertheless, specialists come from all sectors of society and cannot be considered to have a prestige status (Stein 1996:28,33, Fig. 3.5). Clark and Parry note twelve variants of craft specialization according to ethnographic evidence (1990:297-303, Table 1), and relate these to social complexity.

114

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION village to village, or by traveling to a central market as a meeting point—the fair (for examples in the 20th century Near East, see Matson 1974). Indirect distribution includes middlemen, which may sell the pots door to door (Nicholson and Patterson 1985:233), in fairs or to another party.16 Craftsmen, including possibly potters, are known to have traveled from place to place in the ancient Near East (Zaccagnini 1983). Another possibility is selling the vessels to a central factory or to production centers having more extensive marketing connections. In higher modes of production there will be more involvement of other parties in the marketing and distribution of the pottery. The use of fairs would be common as the production center is producing for a larger region. Thus, its seems probable that the location of the production center will be nearer to the markets or fair, i.e., in relation to strategic roads, important cities, etc.

1985:227). However, this could be a seasonal activity as well. These industries usually market to the village or to the near region without using middlemen. A higher level of production is a village industry, also termed a clustered industrial complex or a potteryproducing village. Here, several potters, together with hired workers, work year-round producing higher quality and standardized pottery in large quantities. Particular clays are quarried from the region. Marketing and competition are key issues, and usually the industry markets its produce through urban centers or markets, relying also on middlemen. Examples of pottery producing villages or towns in the Mediterranean region come from modern Hebron (Salem 1999), Tunisia (Djerba, Johnston 1984) or Egypt (Deir el-Gharbi, Nicholson and Patterson 1985; also see Lacovara 1985) and also on a lower scale in Cyprus (Taylor and Tufnell 1930; Yon 1985; London 1989b; London et al. 1989), until several decades ago.

Modes of trade include regional (short distance) and inter-regional (long distance) trade, and directional and non-directional (down-the-line) routings (see Renfrew 1972:465-471; 1975). In directional trade, the goods are delivered directly from the production center to the market. In down-the-line trade, the goods are delivered to a market or destination but it is not the final one and a lower proportion continues to be traded down the line further a field.17

The highest level of pottery production is large-scale industry. This mode is characterized by massive capital investment in maximal production in minimum cost per unit. All workers are full time, year round. Raw materials are very homogenous, procured locally or purchased, and possibly also imported (or at least some components of the clay). High investment is made in kilns and the use of the mold becomes more common. A large portion of the running cost is the fuel, a matter, which may have crucial environmental implications (Rice 1987:314-317). Pottery is sold locally but mostly exported to long distances. The earliest clear example for such an industry is during the late Hellenistic period (as the Terra Sigilata, Peackock 1982:114), although Attic ware from Classical Greek was probably produced in the same mode (such a model was also suggested even for Mycenaean pottery of the LBA, Killebrew 1998a:275; Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003b).

Archaeological inferences The question that arises from the ethnographic models is how to apply these systems to the archaeological record and identify what mode of production prevailed in ancient times (e.g., Arnold 1985:231-237; Killebrew 1989:188-191). Professional production can be usually identified by the existence of potters tools, wasters, kilns and wheels. Also, the quality of the vessels produced and their standardization is a factor, though this can be very relative in nature (see Part 5.2). Another measure for the scale of the production is the size of the workshop when discovered and the quantity of related installations, quarries etc. The proportion of the area used for production within the workshop area and its location in relation to the settlement should be examined as well (Nicklin 1979). The degree of specialization can be estimated sometimes by the variance of the assemblage produced by a workshop or production center (though this may not be indicated by the variability of the ceramic paste as well, Arnold 2000:359-362).

Individual industry is characterized by a single traveling potter, selling his pots from village to village, possibly with some home base. Modes of distribution and trade Following the production, an important aspect is in the way the vessels reach the consumer. Rice (1987:191-200) and Wood (1990:61-81) attempted to create models of pottery distribution according to both ethnoarchaeological and archeological data. The modes of distribution or marketing are naturally linked to the modes of production (van der Leeuw 1977, 1984:58-64; Renfrew 1977; Balfet 1981). Wood describes three levels of markets: local, regional and inter-regional, and respectively, three types of pottery sellers: vendors, middlemen and merchants (1990:64, based on studies of Guatemala pottery). The simplest mode of distribution is directly from the potter to the consumer. In a village production the consumers can come to the workshop and buy the vessels. Another direct distribution is by the potter bringing the vessels to the consumers, whether traveling from house to house or

16 See a study illustrating the share of middlemen in trade of 20th century cooking ware in Sardinia (Annis and Geertman 1987:173-180). Another study deals with modern marketing and transportation of pottery in Spain and Morocco (Vossen 1984), describing a distribution of pottery producing centers and markets about 20 km apart, or weekly markets 35 km apart. For the analysis of the geographical distribution of modern markets, utilizing various mathematical methods, see Berry 1967. 17 The trade in the eastern Mediterranean during the LBA is probably a good example of a combination of directional and down-the-line trade mechanisms. The Aegean palatial centers and the Egyptian and Levantine coastal centers were connected in directional trade routes, while within these units a down-the-line mechanism connected most inland sites (Cline 1994:87-88).

115

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Moreover, some of the vessels from the LBII/Iron IA workshop cave at Lachish were reported to have been made by a fast wheel (Magrill and Middleton 1997: Fig. 6:c-d; 2001:138-142, 2004:2523, Table 36.2).

Ethnographic studies show various degrees of specialization, which are positively related to the scale of production (Clark and Parry 1990:297-303, Table 1), and to the complexity of the society. Thence, the degree of scale of production of the pottery may be used as an indirect tool in assessing the economic development of the society (see e.g., Rice 1981: Table 1 regarding a study on Maya pottery from Belize). Another aspect is the location of the workshop or factory. The question is whether a proximity to resources (clay, water, fuel, temper) is sought, or a proximity to the consumers is sought (near large urban centers or near the main trade routes). As the level of production rises it seems that the second option is preferable. Although larger quantities of clay and water must be transported, the risk in the transportation of the final products is lowered.

Pottery production technology in the LBA Aegean In relation to the possible Aegean technological characteristics of the Pottery production in Iron I Philistia, evidence on the LBA pottery production in the Aegean should be examined. Relatively few studies relating to workshops of Bronze Age Aegean pottery have been published (see Cook 1961: Appendix; Schallin 1997:83-85). The most detailed reports come from Late Minoan (LMIA) Crete (Shaw et al. 1997; 2001; Vallianou 1997 and references therein). At LMII Gouves, two horseshoe shaped kilns were reported along with various installations (water tanks?) and several potter’s wheels in situ were found throughout the workshop, which was located on the edge of the settlement (Vallianou 1997:338-341, Figs. CXXIV-CXXIX). The kilns have internal walls in the firing chamber and a stoking hole. Similar kilns were found at Knossos, Phaistos and Kommos (Fig. 2.19: bottom) among other places in Crete (Vallianou 1997:337; see also Cook 1961). The location of the workshop outside the area of the palaces is also a common feature. The potter’s quarter is subdivided into smaller neighborhoods, each furnished with its own installations, possibly reflecting different groups or families of potters within the industry.

5. Summary: technological evolution and influences in Iron Age pottery production The review of the archaeological data illustrates the difficulties in the identification of new developments in technological aspects of pottery production between the LBII and Iron I (or the Iron II for that matter) in the southern Levant, including Philistia. However, these developments were sought in relation to other aspects of the material culture in general and the Philistines in particular. Killebrew noted the use of the fast wheel in early Philistine pottery (1998a:244,247) in relation to Aegean traditions. She compared several early Iron I assemblages (Canaanite, Aegean, Egyptian and LBII) and concluded that the fast wheel was used mainly in the Aegean assemblage. The square kiln in Tel Miqne and the calcareous clay selected for the fine Monochrome pottery should also be noted (see Part 4.5).

On mainland Turkey, in Miletus a LHIIIA:1-2 pottery workshop including at least seven kilns was unearthed (Fig. 2.19: top; Niemeier 1997; 1998:31-32, Figs. 7,10, Photos 2-4). The kilns are either circular (Type 1) or rectangular (Type 3). The circular kilns (Niemeier 1997: Pl. CXLIII; 1998: Photo 3) are rather small 1 m in diameter, have a supporting pillar leaning against a building wall. Niemeier suggests that these kilns did not have a vessel floor (the pillar is an exposed bench), and were used for firing a single pithoi (1997:348). Type 2 is a freestanding variant of the rounded kilns. The rounded kilns are common in mainland Mycenaean potters workshops, e.g. in the large workshop at Berbati (Mastos) near Mycenae (Åkerström 1968; Åkerström 1987:23-25; Schallin 1997:75-78, Figs. 4,8; see distribution of this type in Niemeier 1997: Pl. CXLVI:b). The rectangular kilns (Fig. 19: left; Type 3, Niemeier 1997: Pls. CXLIVCXLV; 1998: Fig. 10, and references therein) are larger, about 3 x 2 m and have 3-6 flues under the vessel floor created by interspaced channels. A curved channel leads this space to the fire chamber; thus, these are sophisticated horizontal kilns. This type is known otherwise only from Crete. (For early Iron Age pottery production in the Aegean see also Morgan 1999).

Several studies suggested changes in the use of the potter’s wheel throughout the LBA. According to the analysis of pottery from Deir ‘Alla and other sites the new technology of the simple fast wheel was introduced in the MBII, and perhaps resulted in changes in the modes of production and the clays that were selected; however, later, there was a relapse and deterioration in pottery production in the LBA (Homès-Frediricq and Franken 1986:146-147; London 1989a; Wood 1990:18; Franken and London 1995). The general decline reported in the quality of the LBA pottery may be related to a decline in population in LBA, as assumed by several archaeologists (e.g., Gonen 1984; McGovern 1986:335337; Knapp et al. 1988:100; Knapp 1989; Falconer 1994:326-329). A similar shift from wheel-made to coilmade vessels was noted in pottery of sites from the Baqah (Glanzman and Fleming 1986:174-175, Table 25). At Deir ‘Alla, most Iron I vessels are coil made and reflect continuity with LBII techniques (Franken 1969:89-94; 1982:143). In light of these studies the innovations noted at Tel Miqne seem to be exceptional for the Iron I southern Levant. However, most of the pottery from these periods have not yet been studied technologically, and thus, it is simply too early to reach general conclusions.

There are several general similarities between Aegean workshops and pottery workshops related to the Philistines. The location of the workshop at the edge of the settlement and the use of small circular kilns could be noted; but this is too general to reflect cultural influences. 116

PART 2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IRON AGE POTTERY PRODUCTION kilns from Crete and Miletus. Moreover, at Tel Miqne, the workshop at Field INE contains rectangular and circular kilns (although in different strata); such a mixture is paralleled at Miletus. Nevertheless, it seems that the data on the Iron I kilns from Philistia is not sufficient to draw a clear technological connection relating to the construction of kilns. Therefore, as of yet, there is no clear archaeological evidence that the Philistines brought with them to Philistia an Aegean kiln technology. During the Iron II, updraft kilns continue to appear at workshops as Sarepta, Megiddo, Ashdod and Tell enNasbeh. The kilns at Kfar Menahem are unique and show a different tradition, but at Ashdod very simple kilns were used. It seems most workshop sites are related to urban centers along the coast and in the valleys. More inland centers in the hills appear only in the Iron II. This may be because the inland sites expanded during this period, or because of excavation biases. Wood described a model for pottery production and distribution in ancient Palestine (1990:70-77). According to this model, urban centers produced pottery on a higher industrial level, marketing it to the neighboring villages. Thus, in an urban center there will be a lower percentage of non-local pottery than in village sites.18 The Kfar Menahem kiln site, if it is such, may pose a different mode of production: a very well planned, short-lived factory located outside the city, in contrast to the potters quarter’s on the edge of urban centers (as at Sarepta Tel Miqne, Ashdod), which functioned for longer periods. The type of the kilns may reflect Assyrian influences but are also somewhat similar to the Cretan horizontal, rectangular kilns. They seem anyway to preserve earlier Iron I traditions of kilns types rather than late Iron II ones. During the Iron IIC, in the 7th century, and into the Persian periods, different kilns begin to appear, smaller and more rounded in shape (as at Ashdod Area K, Tel Michal, and Tell Qasile19). It seems also that there is more usage of stone in their constructions (as the examples from Megiddo and Tell en-Nasbeh show). However, there are hardly any complete workshops from this period. All in all, there seems to be more continuity than change in Iron Age pottery workshops. This applies both regarding to the LBII-Iron I comparison and to an Iron IIIA comparison. Although there are several isolated examples of possible innovations reflected by more sophisticated kilns, both in Iron I Philistia and during the Iron II, the general picture is not altered. However, this could change if new data is published, as the archaeological evidence on Iron Age pottery production from the southern Levant in general and Philistia in particular, is yet quite limited.

Figure 2.19. Kilns from Miletus (top, after Niemeier 1997: Fig. CXLVI:a) and Kommos, Crete (bottom, after Shaw et al. 1997 Fig. CXVII:b).

18 This is supposedly confirmed by various archaeometric provenance studies; however, it should be examined whether such a result could be an outcome of having better defined reference groups for the urban centers (see discussion in Part 3.1). 19 Tel Michal: Herzog et al. 1989:102, Fig. 8.13-14; see also for Tell Qasile and other sites: Kletter and Gorzalczany 2001:96, Fig. 2.

Several more sophisticated kilns (maybe horizontal downdraft type) as at Tell Jemmeh and possibly at Tel Miqne (but also from Megiddo) may resemble Aegean

117

Part 3 Archaeometric Methods and the Methodology of Provenance Studies of Ceramics c. Difference between clay sources (with possibly two categories- intra regional- Sr, and inter regional Sir)

Archaeometric methods, both chemical and mineralogical, have been used for provenancing pottery for at least fifty years, yielding hundreds of published studies. These methods were borrowed from the sciences of geochemistry and petrology and in many respects a similar methodology was applied. Nevertheless, only seldom has a more comprehensive methodological discussion of the general principles of the different methods and their application to the provenancing of ancient pottery been carried out. Each study was preoccupied with its own results and methods. Several examples for limited discussions of some of the methods relating to Near Eastern pottery were published in the recent twenty or more years (e.g., Gunneweg et al. 1983:5-9; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman 1985; Sharon 1989; Adan-Bayewitz 1993:42-51, Killebrew 1998a). Other, more general overviews can also be quoted (Brooks et al. 1974; Harbottle 1976; Wilson 1978; elTawel 1979; Hughes 1981; Bishop et al. 1982; Buko 1984; Jones 1986; Rice 1987:371-424; Tite 1999). Therefore, a relatively extensive discussion is presented here in order to complement and update the previous ones.

Ideally, the conditioning for detecting clay sources would be: Sir > Sr >> Scs >> Sv Reference material The main question, which immediately arises, is how to geographically identify the origin of a certain chemical or mineralogical profile. One would need an analyzed material which is of a known provenance to compare with, termed as ‘reference material’. The initial intuitive possibility of obtaining such reference material is to analyze clay samples in the vicinity of the archaeological sites that are studied, or in other potential clay sources. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the use of raw clay as reference material, especially for chemical analysis, is very problematic (e.g., Gunneweg et al. 1983:8; Buko 1984; Mommsen et al. 1984:93; Adan-Bayewitz 1993:6970; Mommsen 2004:268). Several reasons account for this discrepancy. First, one cannot usually locate the ancient clay sources, which in many cases could have been exhausted, eroded or covered by more recent deposition. Second, the clay treatment by the potter (levigation, tempering, mixing of clays etc.; see, Part 2 above and Blackman 1992), and possibly also firing of the vessels and its burial in the ground, change the compositional profile to a large degree (e.g., Maggetti 1982; Kilikoglou et al. 1988; Cogswell et al. 1996). Thus, the end product may be considerably different in its chemical composition than the raw material.1 For these reasons most provenance studies attempt to use product references material, that is, pottery whose provenance is assumed to be local on archaeological grounds (see below).

1. The general principles of pottery provenancing Compositional profiles of pottery The general principle of provenancing pottery according to its composition is that the clay in various geographic locations should have its own ‘fingerprint’ or profile, whether chemical or mineralogical. Thus, pottery pastes can be traced to their location of quarrying; though, usually we are seeking the production location, and assume that clays were not transported to lengthy distance. The “provenancing postulate” states that a compositional variability between two different sources will be distinctively higher than the variability within the same clay source. Or: “there exist differences in chemical composition between different natural sources that exceed, in some recognizable way, differences observed within a given source” (Weigand et al. 1977:24; Bishop et al. 1982:301; Bennett et al. 1989:32). This postulate applies to a variety of types of raw material sources as obsidian, stone, metals and clay. This assumption is applied to all pottery provenance studies, but, as will be shown below, the provenancing theorem may have serious restrictions in identifying pottery production centers that are closely located.

The problem of reference material is especially acute for chemical methods and considered one of their major drawbacks. With petrography one can in principal avoid the necessity of reference material as mineralogical and fabric attributes can often be traced to specific geological formations, which are known from geological and soil maps. However, it often appears that in many questions the petrographic descriptions vis a vis the geological and soil maps is insufficient, inconclusive or redundant. This is especially true when clays from similar or related soils were used in different production centers. In these cases petrographic studies also require some consideration to

Hence, generally, three degrees of compositional variability (S=spread) should be defined:

1 Nevertheless, efforts are still made in comparing raw clays with the ceramic end product, and providing a method for controlling the differences between the two (see, e.g., Buko 1984, 1995, using TSPA and chemical methods; see also Brooks et al. 1974).

a. Differences within a single vessel (Sv ) b. Differences within the same clay source (Scs ) 118

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS comparisons with reference material. An example for this situation is in part of the region under study here: the southern coastal plain of Israel, which is very homogenous in its geology (e.g., relating to Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod and other sites, Goren et al. 2004:1819,284,294-295, and see below).

one study of potters in Spain, there was a distinct difference between raw material and pottery vessels; moreover, the analysis of the kiln material produced several chemical groups (Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003a). Some of this variability was related to different clay recipes or production lines used by the potters, while others were related to problematic sampling relating to a specific mineral creating strong and erratic variability in the chemical compositions. In a study of an Early Iron Age kiln at Torone, Greece, both the chemical and petrographic analyses indicated that the composition of the kiln pottery was not representative of pottery found in other related sites (Whitbread et al. 1997). Many of the vessels from the kiln were made of a specific clay found in its vicinity, but not used for pottery in nearby cemetery (this was revealed by the petrographic analysis; the chemical analysis grouped these vessels together with imported ware).

Usually, material from pottery kilns, preferably wasters (over-fired or warped vessels) or, even better, unfired vessels, are considered the best reference material for the specific workshop in which they were found. However, as several clays, or mixtures, can be used in the same workshop, one may get several profiles representing the same location2 (for a discussion on reference material see also Bennett et al. 1989:42-44; Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2001:350). Another possibility is to use vessels, which have very low probability of being brought from outside the site as large storing vessels, ceramic installations, bricks etc. It should be noted though that some of these ceramic objects may have been made from a different type of clay than regular pottery vessels (see, e.g. in Neolithic Switzerland, Bonzon 2003). For this reason using cooking vessels as reference material is problematic as well (Sharon 1989:101; Goren 1996b:109). Commercial storage jars naturally travel more than other pottery vessels, and, thus, there usage as reference material is problematic.3 Another option is to use large and compositionally homogenous groups of pottery from various common types found in a specific site as the reference group for this site. In this case one has to sample large groups. Taking all considerations into account, probably the best would be combining several groups of supposed reference material, and when they compositionally converge, use the result as the reference material. The problem is that occasionally, archaeometric studies use a very limited reference material to represent a local chemical profile, sometimes as poor as several sherds with no archaeological context or description (e.g., on MBII pottery McGovern 2000:7-25, Appendix B). These chemical profiles are then used in other studies as reference and eventually it is often impossible to evaluate the reliability of a given reference group quoted in a publication.

These studies highlighted the problematic nature of seeing kiln material or even wasters as an ‘absolute’ reference profile. In another study conducted in Yucatan, however, more ‘optimistic’ results were reported (Arnold et al. 1991; Arnold et al. 2000; Arnold 2000). In this case in a relatively small area different clay profiles of different potters were successfully recognized by INAA (results analyzed by MVSA). The fingerprinting managed to overcome a dilution of temper mixing of the clay by the potters as these effects were fairly constant. Therefore, the definition of a basic archaeometric unit, representing a specific clay profile unit may be called for; it should be characterized as far as possible in terms of cultural parameters as well. This fabric/raw material unit can in fact represent quite different phenomena in the archaeological and ancient cultural reality. 1. A geological/geochemical region, identifying the source of raw material; 2. The products of a single potter; 3. A production line in a workshop or a specific clay recipe. 4. A production center with pottery kilns or more generally an archaeological site producing pottery; 5. A pottery community (Arnold et al. 2000:313)—a pottery tradition in a geographic-geologic region. Bishop et al. defined this as a “chemical paste compositional reference unit” (1982:305).

In order to examine the validity of provenancing pottery according to reference material, ethnoarchaeological study is needed as well. In such a study a reference group of pottery from an existing production center, raw clays used and pottery from the consumer’s end, can be analyzed and the provenancing tested according to the known expectations. Several such studies, which could be defined as ethnoarchaeometric studies (Arnold et al. 1978, 1991, 2000; Arnold 2000:365-367; Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003a), produced interesting results. In

However, these definitions are merely theoretical and are an ideal simplification of the geological, archaeological and cultural reality. For example, as the radius of raw clay procurement is thought to be about 7-10 km in average from the site (Arnold 1985:58; see also more distant sources, Di Pierro 2003:129), sites within a 14 km distance or more would have overlapping clay sources. In some cases the potters use the same clay beds for long periods (see, e.g., Attas et al. 1982, for a clay bed used for 300 years). However, the exhaustion of a certain clay source could occur in any instant in antiquity; thus, when a new source is used, the chemical profile may change, while other cultural parameters do not. See, e.g., such a profile change in the Athenian Agora during the

2 For example five different clay types, usually mixed, were reported from a modern workshop at Gaza (Salem 1999:73). 3 While one may define production sites of commercial storage jars in a provenance study, their previous geographical location is difficult to ascertain, and therefore trade routes cannot be directly inferred (see, e.g., Day and Haskil 1995).

119

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY needed for the instrument is extracted.4 Otherwise the samples should be powdered and homogenized and only the portion needed for analysis used (Brumond et al. 1976:220). For TSPA the minimum slide area is estimated at 10 x 5 mm, but smaller slides (down to 1 x 1 mm) can also provide most of the data required for pottery provenance studies (Goren et al. 2004:11-12). The quantitative effect of small sample sizes on the experimental error of the analysis is yet to be studied further.

Geometric and Clasical periods (Fillières et al. 1983), or in Nabatean coarse ware (Gerber 2003), occurring in a shorter time span. This brings in the chronological aspect of selecting reference material into consideration. Thus, a more realistic and relative definition of a basic archaeometric or compositional unit is warranted; that is in relation to the archaeological question put forward. For example, if two pottery communities are examined one should define the compositional differences between the two; if production centers of certain pottery ware are studied, one should define the profiles obtained in comparison with profiles of production centers of other pottery groups. Note also that such compositional units can be classified either hierarchically—according to geographical parameters: that is a wider profile of a larger geographical region (e.g., Israel as opposed to Cyprus, as in LBA Bichrome ware, Artzy et al. 1973), and a ‘subprofile’ of a sub-region (e.g., the coastal plain as opposed to the Shephelah); or continuously—according to technological parameters: a paste could be diluted by temper or mixed with other clay by any amount, creating a continuous range of compositional profiles.

2. Chemical methods: Principles and limitations The chemical methods obtain the elemental composition of the pottery and according to the values of as many elements as possible identify the chemical profile or fingerprint of the clay sources. Three major chemical methods will be described here: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), Induced Coupled Plasma (ICP-MS/ICP-AES) and X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF); these are the major methods used in pottery provenance studies. The method used in this research, ICP-MS/AES, will be described in higher detail. In the description a separation was made between the more general description of the method (following what is used in geochemical research) and the more specific analytical procedure, as adapted to provenance studies of ancient pottery.

Individual sample size A more technical question relating to compositional provenancing of pottery is what is the minimal size of sample, which can faithfully represent the composition of a pottery vessel. This is directly related to the degree of variance of the ceramic paste. Different studies showed the variability rises as the grain size increases, thus, coarser vessels need to have a larger and homogenized sample (or, if the sample is smaller the error increases) (Bromund et al. 1976; Rice 1987:324-325). In principle this applies to petrography (TSPA) as well as chemical methods (in TSPA this measurement is according to the slide area, while in chemical methods it is according to sample weight), although TSPA, as a visual method, has more control on errors induced by large crystals, contaminations, etc. (Bennett et al. 1989:34-39; see large variations within the same vessels noted in Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003a:10). For sediment sampling with particle sizes of 5 mm a minimum sample of 200 gr. is required (Mace 1964; Shackley 1975:23-25); however, for chemical analysis of non-coarse pottery with particle sizes under 0.5 mm the sample can be much smaller, 250 mg (Gilmore 1991:2) and even 80 mg has been empirically reported to be sufficient in most cases (INAA, Mommsen 2004:268). According to the formula used by Brumond et al. (1976:218) one should know the frequency of inclusions per cm2 and their diameter. Most pottery would fall in about 0.1-0.2 cm3 samples size if an 80% confidence level is wanted (several hundreds of mg in weight). Note, though, that TSPA is needed for examining the inclusions in order to precisely evaluate the minimal sample size. Nevertheless, many chemical studies note sampling of quite smaller samples (usually 80-200 mg, see above). In many cases, as museum pieces or small objects are analyzed only the minimal sample

All chemical methods used in pottery provenance studies should obtain bulk (a representative composition in the entire sample) elemental compositions of ceramic samples with high precision and accuracy. However, the array and number of elements obtained and their specific quality varies from one method to another (see Table 3.1). Generally, as many elements as can possibly be measured should be obtained, though cost and time consideration should be taken into account as well. Another aspect not often considered is that as many elements as possible should be compatible in several methods in order to achieve, in principle, a future correlation of different sets results. This will be discussed below as well. Other methods were also occasionally used for chemical fingerprinting of pottery, mostly before the newer INAA, ICP and XRF techniques were well developed. These include Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS), X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), Proton Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) and others (see Pillay 2001). Electron Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) giving a localized composition of the sample is usually not effective for provenancing. These older methods obtain fewer elements with lower precision and accuracy and will not be further discussed here (see discussions in Tite 1999; Killebrew 1989:27-41).

4 In INAA drilling in several locations of the vessel and then mixing the sample was suggested (Bishop et al. 1990), contrary to a simpler scraping in one location (Glascock 1992).

120

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS Several basic terms relating to analytical results should be defined below (see also Bishop et al 1990):

using INAA for pottery provenance studies, and it is surely the most commonly used technique in this field (Knapp and Cherry 1994:5). During the 1960’s and 70’s it was practically the only technique achieving high precision determination of rare earth elements in silicate or other materials. The extensive data acquired by this method often facilitated the interpretation of new studies, using a data bank of reference profiles.

Precision: Measure of analytical reliability: the compatibility or reliability of results of a repeated sample (measured as the spread percentage, CV5 of the results from the mean value), whether short term (same run or short period of time), or long term (a longer period between analyses). If there are technical changes in the equipment the spread of the results may be termed reliability (Adan-Bayewitz et al. 1999:4-11). A high precision, low relative spread, usually under 5%, giving a reliable relative compositional value, is especially important for fine grouping of pottery according to its chemical fingerprint. Accuracy: Degree of compatibility of result to the ‘true value’ of the composition of the sample. This would be measured by comparing the obtained results to results of several labs and/or certified international standards. It should be noted however that obtaining accuracy is often problematic as the exact composition of the standards, especially of the trace elements, may be poorly defined, having a much larger deviation the labs analytical error (see Potts 1987:8, Fig. 1.2). The accuracy, giving a reliable absolute compositional value, is especially important for provenance studies, when results of various labs or methods are to be compared.

Figure 3.1. A schematic illustration of INAA (after Potts 1987).

It should be noted that the experimental error should be taken into account when chemical groups are defined. If this error (representing the precision of the analysis) is in the same magnitude or larger (as % of the mean values) of the variance within the chemical group it would have a dominant role. The spread of the elemental composition within a group (scs) is thus combined of both the natural spread of the clay source (sn) and the precision of analysis (sp): scs2 = sn2 + sp2 (see discussion, Gunneweg et al. 1983:7). Note that this disregards the spread of composition within the vessel itself.

Principles of the method (Fig. 3.1): The powdered samples are irradiated in a nuclear reactor with a neutron beam (having a stable neutron flux). The neutrons colliding with the nuclei of the atoms in the sample, create a neutron capture type nuclear reaction related to neutron capture cross section.6 The sample is ‘cooled down’ for several minutes to get rid of unwanted strong short lived activity (as of 24Na) and thence, with a solid state detector, the Gamma-ray spectrum is analyzed and the elemental concentration are implied from intensities specific lines. The radiation occurs as unstable isotopes decay into various other more stable isotopes. One possibility involves a mass reduction (fission) of the nucleus with the emission of emit α (a particle of two protons and two neutrons), β (a stream of e-), and γ (high energy photons) particles, or a capture of a neutron in the nucleus (creating a different isotope of the same element). For example: 140 Ce + 1n → (140Ce, 1n)* → 141Ce + γ (T1/2= 32.4 days) More common is β-emission, created when the number of protons in the nucleus changes (as neutrons change into protons or vice versa) and the nucleus does not change its mass but its charge and transforms to another element.

a. Instrumental Neutron Activation (INAA) Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) is the best known and most commonly used chemical method for provenancing ancient pottery. Neutron Activation was first proposed as an analytical technique in 1936 (Potts 1987:399). However, several decades passed until sufficient high-resolution solid-state germanium detectors were introduced for elemental analysis of geochemical and archaeological samples. Earliest studies were made in the late 1950’s-early 1960’s (e.g., Catling et al. 1961, 1963; also Hennessy and Millett 1963, Millett et al. 1964; Harbottle 1970) on Aegean pottery. Perlman and Asaro published the first (and possible only) comprehensive, detailed manual for the procedure of pottery analysis by INAA (Perlman and Asaro 1969). Since then, during about fifty years, hundreds of studies were published

6 Instrumental NAA (INAA) designates a procedure where the sample is analyzed without any chemical treatment. In radiochemical NAA (RNAA) the irradiated samples are taken into solution in order to separate specific trace elements from the more active matrix, thus significantly lowering the detection limits. This technique, however, is not used in pottery analysis.

5 CV= coefficient of variation is define as: CV(%)= 100X (s/ā) ; where s is the standard deviation and ā the mean of the results.

121

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY For example: U (n, γ) → 239U (T1/2=22.3 minutes) → β’→ 239Np (T1/2=27.4 days) Other emission types also occur (including secondary effects caused by irradiation from the Gamma photons), but are not discussed here.

aluminum foil and numbered for identification. A set of 42 or 56 pills along with the standards are placed on edge in radial array in a jig and inserted into an aluminum capsule, which is sealed. The capsule is irradiated in the reactor, rotated slowly in order to insure homogenous neutron dosage to all samples. After the cooling of the samples each is measured at four different times8 using each of the two detectors twice, all done in an automated procedure. The spectrum is analyzed and corrected for interference according to a program developed by the lab (Perlman and Asaro 1969; Gunneweg et al. 1983:110111; Adan-Bayewitz 1993:254-255; Hein et al. 1999:1054). The procedures and results of the Hebrew University and Lawrence Berkeley labs have been made compatible (Yellin et al. 1978). Recently, such compatibility was also reported with the INAA lab at Bonn (Mommsen et al. 2002).

238

The energy of the γ photon is characteristic for each decay level. As the half-life time (T½) of the isotopes range from part-second to billion years, it is needed to measure the spectrum in several intervals after the irradiation (the time factor here is essential), ranging from several minutes after irradiation to several weeks.7 The spectrum is analyzed with a solid-state detector (as a Germanium gamma-detector), which is based on the principle of semi-conductive materials having conductive and non-conductive bands. In very low temperatures (approaching 0°K) the valence band would be fully occupied by electrons, while the conduction band completely empty. If a very low temperature is maintained (by a liquid nitrogen container) the γ-rays reaching the detector will cause movement of electrons (electron-hole pair) between the valance and conduction band in proportion to the energy of the photons.

Advantages of the INAA method include the relatively small sample size needed. The method may be considered also as ‘semi-destructive’ as in principle the sample can be reanalyzed in the future and is not destroyed. The sample preparation is relatively simple. The method has very good precision and low detection limits for about 30-40 elements. Possibly, the most important advantage is the fact that this method is the most widespread for pottery provenance studies (Kuleff and Djingova 1996: Fig. 4). Therefore, there is both a well-formed methodology for analysis and interpretation of pottery samples and a growing data bank of chemical profiles, which can often be efficiently compared with new analysis made (e.g., Harbottle 1982). When laboratories are fully inter-calibrated a very large data bank is created. In these cases it is possible to have chemical profile matches to the majority of samples analyzed and deduce the exact provenance of the pottery (see Mommsen 2001).

Additional instrumentation used are an electronic amplification network for the relatively weak electronic signal and a multi-channel analyzer sorting and counting the signals and creating the γ-ray spectrum (the intensities of the γ lines builds up in certain periods of integration). The problem in this method is that the Gamma-ray spectrum is very rich and dense and therefore many lines overlap and the compositional results are not straightforward. Every peak should be first identified and then calculated according to its photo-peak area (Gilmore 1991:27-28; with various methods of computing the area whether more minimalist or maximalist), which should be subtracted from the background noise. A specific program is needed to convert the acquired peaks into elemental compositions taking into account all interference possible. Often it is needed to measure certain elements at different time periods to avoid strong interference from other isotopes. Generally, when the counts are high the precision is high too as it is described by the Poisson distribution function estimated at σ = √N (where N is the total number of Gamma-ray counts).

Disadvantages include the fact that a nuclear reactor is needed (either very expensive to maintain within the institute, or creating a dependency on other institutes), and the handling of radioactive materials. In addition the analysis time is lengthy, as some of the measurement cycles are several weeks long. Several of the elements have too short-lived isotopes, or are completely masked by stronger radiation and therefore cannot be efficiently measured (as Al, Ba and Cu; Perlman and Asaro 1969:40; Gilmore 1991:6-12). The γ-spectrum is very dense and the interpretation of the counts as elemental compositions is not straightforward, requiring a relatively complicated procedure for interference correction.

Procedure of analysis (according to the Hebrew University lab): After a small area of the sherd is cleaned samples are drilled (sapphire drill) or grounded (mullite mortar) to a powder (typically of 80-150 mg). A weighed amount is mixed with about 50 mg of pure cellulose powder as a binder and compacted into a pill using a tool steel die in a hydraulic press. Each pill is wrapped in pure

b. Induced Coupled Plasma (ICP): General principles Compositional analysis using plasma includes two techniques, which are executed in two different

7 In the Hebrew University laboratory the following elements are measured (according to Maeir 1997: Table 5.1): As, Ca, La, K, Na (7 days); Ba, Ce, Eu, Lu, Nd, Sm, Ta, Tb, U, Yb (12 days); Sb, Cs, Cr, Co, Hf, Fe, Ni, Rb, Sc, Th (25 days). For other descriptions of measuring elements by INAA see Taylor and Robinson 1996a, Bryan et al. 1997:32-35.

8

If a nuclear reactor is available within the archaeometric lab there is no cooling needed and very short lived isotopes can be measures in the first minutes or hours from irradiation (as Al) (see Berry 1986:55-61; Bryan et al. 1997: Table 3; however, this elements are often obtained with low precision).

122

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS instruments, though usually carried together in the same lab: ICP Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES), ICP Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) (Jarvis and Jarvis 1992).

(Fig. 3.3): 1. The ICP apparatus of the Argon plasma (similarly to ICP-AES). 2. A quadrupole mass spectrometer and the associated collection and analysis hardware and software. 3. An interface unit responsible for transferring the sample in room pressure and high temperature to the high vacuum chamber. This is usually a metal (Cu) cone (‘sampling cone’) device focusing the beam in the entrance to the vacuum chamber (done in several stages, 10-4 Torr, 10-7 Torr etc.; Potts 1987: Fig. 20.4). The mass spectrometer is comprised of a ‘quadrupole mass filter’, which is built of four rods creating a variable electric field and an ion collector or detector (Fig. 3.3; Potts 1987:503, Figs. 16.11-12). The ion beam will hit the detector according to its mass and according to the variable electric field, thus scanning and counting the different masses of ions in the beam. The basic formula relating to the trajectory/field/mass relation is below: m/e = H2r2/2V Where H is the magnetic field, V accelerating potential, r the deflection radius of the ion, m its mass and e its charge. Given that the magnetic field, potential and radius are known and that the ionization degree is constant the atomic mass of the ion can be obtained. The ion detector can usually give counts of atomic mass of 0-300 atomic mass unit (amu), though the resolution (detection and measurement of two close by mass line) varies. Generally, the detection limits of ICP-MS are very low, lower than ICP-AES, and usually in the part per billion (ppb) range (Table 3.1; also Appendix A). Thus, most trace elements can be obtained by the method. However, many elements with atomic mass under 60 are difficult to obtain by ICP-MS as there are a lot of interfaces from oxides in the same atomic mass range. As this includes several major ceramic elements (as Al, Fe, Mg and Ca), ICP-AES is often used to obtain the major and minor elements.

ICP Atomic Emission Spectrometry: Generally, a luminous volume of gas with any portion of its atoms or molecules ionized is termed a plasma.9 By viewing the appropriate region in the argon plasma tail flame (usually of very high temperature of up to 10,000°K) atomic emission lines could be measured with very low background emission intensities, resulting in very low detection limits. Samples must be prepared in solution form, introduced into the plasma by nebulization (spraying of tiny droplets) and under these high temperatures efficient atomization (the breaking down of the samples into atoms) occurs. Each excited (*) atom (X) releases an optical emission photon (hυatom) characteristic of its structure (usually the atomic number, thus indicating the element): Ar* + X → Ar + X+* + e- → X + hυatom Main components of ICP-AES apparatus include the capillary apparatus injecting the samples from the tubes, the nebulizer and the cloud chamber, the plasma torch, and the spectrometer (usually a sequential monochromator). Typically, the spectrometer is built of a movable entrance slit, a fixed diffraction grating and a fixed exit slit. Thus, the computerized system can correlate between the position of the entrance slit and the beam outputted according to a known wavelength calibration (Potts 1987:173, Figs. 5.31-2). ICP Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES) was developed in the mid 1965’s, while the first commercial instrument for elemental analysis was available in 1975 (Potts 1987:153); this technique can be viewed as a continuance and development of flame atomic emission and atomic absorption spectrometry used in the earlier part of the 20th century (Potts 1987:153; for comparison between ICP and atomic absorption see Hatcher et al. 1995). The detection limit of many elements is in the part per million range, though marginal under several decades of ppm (see Table 3.1). Another limitation of the ICPAES is the necessity of having a first ionization emission line with the optical range; this excludes many heavier elements. ICP Mass Spectrometry: ICP-MS uses the same ICP principles to produce an ion source pumped into a very high vacuum chamber and analyzed by a mass spectrometer (Fig. 3.2; see, Young et al. 1997:380-381, Fig. 1). Thus, the system comprises of three main parts 9

The plasma is generated by a radio frequency generator and induced by a coil around the torch (thus the term induced plasma). Argon is selected for the plasma gas for several reasons: 1. As an inert gas it suppresses chemical interferences; 2. It is optically transparent. 3. Its high first ionization energy (15.75 eV) enables determination of almost all elements in the UV-visible region. 4. Its low thermal conductivity retains the stable heat in the plasma with moderate power inputs (Potts 1987:156).

Figure 3.2. A schematic mass spectrometer (Potts 1987: Fig. 16.21). 123

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 3.3. A schematic illustration of ICP-MS apparatus (Potts 1987: Fig. 20.2). c. Procedure of ICP analysis in this study10 Sample preparation and analysis procedure Detailed descriptions of ICP analysis procedures were hardly published, especially related to pottery provenance studies. It seems that most ICP laboratories have not yet developed a definite procedure for analyzing pottery, obtaining the elemental compositions and interpreting the results, as is known for INAA (e.g., Perlman and Asaro 1969; Glascock 1992; Mommsen 2001). Such a procedure should be adapted both to the character of the methods taking into accounts its advantages and limitations and the nature of the archaeometric study. It would include sample extraction, sample preparation, running of the instrument and calibration, choice of elements, treatment of the raw data and statistical analysis. The lack of such procedure is probably due to the reason that ICP labs are not accustomed yet to produce large-scale pottery provenance studies. Therefore, such a procedure is attempted to be brought here according to the analyses conducted in the Bristol lab. The procedures used in Bristol lab slightly varied

between the 2002 and 2003 analysis (especially as the number of elements acquired was reduced, see below). A detailed description of the procedures used follows. Sample preparation: A small area of the sherd/vessel is cleaned (removal of its outer surface) by a diamond drill. A sample of ca. 200-500 mg of powder was extracted from each vessel with a diamond drill: either from the vessel (in a hidden location) or from a bit chipped from it. In several cases if the chip was too small a porcelain mortar was used to powder the sample. In between samples the drill-bit and other implements in contact with samples was washed and dried in order to prevent contamination. The powder was dried for 12 hours in an oven at a temperature of 110 °C and then weighed precisely to a 200 ±3 mg sample (or rarely 100 mg if too small). The samples were dissolved in an acid cocktail of 5 ml of HF 40%, 5 ml of HNO3 2.5%, and 1 ml of HClO4. This mixture was left in covered beakers for at least 12 hours and then heated at 100 °C for 2 hours; the solution was then dried at 230 °C. Finally, the sample was leached in distilled water with 1% of HNO3. In few cases when a small amount of black residue was still left in the beakers the solution was treated again with acid

10 The analyses for this study were conducted at the ICP laboratory of the Earth Sciences Department, Bristol University, England during May 2002 and May 2003. These analyses was made possible by a research grant from the European Commission Program for Access to Research Infrastructures, contract HPRI-1999-CT-00008, granted to A.M. Maeir and the author. I wish to thank the staff of the Bristol University laboratory: Drs. Tony Kemp, Chung Choi, and John Dalton.

124

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS until these disappeared.11 The assumption was that the compositional contribution of the acid is negligible.

BHVO3, JA2, JB1, JB3, GA), and an in-house standard (‘3750’, of which its results can reflect the short and long term precision of the measurements).12 If the values of internal standards change in the course of the run the instrument automatically compensates accordingly. Of every ten samples one was repeated (a ‘repeat’ sample); this was done in order to check the precision of the measurements representing both sampling, weighing and dissolving of the samples as the instrument abilities itself. Several of the standards were also repeated to check the reliability of the run (denoted as ‘Reference’- weighed by lab personnel, and ‘User’, weighed by the user).

The chemical dissolution of pottery sherds could be seen in principle as that of siliceous rocks from which the clay originates and can be described in the following formula: HNO3 + HF + HClO4 + X...SiO2 + Clay minerals → SiF4↑ Al3+ + NO3- + Ca+ + Na+ + Na2O+ Clay minerals→ + H2O + HNO3 (1%) → solution The clay therefore becomes a salt and can be dissolved in water. It is clear then that the silica content in the sample is completely evaporated. One of the problems is that when the calcite (CaCO3) is very high the CaF in the solid is created and not dissolved (cold precipitation); other elements may be trapped with these solid possibly giving an incomplete elemental composition. When the HCl is added this phenomenon can be seen according to the fizzing of the sample. Nevertheless, if the entire sample is seen to be dissolved and similar high calcite standards also give accurate results this problem should probably not create any concern.

The calibration in ICP-MS was made according to the 5 synthetic standards (the cocktail of elements prepared according to the elements and required concentrations) and in ICP-AES according to both synthetic and international rock standards. It was found that rock standards give more accurate results as they can reflect spectral matrix effects as well (resulting from having many spectral lines in the background from the sample); therefore, these were used for calibration when possible. In ICP-AES a distinct optical line representing the elements was chosen in a test run; thereafter all reading were according to this line. A calibration graph with 3-5 points spanning a large as possible compositional range was inspected in order to evaluate the accuracy of calibration for each element; if the linear regression correlation factor was 0.99-1 it was considered adequate (see Appendix A, Fig. A.1). The rock standards are used in both ICP-AES and ICP-MS also as quality controls. In the ICP-MS runs several of the elemental are represented by few isotopic concentrations (the software automatically presents the total elemental composition according to the known abundance in nature): in each case the isotope yielding more accurate elemental results, according to the quality control rock standards, was used for the final compositional value. In both ICP-AES and ICP-MS the instruments gives three measurements or counts for each sample, the average of the three is the elemental composition while the standard deviation is taken as the measurement error.13

The solution is then mixed with HNO3 and an internal standard (10 ppb in solution of Bi, In, Re, and Ru, which are very rare elements in soils) in a glass flask, to 100 ml (a dilution of 1:500). In the 2003 analysis the internal standard was changed (as the Bi standard proved to be unstable after long durations): 20 ppb Re and Ru (1:1000 dilution) for La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Tb, Gd, Tm, Dy, Ho, Er, Yb and Lu; and 20 ppb In for Sc, Rb, Y, Nb, Cs, Ba, Hf, Ta (these two groups of elements were run separately in the 2003 analysis). The aim of the internal standard is to check the flow of the samples through the vacuum aperture in the ICP-MS runs. The actual elemental count is computed according to the internal standard: the reading for the blank sample is the base line of 100% and other reading are multiplied by the factor achieved by the fluctuation in the readings of the internal standards. The decrease in readings happens because the vacuum aperture gets slightly clogged in long runs. Somewhat similar procedures were adopted in several other cases in which ICP was used for chemical fingerprinting of ceramics and other materials (Hart et al. 1987; Beith et al. 1988; Porat et al. 1991; Young et al 1997; Ponting and Segal 1998).

Elements acquired: Elements obtained by ICP-AES were mostly major and minor lighter elements, including Na, Mg, Al, P, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, and Fe (9 elements), though in most samples six of the trace element were also obtained

Chemical analysis: The analytic equipment of the Bristol University Geochemical Laboratory used for the analyses included an ICP-MS VG PQ2 turbo (Plasma Quad) and an ICP-AES YJ Ultima II (sequential) (Plasma temperature - 8000ºK; maximum vacuum – 1.7 X 10-7 mbar). Each run included 25 samples, 5 synthetic standards (standards 1-5, with graded 0%-100% concentrations), a blank (only HNO3), a wash (in ICPMS), several international rock standards (such as BE-N,

12 Another standard, coal fly ash 1633a, was also analyzed for several runs as this standard is very commonly used in INAA chemical analysis of pottery, and thus the compatibility between the methods could be tested (see Appendix A, Table 2). 13 This is not an analytical error value per se (as in INAA) but rather an empirical way of calculating the precision of each measurement.

11

Another possibility which is used is weak acid ICP (acid extraction), in which HF is not used and the procedure is much quicker (Burton and Simon 1993, 1996). However, in this method there is high probability not all silicates from the clay, carrying much of the trace elements, will be dissovled (Neff et al. 1996; Triadan et al. 1997).

125

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY (V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Sr).14 Elements obtained by ICP-MS are the especially heavy trace elements, including Sc, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Cs, Ba, Hf, Ta, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Th, and U (30 elements). For better precision and accuracy in the results, the heavier elements (La-Lu) and Th and U were run separately from the lighter ones. During the 2003 analysis a different strategy was used acquiring less elements with more samples (thus Th and U were abandoned). This was done as for optimizing the results different groups of elements were run separately, especially with the ICP-MS instrument. The separate runs were mainly according to atomic weight: lighter trace elements and metals (Sc, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Cs, Ba, Hf, Ta), Rare Earth elements (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu) and the heaviest elements (U, Th), the Argon flow was somewhat changed in the different runs. This required extensive laboratory time (about 12 hours per run of 25-30 samples) and therefore one run of U and Th was withdrawn given that there would be still enough elements.15 When the results were examined in the lab consideration was given both to the precision, represented by the ‘repeats’ samples, and the in-house standard relative values, and to the accuracy of the compositional values, represented by the results of the certified rock standards used as quality control.

for a very large array of element, nearly the entire periodical table, especially when a combination of ICPAES and ICP-MS is used (see Table 3.1). Both in ICPAES and MS the extraction of the elemental concentrations from the counts is much more straightforward than in other methods, with less interference to account for, although this occurs too. The use of both synthetic and rock standards gives a high degree of control and accuracy creating efficient calibration between different labs using this method. In comparison to INAA, ICP has several advantages, as the fact that a nuclear reactor is not needed (although the instrumentation and maintenance are still relatively expensive); moreover, the results are obtained in a much shorter time. The main analytical drawback in the ICP chemical analysis method is the need to completely dissolve the sample. First, this makes the method destructive, though on rather small samples. Second, there is never complete certainty that the samples are completely dissolved. The problem could create special difficulties if several heavy minerals as rutile, tourmaline, zircon and spinnel. These minerals are more difficult to dissolve in acid and can trap various amounts of trace elements, especially Zr, Cr, Hf and possibly Ti. Third, because of the dissolution several elements evaporate, mainly Si (which is the major constitute of the clay), As and Sb, and cannot be measured. The second problem could be overcome by the analysis of the same ceramic samples in several methods and checking whether the ICP results seem different. This was performed to some extent, comparing INAA, ICP and XRF of ceramic samples and rock standards (Hein et al. 2002a; Tsolakidou and Kilikoglou 2002).16 The results show that in most cases there are no inaccuracies related to most elements. Nevertheless, continuous monitoring of the results with certified rock standards and repeated sample analysis should be maintained.

Advantages and drawbacks: Advantages of ICP are the very low detection limit and high precision and accuracy 14 The ICP-AES runs were separated according to the range of the standards used for calibration: RUN1-Al Fe; Calibration rock standards: GLO, BR, Mica Mg, Mica Fe, ANG; optical emission lines used: Fe: line 259.940 nm, Al: line 308.215 nm (note that generally Fe results in Bristol consistently lower in 2-3% than CRM); RUN2- Ca Mg P Ti; Calibration rock standards: G2, JG3, JA3, JB1, BEN; optical emission lines used: Ca: 422.673 nm; Mg: 279.079 nm; P: 214.914 nm; Ti: 334.941 nm; RUN3- K Na; Calibration rock standards: Mica Fe, FKN, BR, JG3, ACE; optical emission lines used: K: 766.490 nm; Na: 588.995 nm; RUN4- Cr Co Mn Ni V Zn Sr Cu; Calibration rock standards: ACE, ANG, GLO, JA3, BEN, JB1; optical emission lines used: Cr: 267.716 nm; Co: 228.616 nm; Mn: 257.610 nm; Ni: 231.604 nm; V: 290.882 nm; Zn: 213.856 nm; Sr: 407.771 nm; Cu: 324.754 nm; (note: Sr line may be interfered if U is very high and will give high results). See also Appendix A, Fig. A.1. AES detection limits: defined as- blank (background noise) + 3 X σ (standard deviation of blank measurement) in weight %: CaO: 0.00085%; MgO: 0.00135%; P2O: 0.0022%; Ti2O 0.0000871%; Al2O3: 0.00214%; Fe2O3: 0.00041%; K2O: 0.00361%; NaO: 0.000664%. Co: 0.51 ppm; Cr: 0.42 ppm; Cu: 1/86 ppm: Mn: 0.06 ppm; Ni: 0.42 ppm; Sr: 0.02 ppm; V: 0.9 ppm; Zn: 0.12 ppm. See also Appendix A, Tables A.1-A.2. It should be noted that limit of quantitation is also used as a more realistic measure (Potts 1987:17), this is defined as blank + 10X σ. 15 Moreover, during the 2003 analysis there were several malfunctions in the ICP-MS machines and eventually not all runs were made possible; therefore the elements Sc, Rb and Cs were obtained for only 50 of the samples. Nevertheless it was possible to obtain several of the trace elements naming Sr, Cu, Zn, Co, Cr, Ni and V by ICP-AES for all samples (see Appendix D). According to the regular procedure of analysis a cycle of 50 samples could be dissolved and analyzed in 3-4 days obtaining 15 elements by ICP-AES and 21 elements by ICP-MS (two overnight runs).

The main practical disadvantage of ICP when provenance of ceramics is studied is the lack of enough previous studies made in this method, and consequently the lack of a comparative database. Therefore, it is much more difficult to compare chemical profiles and define exact geographical provenancing. Nevertheless, as time passes, the quantity of large-scale pottery provenance studies employing ICP becomes larger (several examples are, Hart and Adams 1983; Hart et al. 1987; Mirti et al. 1995; Mallory-Greenough and Greenough 1998; Goren et al. 2004). Compared to TSPA and some other chemical techniques (as XRF) ICP is still somewhat expensive and time consuming, and requires the use of acids and wet chemistry.

16 Limited comparisons between ICP-AES and INAA were made by Porat et al. as well (1991).

126

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS energy of these ions is characteristic to the atomic number of the element emitting them.

Table 3.1: Determination of elements useful for pottery provenance by the different chemical methods (according to: Potts 1987:46, Tables 1.30-32; Kuleff and Djingova 1996: Table 3; Young et al. 1997:Table 1). Element Na Mg Al Si K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga As Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Sb Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta W Pb Th U

INAA good poor poor none good medium good good poor good medium good good medium poor poor good medium poor poor good poor medium medium good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good

ICP-AES medium good good none medium good poor medium medium medium medium good good good medium good none poor poor good none medium none none poor medium poor poor none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none

ICP-MS poor poor poor none poor poor good poor good medium good poor good good good good good poor medium good good medium good none good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good medium good medium good good good

XRF good good good good medium medium poor good medium medium good good medium good medium good none medium good medium none medium none medium none good none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none

In XRF high power X-ray tube with tungsten, chromium or other metal anodes provide discrete line spectra and Bremsstrahlung (continuous radiation spectra, characterized by a distribution curve), used as the primary X-ray beam; the secondary X-ray is the one generated by the sample after it is hit by the primary one. One of the major problems is the stability of the X-Ray beam. For that various wavelength-dispersive and energy-dispersive detectors are used (Skoog 1985:474-480). Most well acquired elements are above 12 in atomic number (Leute 1987:146-147) and detection limit is commonly around 100 ppm. In principle untreated samples can be analyzed provided they fit into the instrument (penetration is 10100 microns). However, if better results are wanted the samples should be powdered (about 500 mg), well mixed with a binder and prepared as a pellet. The calibration is usually performed by an array of rock standards installed in the instrument or by internal standards of known concentrations added to the samples. High precision XRF: Recently, a new modification of the XRF method was suggested termed as High Precision XRF (Giauque et al. 1993; Adan-Bayewitz et al. 1999): “The spectrometer system uses a low-power tungsten anode pulsed x-ray tube operated at 75kV, a secondary silver target, a silicon guard-ring reject detector, and a 1024 channel pulse-height analyzer. The excitation radiation consists primarily of AgKα (22.1 keV) and AgKβ (25.0 keV) X-rays with a small amount of high energy bremsstrahlung radiation with a maximum intensity at 39 keV. A long silver collimator with a relatively small opening is used over the detector system and serves to form a well-defined near-linear beam path for the radiation measured… …The method utilizes the relative intensities of the two Compton scattered AgK radiation and the AgKα coherent scattered excitation radiation to ascertain the sample mass thickness and the photoelectric cross-section of the sample for the excitation radiation. This information is employed to calculate matrix absorption and enhancement effect corrections required for the individual element determinations. The intensity of the Compton scattered AgKα radiation serves as an internal standard for all the element determinations” (Adan-Bayewitz et al. 1999:23). This method acquires altogether 17 elements (Ca, Fe, K, Ti, As, Ba, Cu, Ga, Mn, Nb, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sr, Y, Zn and Zr) with proved short and long term precision and reliability. Moreover, the sample preparation is simpler (larger particles within the sample are allowed as a thin sectioned cell is prepared) and analysis is very fast- several hours of a batch of about twenty samples. Comparison with INAA was also undertaken showing compatible results with the possibility of gaining finer provenancing by combining data from both methods (Adan-Bayewitz et al. 1999:710,21).

d. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Principles of method: There are several methods employing X-ray spectra for evaluating chemical composition of artifacts (as XRF, XRD). Common to all those termed as X-ray fluorescence is the generation of X-rays in the sample and the detection of these X-rays. The general principle is that the sample is irradiated with X-rays; the absorption of X-rays produces electronically exited ions that return to their ground state by transitions involving electrons from higher energy levels. The

127

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 3.2: Comparison of characteristics of the different chemical methods Method: Destructiveness Sample size Elements obtained (detection limit) Cost/time Interpretation of results Data bank

ICP-AES Complete 100-200 mg Major, Minor, some trace (10100 ppm) High Simple

ICP-MS Complete 100-200 mg Trace, minor, some major (1-100 ppb)

INAA Partial 80-150 mg Major, minor, trace (100 ppb-1 ppm)

High Simple

High + reactor More complicated

XRF Partial 500-1000 mg Major, minor, some trace (100 ppm) Medium Medium

Small

Small

Large

Medium

Djingova 1996; Mommsen 2001). The precision should probably better than 10% and ideally 5% of the mean values or less. Most major and minor element qualify in this requirement for all major methods; trace elements could be more problematic. Accuracy is also preferable, especially for elements that may be compared with results from other methods/labs.

Total Reflection XRF: Another new technique recently used for provenancing pottery is Total Reflectance XRF (TRXRF) (García-Heras et al. 1997; 2001 FernándezRuiz et al. 1999). This methods offers low sample preparation costs while minimizing matrix effects resulting in more precise results. The main difference from conventional XRF is that the angle on incidence of the primary X-ray is nearly 0º (instead of 45º). The powdered sample is deposited on a thin-sectioned slide. TRXRF results were compared with INAA results for the same data set, late Iron Age Spanish ceramics, resulting in the same grouping more or less. The INAA still shows higher resolution though, resulting in finer grouping (García-Heras et al. 2001:344).

3. Elements selected for chemical grouping

Secondly, elements susceptible to contamination or alterations should be excluded. This could happen in several cases: 1. An inhomogeneous distribution of the elemental composition within the clay body (possibly relating to calcite—Ca, or other minerals). 2. Elements that could represent variability due to the potter’s intervention, naming the adding of various temper (thus diluting the original clay profile). This known especially for quartz (affecting Si), organic materials (possibly affecting Ca, Ba, Sr, P, S, C, Br), calcite (affecting Ca, Sr, possibly Mg) and salt to a lesser extent (affecting Na, Cl and possibly K). It should be noted, however, that it is not always preferable to discard altogether any human intervention/dilution evidence in the statistical grouping, as this can sometimes be an important discriminator for various production centers as well. 3. Instability of composition due to firing temperature, affecting possibly the alkaline metals K, Na, Rb and Cs.17 Nevertheless, this effect is often negligible and thus these elements could be used, at least conditionally (it should be checked that these are not extremely highly variable within a formed group). 4. Instability in composition due to burial of sherd in the soil, possibly from contribution to the composition from outside (often related to organic compositions present in clay) (see Franklin and Vitali 1985; Goren et al. 2004:19); elements affected by this are P, S, Sr, Ba and possibly Rb and Cu in some conditions (see also Buxeda I Garrigos 1999). 5. Contamination due to the sampling, grinding, dissolution/binding and analyzing equipment materials; this may relate mostly to metals as Ag, Au, Hg, Pb, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Zr, W, Pt (Al, Fe and Ti are assumed to be in high enough abundance in the clay not to be significantly affected

Several guidelines should be employed in selecting the elements used for statistical grouping and fingerprinting. Firstly, these elements should be obtained with high precision by the method used and also be well above the detection limit (Winther-Nielsen et al. 1981; Kuleff and

17 In the Mycenaean pottery of a single production center, such alterations occurred in Na, K and Rb creating sub-grouping (Buxeda I Garrigos 1999:193-197; Cau Ontiveros et al. 2002, with discussions there; see also Kilikoglou et al. 1988; Cogswell et al. 1996).

Advantages of the conventional XRF are the relatively short time of analysis, the rapid, simultaneous, and nondestructive detection of all elements heavier than fluorine, the possibility of obtaining Silicon and the availability and relatively low cost of instruments. Disadvantages of conventional XRF are the relatively large sample size, the high detection limit, excluding many trace elements, and non-straightforward calibration procedure. When measured in air the results are at best semi-quantitative but greater accuracy is obtained when measuring in a vacuum. Producing the vacuum slows down the measuring process. The X-Ray beam can either be focused to analyze a small area, in the order of 100 microns across, or defocused to analyze a wider field. However, even in this mode the sampled area will be minute in comparison with that of other methods. This can be an advantage, in that a specific inclusion or feature can be studied, but for bulk characterization it is a disadvantage. Other chemical methods are also employed from time to time in pottery provenance studies but not discussed here (for other methods and comparisons between them see also Wilson 1978; Pillay 2001).

128

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS from such contamination; and Argon gas for ICP), depending on the sample preparation equipment used.

4. The formation of compositional groups: Statistical analyses

These considerations still leave us with a large group of elements to choose from. According to what the specific methods sufficiently provide, the elements that can usually be used are: Al, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sn, Sb, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Hf, Ta, Th, U, and conditionally: Na, K, Mg, Rb and Cs. It is preferable that groups of elements will be taken from various chemical groups within the periodic table, representing major elements in clay, metals, trace elements and rare earth elements (the Lanthanide series). Selecting elements from only one group, or an unbalanced selection, would decrease the degrees of freedom in the compositional data as various elements are probably dependent on each other. This happens usually because certain minerals and elements appear in rocks always together (as all the Lanthanide series, Hf and Zr, Fe and Sc and Ca and Sr; see, e.g., Glascock 1992).

Once the elemental concentrations of the samples are acquired and the elements to be used are selected the provenance study usually has two stages. In the first stage chemical/compositional groups are formed: these are groups of samples in which the concentrations of the selected elements have the strongest similarity. In the second stage the chemical profiles of these groups are compared with other material having a “known” provenance (the reference material) in order to determine the provenance of the samples. Often the reference can be included in the initial grouping and thus the two stages be combined in one procedure. A question arises as to the degree of variability one would expect within a clay source and what is a sufficient distinction between two profiles. In other words, what are the requirements of relating a composition of a sherd or group of sherds to a given chemical profile. A 10%-15% spread of most of the elements is common in a group if dilution occurs (see below), while if the dilution factor is eliminated this spread may be reduced to 4% (Hein et al. 1999:1054). Adan-Bayewitz suggests that a group seems to be well defined if fifteen of the elements have 8% spread or less (1993:61). However, very often spreads can be larger, and it is clear that the definition of a clay source should be made in accordance to the archaeological question and is largely relative (Lemoine et al. 1982:62-64). Although the compositional distribution of a clay source or a ceramic paste is probable not normal the distance between two groups or a single sample and a group, is often described according to accumulative probability assuming such normal a distribution.19 In any case such relative distances can still be usefully described in ‘standard deviation units’ without assuming the absolute probabilities (see also Mommsen 1981). All these qualifications are in the realm of the univariate statistics, relating to only one variable at a time, treating all variables as independent of each other. As will be shown below this treatment may prove to be insufficient for determination of chemical groups of pottery in some cases.

In this study using ICP-AES and ICP-MS analysis the following group of 26 elements was selected according to the above criteria and including only those obtained for all samples in the study: Mg, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Hf, Ta.18 It should be noted that if a large number of elements is included in the analysis (generally above seventeen, see Mommsen 2004:268) the influence of one or two less reliable elements—if not too strongly varied—will not be great and can be tolerated. Several other elements are displayed and accounted for although not included in the statistical procedure (Ca, Ni, K, Ba and K). A more analytical-statistical view of variable selection is presented by Baxter and Jackson (2001). They propose two methods: one based on eliminating elements proving to be insignificant in variance according to PCA (see below); for simpler problems they propose variable selection according to ‘conditional classification trees’, reducing the problem to several elemental concentration conditions. This method, however, disregards geological and technological factors, which are known to effect certain elements. It should be noted that several elements are important to obtain although they are not useful in the statistical grouping. These are mostly major elements as Ca (also Sr) and Si (when obtainable, only in XRF), which can give information of the general character of the clay and on possible dilutions factors in it.

Statistical grouping The statistical grouping is made according to the elements that have been selected. In several cases it is possible to distinguish between the chemical groups according to distinct differences in several elements alone. This is often the case with obsidian provenance studies where each obsidian flow has a distinct and 19

This means that there is a 67% chance concentrations agreeing in the 1σ range, 95% in the 2σ range, 99% in the 3σ range etc. (Gunneweg et al. 1983:5-6; Sharon 1989:26-35). Thus, if a sample is well assigned to a group 67% of the elements are within 1σ range and 95% of the elements in the 2σ range. Lets say a sample has 10 elements within 1σ, 5 elements within 2σ, 5 elements within 3σ and 3 elements more than 3σ apart, the probability of its relation to the group is 110 x 0.335 x 0.055 x 0.013= 1.2x10-15, which is an extremely low probability.

18 Ni, Cu, and Zn were not included though obtained with good reliability as they were affected from contamination from the drill bit (Ni) and the drill cartridge (made of brass, Cu, Zn) (see also Carriveau 1980). This is regrettable and may be avoided by using different sampling equipment. In some statistical procedures Na and K were also used.

129

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY unique chemical fingerprint with a relatively low spread (Sharon 1989:22). In these cases simple bivariate scatter plots can sufficiently show the groups formed as concentration of points. Then one could confirm the designation of samples to the groups by examining the relative spread of elemental concentrations in each group (that should be around 10% or lower in average). The differences between these groups can be statistically evaluated by several procedures, as the Hotellings’s T2 test (Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman 1985:207). Thence, the correlation with known profiles could be made for all the selected elements, as seen above. An ‘outlier’ or ‘chemical loner’ is a sample not belonging to any of the groups.

grouped together; b. What function of distance is used. The main conditional distinction is whether the initial group (which may be defined in advance or can be arbitrary as the first two samples) should seek the samples closest to it or exclude the ones furthest from it. These include usually: 1. Average linkage between/within groups—the groups formed are compared according to the average distance between pairs of samples; 2. Nearest/furthest neighbor (complete linkage)—the method computes the distance between clusters according to the distance between nearest points/furthest points of the two clusters; 3. Centroid link—the distance between the clusters’ center of gravity is compared; 4. Wards method—the clusters are constructed according to the principle in which a new member should minimize the increase in internal variation in the new cluster formed (see also Hodson 1969:92-93; Rice and Saffer 1982:399; Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1984; Shennan 1988:212-225; Sharon 1989:59-61). The distance function expresses the elemental values themselves and can also use the errors of each elemental measurement (see Harbottle 1991), the correlations between them, or other factors giving each variable different equal weight. Several distance functions are used in compositional studies:

However, this simple reality is often not the case with pottery provenance studies, especially on an intraregional scale. Of the 20-30 elements selected for grouping many may be similar, or show seemingly contradicting trends in grouping. Therefore, there is need to use the variability of the samples according to the entire set of elements simultaneously. For this reason various multivariate statistical analyses (MVSA) methods are used (for general principles see Hodson 1969; Orton 1980; Pollard 1986; Baxter 1994).20 These methods, usually applied by software packages, tend to condense or reduce the nature of the data set, accounting for all variables and display a multi variable space in a simpler two or three dimensional space, which could be more clearly understood. It is also possible to give different weights to different variables in some of these procedures.

1. Euclidean (squared) distance between samples j and k : djk2 = 1/n Σni=1(xij-xik)2, xij is the i element concentration in the j sample, n is the number of elements. This is the simplest and most intuitive distance function. 2. ‘Manhattan Block’ distance: djk = 1/n Σni=1│xij-xik│. (a single dimension Eucledean distance). 3. Mahalanobis distance in general is a measure of distance between two points in the space, which are defined by two or more correlated variables21; in a simplified form: d2M = 1/n Σni=1{(xi-yi)2/(σ2xi + σ2yi)} (Beier and Mommsen 1994:292); where xi and yi are the elemental compositions and σ2xi is the squared spread of element i in the group (thus, the distance is expressed in units of the standard deviation in the group) but can be substituted into the experimental error of the elemental composition as well (if a group is not yet formed). This would give higher weight to elements with lower errors. If correlation between elements is not neglected the above formula should be used (dM2k = Σni=1Σnj=1(xikmi)Iij(xjk-mj), (mi is the average of the i element, mj is the average of the j element and Iij is the variance-covariance matrix; see below), but then the distance can only be used if some reference group already exists, and the formula merely decides whether to include a new member in the group or not. For each group in the sample, we can determine the location of the point that represents the

The main MVSA methods employed in chemical grouping are cluster analysis (henceforth, CA) and Principal Component Analysis (which is a branch of factor analysis; henceforth, PCA). Discriminant analysis is another method, related to cluster analysis. Cluster analysis essentially gives a discrete grouping of a set of samples with a set of variables given a distance function and a grouping principle. The final results can be displayed in the form of a tree or ‘dendogram’, on which each branch there is a clustered group. The samples can be seen an n-dimensional vector in a space (n=number of elements), while for any given distance or radius an ndimensional sphere would enclose a certain group of samples. Another method of grouping can define a group as all samples falling within a two-sigma confidence ellipse (95% confidence level) around the center of the group within the n-dimensional hyperspace (this is used by Mommsen, e.g., 2001:661). The limitation of this method is when two groups overlap, as it does not give a discrete grouping of the samples. The discrete grouping methods can be defined by two parameters: a. On what conditions the samples will be

21 For example, for two uncorrelated variables the Mahalanobis distance would be identical to the Euclidean distance. When the variables are correlated the axes in the plots can be thought of as being nonorthogonal: that is, they would not be positioned in right angles to each other. In those cases, the simple Euclidean distance may not be an appropriate measure, while the Mahalanobis distance will adequately account for the correlations.

20 Note also the use of MVSA for mixed data- chemical and other (either visual or petrographic observations which are quantified) (e.g., Rice and Saffer 1982). However, the reliability of such methods has not yet been tested critically.

130

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS means for all variables in the multivariate space defined by the variables in the model. These points are called group centroids. For each case we can then compute the Mahalanobis distances (of the respective case) from each of the group centroids. Again, we would classify the case as belonging to the group to which it is closest, that is, where the Mahalanobis distance is smallest.

variables (xi, n elements) into a new set (x*i, factors of principal components), which is a linear combination of the original set (x*i = Σm=nm=1Amx i) (see Baxter and Jackson 2001:255 for details). PCA can be defined in an intuitive way using a recursive formulation. Define the direction of the first principal component of a data set (wTx), say, by w1 w1 = arg ‫׀‬w‫=׀‬1max E[(wTx)2] Thus, the first principal component is the projection on the direction in which the variance of the projection is maximized. Having determined the first k-1 principal components, the k-th principal component is determined as the principal component of the residual variance: wk=arg ‫׀‬w‫=׀‬1max E {[wT(x –Σ i=1 k-1 wiwiTx)]2} In practice, the computation can be simply accomplished using the sample covariance matrix. The basic goal in PCA is to reduce the number of dimensions the data is presented by. Such a reduction in dimension has important benefits. First, the computational overhead of the subsequent processing stages is reduced. Second, noise may be reduced, as the data not contained in the n first components may be mostly due to noise. Third, a projection into a subspace of a very low dimension, for example two or three, is useful for visualizing the data.23

A disadvantage of cluster analysis is that the interpretation of the dendogram is not always straightforward (Shennan 1988:228-230; Fraley and Raftery 1998). Often many branches are closely spaced, linked to each other and can be possibly united. The grouping is in many ways arbitrary and does not show sufficiently the relative difference in distance in terms of elemental composition between the groups. Therefore, it is important to conduct at least another CA run with the outliers/loners—samples having very different compositions, branched far away from the rest of the samples—excluded.22 This is especially true if “fine grouping” is sought. Whether the differences between these linked branches are significant or not should be examined with PCA scatters and the elemental spread within the proposed groups. Moreover, as Glascock notes:

The new data set is aimed to represent the maximal variance between the samples as explained above. Therefore, with a two or three-dimensional graph one can view most of the variability of the data set (that is if these factors represent the bulk of the variance; in pottery studies the first two components often represents together 70% or more of the variance). One can also plot or compute the specific loading of each of the elements on the principal factors. Thus, as a side product of the PCA, the angle between the vectors representing the elements (see, e.g., Fig. 4.19) indicates their correlation: a 0º angle indicates full correlation, a 90º angle indicates no correlation, 180º angle inverse correlation, and all the intermediate possibilities indicating various degrees of correlations (Shennan 1988:247-250). When a scatter plot of two or three principal components is viewed, clusters of samples indicate compositional groups. This should be tested by computing the elemental spreads of these groups. Confidence ellipses usually of 2σ (95%), or other measures, can be used as well to define the groups and inspect overlapping between groups. These show the space covered by composition ranging within 2σ, or any other value, of the groups elemental averages.

“…the inclination for cluster analysis to force data into hyperspherical groups and the known tendency of pottery compositional groups to be elongated due to inter-element correlation demands skepticism regarding any cluster analysis solution. The initial groups from cluster analysis provide a starting point from which other techniques for group refinement can be applied” (Glascock 1992:17). Discriminant analysis: Discriminant function analysis is used to determine which variables discriminate between two or more defined groups. Discriminant Analysis could then be used to determine which variable(s) are the best predictors of the data’s behavior. Another possibility is two examine how distinct a certain grouping, made by a different method or by archaeological or other parameters, is according to the data obtained by the variables (the elemental concentrations). One can then compute the Mahalanobis (or other) distance between the group members and the centroid of their group, or of other groups. Principal Component Analysis (PCA): The basic idea in PCA is to find the n linearly transformed components s1,s2,...,sn so that they explain the maximum amount of variance possible (see e.g., Kendall 1980:47-52; Morrison 1976:266-286; Shennan 1988:245-270). As noted above PCA often give better indications of chemical grouping of pottery. This method transforms the given set of

Treatment of the raw data The data itself can be inputted in its raw form to the MVSA software. However, this is not recommended in most cases. Large numbers will tend to have bigger effect on the grouping, and the relative differences between compositions is quested rather than the absolute ones.

22

23

Baxter presents various methods for detecting outliers (1999) and notes that cluster analysis can fail in some case to detect them, probably due to the large amount of variables (elements) used. Principal component analysis is somewhat more efficient as is the use of squared Mahalanobis distances (Baxter 1999:335).

Note that often it is not necessary to use the n principal components themselves, since any other orthonormal basis of the subspace spanned by the principal components (that is, can be produced by a linear combination of them, called the PCA subspace) has the same data compression or de-noising capabilities.

131

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY though, that these methods may impose an ideal solution on the data set (Baxter 2001:145).

This takes into account also that the elements are basically correlated as they represent a complete composition, especially the major elements. Therefore, using log transformed data (X* = Log10X) usually serves to reduce these problems (see Aitchison et al. 2002). Another normalization also used is Z scores (X* = [XM]/SD, M and SD are means and standard deviation of a relevant elemental composition in the complete data set; Mommsen et al. 1988a:48).

Dilution effects: Even when well-defined chemical groups are successfully formed according to MVSA, these results should be treated with care. Especially important is to examine dilution effects. Dilution occurs when a certain clay profile is tempered or mixed by a certain weight percentage of another material; in this case all the other elements (mostly trace element) are automatically reduced.24 Typical dilutants, which can be introduced by tempering and/or levigation of the clay by the potter, are calcite or silica and organic material. Another possible dilution effect can be related to the firing temperature of the pottery. In higher firing temperatures there is more water loss in the pottery and thus relative compositions would rise. In addition, some of the CO2 in the calcite can also be removed causing a similar effect (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:256). Simple dilution is defined when the dilutant does not contain any substantial amount of elements included in the clay profile (that is trace elements), and, thus, it reduces all the values of these elements by a constant factor. Mixing of clays by the potter can create a more complicated dilution effect as well; here a constant factor cannot be used, as the dilutant includes clay elements as well. If certain types of tempers, carrying trace elements, as grog (crushed sherds) or basalt, are used, the effect of tempering on the profile would be as an effect of clay mixing.

Correlation between the elements: The initial assumption is that all elements are of equal weight in the statistical analysis. However, this is usually not true as not all of these can be considered as completely independent variables. For example the rare earth elements (Lanthanide series) exhibit strong correlation between each other. Another dependence is that the accumulative concentration of all element cannot be above one. This correlation, though, is of significance only for major elements. The correlation factor (rjk) between two elements j and k in a given data set ranges between 1 and –1 and can be expressed as rjk = σjk/σjσk where σj is the standard deviation (SD) of element j in the set, and σjk is the covariance between the elements defined as σjk = Σni=1{[xij-mj][xik-mk]}/n-1 (Glascock 1992:16-17), xij is the j element concentration in the i sample, mj is the average of the element is a certain group, n is the number of samples. Thus a 0 correlation represents two elements completely independent (‘orthogonal variables’), while a value of 1 points to a full 1:1 positive relation and –1 indicates a full inverse relation. If elemental correlation is to fully be incorporated in the statistical procedure the Mahalnobis distance should be used (Beiber et al. 1976:63; Leese and Main 1994; see above). This is actually a generalized Euclidean distance between the groups’ means and each sample as described above. This distance takes into account the correlation between the variables (the elemental concentrations). For the k sample this is dM2k = Σni=1Σnj=1(xik-mi)Iij(xjk-mj); xij is the j element concentration in the k sample, mj is the average of the j element. Iij is the variance-covariance matrix having the elemental spread on its diagonal, while off diagonal elements express the correlations between the elements (see also a different representation in Beier and Mommsen 1994).

Usually the dilution effect is considered to be a result mainly of the potter’s clay treatment, however, it has been shown that the same effect may have geological or geomorphological origins (Hein et al. 2002b), thus being a ‘natural’ dilution. In the case of simple dilution a simple correction factor can be used to normalize the data (see, e.g., Gunneweg et al. 1986:9, Mommsen et al. 1984:101103). Thus, profiles that initially are different are united into one compositional group. A dilution or tempering can also cause overlap between different chemical profiles, as the differences in the clay are blurred (see, Neff et al. 1988—there simulation experiments are undertaken to examine what amount of temper can cause overlap between two distinct clays). A high and/or variable concentration of calcium or silicon, when acquired by chemical analysis or indicated by TSPA, can testify to a possibility dilution. As ICP and INAA do not give Si, silica dilution should be a priori suspected in any case. Therefore, one should examine whether the groups or samples display common factors between the elemental compositions. If so, one can unite the diluted groups and substitute the original elemental values with ones normalized according to the dilution factor. Thence, MVSA grouping may be undertaken with the new values giving a new chemical grouping. If elemental ratios are

Baxter summarized some of the statistical methods used (2001:135-138) and suggested a new approach, “modelbased cluster analysis” (Baxter 2001; Papageorgiou et al. 2001). This method is based on the comparison with an expected model. This was examined with a relation of chemical results to petrographic groups already formed. Another possibility is to view the dilution effect (see below) or any difference from the original clay composition as a perturbation problem (Buxeda I Garrigos 1999; Baxter 2001:138; see also Neff et al. 1988). There are several statistical methods, which can be used, though this field has not yet been fully explored (Papageorgiou et al. 2001:584-585). It should be noted,

24 Any paste contains a clay component (the matrix) and a temper component (the inclusions), however, it is assumed that this ratio remains relatively constant unless altered by a human intervention.

132

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS used then the degrees of freedom are lowered by 1 but a dilution factor, if present, is eliminated (Mommsen et al. 2001:345-346). However, this method may be more reliable when bivariate rather than multivariate data is used for the grouping.25

Using data from different labs or different methods Usually elemental data from various labs, which are not fully calibrated, are not compatible enough to be used together in compositional grouping. The differences in certain element is often immense. Generally, four degrees of calibrations between labs can be defined: 1. Full calibration: when a set of samples and standards are analyzed in two operating labs and the calibration factors obtained (e.g., Yellin et al. 1978; Bryan et al. 1997). 2. Calibration between an operating lab and a non-operating (or non-accessible) lab done according to calibration standards and their results from the old lab analyzed in the new lab; thence calibration factors are obtained. 3. Calibration between an operating lab and a non-operating (or non-accessible) lab, done according to a set of samples with their results from the old lab and analyzed in the new lab; thence calibration factors are possibly obtained. 4. Calibration between two non-operating or non-accessible labs according to results of standards or samples analyzed in both labs. Tentative calibration factors may be obtained according to published data. Waksman has shown that even in the higher degree of calibration, one needs to carefully select the samples used for calibration (2004).

Mommsen developed a program, which automatically employs a dilution filter to all samples statistically grouped (Mommsen 1981, 2001; Mommsen et al. 2001:345); eventually every sample is given a dilution factor in relation to the group it is grouped with. ‘Best relative fit’ (BRF) examines the possibility of a dilution factor between a given sample (xi) and a group’s profile (ci): f = 1/mΣi=1mci/xi . A low spread of f (σf ) would give a good chemical match and dilution factor (a value near 1 means there is no dilution) (Mommsen et al. 1988a:50). Thus, resolving of dilution effects and chemical matching can be combined. The elemental values in this procedure can be weighed according to errors (and groups spread) as well. Mommsen et al. have shown that this is an efficient method to group dilution effected pottery with an example of Argolid pottery (1988a:55-57, Fig. 2; Mommsen et al. 1988b). In the final grouping the individual dilution factors acquired by the programs are used to produce a new data set, dilution normalized, that will give a much more compact grouping.

Two main principles should be adhered to, in my view, if some calibration between labs and methods is sought: 1. Selection of a certain package of elements to be analyzed by all labs (say for example, Na, K, Fe, Co, Ni, Sc, La, Eu, Sm, Nd) enabling calibration by these elements at least. These elements should be well-acquired elements both in precision and accuracy and valid for chemical grouping. 2. Using more or less the same package of international standards in all procedures, together with inhouse or other pottery standards (see also a similar suggestion in Harbottle 1982:75). Thus, absolute compositions according to comparison with certified rock standard values can be presented. If a better precision is sought calibration according to the in-house pottery standards should be made as well, and the results can be presented according to both ‘in-house’ standards (precision oriented or ‘relative compositions’) and certified rock standards (accuracy oriented or ‘absolute compositions’). In this study 21 samples that were previously analyzed by INAA (in Berkeley and Jerusalem) were analyzed by ICP-AES and ICP-MS. The comparative results are seen in Appendix B, with attempts for providing initial calibration or assessing the differences between the results.

Another possibility to account for a dilution effect is to subtract from the log values of the elemental compositions (log[xij]) the logged average of all the elements for a specific j sample (Aj) (Sharon 1989:51). If a dilution factor is present (fj) it will constant for all elements; thus if log values are subtracted from we eliminate the component of the concentration which include the dilution factor (however, we add another factor): Xij*=logxij-logAj (Aj = Σi=1nx ij /n) n Xij*=logxij-log Σi=1 x ij/n = log fjx*ij-log Σi=1nfjx* ij/n = log fj + logx*ij-logfj + log Σi=1nx*ij = logx*ij + log Σi=1nx*ij —dilution free. However, dilution factors cannot be always simply computed, especially if the effect varies from sample to sample or if clays were mixed. Moreover, one may want to retain the information on the different treatment of the clay, or more important, if the dilution is natural it may have crucial effect on the provenancing, especially on an intra-regional scale. All in all, it seems that dilution effects should be investigated, but certain caution be used in applying comprehensive dilution factors to modify the original data set. In some studies the use of ratios is reported to compensate for variability within a clay source but not removing human intervention effects (Day et al. 1999:1030).

Summary It has been shown that while chemical provenancing is based on various geochemical and statistical assumptions, the final identification of the sources or the compositional profiles, and their relationships with other profiles, should be in accordance to the archaeological issues at hand. This should not, however, diminish the importance of a careful evaluation of the chemical results and their statistical processing and interpretation.

25 In MVSA a certain element has to be chosen as a common denominator for all others; thus, the compositional variability of this element may cause an additional effect, not present in the raw data.

133

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Goren 1991, 1996b; Porat 1989; Vaughan 1999).26 Nevertheless, this discipline is still undergoing methodological developments (see, e.g., Goren 1996b:113-114).

In many pottery provenance studies analysis of relatively complicated data sets were made without the use of multivariate statistics (e.g., Gunneweg et al. 1983; Yellin and Gunneweg 1985; Gunneweg et al. 1994:230; Yellin and Cahill 2004). Generally, the groups were formed by simple comparisons of the elemental composition, by eye, or according to the typological/archaeological groups. Thence, the validity of these groups was tested according to the spread of the elemental compositions and its relation to other groups, defined beforehand. This method often supplied well-established provenancing. However, there was no clear way to illustrate whether the grouping suggested by the analysts was the only or optimal one (especially as the elemental composition of the individual samples is usually not provided). This method of grouping giving only elemental table results of the different groups was used even as late the as the 1990’s (e.g., Gunneweg et al. 1994:230; see even Yellin and Cahill 2004). However, the other extreme view, showing only the statistical grouping, without the elemental compositions of the groups, is also not satisfactory. This is the case with various studies (e.g., Glascock 1992; Neff and Bove 1999; Arnold et al. 2000; Gomez et al. 2002), where there is no way to see what is the compositional difference between the groups, evaluate the raw data or compare compositional profiles. The optimal method would be combining MVSA grouping with display of elemental compositions and spreads of the proposed groups (e.g, Taylor and Robinson 1996a, 1996b; Hein et al. 1999; Mommsen et al. 2001 and many others); a method which is widely accepted now a days.

Samples are obtained by thin sectioning a pottery sherd. First a slice, several mm thick is cut from the sherd. One side is flattened and affixed with transparent epoxy to a microscope slide. After hardening and drying, the other side is thinned to a thickness of 0.03 mm (30 microns) in which most of the minerals are transparent.27 The slides are examined through a petrographic polarizing microscope (in this study Nikon and Zeiss [for photography] models were used, magnifications of X25X400). Each mineral displays specific optic features in both polarized (pl) and crossed polarized (xpl) light (for optical principles see, e.g., Deer et al. 1992). The different minerals of a size above about 10 microns (micron=μm=10-6 m) can be identified and examined (thus, the matrix can be defined as anything smaller than 10 microns, Whitbread 1995:371). Clay size minerals (under 4 microns) are too small to be fully described by optical microscope. The slide can be divided into two main parts: the matrix, which includes the clay and smaller silt-sized components, and the larger inclusions. The texture (variability in sizes of particles) optical behavior etc. of the fabric or matrix and inclusions or temper can be described. As noted above, a detailed mineralogical characterization of the matrix cannot be made with a regular polarizing microscope, but several general features are observable. The general mineralogy (mostly quartz or calcareous in Israel’s soils) can be obtained by the optic behavior. In addition the texture and clay/silt/void ratios can be described and are often of certain importance. The second component of the slide is the inclusions or temper, which is defined as the larger silt and sand-sized component. Here the minerals can usually be identified, and for each population of minerals a description provided. Often, the petrographic groups are formed by more general considerations and indicative features rather than formal quantitative comparisons and statistic analysis (see, Porat 1989:26; for a more quantitative approach see Schubert 1986). Although some of the mineralogical characteristics are not always immediately geographically indicative (resulting in a defined provenance determination), the evaluation of all these features can create general petrographic groups. These groups can either represent different clay sources, different clay treatment and technological aspects or

As has been shown above, chemical provenancing of pottery is far from being a simple matter. In many cases statistical grouping is not straightforward or is ambiguous; this results basically from the complication of the issue at hand, as the chemical composition of pottery vessels can be affected from various natural and/or human factors, rarely fully known. Eventually, other reasoning as TSPA results and archaeological data will also be used. Naturally, if the grouping changes when different statistical grouping methods are used, this calls for more considerations and restrictions to be made on the proposed solution. Cluster analysis grouping should be used rather as a starting point for the grouping and not a final result. Thence, PCA and other methods can be used; eventually all data should be combined and considered for the final provenancing proposed. 5. Mineralogical Methods: Thin Section Petrographic Analysis (TSPA) General principles The first pottery studies employing thin section Petrographic analysis, a method used for petrology, were conducted in the 1930’s (Shepard 1936). Countless studies have since been published relating to provenance and technological aspects of ancient pottery from around the world, of these many in Israel (for overviews see, e.g.,

26 Interestingly one of the earliest studies was written in Hebrew (Amiran and Vroman 1946) pointing out, already in that early stage, some of the methodological problems still encountered by recent studies. 27 In this study rather basic equipment was used to make the slides: a water cooled brick diamond saw for cutting and initial thinning and ‘water paper’ of various grain size (150-400 mesh) for final thinning. This technique can be termed as ‘manual’ and may result in a small percentage of lower quality and small slides (see Part 4 and Appendix E).

134

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS pottery, expressed both in the description of the slides and the interpretation and grouping of petrographic data. Whitbread created a detailed procedure for the description of petrographic slides of pottery (1995:366388) dealing with both fabric (matrix) and inclusions. Fabric description includes general description (homogeneity), birefringent fabric definition (b-fabric, Whitbread 1993:382, Table A3.6; also Bullok et al. 1985:88-94), and the optical behavior of the clay termed as ‘optical activity’ (that is if the grains show various extinction angles in xpl, resulting in a twinkling effect when the microscope stage is turned), color, etc. The description of the inclusions includes spacing of the inclusions in relative to their size (Whitbread 1995: Table A3.4), coarse/fine/void inclusions ratio, preferred orientation if present. The coarse/fine boundary can be set by the analyzer (the lowest being 10 microns). Thence, each mineral is identified and its population described: coarse/fine ratio, texture, (size ranges, usually in Wentworth scale, and modules), percentage composition in relation the entire inclusion population (usually in terms of relative abundance: frequent, common, rare, etc.), roundness and shape dominant. Other components given special consideration are ‘textural concentration features’ (TCF) (also termed clay pellets) and ‘amorphous concentration features’ (ACF) (Whitbread 1986; 1995:386-387, Table A3.7). The latter are inclusions, which are often not termed as minerals (clay fragments, grog—crushed sherds, organic material etc.), but still have importance in the description of the clay. This system was largely employed in the description of Ashkelon’s 7th century BCE pottery (Master 2001; 2003). However, in other studies, various more abridged description systems were used (as Porat 1989; Killebrew 1998a; Goren et al. 2004; Goren and Halperin 2004). Generally, as a standard system has not yet been accepted by the majority of petrographers, it seems optimal to use whatever description system is best fitted for the data set studied. This is of course subject to the presence of essential components of the petrographic analysis (mineralogical definition and characterization of matrix and inclusions).

combinations of the above (Porat 1989:25-28; Day 1989). Goren et al. defined a Clay-Temper-Factor resulting in a maximum number of locally produced petrographic groups possible in one site equaling the product of the clay types by the temper types occurring in its vicinity (2004:8). Technological aspects of pottery production can also be treated by TSPA. Firing temperature can be broadly assessed as quartz Phase α (changing to Phase β) disappears at 573°C and calcite fragments dissolve around 750-850°C (Rice 1987:95). Other temperature indicators relevant may be the change of green hornblende into red oxyhornblende (800-850°C) and, above 900°C, a carbonate temper reaction creating a ‘rim’ around the grains (Slatkine 1974:110; Porat 1989:29; see also Goren et al. 2004:15-16). The detection of temper addition by the potter and its provenance/provenances shows also technological aspects (if it can be shown that the temper is added by human intervention). The orientation of inclusions can point to a pottery wheel technology and its velocity; moreover, mechanical joins and mixture of clays can at times also be detected. Petrographic analysis and provenance interpretation of clay and pottery is based on the natural assumption that the basic geology of the region studied has changed little in the archaeological periods and one can analyze ancient clay according to contemporary geological and soil maps and reference material. Thus a ‘Clay-Temper-Factor’ can be defined for each site, tentatively including the clays occurring in a 10 km radius (Goren et al. 2004:6-9). Nevertheless, reference material of ancient pottery can also be used as an independent tool for obtaining provenance. The raw material of the clay would include the clay matrix together with other natural inclusions representing the geological and geomorphologic environment of the clay deposit. The weathering of the inclusions present can also testify to the distance of the source from the geological formation and the nature of the weathering processes (see, e.g., Lombard 1987:112115). However, the potters can alter the composition of the clay. Levigation will remove the coarser particles, while intentional tempering adds other constituents, possibly originating from a somewhat different source. The use of more quantitative methods was suggested in order to define different petrographic profiles along river basins (Heidke and Miksa 2000). This method is based of point counts of sand temper according to mineralogical variables. This data is thence treated by MVSA for obtaining petrographic grouping or defining differences between the groups (Heidke and Miksa 2000:284-294).

In this study some of Whitbread’s principals were used but generally simplified, while other aspects are different (see Appendix E). The fabric description includes general characteristics of the matrix (when identified as calcareous, ferruginous etc.), optical activity, inclusion spacing, percentage of voids and general description of the silt component of the matrix.28 A definition of the type of local soil is given when applicable (mostly according to descriptions in Goren 1996a; Goren et al. 2004; Goren and Halperin 2004; and according to soil maps, as Dan et al. 1972; Sahar et al. 1995 etc., see Fig. 3.5). Inclusions are listed according to minerals and the description includes percentage (which is of the slide

The processing of the Petrographic data The basic principles of analysis can be similar to those of geological petrology of rocks, using ternary diagrams of percentages of various components appearing in the slides (as in Lombard 1987). Nevertheless, different aspects need to be emphasized in the petrography of

28 Grain size is defined follows using the Udden-Wentworth scale (Adams et al. 1984): sand: 2000-62 microns; silt: 62-4 microns; clay: under 4 microns.

135

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY area, according to percentage charts; see, e.g. Bullok et al. 1985), sorting, size ranges and texture, shape and various special features (as cracks in crystals etc.). Components under 1% of the total slide area are termed as several, rare or very rare according to their relative frequency. Other notes as orientation of inclusions, shape of voids29, decomposed material or organic material are finally mentioned. A major difference from Whitbread system is that all percentages are given of the total area of the slide. Although in this way it is difficult to express accurately relative abundances of rarer inclusion types it has other advantages. This description is more faithful to the appearance of the slide (and in the detailed description it is important to give as much raw data as possible without interpretation); relative percentages can usually be calculated from these numbers if needed; it is easier to obtain using percentage estimation charts. The b-fabric type system was not employed in this study; however, more emphasis was given to the description of the shape (roundness and sphericity of grains) as this proved to be more crucial in the description of the petrographic groups (generally following Bullok et al. 1985:20-38).

TSPA vs. chemical analysis The main advantage of TSPA over the chemical methods is that in principal reference material is not essential. In many cases, positive identifications of clay sources, or at least the exclusion of many regions, can be made according to geological and soil maps. However, as noted above, in more complicated situations this is not the case. Another advantage is the fact that once a slide is made it is available for inspection by any researcher (no ‘calibration; or re-sampling needed). Petrographic analysis also gives other technological aspects of the pottery as firing temperature, tempering etc. This analysis, as it is not a ‘blind’ method as the chemical analysis, and can detect various effects as contamination, dilution etc. which often cause great difficulties for chemical provenancing (see also Bennett et al. 1989:3439, Fig. 4.2; Cau Ontiveros et al. 2002). In addition, TSPA can be very useful in studies of various ceramic objects on which there is no large chemical data bank (as the el-Amarna tablets, Goren et al. 2004:10). However, the reason that TSPA is probably the most widespread method for pottery analysis is simply a cost reason: the price of TSPA is much lower than the chemical methods, especially in the long run. Once the sample preparation equipment and microscope are obtained, the costs per sample are very low (and are mostly in research time), and the running of the lab has no strings attached (as radioactivity, acid contaminations, radiation etc.). This is probably the only method any academic archaeological institute can afford to maintain on its own.

Various suggestions for more quantitative petrographic description are put forward from time to time (Chayes 1949; Schubert 1986; Rice 1987:309; Stoltman 1989), mostly using point count and frequency charts and grain size distribution (van der Plas and Tobi 1965; Middleton et al. 1985). Although these methods were used with success in various studies, as in defining different profiles of sand temper along river basin (e.g., Lombard 1987; Heidke and Miksa 2000, see above), it may be too early to impose such methodology on all petrographic research of pottery. It seems that a standardization of qualitative terms as definitions of soils, matrix, minerals appearances etc. should be aimed before attempting a fully quantitative approach. Meanwhile, each region has its own specific geological and petrologic issues to deal with, and the description and analysis methods are largely adapted to those.

Notwithstanding, TSPA has several distinct disadvantages. The main one is probably that this is basically, at least up to date, a subjective and qualitative method (Goren 1996b:108). The precision of this method cannot be evaluated as a scientific method, and in many ways it is similar to archaeological visual examination such as typology or visual fabric characterization. This may create problems when a case is published and needs to be scientifically evaluated. Moreover, the provenancing according to TSPA often has a very wide geographical range. This method is often better in excluding potential sources than positively identifying them (as is statistically possibly in the chemical methods). Another limitation often quoted is the analysis of fine-ware by TSPA (Porat 1989:25). The problem is that if the clay is very well levigated and/or well fired, no inclusions and/or matrix characteristics can be identified. (It should be noted though that in several cases fine-ware can be treated with TSPA [see, e.g. Montana et al. 2003].) Other drawbacks of TSPA are the requirement of a substantial experience of the researcher in the field, in contrast to the relatively simple use of statistical software in the chemical methods (Porat 1989:24); this may result in a long period of interpretation for large and complicated sets of samples.

The final stage of petrographic analysis is the designation of geographical provenance to the specific petrographic groups. This is done usually according to geological and geomorphological reasoning, and occasionally using reference pottery or raw clay material as well. In some cases there are indicative features in the slides that can provide clear provenance. An example would be basalt (occurring in northern Israel) or certain foraminifers of the Neogene marine clays of the northern coastal area (Buchbinder 1975; Master 2001:130; Master 2003:55; Goren and Halperin 2004:2558; Goren et al. 2004:134,143). In other cases, however, the situation is not as simple, and one has to use the accumulation of various geological considerations relating both to the mineralogy and frequency of the inclusions, and their appearance, reflecting weathering processes etc. 29

More pottery provenance studies these days tend to combine data from two or more methods, in most cases a chemical method combined with petrographic analysis

For classification of voids see Bullok et al. 1985:43-47.

136

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS Table 3.3: Comparison between chemical and mineralogical methods Aspect Sampling Preparation Instrumentation cost Running cost Time Interpretation Reference material Results Comparitibility of results from different studies Archaeological aspects Provenance resolution

Petrography 1 gr. or less; partly destructive (sample itself not destroyed). Simple Relatively inexpensive Inexpensive Relatively long Requires experience Geological and soil maps; reference pottery/clay may be needed Partly quantitative, quite subjective Results are somewhat subjective, though slides can be easily compared Provenance of pottery; firing temperature; technological aspects Can have strong redundancies

(e.g., Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992; Stoltman et al. 1992; Buxeda I Garrigos 2001; Montana et al. 2003). While chemical methods can still independently resolve provenance issues in many cases, if more complicated provenance problems are encountered mineralogical methods should be used as well (Mommsen 2004:270). This combination often helps when the results of one of the methods are inconclusive or reach an improbable archaeological result. Also when chemical outliers or loners are defined, these can be better examined by TSPA. Usually a larger scale petrographic study can give the initial results and focus further problems, which may be resolved by chemical analysis. Thence, a smaller sample is chemically analyzed, and the results combined. In the study of the Amarna letters the problem of the geological uniformity of the southern coastal plain and the northwestern Negev was noted. It is dominated by the loess type clay, which cannot be further characterized (defined as CTF=1, Goren et al. 2004:18-19,295). In this case chemical analysis by ICP, as the comparison with reference material were utilized. In a study by Montana et al. chemical outliers were identified as imported according to TSPA (2003:387). Another example is of a study of Mycenaean pottery from the Argolid and Achaia where two close chemical groups were more distinctly separated by XRD when the chemical difference was correlated with mineralogical one (Hein et al. 2002b) (for studies benefiting from combination of TSPA and chemical analysis see also Goldberg et al. 1986, Day et al. 1999; Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2001, 2003b).

Chemical analysis 80-200 mg. Sample sometimes destroyed May be complicated Expensive Expensive May be long Given appropriate software, quicker and simpler Reference pottery essential Fully quantitative, objective When calibration made, effective Provenance of pottery Lesser: technological aspects Higher resolution

of these questions; otherwise a group of samples will be suggested for chemical analysis. The chemical results will be integrated into the analysis and possibly resolve the remaining questions relating to provenance, and may initiate further typological and petrographic inquiry as well (see, Rands and Bargielski Weimer 1992:34). 6. Geological setting of the regions and the various sites in the study As a basis for the provenance study a short overview of the geological setting of the relevant regions is provided. It is presented for the more general eastern Mediterranean region, then for Israel, and in a more detailed manner for Philistia and the Philistine pentapolis city sites. The geological setting is crucial for the understanding and interpretation of the petrographic results, but also for the chemical ones, providing the framework for the possible compositional variability of a regional ceramic data set. The issue of soil types in southern Israel will also be discussed. The eastern Mediterranean region: The geology of the Aegean region was summarized by Whitbread (1995:355359). The geology of Greece and Italy is dictated by the northern extension of the African plate, which has moved up towards the Aegean and Eurasian Plate. The eastern Aegean Islands are similar to the western Anatolian coast. Along the southern coast, a variety of limestones and ophiolite complexes were created by the successive uplifts of ocean sediments onto the continental margins of the region. In the center of the southern coast, Paleozoic and Mesozoic limestones are found, while the eastern coast has more Miocene and Quaternary sediments. Cyprus shows two different environments: In the north, an uplift of deep water sediments (Miocene) created the range of hills that extends along the northern coast. In the center and southwards, the Trodos complex, a series of ultramafic-mafic igneous rocks, dominate (Master 2001:37; Goren et al. 2004:60-61). The southwestern

A comprehensive archaeometric study of pottery may start with the stratigraphical and typological aspects including a visual examination of the different pottery fabrics. In the next stage all visually defined fabrics should be studied by TSPA and redefined according to the results. In addition, the main typological groups should be analyzed with emphasis on technological and provenance questions raised (see recently Master 2003:52; Goren et al. 2004:9). The TSPA may resolve all 137

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY northern Transjordan. This is mixed with a variety of Eocene and Cenomanian limestone and chalk, along with a variety of Cambrian sandstone formations and dominate the northern Transjordan. Thus, igneous material appearing can be a general indication for the northern part of the country. The Gulf of Eilat and Aqaba shows some occurrence of metamorphic igneous rocks including schists and gneisses. The Negev is built mostly of windblown sand dunes and silt (loess). More distinct, but localized features, are the exposures of Jurassic sandstones and limestones in the craters.

edge of the island is again the site of some Miocene sedimentary rocks including chalks, limestones and marls (Bear 1963). Coastal Lebanon and Syria share many similarities with Cyprus (particularly its northeastern coast) and consist of the same range of mafic-ultramafic igneous rocks found in the Trodos complex on Cyprus. This complex dominates much of coastal Syria and northern coastal Lebanon (Beydoun 1977:329-331). In coastal Syria and northern coastal Lebanon, along with this complex, several areas have been subject to the same uplifts that created the Miocene ridges in northern Cyprus. From about Latakia north to around the Gulf of Iskendurun, there are Miocene-Recent sediments mixed with the earlier igneous material (Beydoun 1977: 334; Aghanabatani 1986). From Latakia southwards, the coast has a very different geological character. This more recent geological environment has a narrow coastline backed up by a high range of hills consisting mostly of Cretaceous (Cenomanian) limestones and marls and some Eocene limestone chalks and marls around the region of Tyre and Sidon. Some areas, however, (mostly around Tripoli) have the Neogene-Recent sediments found generally in the north (Beydoun 1977:322, 334; Master 2001:38; Goren and Halperin 2004:2558).

It is quite clear that the basic petrographic analysis when related to these geological units can usually give only broad geographic distinctions as south/north, coastal/hills etc. Moreover, the reference to soils derived from the geological formations, rather than the geological formation themselves is often made. That is as pottery is made of clay acquired from the soils (see below; Figs. 3.5-7). Philistia (Fig. 3.4): The region under investigation is relatively small, and most distances between sites are less than 20 km. The geology of this region illustrates several aspects and three of the four excavated Philistine cities were previously studied in some manner, usually in relation to petrographic analysis. This includes Tel Miqne-Ekron (Killebrew 1998a), Ashkelon (Master 2001, 2003) and a general description of the geology of Tel Ashdod (Bakler 1982) and sites related to the el-Amarna letters (Goren et al. 2004). The coastal strip of about 1015 km is relatively homogenous and covered with quaternary alluvial soil, sand dunes and kurkar ridges. These are defined as dark brown soils and have developed from fine aeolian (wind-blown) sediments, coastal sand, calcareous sandstone (kurkar) and medium to fine-textured alluvial deposits (Dan et al. 1972:33,42; 1976:10; Rosen 1986; Dan et al. 2002:315). The westernmost part, the sand dunes strip, is up to 7 km wide, with a height of the dunes ranging 25-55 m (Nir 1989:97-100). The kurkar (calcareous sandstone) ridges are more regular in southern Philistia, and they become smaller and more scattered to the north. This is mostly because the number and strength of rivers flowing to the sea rises as the precipitation rises to the north. The southern part of this coast, roughly southwards of Ashkelon, yields more loess type soil, which originates wind blown silt from Nilotic alluvial sediments coming from the southeastern Mediterranean (Fig. 3.7; Nachmias 1969; Dan et al. 1972:43; Melson and van Beek 1992; Goren 1996a:48; Goren et al. 2004:9,112; Master 2001:10).

Israel: The general geological partition of Israel goes along with its geographical parts: The coastal strip, the coastal plains, the foothills or Shephelah, the central hills, the Jordan valley, the Transjordan and the Negev. This geology have been effectively summarized by Master (2001:32-35; see also Bullard 1970:98-105; Neev and Ben-Avraham 1977:356-367, and references therein). The coast can be divided into a southern part (south of the Carmel ridge) containing silt originating from the Nile river (Nachmias 1969; Neev and Ben-Avraham 1977:361-362); the sand is mostly built of spherical quartz, due to the long transport and weathering of the soil. To the north of the Carmel the dominant component of the sand changes and reflects the weathering of limestone to the east together with broken shell. This is a relatively well-defined petrographic distinction. The foothills are made up of sedimentary calcite deposited from the Senonian to the Middle Eocene, including chalks, marls, clays and limestones (see Fig. 3.4). This rock type extends from the Negev to southern Lebanon (Sneh et al. 1998). The coastal plains or inner plains are in between the coastal strip and the foothills and reflect a somewhat intermediate geological environment. The Galilee and central hills (Judea and Samaria) are all made of variations of calcite from the Middle Cretaceous. Limestones, dolostones, and chalks fall within this rather broad category. These uplifted ridges extend from the extreme north to the extreme south of the country (Neev and Ben-Avraham 1977:363; Sneh, et al. 1998). To the east the Jordan Valley is covered by the river alluvium and the lisan formation. The Transjordan shows similar diversity as the western part of the country. Volcanic basalt flows occur in the western Carmel ridge, the northern Jordan Valley, the Golan and

The eastern part of Philistia is termed here as the inner plains or inner Philistia; this area borders the western part of the foothills or the Shephelah which lies to the east. Its western part is covered mostly by several meters of quaternary alluvial soil (Rosen 1986). The soil is similarly defined as dark brown or brown soil. The eastern part of this area, however, shows a change in the 138

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS

0

20km

Hamra

ASHDOD Sand dunes

EKRON

Alluvium GATH ASHKELON

Kurkar Eocene formations

Hamra

Figure 3.4. Geological map of Philistia (after Sneh et al. 1998).

139

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY geological formation exposing sedimentary carbonatic Eocene formations with Rendzina soils, chalk and limestone. However, as this is a geological border zone and several rivers (some adjacent to the Philistine sites) carry clays from the inner plains to the coastal area the situation may be more complicated and mixtures occur (for such a loess-Rendzina mixture see Goren et al. 2004:281-282). Nevertheless, generally, coastal clays should have more rounded quartz sand inclusions and usually less calcareous inclusions than the inner plains clays (Goren and Halperin 2004:2554). The southern part of inner Philistia (roughly from Tell es-Safi southwards) is closer to the area of loess soils (Figs. 3.6-7; Goren and Halperin 2004:2555), although the exact limit of loess soils in this area is not conclusive (compare, e.g., Ravikoitch 1970; Goren 1996a; Master 2001; Goren et al. 2004: Fig. 14:1). Thus, loess type soil (or brown/alluvial soil) carrying also well-rounded coarse sand-sized quartz particles (‘beach sand’), is more likely to represent a coastal soil. Another marker is that the coastal loess tends to have larger, more rounded fragments of the heavy minerals (as zircon, routile, tourmaline, hornblende etc. and also feldspars to some extent) (Master 2001:34,4244; Master 2003:54, Fig. 4; Goren et al. 2004:112-113; Goren and Halperin 2004:2555). In the inner plains and the Shephelah, the loess or wind-blown silt component of the soil tends to have more calcareous inclusions (as limestone, chalk and chert of the Eocene formations). Note that the northern Shephelah soils are reported to be less calcareous than the southern Shephelah soils (Goren and Halperin 2004:2554).

(Fig. 3.7; Goren et al. 2004:294). Thus, the site of Ashkelon has relatively low variability of clay sources in its vicinity (defined as CTF=1, Goren et al. 2004:8,18). Differences from Ashdod and the further northern coast may result from the fact that the loess soil does not extend north above a line extending from Gaza to Lachish. Nevertheless, there are more similarities than differences between Ashdod and Ashkelon as much of the local pottery can be made of coastal dark brown soil with coastal sand inclusions (Master 2003:54, Fig. 3; see discussion below in Part 4.3 as well). Little geomorphologic research has been conducted in the area of Gaza. Recently, several sections were made just south of Gaza, at al-Moghraqa (Munro 2004). The geological setting of Gaza is probably very similar to that of Ashkelon (Horowitz 1975:62-65; Goren et al. 2004:295-298), though it would have more access to northern Negev type loess soils. It should be noted that as no Philistine material was ever analyzed from Gaza, the possibility that unidentified production centers or unassigned compositional profiles of Philistine pottery can be attributed to this Philistine city site.

Ashkelon is located in an area of quaternary and aeolian sediments not very different from Ashdod (Dan et al. 1976; Goren et al. 2004:294). Master describes this setting in his work on the 7th century BCE pottery from Ashkelon (Master 2001:34-35). Ashkelon is closer to clay sources of coastal loess type clay, but the site has immediate access to brown and dark brown soils. Goren describes the distribution of loess clay as falling roughly into a triangle extending from Gaza-Lachish-Beersheba (Goren 1996a:54) or extending as far north as Ashkelon

The site of Tel Miqne-Ekron is located on the inner coastal plains near the western flanks of the Shephelah, along the southern bank of Nahal Timna. This area is partly covered by a thick calcareous crust (‘nari’), while the valleys and flatter area are covered with a thick relatively recent alluvium. The lack of a detailed geological map of the region creates certain difficulties in the description of the ancient geological setting (Killebrew 1998a:199). Nevertheless, the more general area and to the east includes outcrops of the Pleshet formation (calcareous pebbly sandstone) and Zor’a formation (chalk covered by nari crust) to the east (see Fig. 3.4; Buchbinder 1969:5-9). Killebrew did not identify any suitably marl clays in the vicinity of the site. However, a section in a modern quarry, 2 km west of the Tel, is described (Killebrew 1998a:200-201; Wieder and Gvitzman 1999). Here three layers were identified: a lower hamra layer, grumusol31 clay above it and sediments from the ancient wadi system cutting the two lower layers (wadi sediment). The soils were also analyzed by TSPA. The deep hamra (defined as husmas, see also Dan et al. 1972:32) predates the Acheulian site and thus is irrelevant to our study (Wieder and Gvitzman 1999:224-226, Fig. 4). Generally, hamra soil needs levigation if it is to be used for pottery making; it is of a non-calcareous matrix with well-sorted sand-sized quartz and a lesser quantity of chert. Both grumusol and ‘wadi sediment’ were similar under petrographic examination, and had a calcareous matrix rich with silt sized quartz. rendzina soil, comprising of broken and weathered chalk occurs in the vicinity of the site and can be naturally mixed with the wadi sediment. It should be noted that

30 Hamra is a red soil made of coastal sand (calcareous sandstone— aeolianite) and in the valleys also of alluvial sediments. It is typical of the central coastal plain of Israel with smaller patches further north (see Figs. 3.4, 3.5; Dan et al. 1972:44, 1976:7).

31 Grumusols are made of fine-textured alluvial or aeolian sediments and are typical of valley (wadi) terraces; they are related to brown soils, see below (see, Dan et al. 1972:33,34-35; 2002:310).

The geological setting of Tel Ashdod is relatively uniform. Bakler noted four types of sediments in the vicinity: kurkar, hamra30, more recent alluvium and dark brown soil, and sand dunes. Hamra constituting the main outcrop on the tell itself and probably was a significant raw material used for pottery making in various period (Bakler 1982:65-66; Goren et al. 2004:292-293, relating to Amarna letters). However, clay from the nearby alluvial bed of the Lachish River, or other grumusol type soils (see Fig. 3.5 and below), could also have been used as well, especially as hamra soil is not very well suited for pottery making on account of its coarseness (see also Part 4.3).

140

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS

Soils Terra Rossa Rendzina Lithosols Grumosols Brown soil Loess soil Hamra Sand

Ashdod Ashkelon

Miqne Safi

Figure 3.5. Soil map of Israel (after Shahar et al. 1995:23). 141

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY although the site of Tel Miqne is formally located in the coastal plain, brown and grumusol soils (typical of the coast) and calcareous and rendzina soils (typical of the Shephelah) are equally accessible to it.

Bayewitz 1999:336). More common in these areas are brown rendzinas, which are made of soft chalk and marl, with the nari lime crust (Dan et al. 1972:35,38, 1976:6). Although both contain similar major mineralogical components (quartz and various calcite form) they are distinct. Terra Rossa soils are the most common in the hilly areas of Israel, made of hard limestone and dolomite with inclusions of chalk, nari, marls and calcareous shales (see Figs. 3.5-3.6; e.g., Dan et al. 1972:35; Goren and Halperin 2004:2555-2556). The coastal plain loess or loess derived soil can often be identified by its calcareous matrix and the presence of a large number of wind blown fine sand sized particles along with various other fine sand particles including angular quartz, hornblende, clinopyroxene, olivine, and feldspar (Dan et al. 1976:5; Master 2001:34). This mixture of two components of the quartz component (aeolian and coastal sand quartz) gives the soil its bimodal texture.

Tell es-Safi/Gath is situated on the border between the Judean Shephelah (Judean foothills) and the southern coastal plain, formally within the Shephelah. The geological setting of Tell es-Safi/Gath and its vicinity includes the Pleshet formation (a kurkar conglomerate) present on the upper parts of the tell and other elements of conglomerate formations containing limestone, chalk and chert appearing as nodules (the Adulam, Zor’aMaresha, and Ahuzam formations) (Fig. 3.4; see Buchbinder 1969: Kfar Menahem sheet; Sneh et al. 1998: Sheet 2; Ackermann et al. 2004:313; Goren et al. 2004:280). This is an area where the coastal plain and the Shephelah meet; a transitional area where the aeolian– alluvial grumusol and brown/dark brown soils of the quaternary coastal plain and the brown rendzina and pale rendzina soils of the chalk-nari Shephelah meet and are mixed (Dan et al. 1972:33-35, 1976, 2002:308-312; Ackermann et al. 2004:313). The tell itself is located on a mound of chalk of an Eocene age (the name of the site means ‘the pure mound’ and is derived from this). However, dark brown soil and aeolian (loess) soil are found in the Ha’elah riverbed located immediately to the north of the tell. This mixed aeolian–alluvial soil has formed in sedimentary deposits of alluvium from the hills and sediments that were transported from the northern Negev (Ya’alon and Dan 1974; Dan and Bruins 1981). The variety of exposures of geological formations in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi/Gath could explain the occurrence of various soil types in the pottery thin sections and the difficulty in obtaining a viable chemical profile as a reference for this site (see also Master 2003:55; Goren et al. 2004:280 and discussion in Part 4.3, Figs. 4.20-4.21). Soils (Figs. 3.5-3.7) Soil maps (e.g., Ravikovitch 1970; Shahar et al. 1995) supplement the geological ones. Soils are the eroded product of rocks and geological formations, and actually the main source of clay, rather than the formations themselves. In Israel, the clearest distinction is between forest soils of the highlands (mostly Terra Rossa), and the dark brown, brown and loess soils of the coastal and southern regions (see Fig. 3.5; Ya’alon and Dan 1972; Dan and Bruins 1981; Dan et al. 2002). In the southern coastal plain dark brown and gray/brown are common; both originate from loess but are considered as distinct soil types (Dan et al. 1972:33,42; Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999:233-234; Dan et al. 2002:309-310 Tables 1-2).32 In the inner plains and the Shephelah pale and dark rendzina calcareous soils are also found (note that the pale rendzina is much more calcareous, Wieder and Adan-

Figure 3.6. Soil/clay types of southern Israel (Master 2003: Fig. 8). The subject of soil and clay types in the region of southern Israel in general and Philistia in particular has been addressed on several occasions. As noted, Goren usually views the area of southern Philistia as dominated by homogeneous loess clay (e.g., Goren et al. 2004; Fig. 3.7), while Master suggested a more subtle distinction between different alluvial and loess soils in both coastal and inner Philistia (Master 2003; Fig. 3.6). This issue will be discussed in more detail in Part 4.3. Porat created a division of several clay types in Israel, especially according to the silt component of the matrix (Porat 1989:26-29, Fig. 6.1).33 The percentages of clay minerals,

32

Wieder and Gvirtzman defined three stratigraphic layers in the southern coastal plain of Israel (1999:236): Grumusolic dark brown soil, under it quartzic brown soil and below buried hamra or husmas soil. It seems probable that only the upper two layers could have been exposed during the Iron Age (see also Dan et al. 2002: Figs. 14-15).

33 Note that although the technical definition of silt includes particles under 62 microns, aeolian dust in larger arid areas (as in southern Israel)

142

PART 3. ARCHAEOMETRIC METHODS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVENANCE STUDIES OF CERAMICS than the soils defined by pedology. Thus, all the characteristics of the inclusions should also be taken into account, combining soil maps with geological maps and comparisons to reference material.

carbonates, microfuana, dolomite and quartz are compared on ternary diagrams (Porat 1989:26-29, Figs. 6.2-3); other components considered are opaque ferrous particles (metal oxide or opaque minerals), shale fragments (or argillaceous rock fragments-ARF, after Whitbread 1986), heavy minerals and other components. The classes developed create six local clay sources: 1. Marly source (rich with carbonate and foraminifers), these include the Taqiye and other marls; 2. Aeolian source, derived of loess soil (abundant well sorted quartz and some heavy minerals); 3. Fluvial source, originating from wadi beds (rich with silty quartz and weathered rocks; land snails appear); 4. Shale source, mostly from Lower Cretaceous formations (rich with clay minerals and ARF). 5. Dolomitic source, which can be easily identified by the rhomboid dolomite shapes (this is common in the Negev, Judean mountains—the Motza formation; also in the Carmel and Galilee); 6. Soil sources, which can be traced to the specific soil types as Terra Rossa or rendzina. The use of soil sources is common especially as no good clay formations outcrops are accessible in most cases (exceptions are the Motza Clay Formation and Lower Cretaceous, Goren 1996b:109).

Figure 3.7. Limits of loess soil in southern Israel (Goren et al. 2004: Fig. 14:1). It should be noted that this partition, although useful, does not often imply a geographic provenance of the clay. As these definitions characterize the type of clay deposit and its creation, there is no clear one-to-one relation between the clay description and the geological formation. Furthermore, both natural and human factors result in that the clays used by the potters are different may be in the range of 30-100 microns (Wieder and Adan-Bayewitz 1999:338; Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999:223).

143

Part 4 The Archaeometric Results and their Interpretation 1. Sampling Strategy (Fig. 4.1)

Samples according to ware groups (total 325) Red slipped Other Philistine 5% 3%

The sampling strategy of this study was dictated by several guidelines. First, there was a certain limit to the number of samples that could be analyzed. The chemical analysis included a limited first batch of 50 vessels during 2002, and then a second batch of 175 vessels analyzed during 2003.1 The number of samples to be analyzed by petrography was more flexible, but was nevertheless limited to about 300 samples. In this framework a major emphasis was given to several groups of pottery with the following ranking in priority (see also Part 1.9b):

Non-decorated 25%

Iron I Philistine 35%

1 LPDW 32%

a. ‘Late Philistine Decorated Ware’ pottery from all major known assemblages, representing as many types as possible; higher priority was given to this group as is it was hardly studied in the past. b. Monochrome and Bichrome Philistine pottery from all four excavated Philistines sites representing as many form types and all visual fabric types. c. Reference material from the Philistine cities with emphasis on Tell es-Safi/Gath (as this is new material not analyzed before). d. Pottery from Iron Age kiln sites in Philistia (especially Kfar Menahem), to complement the other reference material. e. Analysis of material that could be connected to previous provenancing studies (preferably published): Philistine Monochrome and Iron II pottery from Ashdod, and Philistine Monochrome pottery from Miqne. This material could also be used as a control group. f. Philistine pottery and reference material from other regional sites in Philistia and its vicinity. g. Philistine pottery from sites outside Philistia. Other general guidelines were sampling vessels coming from well-stratified contexts, preferably published, and in which the type of the vessel could be fully identified.

Sampling according to sites (total 325) Other sites 9%

Ashdod 18% Ashkelon 7%

Philistia and vicinity 31%

Safi 17% Miqne 18%

Eventually 225 vessels were analyzed chemically and 310 analyzed by TSPA (nearly all of the 2252 plus an additional 100 samples; see Fig. 4.1:3); altogether 325 samples were analyzed. About two thirds of the sample includes vessels from the four Philistine cities (see Figs. 4.1:2, 4.2), nearly 30% were reference material and about 65% are of the Philistine decorated wares (see Fig. 4.1:1; note that some of the decorated ware vessels were found in kilns and thus can be considered as reference as well). Several clay samples were analyzed as well (Fig. 4.3). The discussion describes the chemical results with the initial major groups denoted by Roman numbers, final sub groups denoted by Arabic numbers and petrographic results, with the groups denoted by letters. Thence the

2

3

Figure 4.1. Classification of samples analyzed by archaeometric methods. results are discussed according to the sites sampled and the different typological groups. An attempt was made to combine the different modes and viewpoints of analysis at all times.

1

This was dictated by the allocation of the ICP facility. Several of the vessels were either intact museum pieces or too small enabling only a chemical sampling and not a thin sectioning. 2

144

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.2. Map of Israel with sites that were sampled.

CS1-2 Haela River

CS3-4 CS5

Ashdod (city)

Tell es-Safi

CS7

Lachish river Tel Ashdod

Figure 4.3. Location of clay samples near Tell es-Safi (CS1-6, left) and near Tel Ashdod (CS7, right).

145

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY components. However, for visual graphic display (scatter plots), from which the grouping was deduced, only the first two components (sometimes the third too) were used, usually accounting for 60-70% of the variance.

2. The chemical groups Altogether 225 vessels have been analyzed chemically by ICP-AES and ICP-MS. The aim was to group the samples chemically by MVSA in the first stage and in the second stage consider their provenance according to the grouping of the reference pottery. If possible, provenancing could also be made by comparison to published and unpublished previously analyzed material. For the raw elemental composition of all the samples with the respective experimental errors see Appendix D.

Chemical subgroups (total 225) Group 7 6% Group 6 6% Group 4B 9% Group 4A 10% Group 5 9%

other 8% Group 1 12%

Group 2 26%

Group 3 14%

Figure 4.4. Classification of samples according to chemical subgroups. From the initial stage, when the elemental data was inspected for its precision and accuracy (according to the rock standards), it was clear that most of the samples have a relatively similar composition. Except for apparent outliers and a group characterized by high calcium values, all other samples were of close composition with various variability in various elements. Bivariate plots of ratios of two elements show this similarity to be even stronger (possibly canceling a simple dilution factor in the elemental ratios) (Fig. 4.5). Several elements, however, showed more variability, as Ta, Sm and Hf (see below, Fig. 4.6-4.7).

Figure 4.5. Bivariate elemental ratios plot according to subgroups (Ti/Dy-Ce/Dy).

In the next stage MVSA was carried on the data set. According to various considerations the elemental data was reduced to the 25 elements selected (see Part 3.4 for discussion), and all means values were log-transformed. In the first stage all 225 samples were run together in the MVSA methods. Hierarchical Cluster analysis was preformed with Ward’s Method (SPSS11, JMP-IN5 and Excel programs were used) and squared Euclidean distance.3 In a second run clear outliers obtained by the first clustering were excluded so they will not obscure the fine grouping. Principal component analysis was performed on the same data set extracting the first six

The initial MVSA showed a major group (Group I) of about 164 samples in one main cluster sub divided into several sub-clusters; this group was clustered together also according to the PCA graph of two main components (Fig. 4.8; see also 95% confidence ellipses on right). Another group of 43 samples with high calcium was distinctly different than the main group (Group II), though it had a larger inner variability. Seventeen samples were of different composition (Group III, see Table 4.1), of these at least fifteen can be considered chemical outliers or loners (though some are relatively close to each other). When the outliers and loners were excluded from the analysis in order to achieve better resolution in the grouping the general picture did not

3 Ward’s clustering method was used as it tends to create more compositionally compact clusters; the Euclidean distance is the default distance function used here, see below for usage other distance functions.

146

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION hange considerably. Within the major group another group of 26 samples had a somewhat different composition (sub-groups 6-7), located on the margin of the main group; these included a large portion of samples from southern sites (as Beer Sheva) and otherwise isolated samples from various sites. The main Group I included pottery from all Philistine city sites and other sites in Philistia and vessels of all wares and Iron Age periods; it included most of the reference material from Philistia. The high calcium group (Group II) included almost all fine Philistine Monochrome pottery and several other samples from Miqne (including those from the kiln area) and other sites. Most of the loners came from northern sites. Group I was subdivided according to CA and PCA into four subgroups, which were relatively close in their compositions (Groups 1, 2, 3 and 5; Figs. 4.10, 4.11). Some of the subgroups can be more clearly distinct by PCA, as Groups 1 and 2, while in other cases there are only differences in specific elements (Figs. 4.7; see below).

these sites produced all their pottery throughout most of the Iron Age in the same workshop (especially as we have archaeological records for at least two workshops, at Ashdod and at Tel Miqne). Option 2 cannot be ruled out considering the geological homogeneity of Philistia, aided by the fact that several rivers carry clay from inland to the coast (see Part 3.6). It is, however, a rather “pessimistic” conclusion, impeding any further research. An attempt to define chemical fingerprinting of the different sub-regions of Philistia seemed worth while. Possibility 3, relating to the precision of the analytical method was considered as well but it does not seem likely as the precision of all elements used for grouping was 56% or lower, which is below the common variance within most chemical profiles of pottery. Therefore, Option 4 was the working hypothesis, and the grouping was made attempted according to the sub-groups seen in the MVSA, using the TSPA results as a control. As noted above, four sub-groups of Major Group I were suggested: Groups 1, 2, 3 and 5, while Groups 6 and 7 are the ‘marginal groups’ of the Major Group I and Groups 4A and 4B were subdivisions of the high calcium Major Group II (see Figs. 4.7 for bivariate results, 4.9 for PCA and 4.11 for a cluster analysis dendogram).

The first conclusion was, therefore, that both the large Major Group I and the high calcium Group II were made in the region of Philistia. They represented, however, different types of clay. It was clear that Group II did not represent a diluted variant of Group I on account of two reasons: there was no dilution factor between the groups and TSPA showed the clays to be distinct (see below). This result, provenancing most Philistine pottery to Philistia, was naturally the general working hypothesis as well, and could be considered as somewhat trivial. The question was in what way to continue, especially regarding the profile obtained for the large Group I.

Several procedures were undertaken to try and improve or refine the grouping; the main problem to be dealt with was the possible dilution effect. Apparently the high calcium group was heavily calcite diluted, but silica and other dilutions were also possible, maybe obscuring some inner fine grouping. Two subgroups were identified by both CA and PCA (Groups 4A and 4B, see below). One option was to use ratios, eliminating any constant dilution factor, instead of elemental concentration on the entire data set: the denominator was chosen as the element with the least variance in the array (Dy). This produced practically the same results as the initial analysis (Fig. 4.12). It should also be noted that the use of such normalized concentrations (such as used often in archaeometric studies, e.g. Hein et al. 1999, where Sc is used as the denominator) may be problematic if very fine grouping is sought, as the variability of the denominator element cannot be neglected in this case. Another procedure attempted was to compensate for calcium dilution in the compositional values of the samples according to their calcium contents, possibly reducing the spread of the diluted samples. This is somewhat problematic, as we do not know what calcite dilution the Ca percentage in volume represents; a certain unknown amount of the calcite had definitely disintegrated during firing and is not represented by the concentration in the sherd (a maximal 2.5 factor was used4). The procedure

The compositional homogeneity of the pottery from the main Group I could be interpreted in several ways: 1. All of this pottery was produced in a single production center. 2. The group may represent several regional production centers but the composition of the clay used in the different centers is similar to the degree of the source compositional variability (resulting in a single chemical profile). 3. The group represents several production centers with closely related, but different, clay profiles; the analytical method, however, is not sensitive enough to distinguish between them. 4. There are different clay profiles within the main group, though small, but they are partly obscured by various causes as dilution effects, experimental errors of some of the elements or other reasons. Thus, refinement of the grouping procedure is needed (as suggested by the sub-grouping noted above), giving importance to minor differences in compositions as well. All of these possibilities should be considered, taking into account also archaeological considerations and results of the TSPA. Option 1 seems highly unlikely from archaeological reasons: the main group includes pottery from several different major sites including typological groups of decorated and undecorated pottery and a time span of about 400-500 years. It is not reasonable that all

4 Calcite, CaCO3, has a mass weight of 100 while Ca has 40; thus, if all Ca in the sample represents lost calcite in volume it should be multiplied by 2.5 to get the weight loss (see, Mommsen et al. 1984:106; Gunneweg et al. 1986:9). However, as non diluted clay contains calcium as well the dilution factor was calculated by subtracted the average Ca contents of the non-calcite chemical groups (ACa ) from the Ca content of the sample. Therefore, the transformation performed was: X*= X • {100 + (XCa-ACa) •2.5}/100. As noted there is a high degree of uncertainty in this procedure (Sharon 1989:48).

147

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.1: Means and standard deviations of Major Groups I-III Element (ppm) Al(%) Fe(%) Ca(%) Mg(%) Ti(%) K(%) Na(%) Co Cr Mn Ni* Sr V La Ce Pr Nd Eu Sm Tb Gd Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Y Hf Ta

Group I Mean (164) SD 5.59 4.04 5.76 1.20 0.62 1.26 0.62 19.09 93.67 754 73.2 302.2 102.56 29.00 60.41 7.05 27.78 1.36 5.78 0.72 4.88 4.11 0.78 2.15 0.33 1.98 0.29 21.94 3.08 1.30

CV% 0.51 0.47 2.25 0.21 0.07 0.25 0.12 2.67 15.70 124 23.2 65.0 18.21 3.13 6.30 0.75 2.88 0.15 0.61 0.08 0.53 0.46 0.10 0.26 0.05 0.23 0.04 3.32 0.81 0.36

9.2 11.6 39.1 17.6 10.8 20.1 19.7 14.0 16.8 16.5 31.7 21.5 17.8 10.8 10.4 10.6 10.4 10.6 10.6 11.8 10.9 11.3 12.4 12.2 15.2 11.8 12.8 15.1 26.4 27.8

Group II Mean (43) 3.72 2.56 15.41 0.91 0.39 1.34 0.40 10.85 71.57 454 46.5 422.7 66.79 22.68 42.62 5.19 20.28 1.05 4.31 0.54 3.70 3.22 0.60 1.69 0.26 1.60 0.23 20.15 1.96 0.73

SD

CV% 1.17 1.11 6.13 1.42 0.87 1.61 1.62 5.01 21.19 202 25.6 98.3 22.59 5.20 12.40 1.37 5.33 0.83 1.15 0.95 1.03 0.96 0.99 0.94 1.26 0.90 1.06 3.75 2.19 2.29

31.6 43.5 39.8 156.6 223.6 120.7 406.9 46.2 29.6 44.4 55.0 23.3 33.8 22.9 29.1 26.3 26.3 78.7 26.8 174.5 28.0 29.8 166.3 55.5 480.3 56.3 463.8 18.6 112.0 312.9

Group III Mean (11)

SD 4.97 3.15 13.79 0.76 0.43 1.42 0.34 14.60 101.52 584 56.7 427.7 86.42 31.06 56.54 7.24 27.74 1.30 5.58 0.73 4.95 4.32 0.86 2.39 0.40 2.26 0.33 27.96 2.13 1.02

CV% 0.96 0.57 4.03 0.21 0.09 0.29 0.16 3.23 17.25 224 13.1 160.1 10.13 3.77 10.18 0.97 3.41 0.12 0.57 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.12 0.39 0.07 0.36 0.06 4.37 0.41 0.36

19.2 18.2 29.3 27.7 21.4 20.1 45.8 22.1 17.0 38.3 23.2 37.4 11.7 12.1 18.0 13.4 12.3 9.2 10.3 10.1 10.4 11.7 14.2 16.4 17.4 15.7 16.9 15.6 19.1 35.4

SD=standard deviation; CV=percentage of SD from the mean. *Because of certain contamination from the drilling apparatus, certain samples had extremely high values of Ni; in those cases these values were substituted for the mean Ni value of the group.

did not, however, result in any significant improvement of the sub-grouping (see Fig. 4.13). A more general way of eliminating dilution effects is using ‘log means subtracted values’ (Sharon 1989:42-54, see description in Part 3.4). This treatment resulted in creating more clusters in the cluster analysis, usually, representing breakup of original clusters with some contribution from neighboring sub-clusters (see cluster analysis dendogram in Fig. 4.11); nevertheless, no clear new groups were identified by the PCA (Fig. 4.15). This seemed to imply as well that the initial sub-grouping was probably not largely dilution-related, and by subtracting the dilution component the picture becomes even more obscure.

Fig. 4.19 showing correlation between the rare earth elements). It was not apparent that the latter grouping should be preferred as non-variable elements should not obscure a viable grouping if it exists. Grouping according elements acquired by ICP-AES alone was attempted as well (Fig. 4.14), in order to examine if AES alone is sufficient for intra-regional provenancing of pottery. The results show that the general groups obtained similar (see PCA graph, Fig. 4.14), though some of the rare earth elements were more indicative for the compositional differences between some of the sub-groups (see below). In all the above procedures the experimental errors were not taken into account. Therefore an additional analysis was made regarding the distance between points as a ratio of the composition difference in term of multiples of standard deviation of the elemental value. This may imply that samples, which differ in the range of the error are the same (for the formula, also termed “simplified

In another procedure a choice of twelve most variable elements for grouping instead of 25 resulted in some changes of specific grouping of samples, though the bulk of the samples were similarly grouped (see also loadings of different elements on three principal components in 148

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION (BRF) (Fig. 4.16).5 In this method an individual dilution factor is given to each sample (according to the group it is initially grouped with); thence, these factors are applied of the raw elemental data, producing a new, dilution normalized data set (according to f = 1/mΣi=1mci/xi,, see Part 3.4 or discussion; see Table 4.3). It will be shown that this procedure was especially useful for better defining the high calcium group, which became more compact and possibly larger (uniting sub-groups 4A and 4B; Fig. 4.17). In this group the high variance of calcite, resulting in an individual dilution factor for each sample, was apparent beforehand. Otherwise however, these results, though creating a somewhat alternative grouping for some of the samples, were inspected with higher caution. This is because the use of individual dilution factors (and evident group-related dilution factors) and applying these on the raw data can, in some cases, obscure minor differences between chemical profiles (which can be significant although they are constant and dilution related), or possibly create ‘artificial groups’ (as these minor differences are discarded). Note though, that this treatment results in clearer and more compact compositional groups (see Fig. 4.16). All the same, results of this grouping, henceforth, denoted as “BRF grouping” will be mentioned throughout the text.

Figure 4.6. Bivariate plot of Ta vs. Sm of subgroups 1 and 2.

Multi-dimensional scaling (which gives similar results to those of cluster analysis) was also used with Mahalonibis distance and with experimental errors included. The results (Fig. 4.18) showed that several of the groups more strongly overlapped (multi-dimensional scaling was used instead of cluster analysis because of software limitations). It should be noted that if a 90% confidence level ellipses are drawn around the sub-clusters (Fig. 4.10; in the Euclidean distance solution), one can see there is strong overlap between the groups, especially concerning Groups 3 and 5. This manifests again that the sub-grouping is not distinctive enough, cannot be considered as a final statistical solution by itself and should be aided by other reasoning. Discriminant analysis, using the sub-groups as a separation variable, showed that the sub-groups, especially 1, 2 and 4A-B, are still quite distinct (see Fig. 4.22). Note also the Major Groups I and II are reasonably distinguished if 95% confidence ellipses are used (Fig. 4.8: right).

2

Ta

1.5

1

0.5

0 3

4

5

6

7

8

Sm

In conclusion, as most of the various data treatments did not substantially improve the grouping, it was decided to retain the original cluster analysis Euclidean distance subgrouping for most samples, examining it and revising it in light of the PCA and TSPA. The compositional differences between the sub-groups are usually not large. The total variance in Major Group I is 10-15% for most elements (see Tables 4.1-3). Yet, the distinct groups usually enhanced this by several % for selective elements

Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.950 chem. group==1 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.950 chem. group==2

Figure 4.7. Bivariate plot of Ta vs. Sm of subgroups 1 and 2 with 95% confidence ellipses. Mahalanobis distance” see Part 3.4). This may be of significance as different elements have somewhat different relative errors. A more controlled system of considering dilutions and experimental errors, can be achieved by using ‘best-relative-fit’ and was conducted

5 This analysis was undertaken by H. Mommsen using a minimal 3% error on all elements I wish to thank Prof. Hans Mommsen for his important assistance in this matter.

149

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

150

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.3: Means and standard deviations of chemical subgroups 4A, 4B, and combined group 4 (with dilution factors according to best-relative-fit) Group 4A Element (ppm) Al(%) Fe(%) Ca(%) Mg(%) Ti(%) K(%) Na(%) Co Cr Mn Ni* Sr V La Ce Pr Nd Eu Sm Tb Gd Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Y Nb Ba Hf Ta

Group 4B

Mean (23)

SD

CV%

Mean (20)

SD

CV%

"Group 4" (with dilution factors applied) CV% Mean (52)

4.12 2.86 13.09 1.05 0.43 1.33 0.45 12.32 76.17 507 50.03 412.2 70.6 24.4 46.4 5.55 21.69 1.13 4.58 0.58 3.97 3.46 0.63 1.80 0.27 1.71 0.24 21.50 13.07 593 2.21 0.84

0.25 0.20 3.86 0.20 0.04 0.30 0.09 1.54 5.95 68 21.02 82.6 8.3 1.8 3.5 0.38 1.32 0.10 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.20 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.02 1.74 1.22 467 0.19 0.11

6.2 7.0 29.5 18.9 9.9 22.2 20.1 12.5 7.8 13.4 42.0 20.0 11.8 7.5 7.5 6.8 6.1 9.01 6.87 6.79 4.87 5.75 7.49 6.98 10.00 7.04 7.99 8.10 9.4 78.8 8.82 13.66

3.33 2.25 18.08 0.76 0.34 1.37 0.35 9.30 67.93 401 42.89 434.8 63.9 21.2 39.2 4.89 19.10 0.94 3.97 0.51 3.47 3.01 0.57 1.61 0.26 1.52 0.22 19.12 10.37 655 1.70 0.63

0.33 0.21 5.04 0.16 0.05 0.28 0.09 2.02 9.56 94 21.60 119.8 9.4 1.7 2.9 0.34 1.44 0.09 0.37 0.05 0.31 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.14 0.02 2.30 2.00 701 0.26 0.14

10.0 9.3 27.9 21.6 14.4 20.5 24.7 21.7 14.1 23.5 50.4 27.6 14.7 8.2 7.5 6.9 7.5 9.55 9.38 9.14 8.81 8.54 9.28 9.43 10.41 9.51 10.38 12.04 19.3 107.0 15.40 21.99

2.2 2.0 10.4 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 12.6 78.4 526.0 na 411.0 73.7 25.2 47.6 5.8 22.7 1.13 4.69 0.60 4.12 3.58 0.67 1.92 0.29 1.79 0.26 22.50 na 500.0 2.20 0.83

(see below).6 For example, the rare earth elements variance within most groups decreases from 10-13% in Major Group I to 4-8% in Sub Groups 1-3 and 5. Major elements as Fe, Al and Ti similarly decrease in variance while rare earth as Co, Cr, V decrease from 15-20% to 10-15%. Several elements are not good indicators in this sub grouping such as K, Na and Mg. Na is sometimes reported to be affected by the addition of salt by the potters. Ta, Sm and Hf vary more and seem to be good indicators for sub-grouping, especially between Groups 1 and 2 (see Fig. 4.7).

6.0 6.7 42.0 23.0 12.0 25.0 22.0 15.0 9.8 16.0 na 32.0 8.9 5.8 5.6 4.2 4.1 5.90 4.70 3.75 3.30 3.30 4.20 4.90 8.20 4.60 6.40 6.80 na 44.0 16.00 20.00

Group 1: This group includes 27 samples, which cluster together.7 The group is relatively chemically compact with 21 elements (including Sc and Th not measured in other groups) varying under 10% and six elements under 20% (mostly under 15%).8 The group’s average has a moderate concentration of Ca (5.17 with a 43% spread) and relatively high Hf (4.64 ppm) and Ta (see Fig. 4.7). From a petrographic perspective this group is somewhat non-homogeneous and includes samples from various 7

According to BRF grouping this group includes 22-26 samples. Sample KM1 had an exceptionally high Na value (1.62%; also in relation to the complete array of samples). It was therefore considered as a contamination (probably due to post depositional effects, common in Kfar Menahem pottery [?]) and the value was substituted with the mean Na value of the group (0.64%). Note that Group 1 is equivalent to Groups 1 and 3 in Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004 (these two subgroups are dilution related), or Group 1 in Ben-Shlomo in press b. 8

6

In another more comprehensive study of INAA of pottery from Bronze Age sites in Greece, based on about 2000 samples relatively low spreads in elements also were reported. This illustrated the need for finer provenancing, in which still only about 40% of this group could be well grouped in known production centers (Hein et al. 1999).

151

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

groups although out of 24 samples analyzed twenty were identified as petrographic groups typical of the Shephelah and inner plains (ten are of Petrographic Fabric A2, six of Fabric A3, three Group E, two are of Group B; one-D1). Only one sample had a clearly coastal petrographic group (Sample SF19-A1). This profile seems to represent clay sources from the inner plains, most probably from the site of Tell es-Safi/Gath or its vicinity; this is according to the reference material from the site. The group includes most

of Tell es-Safi reference group of plain common pottery (nine samples), most of the LPDW from Safi (fifteen samples) and three samples from Kfar Menahem kilns. Group 2: This group includes 59 samples, which cluster together.9 The group is not as compact chemically as Group 1, though still consistently compact. Eighteen 9 According to BRF grouping 57 of these samples were in three closely related subgroups.

152

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.8. PCA scatter plot (two principal components) with Major Groups I-III (left) and 95% confidence ellipses of Major Groups I and II (right).

Figure 4.9. PCA scatter plot (two principal components) with Chemical Subgroups 1-7.

153

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

factor 2

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

factor 1 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.900 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.900 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.900 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.900 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.900 Bivariate Normal Ellipse P=0.900

subgroup=="1 subgroup=="2 subgroup=="3 subgroup=="4A subgroup=="4B subgroup=="5

Figure 4.10. Two principal components with 90% confidence ellipses of subgroups 1-5. silty soils. However in the case of six samples (AS30— Fig. 4.33:4, KM13, KoM 5, MQ7, MQ16 and TS1) there is a contradiction between the chemical and petrographic results, the latter point to a inner plains origin (four are of Fabric A2, one A3 and one C1).

elements vary under 10%, ten under 20% and only two over 20%. The Ca values are quite similar to Group 1 (5.88% with 41% spread), the Al and Fe (as most other elements) are slightly lower at 5.4% and 3.88% respectively; although all the elements are in a lower concentration of 5-15% compared to Group 1, this is not due to a constant dilution factor. Moreover, Hf is considerably lower (2.86 ppm) as is Ta, while Co and Y are practically identical in the two groups. In a bivarite plot of Sm against Ta, showing Groups 1 and 2 the distinction between the can be seen clearly (Fig. 4.7).10 Chemical Group 2 is relatively homogenous considering the petrographic groups represented. Thirty-three samples belong to Petrographic Groups A1 and A1c, which represent dark brown soil, mostly with an optically inactive matrix (possibly dark brown soil with hamra), with bimodal quartz inclusions—typical of the coastal Philistia (see description below). Another eight samples are of Petrographic Group B1 (one of B3) of loess type soil occurring in the more southern coast. Other petrographic groups represented are five samples of Group D1-D3 and six samples of Group E1-E2, both non-

Group 2 includes 33 samples from the coastal sites (23 Ashdod, seven Ashkelon, two Ruqueish, one Yad Mordechai) and 27 samples from the inner plains and the Shephelah (seven Miqne, six Kfar Menahem, five Safi, three el-Qom, two Nagila; Beth Shemesh, Hamid, Gezer and Sippor—one each). This profile most probably represents a clay profile of coastal Philistia, both in the Iron I and Iron II Ages. This is because the group includes all the samples from the kilns at Ashdod.11 Samples from the inner plains and Shephelah sites are mostly of LPDW and of gray Monochrome ware. An exception to this are the samples from Kfar Menahem, Nagila and Clay Sample 2. Although both chemical analysis and petrography indicate a coastal origin, a more exact location cannot be pointed out conclusively, and this profile may in theory belong to vessels produced in both Ashdod and Ashkelon or their vicinity. However, there is a clear fit between the Ashdod reference material and Group 2, implying an Ashdod origin, while there is no such positive evidence for an Ashkelon provenance,

10

Sample SF40 (a Black on Red juglet) was initially grouped with Group 2 while the Ta and Sm values relate it to Group 1; its elemental values are very marginal in relation of these groups, including low Ca and nine elements lying way more than two sigma distance from the average of the group (Al, Fe, Na, Co, Ce, Sm, Y, Hf, Ta). Thus, it was excluded from the group and considered a loner. The thin section of this sample revealed a very fine fabric, not fitting any of the main groups as well. Sample KM2 was also clustered initially with this group but in the final grouping was removed due to a exceptional high Al value (11.09%) and higher values in most other elements (as K, 2.48%, Cr, 117 ppm and V, 183 ppm); it was eventually considered as a loner.

11

In an earlier report of initial 50 samples analyzed chemically it was stated that two samples from kilns in Area D of Ashdod comprise a separate sub-group (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004; Ben-Shlomo in press b), but according to the larger data set grouping these two samples collapse into Group 2.

154

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Group 2 Group 1

Group 5

Group 3

Figure 4.11. Dendogram showing sub-division of Major Chemical Group I according to cluster analysis (Euclidean distance; Ward’s method). 155

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY and therefore, tentatively, an Ashdod provenance for this group is preferred. An attempt was made to compare the current ICP results to earlier INAA results when possible. Eight vessels from Ashdod previously analyzed by INAA were analyzed by ICP; all belong to Chemical Sub-Group 2. These vessels were mostly assigned to Group 1a of Perlman and Asaro (1982) also indicating an Ashdod or coastal provenance.12 The fact that all samples previously provenanced by INAA to Ashdod belong to Chemical Group 2 further strengthens its identification with a production center at Ashdod. The elemental results (obtained with the permission and assistance of Prof. Frank Asaro) can be seen in Appendix B and elemental comparisons are made there. Group 3: This group includes 32 samples of similar composition clustering relatively closely to Group 1 (see overlap in PCA, as in Fig. 4.9; in the CA dendogram [Fig. 4.11] some of these samples are seen to cluster with Groups 1 and 2).13 The chemical profile is relatively compact with eighteen elements varying less than 10%, four elements varying 10-10.5%, three, 10-20% and two (K and Na) with a higher spread of 20-25%. Generally, the average values of most elements in Group 3 is either slightly higher than in Group 1 or lie in between the values of Group 1 and Group 2. However, Ti, Co, Cr, Mn and Y are considerably higher than in Groups 1 and 2, while V and Hf are on the low side, similar to that of Group 2. The Ca value is slightly higher at 5.93%.14 As Chemical Group 3 is in a such an intermediate position it is not surprising that it represents the most varying array of petrographic groups. Moreover, thirteen of 30 samples analyzed by TSPA were inconclusive in their identification ranging from dark brown (Groups A1/A2A3) to more silty, possibly loess soils (Group B; and also E2). Thus, this chemical group includes samples from Petrographic Groups A2, A3, D1, D3, B1 and E1. In addition three samples belonging to the more distinct Petrographic Group A1, with coastal attributes, may pose a contradiction between the chemical and petrographic results.

Figure 4.12. PCA scatter plot showing Chemical Groups 1-7 using ratio values (X/Dy).

Although the chemical and petrographic results are inconclusive it seems probable that this profile represents one of inner plains clay, somewhat different than the Safi Group 1 clay; this is in accordance with the archaeological characteristics of the samples. 12 Note though that according to INAA (Asaro et al. 1971:172), the Ashdod profile is characterized by a high Hf content, while here the Hf is lower than other groups. 13 According to BRF grouping many of the samples from this group are grouped with other samples belonging here to Groups 2 , 4 and 5. 14 In the analysis of the first 50 samples (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004, BenShlomo in press b) a similar intermediate Group 3 was found to be a dilution of Group 1 (probably a silica dilution), now grouped together. However, Chemical Group 3 here, does not show a constant dilution factor with Group 1, and, therefore the group was left intact as a chemical profile, close to the Group 1 profile (a probable inner plains provenance) but not identical to it.

Figure 4.13. PCA scatter plot showing Chemical Groups 1-7 using ‘corrected Ca factor’ values. 156

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION represents mostly the Philistine Monochrome ware (fourteen altogether), especially the fine sub ware (ten examples; most from Miqne but several from Ashdod) and some reddish fabric examples from Miqne. Also included are two Philistine Bichrome samples from Qasile and Beth Shemesh, two Philistine red-slipped vessels from Miqne, three LPDW from Batash and plain vessels from Nagila and Miqne. All in all, both the archaeological data and the petrographic one point to an inner plains provenance of this profile. According to the petrographic attributes and archaeological considerations the origin of the clay is more likely to be in the Tel Miqne area (see below).

Nevertheless, it is difficult to identify a more exact provenance. Of the 32 samples, eighteen are from Shephelah and inner plains sites (seven Safi, three Kfar Menahem, three Hamid, two Batash, two Miqne, one Gezer), ten from coastal sites (four Ruqueish, three Ashdod, three Ashkelon) and four from northern Negev sites (three Beer Sheba, one Masos). The samples represent both Iron I Philistine and Iron II LPDW wares as well as plain wares from Safi and Kfar Menahem. It seems more likely then that the group represents another profile from the Safi area, but a larger sample is needed to fully justify this assumption. Moreover, this profile is more typical of Philistine Bichrome vessels from Safi: thus, Group 1 may be the Iron II variant of the clay, while Group 3 represents a slightly different clay used during the Iron I at Tell es-Safi. The fact that several vessels from the northern Negev are included (including plain ones from Beer Sheba) may indicate that the clay used in the southern inner plains and Shephelah (possibly Shephelah type loess?) was relatively similar in its composition to clay from the northern Negev as result of this geologically borderline region between dark brown and loess soils. This area is known for its homogeneous geology (Goren et al. 2004:18, see above, Part 3.6).

Group 4B: Chemical group 4B is marked by an even higher and variable Ca content of 18.08% (with a spread of 27.87%). Group 4B is combined of two CA clusters, which are relative close and include 20 samples.16 Thus, samples AS31 and MQ54 with an exceptionally high Ca value (25-30%) were diluted by a factor of 0.755 (this factor was applied on all elements except Ca and Sr).17 As this group contains above 40% more Ca than Group 4A, many elements are further diluted in a 20-25% factor. However the Lanthanide series (La-Lu) are only 10-15% lower, while K and Sr are about 5% higher, while P2O5 is 18% higher (probably originating from fossils in the limestone). Chemical Group 4B is less compact than Group 4A, with fourteen elements varying under 10%, seven under 20% and six under 25%. In term of petrographic groups eight belong to the C1 calcareous marl/loess fabric and three to Fabric C2, rich in foraminifers. In addition two are of Group A3, two of B1 and one of B3 (note that all these are loess type fabrics). One sample of the petrographic coastal A1c group poses a contradiction with the chemical results. Ten of the Group 4B are of fine Philistine Monochrome ware; it is again attested that this calcareous clay was not commonly used for other Monochrome, Bichrome or Iron II Philistine wares (see Figs. 4.43-4.44). However, three Philistine Bichrome vessels from inner plains sites are from this chemical group (and two Philistine Bichrome vessels from coastal sites). It can be assumed that all these vessels were made in inner Philistia.

Group 4A: Both Chemical Groups 4A and 4B are well distinct from the other chemical groups by their relatively high Ca component, and are equivalent to Major Group II. Group 4A includes 23 samples, which cluster together in the CA dendogram. The group is relatively compact with 21 elements varying less than 10%, five elements less than 20% and two elements of a higher 20-22% spread.15 The most marked attribute of this group is the high Ca content, averaging at 13.09%; the Ca is also highly variable (with a 29% spread). This Ca representing probably about twice as much Calcite in volume, naturally reduces all the concentrations of other elements (to about 20-30%) (except Sr which is linked with Ca, and is also high at 412 ppm). Note also that considering the relative Ca dilution, K and Y are relatively high; on the other hand Co is markedly low. A relatively variable character of this clay source was also noted in relation to the Philistine Monochrome pottery analyzed from Miqne, where even two sherds from the same vessel showed high variability (Gunneweg et al. 1986:4). This variability probably results mostly from the natural calcite variability in the clay. Chemical Group 4A illustrates a rather homogenous picture from the petrographic aspect. Of the 22 samples analyzed by TSPA thirteen are of the C group of calcareous marly clay (one of these of Group C2). Five other samples are of other groups (three–A2, two-A3), two are loess fabric (Group B). However, one or two samples produced a contradiction between chemical and TSPA results as they were of Fabric A1 (SF43, BT12). From the typological view this group

Several of the samples from Group 4B have marginal values (as MQ8 and MQ11); from the archaeological point of view (combined with the TSPA observations at times) several of the samples included are problematic (as samples from northern sites—DN8, MG1 and MG3, which are typologically ambiguous). The explanation for this may be that this group may represent the profile of highly variable clay. Due to archaeological reasons, the 16

Most of the samples belong to one cluster in a log mean subtracted CA procedure (Sharon 1989:42-54) omitting dilution effects. The justification in combining two clusters is in the fact that the difference between the clusters is probably due to high Ca dilution and this group is discerned by PCA as well (see Figs. 4.9, 4.22; thus, also in BRF grouping all these samples are grouped together, Fig. 4.17). 17 These two samples were considered an outlying pair by BRF grouping.

15

Sample BS4 was initially grouped with Group 4A but has marginal elemental values within the group and thence was excluded and viewed as a loner (though according to BRF grouping it should be grouped in Group 4). The values of BS4 are more than 2 sigma away from the group’s average in values of Al, Cr, V, Ce and Ta.

157

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.14. PCA scatter plot showing Major Groups I-III using only ICP-AES elements (Al, Fe ,Mg ,Ti ,K ,Na ,Co,C ,Mn)

Figure 4.15. PCA scatter plot using “subtracted log” values (dilution free) showing ware groups.

Figure 4.16. PCA scatter plot with grouping according to best relative fit values (BRF) showing also chemical subgroups.

Figure 4.17. PCA scatter plot according to chemical subgroups, only Group 4 (4A+4B) is normalized according to dilution (according to best relative fit=BRF). 158

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION calcareous groups at 7.64%. Most elements are quite similar to those of Group 5 except K that is low at 1%, and La, Sm, Dy, and Y, which are 20% lower than Group 5; Hf is even lower here at 2.32 ppm.19 Several of the samples are petrographic inconclusive. Of the clearer ones four belong to Fabric A2, one to A3, two to D2; two samples belong to Fabric A1, which is considered coastal. Ten of the samples are from inner plains/Shephelah sites: seven from Miqne including two plain vessels, Bichrome, LPDW red-slipped Philistine and a cooking jug; two clay samples from Safi area and one LPDW from Beth Shemesh. Only three come from Ashdod, Ashkelon and Ruqueish (one each). It seems that according to both archaeological and petrographic considerations this profile represents an inner plains or Shephelah clay, somewhat more calcareous, maybe in the Tel Miqne area.

fact that most samples are from the inner plains and Shephelah (including two plain ones from Miqne), and of the fine Monochrome ware, it is likely that the group represents an inner plains clay profile. The equivalent group obtained by best-relative-fit (BRF grouping) with an individual dilution factor for each sample applied, had combined Groups 4A and 4B together with several other samples with chemical and/or petrographic provenancing of the inner plains and the Shephelah and loners or outliers (see Fig. 4.17, Table 4.3). Thus, this group would contain 52 samples and is considerably more compact and distinct. As noted above this grouping concerning the high Ca group should be considered as an alternative grouping, not significantly effecting the eventual archaeological conclusions. Group 5: Chemical Group 5 includes twenty samples clustering together. This group is not as compact as the other groups, though discernable in the PCA graph (see Fig. 4.9).18 The Ca is slightly lower than Groups 1-3 at 4.4%; fourteen elements vary below 10%, eleven under 20%, K is high at 1.4% and varies 21.9% and Ta varies 26%. Most elements are about 10% lower than in Group 2, and Mn, V, Eu, Gd and Dy are even lower (20-30% lower than Group 2); Hf is also even lower than Group 2 at 2.4 ppm. This group represents a mixture of petrographic groups, even though the majority seems to display coastal properties (six are of Petrographic Group A1, five B1-B3, one G; two possibly D2-D3, one is A3). Eleven of the samples come from coastal sites, both of Iron I and II wares (Ashdod: two Monochrome, Ashkelon- four Monochrome and LPDW, Qasile- one, Aphek- three and Ruqueish- one); samples from the inner plains and the Shephelah sites include three from Nagila, two from Safi, one from Gezer and one from Kh. el Qom; one LPDW vessel comes from Arad. Although this group is less clear than Chemical Group 2 it may represent a coastal profile, possibly of southern Philistia. This is because both the petrographic attributes of the samples and because it contains hardly any plain ware from the inner plains sites. This profile possibly represents clay mixed with more loess soil than the Chemical Group 2, thus, it is more common to southern Philistia—the vicinity of Ashkelon (a hypothetical provenance of Gaza may be suggested as well). Interestingly several Philistine vessels from northern Philistia (Aphek and Qasile) belong to this group as well.

Figure 4.18. Multi-dimensional scaling using Mahalanobis distance, showing chemical subgroups. Group 7: Group 7 includes thirteen samples clustering together, and is marginal in relation to Major Group I as Group 6 is (it seems to be well defined by PCA, see Fig. 4.9). The group is relatively compact though several elements vary strongly: 21 elements vary under 10%, four elements under 20%, Na varies 29.5% and Mg varies 30.18%. Most major and trace elements are about 10% higher (Mn and Cr is exceptionally high at 940 and 125.8 ppm respectively) than in Chemical Groups 1-3; rare earth elements are 20% higher; Ca is slightly higher at 6.1%, while Hf and Ta are not higher at 3.08 ppm and 1.6

Group 6: Group 6 represents a more marginal CA and PCA cluster (in relation to the entire Major Group I) and includes thirteen samples. The group is relatively compact and twenty elements vary below 10% (Al varies only 4.15% while La, Sm and Nd vary under 4%), seven elements vary under 20% while Ta is highly variable (30.86%). The Ca is somewhat higher than the other non18 According to BRF grouping most of Group 5’s samples are combined with some samples from Groups 6 and 7, creating together a somewhat more compact chemical profile.

19 As noted above, according to BRF grouping, many of these samples are grouped togerher with samples from Group 5.

159

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY ppm respectively. Several petrographic groups are included in this chemical group, three are of coastal A1 fabric, while others have a more inner plains character (two-A2, one-C, four- E1-E3; two are loess- B1-B3). Chemical Group 7 includes mostly vessels from inner plains/Shephelah sites (nine altogether) in addition to three amphoriskoi from Beer Sheba and only one sample from a coastal site. The group also includes undecorated pottery from the inner plains (especially Safi area) as one sample from Safi, one from Kfar Menahem and four preLMLK storage jars. It seems therefore that this profile may represent one of the southern inner plains/Shephelah clay, maybe in the Tell es-Safi or Lachish area. According to the results, this clay was not used for the Iron I Philistine wares, and hardly for the LPDW as well.

Figure 4.20. PCA scatter plot of wasters from production sites according to Goren et al. 2004. The results of 63 of the wasters published by Goren et al (2004: Appendix, Table 1), coming from workshops in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tell Jemmeh, Tel Sera’, Beer Sheva and Tel Haror, were analyzed here by PCA treating the various workshops as reference groups (Table 4.5 Figs. 4.20-4.21; note that only 20-21 more suitable elements were used in the procedure). The elemental values show that most of the groups except the Tell es-Safi waster group, are relatively compact (though less so than Chemical Groups 1-5 here). The values of Ashdod are practically identical to those of Ashkelon (see also Fig. 4.21). The more southern sites (Beer Sheva, Sera, Haror) are characterized by higher Ca (8.6-15.5%), which somewhat dilutes the clay. These groups have higher La and V. Note that the Silica component has a relatively narrow range in all the groups from this region (Si is between 21-30%, usually reduced only as an effect of high Ca). This may indicate that the silica (quartz) dilution effect is not very dominant in this region. Using PCA with logged elemental values and viewing a bivariate plot of the two major components, several of the workshop groups created well defined elongated ellipses (Fig. 4.21 right), especially so the groups from Beer Sheva, Haror, Jemmeh and Sera’ (the ‘southern group’; see also Fabian and Goren 2002: Fig. 6). The groups from Ashdod and Ashkelon were somewhat overlapping, but are distinct from the sites in the Negev; the Tell es-Safi waster group was not welldefined, but closer to the southern group rather than to Ashdod. If elemental ratios were used (omitting dilution effects, with Be as a denominator; Fig. 4.21) the Tell esSafi group was more strongly scattered, Ashdod and Ashkelon more strongly overlap, and the Beer Sheva group becomes more defined.

Figure 4.19. Loading of different elements on three major components of PCA. Excursion: Wasters from Byzantine workshops: Recently, in a study of the LBA el-Amarna tablets Goren et al. (2004) noted the difficulties in intra-regional provenancing of clay in the entire region of the southern coastal plain and the western Negev (see above Part 3.6). Therefore, to assist the TSPA, chemical analysis was employed (by ICP-AES and ICP-MS) on some of the tablets, and results of a large group of ceramic wasters from Byzantine workshops in the region were considered (Goren et al. 2004:18-19, Appendix, Tables 1,2; see also Fabian and Goren 2002:151-152, Fig. 6). They state that as the CTF factor of this region is 1 (meaning there is only one type of clay available) reference material from substantially different periods can be used, especially in distinguishing between Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, Tel Haror and sources from the western and northern Negev.20

20 It should be noted, though, that when the provenancing of the tablets relating to southern Israel was discussed (Goren et al. 2004:291,295,300, especially in the matter of distinguishing the Tell Jemmeh profile), the arguments were not clearly substantiated by a statistical treatment of the chemical results (either by MVSA or comparisons of group averages).

160

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.21. PCA scatter plot (using ratio values, X/Be) of groups of wasters from Goren et al. 2004 (left), and 95% confidence ellipses according to sites (right). Table 4.5: Elemental averages and relative spreads (CV) of group of wasters published by Goren et al. 2004.

Site Si% Al% Fe% Ca% Mg% Ti% Cr Mn V Be La Ce Pr Nd Eu Sm Tb Dy Ho Tm Yb Lu Y

Mean %CV ZF(10) Safi 26.8 6.6 5.1 5.3 3.5 5.8 10.2 15.6 1.4 7.6 0.6 5.9 217.7 106.4 462.7 8.0 91.9 7.7 1.7 9.4 23.1 13.1 52.2 26.5 5.9 26.5 23.3 26.8 1.1 26.2 4.8 26.5 0.67 27.36 3.8 26.3 0.76 27.14 0.33 25.58 2.2 27.1 0.33 27.77 44.9 3.9

Mean %CV AS(10) Ashkelon 28.6 6.9 5.4 9.5 3.8 13.2 6.4 20.0 1.1 17.2 0.6 9.5 92.3 9.4 506.4 36.8 88.4 10.3 1.6 6.9 23.1 8.3 59.1 10.5 6.9 10.1 27.5 9.6 1.4 10.1 5.7 10.2 0.82 10.60 4.7 9.9 0.92 10.48 0.38 10.67 2.5 9.5 0.38 10.16 20.7 7.6

Mean BS(10) B. Sheva 23.2 5.7 3.9 13.4 2.1 0.5 143.4 631.3 115.8 1.7 33.9 59.6 8.5 34.2 1.5 7.1 1.07 6.2 1.29 0.54 3.5 5.58 39.0

%CV Mean %CV Mean ASD(10) HR(7) Ashdod Haror 5.5 30.9 6.9 25.3 12.2 3.9 19.7 3.9 11.4 3.8 12.1 4.3 32.0 5.0 19.0 8.6 23.2 1.1 16.2 2.1 9.2 0.6 7.8 0.7 9.4 91.8 8.6 106.0 13.3 594.3 16.2 539.0 10.2 82.2 12.8 104.6 9.7 1.6 9.3 1.9 8.2 24.1 10.8 25.0 8.9 58.6 7.3 60.6 9.3 6.8 7.6 7.2 9.2 27.1 7.7 28.9 10.2 1.3 8.5 1.4 9.2 5.5 8.8 5.9 10.96 0.76 7.77 0.84 10.7 4.3 7.1 4.8 11.00 0.85 7.06 0.94 10.48 0.36 6.88 0.40 11.5 2.4 6.3 2.6 286 0.36 6.68 0.40 21.9 37.3 19.9 49.0

161

%CV Mean SR(8) Sera 5.7 21.6 18.5 3.4 14.9 3.7 20.0 15.5 11.2 2.0 11.5 0.6 13.8 106.0 15.8 414.4 15.1 98.6 9.1 1.7 12.4 23.3 15.4 53.6 15.6 6.5 15.0 26.1 17.5 1.3 16.4 5.3 13.09 0.75 13.2 4.3 13.87 0.87 12.41 0.35 9.7 2.3 10.99 0.36 9.4 49.1

%CV Mean %CV JM(8) Jemmeh 7.7 24.2 6.5 6.8 5.4 5.6 5.9 3.8 6.3 11.2 11.6 9.2 9.5 1.9 27.8 6.7 0.6 5.5 4.4 97.1 7.0 9.5 469.4 4.7 7.5 100.3 5.1 5.4 1.6 4.7 6.0 22.3 4.7 6.4 57.6 6.4 5.8 7.1 6.5 6.3 28.6 4.9 5.4 1.5 6.9 6.0 5.8 5.0 5.55 0.83 5.17 5.5 4.8 3.5 4.36 0.95 4.36 5.78 0.40 4.12 4.5 2.7 4.5 5.43 0.39 1.94 6.8 34.0 24.7

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.6: The chemical grouping of the samples Major Group I

Group I-Marginal

Major Group II

Major Group III

Group 1

Group 6

Group 4A

Northern (?) group

AS29 AS47 BM2 BT1 BT12 BT14 MQ2 MQ12 MQ17 MQ28 MQ38 MQ41 MQ43 MQ49 MQ52 MQ53 MQ55 MQ56 MQ58 MQ60 Group 4B AK7 AP5 AS31 AS34 AS48 BM1 BM4 DN8 MG1 MG3 MQ5 MQ8 MQ11 MQ14 MQ15 MQ29 MQ39 MQ46 MQ54 MQ59

DN1 DN2 DN6 DN7

KM1 KM3 KM14 SF2 SF3 SF4 AK12 AS57 CS1 CS6 MQ6 SF5 SF6 SF7 SF8 SF9 SF10 SF11 MQ18 MQ24 MQ27 MQ40 SF12 SF13 SF14 SF15 SF16 SF17 MQ45 MQ50 RQ5 SF18 SF19 SF24 SF25 SF26 SF28 SF33 SF34 SF37 Group 2 AK6 AK9 AK11 AK15 AK18 AK20 AK21 AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 AS6 AS7 AS8 AS9 AS10 AS11 AS12 AS13 AS14 AS26 AS30 AS32 AS50 AS52 AS53 AS54 AS55 AS58 BM5 CS2 GZ3 HM1 KM4 KM8 KM9 KM13 KM18 KoM3 KoM4 KoM5 MQ7 MQ10 MQ16 MQ19 MQ20 MQ21 MQ57 NG6 NG7 RQ1 RQ9 SF1 SF5 TS1 YM2 Group 3 AK13 AK16 AK22 AS25 AS45 AS51 BS5 BS6 BS7 BT3 BT9 GZ2 HM4 HM5 HM9 KM15 KM17 MQ26 MQ34 MS1 RQ2 RQ6 RQ7 RQ8 SF22 SF44 SF45 SF46 SF47 SF48 SF49 Group 5 AK10 AK14 AK17 AK19 AP1 AP3 AP4 AR2 AS27 AS28 GZ1 KoM2 NG3 NG4 NG5 QS1 RQ3 RQ4 SF29 SF52

Group 7 BS1 BS2 BS3 BT4 BT8 KM19 SF35 SF50 SF51 SF53 SF54 TBM1 YM1

Direct quantitative elemental comparisons between the chemical groups formed in this study and the waster groups published by Goren et al. 2004 are quite problematic. For example, comparing the wasters from Ashdod with Chemical Group 2, shows that Cr, Ce, Pr, Nd, Eu and Sm are quite similar but all other elements vary more that 10%; this would cause a mismatch in any MVSA procedure. The waster group from Tell es-Safi was especially ill-defined; probably as there is a high variability of soils in the vicinity of the site; thus, reference material from Byzantine workshops may not be relevant for Iron Age pottery in this case. In summary, apart from the qualitative conclusions from this data bank, confirming the closeness of the Ashdod and Ashkelon profiles, and the somewhat different profile of the western Negev and southern Shephelah (possibly represented by Chemical Group 7 here), quantitative conclusions are problematic due to the fact most of the wasters come from surveys, very different periods they reflect, and calibration problems between the different ICP labs.

Outliers/loners AH1 AP2 AR1 BS4 KM2 KM10 MQ1 QS2 QS3 QS4 RH1 SF39 SF40 SF42

Group III and loners: Eleven samples were clustered together; this was probably due their large distance from other groups and they may not constitute a chemical group, and thus they should be considered as loners or outliers. This could be justified when observing the averages and spreads of the various elements within this group (see Table 4.1): only one varies under 10%, nineteen vary under 20%, four under 30%, Ta varies 35.4%, Mn 38.3% and Na 45.8%. Most samples (nine of eleven) have a high Ca content of 10-20%. Moreover, in the clustering with ‘log subtracted mean’ calculation (see Part 3.4) four came out as loners or outliers.21 Five of the samples are Philistine type related vessels from northern sites (three from Dan, one from Rehov, one Abu Hawam), while others come from Philistia (three from Qasile, one, Aphek, one, Miqne) and the Negev (Arad) (see below). As five belong to the Petrographic Group C2, which represent a foraminiferous marly clay, it could be suggested that this cluster represents this clay to some 21

According to BRF grouping five of the outliers or loners were grouped with he high calcite Group 4. Thus, it is likely that when Ca dilution is fully accounted for some of these loners are indeed of an inner plains provenance.

162

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Petrographic Group C, Figs. 4.34:2, 4.35:2), LPDW vessels from Tell Abu Hawam (AH1) and Arad (AR1) are loners; a Cypriote WS milk bowl (SF39) is an outlier.22 Summary: The chemical results show that excluding several samples, probably made in northern Israel, all of the samples have a relatively similar composition. This composition is characteristic of the southern coastal and Philistia regions. However, if finer sub grouping is sought several profiles can be identified, probably representing coastal versus inner plains clays (see Fig. 4.26). The subgrouping resulted in four groups statistically well defined: Groups 1, 2, 4A and 4B, and four sub-groups which are not as well defined: Groups 3, 5, 6 and 7. Of the eight chemical groups, two are of coastal provenance (Fig. 4.22): Group 2 representing an Ashdod profile (though a similar clay could have been used in theory at the area of Ashkelon), and Group 5 (lees definite) representing a different, though probably coastal profile. Four other groups represent in good probability inner plains clays. Groups 1 (which is more definite) and 3 (less so), probably from Tell es Safi vicinity, and Groups 4A and 4B (well defined) from the Tel Miqne area. Two other groups are probably also of inner plains/Shephelah clays: Group 6, possibly reflecting clay from Miqne area, and Group 7 representing a different southern Shephelah (?) profile.

Figure 4.22. Discriminant analysis plot according to chemical groups. extent. Other loners probably represent clays from northern Israel (the Tel Dan area or the northern valleys), possibly from lower cretaceous and other formations (see below). Additional outliers, which can be observed in all types of clustering and PCA, are SF42 (a fine monochrome vessel, of the calcareous C1 petrographic group, Fig. 4.34:1), two vessels from Kfar Menahem: KM2 and KM10, Philistine Bichrome vessels from Tell Qasile (QS4) and Aphek (AP2) (both latter are of

Figure 4.23. Discriminant analysis plot according to TSPA groups.

22

This vessel was analyzed in order to evaluate the magnitude of intraregional chemical differences as compared to inter-regional ones. Indeed it came out as an outlier, while its composition is roughly similar to other White Slip pottery published from Cyprus (see Bryan et al. 1997:38, Group 11).

163

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.24. Discriminant analysis plot according to typological groups.

Figure 4.25. Discriminant analysis plot according to sites sampled. TSPA, but ‘blurred’ in the chemical grouping.23 C. The chemical grouping is incorrect, due to the small differences in composition or to dilution effects. As the possibility of dilution effects was examined and the chemical differences between the groups though small are consistent, I prefer to use either one of the former two explanations or a combination of both. If a petrographic group is represented by several chemical groups one can say that, in this case, the chemical analysis was more sensitive.

In most cases the chemical grouping agrees with the petrographic classification. However, in several cases a chemical group includes samples with various petrographic classifications (see Figs. 4.23, 4.39-4.40). Several explanations can be suggested for this phenomenon. A. The petrographic classification of these samples is inaccurate, especially when dealing with closely resembling petrographic groups (for example the differences between loess and dark brown soils is not always distinct). B. The potters used several clay types, applied different clay treatment or mixed different clays originating from different soils in the same region. But, as the chemical variability in these small regions is not large, the results of these actions can be identified by

23

This phenomenon occurred for example in a group of Roman pottery from Shikhin in the Galilee, where vessels belonging to a single (local) chemical group were found to be made of three different soil types, all soils found in the vicinity of the site (Wieder and Adan-Bayewitz 1999:327).

164

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Other 20%

noted, there are also petrographic and geographic intermediate cases. The chemical grouping of the samples in the petrographic groups is noted in order to examine the viability of the designation of these groups.

Coastal 26%

Inconclusive 18%

Inner Philistia 31%

Coastal? 9%

Other 5%

Inner Philistia? 14%

A2 11%

E 6% D 6%

Figure 4.26. Proposed provenance of samples according to chemical grouping (total 225). 3. The petrographic groups (Figs. 4.27-4.3824)

C 13%

B 12%

A3 5%

Figure 4.27. Classification of samples according to petrographic groups (total 310).

Altogether 310 vessels were analyzed by thin-section petrography (TSPA), of these 214 were also analyzed by ICP.25 For detailed description of all the slides see Appendix E. Most of the samples did not show extreme differences in types and quantities of inclusions, thus, the vast majority (about 290) can be provenanced to various parts of southern Israel. This is not surprising due to the small size of the geographical area studied, which is also reflected in the chemical grouping. The clays represented in the slides could be divided usually into two types: non-calcareous dark inactive soils with low amounts of silt—probably dark brown and hamra soils (Fabrics A1-A2, D and possibly E), and calcareous soils with an optically active matrix—these are probably calcareous, rendzina or loess types of clay (Fabrics B and C). Other distinctions were according to the quantities and textures of inclusions, mostly the quartz, calcite and bioclast populations. These distinctions created the sub grouping of the fabrics. Quite a few of the fabric groups were defined as intermediate cases, while in a substantial number of samples the petrographic group could not be decided—at least 40 of the samples are inconclusive (which is about 15%). The cases in which a fabric was suggested but was not definitive were designated by a ‘?’. As in the chemical analysis an attempt was made to distinguish between coastal clays and inner plains/Shephelah clays, though as

A1 24%

Inconclusive 18% Other 5%

Southern Israel 22%

Coastal 23% Coastal? 3% Inner Philistia 13% Inner Philistia? 16%

Figure 4.28. Proposed provenance of samples according to TSPA (total 310). Group A (brown/dark brown soil) Petrographic Group A is a very large group including at least 150 samples and representing an array of brown soils. The sub-divisions of this group are mainly according to the characteristics of the quartz and calcareous inclusions. Fabric A1 (Fig. 4.29): This group is the largest one comprising of about a third of the samples (at least 75 samples). This fabric can be described as a noncalcareous fabric, usually with a non-active, relatively dark matrix. This clay is quite porous with usually 2030% voids, with a single to double-spacing. The voids are sometimes aligned in a laminated fashion testifying to some organic matter used in the clay; the voids sometimes represent decomposed calcite as well (with visible calcite margins). The silty component is of coarse silt. The predominant component of the inclusions is quartz consisting in most cases of 15-25% of the slide. The quartz inclusions are usually in a bimodal texture typical of this fabric and comprising of a coarse silt-very

24 The photos of the thin sections were taken with a digital Canon camera through a Zeiss microscope; usually under x100 magnification (field width 1.2 mm), but occasionally under x25 magnification (field width 4.8 mm). Each photo has a scale. All photos were taken under crossed polarizers (XPL). 25 The preparation of most of the slides was made by “manual techniques” and several of the samples were very small (mainly from intact vessels and museum pieces). Thus, about 10% of the slides were of lower quality or very small (30 or so slides of 310). The TSPA results in these cases should be taken with more reservation (see also Goren et al. 2004:14-15 for evaluation of reliability of small thin sections). The lower quality samples are denoted by an ‘*’ (or LQ in Appendix E).

165

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.29. Petrographic Fabric A1. fine sand (30-80 microns) size and angular element and a fine-medium sand (120-350 microns) component, usually with rounded or sub-rounded shape. The quartz inclusions sometimes show poly-crystalline texture with cracking (due, possibly, to high temperature firing). Other inclusions are much more rare and include few angular limestone or chalk fragments in fine sand size (kurkar chunks are very rare), ferrous minerals (rounded shape)

and mica (usually sub-angular) both in medium silt to fine sand sizes. In a few cases here are traces of disintegrated calcite (testifying to high temperature firing). A few feldspar inclusions (usually angular up to 100 microns) and other heavy minerals as hornblende and zircon also occur but very rarely and mostly in worn conditions.

166

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION The soil represented by this petrographic group is most probably an alluvial/quartzic dark brown soil (Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999:233-234). It is possible also that hamra was mixed within this clay in some cases (though there is much less quartz sand in the slides than typical hamra soil). The inclusions, especially the large rounded quartz (beach sand), and the lack of calcareous inclusions point to a coastal provenance. A probable area would be between Ashdod and Ashkelon, maybe from clay deposits of various wadis in this area. The same fabric was found to be the most common one in the 7th century pottery of Ashkelon (Master 2003:54, where it is similarly described, related to the ‘dark brown grumusol’). The difference between this soil and the coastal loess soil, can be, however, vague, as the former is derived from the latter (Goren et al. 2004:295-298).

Fabric A2 (Fig. 4.30): This group shows some similarity to the A1 group and most probably represents also a dark brown soil. Differences are in the siltier component of the matrix and higher concentrations of calcite inclusions. The matrix may be defined is several cases as calcareous though usually not and is usually slightly active or nonactive, moderately silty, with varied spacing and 10-20% voids. Quartz inclusions are still predominant, though the texture is different than in Group A1. The sorting is poor to moderate with sizes ranging from medium silt to fine sand (20-200 microns) and occasional larger particles of medium sand size (200-400 microns). The quartz particles are usually angular to sub-angular. The calcareous component, including limestone fragments, chalk, foraminifers and nari, is quite larger than in Group A1: in many cases fine sand limestone with sub-angular shape rises to 1-3% and even to 7% of the slide area in a few cases. However, few samples have only several calcareous inclusions, possibly due to disintegration of the calcite during the firing. Indeed, disintegrated calcite, illustrated by irregular voids, is more common in Fabric A2 than in Fabric A1. Other inclusions are ferrous/opaque minerals which sometimes rise to up to 1% of the slide area with larger sized of very fine sand; micas are somewhat more common than in Fabric A1, while feldspars and other minerals are rare. In several samples rounded clay pellets (also termed ACF) occur as well. Variations of the A2 fabric include a highly fired optically inactive group (A2a), these are usually less silty as well; another variant is richer in quartz inclusions which rise to 20-30% (Group A2b). Three samples were somewhat different than the main A2 group and from each other but still affiliated with the A2 fabric; these were designated A2c, A2d and A2e (the quartz is lower in quantity but better sorted; Fig. 4.30:4).

A variation of this fabric is Group A1a, which has similar inclusions but shows a higher firing temperature indicated by a very dark matrix (possibly 900 °C or higher; Fig. 4.29:3). Another variation including only two samples from Ashkelon has a higher amount of large bioclasts inclusions (Group A1b). Another petrographic group, which is related to the A1 fabric is the fabric designated as A1c (Fig. 4.29:1). This group can be distinguished by a somewhat more calcareous (carbonate) fabric and a larger fine silty component or it. The matrix is usually more active optically. The inclusions though are similar to the A1 group with a main component of bimodal quartz. This fabric may represent a mixture of brown and loess soils, still of a coastal provenance. In some cases the border between this fabric and regular loess soils (as groups A3 and B) was very thin and these samples remain undecided. Altogether Group A1 includes 92 samples, of them 75 decided and seventeen undecided (denoted by ‘?’). Of the decided samples 37 are of the general A1 group, eleven of the high fired A1a group, two of A1b and 25 of the A1c group. The chemical composition of this group supports the coastal provenance. Out of 45 samples chemically analyzed, and which have a clear grouping, 35 belong to ‘coastal groups’ as Groups 2 and 5 and only ten belong to inner plains groups (1, 3 and 6). The majority of the samples from Fabric A1 come from coastal sites, including the reference samples from Ashdod (altogether 29 are from Ashdod, four from the nearby Tel Mor and sixteen from Ashkelon). Thus, Group A1 can be seen as a relatively firm petrographic group originating from coastal Philistia. The fabric represented by Group A1 was used for both reddish Monochrome ware Philistine Bichrome and LPDW (though to a lesser extent). No fine Monochrome ware was made from this fabric. The A1c group seems to be characteristic of LPDW since out of the 25 examples, up to eighteen belong to this ware. This clay recipe, though not easily distinguished in the chemical composition, may show a selective use of clay or clay treatment for the manufacture of the LPDW coastal vessels. This may reflect a specialized workshop tradition concerning this ware.

Petrographic Group A2 includes 38 samples of clear identification and an additional eleven samples of undecided identification. Most are designated general Group A2 (22 plus eight inconclusive), nine (plus two inconclusive) are A2a, four (plus two inconclusive) are A2b, and subgroups A2c-e add three more. According to matrix and inclusions Group A2 most probably represents a dark brown soil of the inner plains, possibly from the area between Tel Miqne and Tell es-Safi. Of the 24 samples chemically analyzed twenty belong to Chemical Groups 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7, of a probable inner plains/Shephelah provenance and only four to the coastal Group 2. Practically all definite Group A2 members are from inner plains sites especially Tell es-Safi and Tel Miqne (fourteen from Safi, three from the nearby Kfar Menahem and fourteen from Miqne; also two from Ashdod and one from Tell Qasile), and include reddish Philistine Monochrome, Philistine Bichrome and LPDW together with plain wares. This fabric could have been the clay used for most regular wares in the inner plains. Fabric A3 (Fig. 4.31:1-2): Petrographic Group A3 may be considered as an intermediate group between the dark brown clay (Fabric A2) and the loess clay of Group B. In 167

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.30. Petrographic Fabric A2. this group the matrix is usually carbonate and slightly active to active with a moderate to high fine silt component. The particles are often double to open spaced, while voids constitute generally 10-15%. Quartz is still high at 10-20% in most samples, though occasionally equaled by calcareous inclusions. The quartz inclusions have a varied texture: poorly to well sorted or bimodal, mostly sub angular and sized at coarse silt-very fine sand (30-80 microns) with occasional larger rounded inclusions of medium sand size (200-350 microns). Calcareous inclusions including limestone, chalk and bioclast are more common than in Group A2 and may reach 10% of the slide’s area or more; these are mostly of sub-angular fine to medium sand size. Other inclusions as

opaque minerals, clay pellets, mica while other minerals are rarer in similarity to Group A2. Petrographic Group A3 includes fourteen more definite samples and an additional four inconclusive ones. This is possibly a soil originating in loess material wind blown to the inner plains/Shephelah region where it picks up the calcareous inclusions. Thus, this fabric, though not especially well defined, could be termed as Shephelah loess (see Master 2003:55, Fig. 4; Goren and Halperin 2004:2554), and represents a provenance fitting both Tel Miqne and Tell Safi. Twelve of the fourteen Fabric A3 samples fall in chemical groups (Groups 1, 3, 4B and 6) provenaned to the inner plains and only two in Groups 2

168

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.31. Petrographic Fabrics A3, B1 and clay sample 7. and 5. Moreover, all the samples come from inner plains sites, mainly Miqne and Safi. These are of Philistine Bichrome, red slipped Philistine, LPDW and plain vessels. It seems this fabric was not used for any of the Philistine Monochrome vessels (Fig. 4.43-4.44).

marginal quartz compositions of 5-10% and 25-30%). This fabric is divided into three sub groups according to the characteristics of the inclusions. Group B1 has a bimodal texture of the quartz population, quite similar to Fabric A1 (silt—angular and medium, sand—rounded quartz inclusions; Figs. 4.31:3, 4.32:1). Calcareous inclusions are relatively rare and other inclusions include feldspar of coarse silt to fine sand size, silty mica and heavy minerals as hornblende, rutile and zircon. Group B3 has a poorly to moderately sorted quartz population (Fig. 4.32:4). In addition the group shows coarse silt to fine sand calcareous particles including sub angular limestone, rounded chalk and foraminifers. These are up to 5-10% of the slide area. There are also more cases of traces of disintegrated calcite. Ferrous/opaque minerals are often common in this group with a frequency of 1-2%

Group B (Figs. 4.31-4.32) Petrographic Group B represents clays from various types of loess soil. This fabric is characterized by a “carbonate”/calcareous matrix, slightly active to active optically, moderately to highly silty, with particles double to open spaced. The voids are usually 5-15% from the slide area, though in a third of the samples are higher at 20-30%; thus, the porosity is quite variable. The inclusions are dominated by quartz, being 15-20% of the slide area in most cases (with few samples having 169

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.32. Petrographic Fabrics B1-B3. of the slide area. The inclusions are similar to those in Groups A2 and A3, thus, this sub-group is more likely to be of inner plains provenance; it is very similar to Fabric A3, as noted above. Group B2 is an intermediate group with samples illustrating mixed properties such as bimodal quartz with high quantities of calcareous inclusions (Fig. 4.32:2-3).

136). The difficulty of provenancing loess type clay in the area of Ashkelon was already noted; the clays in Gaza, Ashkelon, the southern Shephelah and the western Negev are similar by TSPA, and finer provenancing is usually made according to reference material and not to geological and soil maps if at all (Goren et al. 2004:295298; Goren and Halperin 2004:2555; see also Part 3.6).

Loess fabric was widely reported from petrographic studies of pottery from the northern Negev, southern coast and inner plains and Shephelah (e.g., Goren 1995:301-302; 1996a:54; Goren in Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001:18; Master 2003:55; Goren et al. 2004:9,112; Goren and Halperin 2004:2554-2555). Master points to the difference between the Shephelah, Negev and coastal loess soils (2003:55, Fig. 4). The coastal loess is characterized by silty bimodal quartz and low quantities of sand or silt-sized calcite (on such loess from Tell Jemmeh see Melson and van Beek 1992:132-

Petrographic Group B includes altogether 29 clear examples and an additional nine inconclusive samples. Fabric B1 includes ten samples (plus two inconclusive), Fabric B2- at least nine samples and Fabric B3 seven (plus four inconclusive); two (plus two inconclusive) are defined as general Group B. In general it seems that Group B1 represents coastal loess, common in southern coastal Philistia (Gaza and Ashkelon) and southern Shephelah and northern Negev. When this fabric was used it was possible to distinguish between Ashdod and Ashkelon sources. Group B3 represents Shephelah loess 170

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.33. Petrographic Fabric C1. more typical of the northern inner plains and Shephelah. Thus, Groups B3 and A3 are very close to each other. Although only sixteen of the clear Group B samples were also analyzed by ICP the chemical results do not contradict the petrographic ones (Fig. 4.41). In the B1 group seven of nine samples have a coastal composition (Chemical Groups 2 and 5), while in Group B3 two of three have inner plains compositions. The samples from Group B2 have mixed affinities to both coastal and inner plains compositional groups. Many of the Group B samples are LPDW (fourteen) while four are red-slipped Philistine; this clay was also used for inner

plains/Shephelah plain wares (ten samples from Kfar Menahem, Safi and Nagila). This fabric, however, was hardly used for decorated Iron I Philistine wares with only two Bichrome and one reddish Monochrome examples. It seems the early Philistines preferred for that the clay of the carbonatic marl or dark brown soil type. Group C (Figs. 4.33-4.35) Petrographic Group C represents a different type of finer clay, highly calcareous and less porous marl (marly soil, cf. Porat 1989:26-29). The matrix is usually active, particles are double to open spaced, the fine silt

171

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.34. Petrographic Fabrics C1 and C2. component is moderate to very high, and the voids are lower than previous groups, at 5-15% in most cases. This could be some sort of a mixture of soils occurring in the border zone between the coastal plains and the southern Shephelah: brown/dark brown soil, loess and pale rendzina. A distinct characteristic of the inclusions of this petrographic group is the relative low quantities of quartz, rarely above 10% of the slide area. The quartz inclusions are poorly to moderately sorted, very fine to fine sand size (50-100 microns) and in variable shapes, usually angular to sub rounded. The calcareous inclusions become more dominant, usually this component is 5-10% of the slide but in several cases rises to 20%. This includes moderately sorted limestone/calcareous concentrations fine sand (60-120 microns) fragments, of sub-rounded shapes; few larger particles (up to 500 micron) also occur. Fine to medium sand chalk inclusions of rounded shapes are also common in the samples. In addition foraminifers appear in various quantities, from several inclusions up to 15% of the slide area. Most

foraminifers are rounded in fine sand size. While the more general appearance of this fabric was denoted as Fabric C1, Fabric C2 is a sub-group with higher amounts of bioclasts/foraminifers (5-15%), mainly rounded foraminifers, with visible cells (possibly endothyracids or calcispheres: Adams et al. 1984: Nos. 110, 120). This could represent a pale rendzina soil rich in Eogene chalk common in the southern Shephelah (Bullard 1970:103, Fig. 4; Goren et al. 2004:280-281, Pl. XII:EA279). Other common inclusions of Petrographic Group C are ferrous/opaque minerals, constituting in several cases 23% of the slide area. These are usually rounded in fine sand size and are dark red to black in color. Clay pellets/balls and/or shales in coarse silt size are also quite common. Rarer inclusions are micas in fine to coarse silt and sub-angular shape; feldspar and hornblende also appear. Two samples from Tell Qasile (QS3-QS4, Fig. 4.35:2) include more bimodal quartz, are denoted as Fabric C3, and are possibly of a central coastal plains provenance (see below). 172

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.35. Petrographic Fabrics C2 and C3. very high and variable. It seems then that most of the samples are of a distinct provenance, most probably the inner plains—the area of Tel Miqne. Most chemical outliers are the samples from Petrographic Group C2 with the high bioclast component. Petrographic Group C has high calcite values both according to the chemical and petrographic analysis. However, this component seems to be natural and not intentionally added by the potters. This is according to the variability of the inclusions in their size and shape, moreover, one can see some of the calcareous concentrations embedded or diffused within the clay’s matrix (see e.g., Figs. 4.34:1-2, 4.35:1-2). This phenomenon usually indicates that the calcareous concentration were part of the original clay, although it can result from the firing as well (Wieder and AdanBayewitz 1999:337, Fig. 8).

Petrographic Group C includes 41 definite samples and an additional five inconclusive ones, making this the second large petrographic group in the study. Of these eight (plus one indecisive) belong to Group C2 (Fig. 4.34-4.35). This type of clay was reported to be present in the vicinity of Tel Miqne in the Pleshet Formation (see, Killebrew 1998a:199-202 Fabric ME-A1). However, similar outcrops appear in other areas of the inner plains and the Shephelah, but not in the southern coast of Philistia. According to the chemical analysis (29 samples of this group were analyzed by ICP, while previous studies analyzed similar material by INAA, see, Gunneweg et al. 1986) 22 samples belong to Chemical Groups 4A and 4B, one to Group 226, one to Group 7 and five are outliers or loners; the calcium concentration is 26 It should be noted that in BRF grouping this sample-AS30, is grouped with the calcareous Group 4.

173

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.36. Petrographic Fabrics D1-D3 and clay sample 1. Of the 41 samples 80% (32) are of fine Philistine Monochrome ware (in addition there are three of reddish Monochrome and five of Philistine Bichrome; 28 samples come from Tel Miqne). Fabric C2 includes five fine Philistine Monochrome vessels (AS31—Fig. 4.35:1, AS34, MQ14—Fig. 4.34:3, MQ30, MQ53), four Philistine Bichrome vessels (AP2, GZ5, also Fabric C3, QS3, QS4—Fig. 4.35:2) and a collared rim pithos from Miqne (MQ1). Petrographic Group C is the same as Ware ME-A1 of Ann Killebrew, typifying the Aegean type vessels from Tel Miqne. She defines it as a mixture foraminiferous marly clay and a fine calcareous silty wadi loess (Killebrew 1998a:201-202, Ill. IV:2, IV:3:

upper). Killebrew’s Ware ME-A2 is also described as a similar variant of the same clay having also some sand sized quartz (Killebrew 1998a:202, Ill. IV.3: lower). Here Fabric C1 represents samples with a dominant fine calcareous silty wadi clay (Ware ME-A1) while Fabric C2 may be equivalent to Ware ME-A2, with foraminiferous marly clay being dominant (although the sand quartz maybe more suited to Fabrics C3, A3 or B3). Both clays are local to the region of Tel Miqne and the difference may represent variability within the same source or two clay variants used alternately. Note also that the grumusol and brown soils from the section near the Revadim prehistoric site show much more quartz than 174

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Gezer and one from Miqne. The two LPDW vessel from Ruqeish assigned to this petrographic belong to Chemical Group 3. Notwithstanding the differences between Fabrics D1, D2 and D3 they probably do not represent the difference between coastal and inner plains soils as the quartz component does not alter between the subgroups. It may be suggested according to the thin section that Petrographic Group D represents some regional grumusol or brown soil (as Group A) that was not as well levigated, thus, retaining the dominant well sorted quartz fine sand component. Therefore, if that is true, the sand sized quartz inclusions in the Petrographic Group A must have been a beach sand temper added afterwards by the potters (as the levigation would have filtered such natural inclusions).

Petrographic Group C (Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999:228231, Figs. 7-8). Goren et al. also defined a loess/rendzina mixed clay source, which is local to the southern Shephelah (also in the region of Tell es-Safi; Goren et al. 2004:281-282). The loess clay used in the Lachish LBII/Iron IA workshop is of a similar nature but is more levigated and contains also shell fragments (Magrill and Middleton 2004:2521, Fabrics 1-2). It is apparent in this case that there was a workshop specialization of the potters in a certain type of pottery—the fine variant of the Philistine Monochrome ware, in which a specific type of calcareous clay was selected in order to meet the aesthetic demands of the ware, creating a whitish appearance (in similarity to the Mycenaean pottery).27 Group D (Fig. 4.36:1-3) Petrographic Group D is a rather distinct petrographic group. It is characterized by an inactive non-carbonatic coarse matrix, very rich with well-sorted quartz coarse angular silt. The matrix is often dark, more packed than other fabrics with single to close spacing. The fine silt component of the matrix is very poor to non-existent and voids are less than 20%. Silty quartz inclusions are moderately to well sorted and very high in relative quantity at 30-40% of the slide area (reaching also 45%; sized coarse silt or very fine sand, 30-100 microns) and angularly shaped. Ferrous/opaque minerals are common, usually 1-2%, with coarse silt-size and sub-rounded. Siltsized mica, shell and feldspars also occur. Group D is further divided into sub Group D1, with a more packed matrix (less than 10% voids; Fig. 4.36:1), and poorer with calcareous inclusions. Group D2 has more ferrous and chert inclusions (50-100 microns), while Fabric Group D3 is less compact (voids are 15-20%; Fig. 4.36:3), richer in calcareous inclusions, with 5-10% limestone (coarse silt to fine sand, sub-angular), and rounded fine sand chalk. Clay pellets, shales and nari fragments also occur.

Although the group is a distinct petrographic group it cannot be seen also as a chemical group, the variations in all elements would be too high; there are also no dilution factors between the samples or averages of other chemical groups (such a phenomenon could have occurred if this clay was an unlevigated variant of Group A; see also Fig. 4.40). The group is divided between the different chemical groups (one of Chemical Group 1, five of 2, six of 3, two of 5 and one of Chemical Group 7). This is a typical example in which a petrographic group could include several chemical groups, possibly illustrating the higher resolution of chemical provenancing. It is noteworthy the eight of group D samples are of gray Monochrome ware (out of twelve sampled vessels of this ware type), while two are of reddish Monochrome, three of Philistine Bichrome and two of LPDW. It seems clear that this clay characterizes the gray Monochrome ware, mostly at Ashdod, resulting in the gray, sandy gritty appearance of the vessels. Furthermore, the fabric was hardly used for Philistine decorated ware in the Iron II.

Petrographic Group D includes seventeen samples and an additional two inconclusive ones; of these nine are identified as Fabric D1, two D2 and six D3. The matrix is in some cases similar in its appearance to hamra soil; hamra soil is noted to be used for clay in LB Ashdod (Goren et al. 2004:292-294, Pl. XII:EA294,EA296). However, the quartz inclusions are smaller than known in regular hamra soils, but this could be caused by levigation (see Goren et al. 2004:292-293). Hamra soils are common in the vicinity of Ashdod (but also as far north as Caesarea, Goren et al. 2004:292), and occur also near Tell es-Safi and Tel Miqne (northern inner plains/Shephelah); it rules out the southern coastal area of Ashkelon. Indeed none of the samples are from Ashkelon, while eight are from Ashdod, four from Safi, two are plain vessels from Kfar Menahem, two from

Group E (Fig. 4.37) Petrographic Group E is not a very distinctive group; in many cases the samples do not vary considerably from the various alluvial/brown soil fabrics as A1 and A2 and are therefore inconclusive. Nevertheless, the group carries several characteristics. The matrix is optically inactive and often has a reddish color, the packing is single to double spaced with a poor to moderate silty component. Voids percentage varies between 10-30%. Quartz inclusions are predominant at 15-30% of the slide area. These are poorly to moderately sorted coarse silt to fine angular sand (30-120 microns); they often illustrate ferruginous zoning. Larger particles of medium sand (200-400 microns) also occur, though sporadically. Calcareous inclusions are variable, composing 2-10%; the samples with higher quantities were designated as Group E3 (three samples; see Fig. 4.37:4). These are poorly sorted limestone of fine sub-angular sand, and fine to medium rounded chalk fragments. Larger particles of coarse sand also occur (1000-2000 microns) and there are traces of disintegrated calcite. Chert and nari inclusions are more common than in other groups, mostly of coarse

27 This phenomenon may be paralleled by a similar technological selection of clay made more than 3000 years before the Philistine Monochrome. These are the Chalcolithic “Cream Ware”, made of similar marly clay, in contrast to the regular vessels in the Chalcolithic northern Negev made of loess clay (Goren 1996b:110; Garfinkel 1999:206; Gilad and Goren 1995:195-196).

175

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.37. Petrographic Fabrics E1 and E3. silt, though medium sand inclusions also occur. Reddish ferrous minerals of coarse silt to fine sand consist often of 1-2% or more; silt-sized micas occur in most samples; bioclasts and feldspars are rare.

to Groups A1 and A2, as the many indecisive samples can attest, it may be tentatively seen as representing a different soil, possibly of Terra Rossa with sand-sized chalk and quartz of the upper Shephelah (Goren et al. 2004:284-285; Goren and Halperin 2004:2555-2556), or a mixture of Shephelah soils with dark brown Soil.28 This clay with its reddish hue, given by the ferrous minerals, is common of the Shephelah and the Judean highlands; Terra Rossa could be found, though, on the sitecatchment limits of Tell es-Safi (Goren et al. 2004:284).

While Fabric E1 denotes the common appearance of this group (Fig. 4.37:1-3), other sub-groups of Group E are E2 including three samples (and an additional inconclusive four) richer in quartz and poorer in calcareous inclusions; several of the samples have bimodal quartz inclusions. Fabric E3 includes samples with higher a calcareous (mostly limestone) component, usually 10-15% (Fig. 4.37:4). Altogether Group E includes nineteen samples with an additional ten inconclusive ones. Although Group E is somewhat close

28

M. Wieder noted that some of the slides from this group may include husmas soil, which is deeply buried hamra soil with effects of secondary calcareous sedimentation. Husmas soil can be characterized often by quartz grains with a calcareous coating (Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999:220-222). I wish to thank Dr. Wieder for this observation.

176

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.38. Various petrographic fabrics. The chemical grouping of these samples also points to such a provenance, marking a somewhat different profile than the Safi or Miqne clays sampled (four belong to chemical Group 7). The subgroup of E2, though, is more problematic and may be of coastal provenance (according to the quartz inclusions), as the chemical grouping seems to indicate (three of five samples are of Chemical Groups 2 and 5). The vessels belonging to Petrographic Group E are almost all of Iron II date with eight plain ware, seven LPDW and three pre-LMLK jars; one sample is Philistine Bichrome. Thus, it seems that this fabric, though its inner

provenance within Philistia is unclear, was used also for plain wares and was hardly used for Iron I decorated Philistine wares. Nevertheless, most samples from this group come from sites in inner Philistia or the Shephelah (25 samples come from sites as Tell es-Safi, Kfar Menahen, Batash, Gezer and Khirbet el Qom). Group F (Fig. 4.38:1): This group includes two or three samples, which have a carbonatic highly silty matrix with a high component of foraminifers. Most are rounded foraminifers with rounded pores (see Adams et al. 1984:

177

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Group L (Fig. 4.38:2): This group includes seven to nine Bichrome/Bichrome-related samples from Dan. One or two are classified as Lower Cretaceous clay (L1) with an inactive poorly silty matrix. These have variable amounts of calcite and ferrous/opaque minerals (see, e.g., Goren 1996a:49). Another group, L2, may possibly be referred to as travertine soil (Cohen-Weinberger 1998; Killebrew 1998a:213), with large amounts of sand limestone, some are rounded with holes in the center, attesting to a travertine cave sediment origin. A possible intermediate group is L3 with three or four samples. All these groups are common in the northern valleys areas, including the vicinity of Tel Dan.

Nos. 109-110). Quartz is low with 5-15% of silty angular particles. Limestone inclusions are also common. This could represent a variant of loess soil possibly mixed with Taqiye marl, common in southern Israel but also in other areas (Goren et al. 2004:257,271).29 The proximity of this fabric to the marl fabric of Group C2 and its relation to Chemical Group 4B should also be noted. Petrographic Group F includes one Philistine Bichrome sample of Chemical Group 4B and two LPDW vessels which are chemical outliers. Group G (Fig. 4.38:3): This group includes a single sample, AK19, a LPDW pyxis from Ashkelon. This seems to be a high fired coastal fabric with a components of sub rounded bioclasts, somewhat resembling ampiroa algae, typical of the northern coast (see Goren and Halperin 2004:2558). Nevertheless, as the matrix is rather similar to Fabric A1, no basalt is present and it is chemically classified to Group 5, its tentative provenance would be from the southern Philistine coast.

Foreign Fabrics Group J: This group includes a Mycenaean IIIB sherd from Ashdod (AS43). The fabric is very fine with hardly any inclusions except silty ferrous minerals (1%). Group K: This group includes a Phoenician ‘Black on Red’ juglet from Safi (SF40), sampled as a ‘yardstick’ comparison for the chemical analysis. The matrix is fine; the few inclusions include medium silt angular quartz, silty bioclasts, clay pellets and ferrous minerals.

Group H (Fig. 4.38:4): This group includes one sample, KM10, a juglet from Kfar Menahem. The fabric is characterized be a calcareous open spaced and very fine with hardly any inclusions (seemingly like a large calcareous concentration). The few inclusions include black and reddish rounded ferrous minerals including ferrous ooids, clay pellets, mica and a low quantity of silty quartz. This fabric is not coastal and maybe foreign to the region, though it could also represent a type of Taqiye clay according to the appearance of the matrix. Chemically, this sample is a distinct outlier. Another possibility is that this sample (and possibly others from Kfar Menahem) illustrates a post-depositional carbonatic infilling. This phenomenon is known to occur in sherds lying near the surface, affected by extensive exposure to water (Wieder and Adan-Bayewitz 1999:337-338, Fig. 10). This is corroborated by the high Ca value, over 24%.

Group M: This group includes a Cypriote White Slip ‘milk bowl’ from Tell Safi (SF39) also used as a ‘yardstick’ comparison for the chemical analysis. The matrix is possibly ophiolithic with open spaced and porous fabric. Inclusions are mainly poorly sorted coarse silt to fine sand quartz and mica (biotite?). Summary: Of the petrographic groups defined several are more distinct: Groups A (especially Fabrics A1 and A2), B, C and D, while other groups are less distinct or of an intermediate nature: Fabric A3 and Groups E and F. The vast majority of the samples are local to the area of Philistia, the southern coast and the inner plains. Nevertheless, an effort was made to identify intraregional groups, especially these pointing to some differences between the outcrops in the coastal strip and the inner plains. Samples, which were made of loess clays (Group B), more common in the southern coast of Philistia and southern inner plains/Shephelah and northern Negev, may be provenanced to the region of Ashkelon or Tell es-Safi (and southwards). However, both Petrographic Groups B and D, although distinct, are not geologically indicative of any sub-region within Philistia. The sites in the inner plains used both dark brown soil clays and marly/loess type clays. Moreover, a tendency to raw material specialization for Philistine decorated wares was noted, in the Iron I: the calcareous Group C of the fine Monochrome, and Group D of the gray Monochrome. After a chronological break this phenomenon occurs again to a lesser extent during the Iron IIA, with the A1c fabric more common to the LPDW.

Group I: This group includes one sample, SF32, a pithos from Safi. Although this is a low quality slide it seems it belong to the Motza clay group, with carbonatic matrix and dolomite sand. The matrix is very porous and silty with 50% voids and the fabric shows signs of vitrification (for this formation commonly used for pottery, see, e.g., Goren 1996a:51-52; Glass et al. 1993:272-276; Killebrew 1998a:216; Goren and Halperin 2004:2556-2557 and discussion therein). Northern Fabrics Several samples, all coming from northern sites, represent fabrics alien to Philistia, and probably were made in the northern valleys. These fabrics will not be described here in much detail.

29 This fabric was somewhat similar to Taqiye marl of vessels from Arad (see also Gorzalczany 2004:32*). I thank Prof. Y. Goren for allowing me to view slide from Arad and other sites analyzed by his petrographic lab at Tel Aviv University.

178

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.7: Characteristics of main petrographic groups Group

Soil

Matrix

Main inclusions

A1

Dark brown (quartzite) Dark brown (quartzite)

Inactive, moderately silty Inactive/slightly active, moderately silty

Bimodal quartz (coastal sand) Moderately sorted quartz, calcareous

Brown/loess /grumusol? Loess

Active, micritic, silty Calcareous, silty

Calcareous, quartz

Loess/grumusol/ rendzina? Loess/rendzina

Calcareous, fine, silty Calcareous, fine, silty Inactive

Calcareous, low quartz, ferrous Foraminifers (chalk)

Inner plains

Sorted silty angular quartz Quartz, calcareous, ferrous

Southern Israel

A2

A3 B(1-3) C1 C2 D(1-3) E

Dark brown/hamra? Brown/ Terra Rossa?

Inactive/slightly active, reddish

Quartz, feldspar, heavy minerals

Proposed provenance Coastal

Remarks

Inner plains?

Inner plains/ Shephelah? Southern Israel

Similar to Group B3 B1-coastal? B3-inner plains?

Inner plains

Southern Israel

calcareous marl clays rich with foraminifers. Three Philistine Monochrome samples were of Chemical Group 3, and one gray Monochrome of Chemical Group 6. The gray Philistine Monochrome are mostly of Chemical Group 2 and Petrographic Group D. Sample AS46 is possibly also of Group D1 with a possible kurkar inclusion. Sample AS28 is rich in calcareous inclusions and thus designated D3. The reddish Philistine Monochrome and Philistine Bichrome samples were made of the regular coastal dark brown clay (Fabric A1) or of the siltier variant, Fabric A1c. Several were made of coastal loess (Fabric B1). A Bichrome sherd and a reddish Monochrome bell shaped krater are possibly made of inner plains brown clay (Petrographic Group A2?), though neither analyzed chemically. Edelstein and Glass published relatively similar observations on Philistine Bichrome vessels from Ashdod more than 30 years ago (1973). A clay sample taken from the Lachish river bed near Tel Ashdod (Fig. 4.3 right) and was analyzed by TSPA (CS7). It was of an alluvial/dark brown non-silty clay type with 40% moderately sorted sandy quartz and rare calcareous inclusions (Fig. 4.31:4).

4. Results of analysis according to the sites sampled The samples were taken from 24 sites with an emphasis on the four Philistine cities excavated, sites from Philistia proper and Philistia ‘greater’ (see above, Fig. 4.2; Fig. 4.25). The proper Philistine sites will be discussed first; thereafter, further sites will be discussed from the south northwards. The relevant archaeological data for each of the samples is given in Appendix C. The archaeometric results of this study are presented together with previously published archaeometric studies relevant to these sites. a. Sites from Philistia Tel Ashdod (Table 4.8) Altogether 58 samples were analyzed from Ashdod (34 were analyzed chemically). Of these 33 were of Iron I wares (from Strata XIII-XII): eight fine Monochrome, ten reddish Monochrome, seven gray Monochrome and eight Bichrome (from Stratum XI). Twenty four samples were Iron II wares (Strata X-VIII) of them sixteen LPDW, eight plain or red-slipped; of the Iron II nine samples came from kilns in Areas D and M. The sampling from Ashdod was concentrated on kiln material, various and unique LPDW vessels, and Philistine Monochrome vessels of various fabrics.

A group of four bell-shaped bowls from Locus 4106 of Area G Stratum XIIIb were analyzed (Samples AS51-54). This locus contained 27 complete vessels, most of them linearly decorated or plain Philistine Monochrome bowls laid upside down (M. Dothan and Porath 1993:54; Fig. 14, Pl. 12). This was suggested to be a potters’ workshop and thus the question was whether this could be verified by the composition of the vessels. Although all four are of dark brown soil clay (Petrographic Groups A1 or A1c) only three cluster in chemical Group 2 while one is of another group (Group 3). Thus, the group does not show

Of the 34 chemically analyzed 23 are of Chemical Group 2. As this group includes the samples from the kilns it was considered a reference group for Ashdod. Five samples were grouped in Chemical Groups 4A (two samples) and 4B (three), all of fine Monochrome ware and of Petrographic Group C1 or C2.30 These are 30 AS30 and AS58 were grouped with Group 2, but according to BRF grouping they belong to Group 4 (with the other high Ca samples). AS31, designated to Group 4B, was paired according to BRF grouping

with MQ54 from Miqne (note that a 0.755 dilution factor was applied on the raw elemental values of these two samples).

179

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.8: Samples from Ashdoda Sample

Ware LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW Plain LPDW? LPDW Plain

ICP Group 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

ICP provenance Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal

TSPA Group B2 A1? A1c B1 A1a A1 A1c B(1?)

TSPA Final provenance provenance Southern Israel Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Southern Israel Coastal

AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 AS6 AS7 AS8 AS9 AS10 AS11 AS12 AS13 AS14 AS15 AS16 AS17 AS18 AS19 AS20 AS21 AS22 AS23 AS24 AS25 AS26 AS27 AS28 AS29 AS30 AS31 AS32 AS33 AS34 AS35

RS RSB RS LPDW LPDW Plain LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW MC G-F MC G MC R MC G MC F MC F MC F MC G MC R MC F BC

2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 5 5 4A 2 4B 2 4B -

Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Coastal? Coastal? Inner plains Coastal? Inner plains Coastal -

A1c A1a A1c A1 A1c A1* A1c A1c A1c* A1 A1 B1 B1 A1a A1c A1c D1 D1 D2 D3 C1? C1 C2 D3 A1a C2 B3

Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal ? Inner plains? ? Coastal ? Coastal? ? Coastal? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains ? Coastal Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Southern Israel Southern Israel

AS36 AS37 AS38 AS39 AS40 AS41 AS42 AS43

BC BC BC BC BC BC BC Myc IIIB

-

A1* A1* A1c?* A1 A1* A2? A1c* J

Coastal Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Imported

Coastal Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Imported

AS44 AS45 AS46 AS47

MC R MC P MC G MC F

Coastal ? ? Inner plains?

Coastal Inner plains ? Inner plains

3 4A

Inner plains -

A1c Inner plains? A?* D1? Inner plains C1?*

180

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

AS48 AS49 AS50 AS51 AS52 AS53 AS54 AS55 AS56 AS57 AS58

MC F MC F MC R MC R MC R MC R MC R MC R MC R MC G MC G-Y

4B 2 3 2 2 2 2 6 2

Inner plains -

C1 C1 Coastal A1 Inner plains? A1c?* Coastal A1* Coastal A(1?) Coastal A1c?* Coastal A?* A2? Shephelah? D2 Coastal D1

Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal? Coastal? Coastal? Inner plains? ? ?

Inner plains Inner plains Coastal ? Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Inner plains? ? Coastal?

a

Abbreviations for Tables 4.8-4.23: BC= Philistine Bichrome (f= denotes fine); BOR= Black on Red; LPDW= Late Philistine Decorated Ware; MC F= fine Philistine Monochrome; MC G= gray Philistine Monochrome; MC P= pink Philistine Monochrome; MC R= red Philistine Monochrome; RS= red-slipped pottery; RSP= red-slipped/degenerated Philistine; WS= Cypriote White Slip; *= low quality slide; for more information on samples see Appendix C.

Ashdod, as sections made near Area M which show calcite/chalk nodules within the hamra (Perlman and Asaro 1982:75-78, Tables 7-9; Gunneweg et al. 1986:9). However, it seems that this possibility is less reasonable as the calcite in these samples (Petrographic Group C) is mostly diffused within the matrix (see above). Furthermore, it has been shown according to the chemical profiles that that high calcium Philistine Monochrome pottery found at Ashdod was imported from Miqne in any case, according to the entire profile (e.g., Gunneweg et al. 1986:10, ASH653).32 Thus, as shown, inland clay source was most probably used for all of the fine Monochrome vessels. Iron II vessels from Area M analyzed by INAA were published in more detail (Perlman and Asaro 1982). The elemental compositions of the specific samples were obtained for eight samples and are compared with the ICP results (see Appendix B).33 In the 1982 INAA report all of the LPDW pottery, together with many other types and kiln material was combined in one chemical group, Group I. This group was subdivided into Groups Ia, Ib and Ic (with LPDW vessels at Group Ia) but then united again under normalization due to a supposed silica dilution. Thus, the red slipped pottery (both LPDW and other forms) was proved to be local to the region of Ashdod (comparisons with Cypriote sites were made as well, Perlman and Asaro 1982: Tables 4-6). Nevertheless, no comparisons were made with other Philistine sites is that study. It is now clear that the LPDW was not only local to Philistia but was produced in Ashdod itself and was exported to other Philistine sites as well as Tell esSafi and Tel Miqne (see below also on this pottery locally produced at Tell es-Safi).

a more compact compositional pattern than other vessels in the site (even to the contrary), and the identification of the find spot as a potter’s workshop is not verified. The group of complete vessels is probably related to a domestic assemblage; moreover, no kilns or other pottery production installations were found in this area in Stratum XIIIa (note also the discussion of this context in Part 2.3). The Iron II samples from Ashdod were made from either coastal dark brown soil clay (Fabric A1) or the siltier variant Fabric A1c—especially the LPDW samples. According to the chemical analysis none of the Iron II samples has an inner plains provenance. However, other clays as loess (Petrographic Group B) are represented in at least five samples (AS4, AS8 AS20, AS21—Fig. 4.31:3 and AS35) and may come from southern Philistia, possibly Ashkelon (or maybe Gaza?), as Ashdod is beyond the northern limits of the loess clays (Goren et al. 2004: Fig 14:1. Fig. 3.7).31 In summary most vessels are local to Ashdod with a degree of specialization in clay types for Monochrome gray ware and LPDW. Vessels were imported from the inner plains only during the Iron I and include only the fine Philistine Monochrome ware. These fine vessels probably came from Miqne, which possibly specialized in this ware variant. The reason for that would be the lack of highly calcareous marls in the Ashdod area. Eleven of the Ashdod samples in this study were analyzed by INAA (Perlman and Asaro 1971, 1982, Perlman et al. 1971; comparative results are seen in Appendix B). A larger group of several hundreds of vessels was analyzed by INAA as well although only a small part was published with any detail. It was previously suggested that a calcareous clay noted above as originating from Miqne could be acquired near

32 Note that Perlman and Gunneweg’s “Mycenaean IIIC:1b” group from Ashdod (as in Gunneweg et al. 1986: Table 2:Col. 2) does not give information of fabric variants in this group and thus it is difficult to draw more specific comparisons between the studies. 33 I wish to thank Prof. Frank Asaro for providing me the results from the Berkeley lab.

31 It should be noted again that the difference between dark brown soils and loess soils under the microscope is not always definite as the former partly derives from the latter.

181

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Tel Mor (Table 4.9) Four samples were analyzed from Tel Mor near Tel Ashdod (only by TSPA). These come from an Iron IIA horizon (Stratum III; see M. Dothan 1993a; Barako in press) and include three sherds of LPDW and one plain carinated bowl. Generally, all four are of Petrographic Group A1 of coastal dark brown soil. Two of the LPDW samples have a siltier matrix, which is classified as Fabric A1c, which seems to be typical of LPDW vessels. It is not surprising that the samples from Tel Mor show the same characteristics as most of those from nearby Tel Ashdod.

the chemical analysis eleven Iron I samples cluster with coastal groups (seven are Group 2, similar to Ashdod profile; four are Group 5); three have an inner plains provenance and one is inconclusive. The petrographic analysis adds more information, although five of the samples are inconclusively designated. Sample AK3, a Philistine Bichrome bell shaped krater, is made of Fabric C1, a calcareous marl clay typical of Tel Miqne area. Sample AK7, a Bichrome stirrup jar, is made of a loess fabric (Petrographic Group B3). A reddish Philistine Monochrome bell shaped krater (AK14, Fig. 4.32:1) and a plain lamp (AK17) are also made of loess clay, which may be coastal but more typical of southern Philistia. A LPDW pyxis (AK19) is unusual according to TSPA with peculiar oval foraminifer, designated as Group G (Fig. 4.38:3); the chemical fingerprinting points, however, to the Philistine coast. Otherwise most of the vessels are made of dark brown soil with bimodal quartz inclusions (Fabric A1). Master has suggested that the LPDW from Ashkelon was imported from the Phoenician coast (2001:35); this suggestion, however, was based on a petrographic analysis of a single, very small sherd, which may well belong to one of the Cypro-Phoenician ceramic groups (D. Master, personal communication).

Table 4.9: Samples from Tel Mor Sample

Ware

MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4

LPDW LPDW LPDW Plain

TSPA Group A1 A1c A1c A1

Provenance Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal

Ashkelon (Table 4.10) Twenty-two samples were analyzed from The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, twenty of Iron I wares and two of Iron II LPDW; sixteen were chemically analyzed. Of the Iron I wares two are plain, nine are Philistine Bichrome, eight are reddish Philistine Monochrome and one gray Monochrome. Most of the samples come from the first Bichrome phase (Phase 19) while two, AK21AK22 come from the earlier Phase 20. The two Iron IIA samples, AK19-AK20, come from Phase 16. According

In summary, combining the chemical and petrographic evidence, fifteen of the vessels were made in the Philistine coast. If dark brown soil clay is used, which is often the case in the Philistine wares, it is difficult to distinguish between Ashdod and Ashkelon (see Master 2003:54, Figs. 3, 8). However, loess type clay, when used, is much more likely to come from Ashkelon or

chemical vs. petrographic groups petrographic groups Inconclusive Other E D C B A3 A2

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1

2

3

A1

4A

4B

5

chemical groups

Figure 4.39. Comparison of chemical and petrographic groups.

182

6

7

Other

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.10: Samples from Ashkelon Sample Ware AK1 AK2 AK3 AK4 AK5 AK6 AK7 AK8 AK9 AK10 AK11 AK12 AK13 AK14 AK15 AK16 AK17 AK18 AK19 AK20 AK21 AK22

BC MC R BC MC R BC BC BC BC MC R BC MC R BC MC R MC R MC G BC Plain Plain LPDW LPDW MC R MC R

ICP group 2 4B 2 5 2 6 3 5 2 3 5 2 5 2 2 3

ICP Provenance Coastal Inner plains Coastal Coastal? Coastal Shephelah? Inner plains? Coastal? Coastal Inner plains? Coastal? Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal Inner plains?

TSPA group A1 A1? C1 A1b A1 A1 B3 A1a A1 A1 A1/A2? A1b A1 B1 A1? B? B2 A1 G A1 A1a A1/A2?

TSPA Provenance Coastal Coastal? Inner plains Coastal Coastal Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Coastal Coastal ? Coastal? Coastal Coastal Coastal? Southern Israel? Southern Israel Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal ?

Final Provenance Coastal Coastal? Inner plains Coastal Coastal Coastal Inner plains Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal? ? Coastal Coastal Inner plains? Coastal? Coastal Coastal? Coastal Coastal Inner plains?

common types (bowls, ‘Safi bowls’, kraters, jugs, lamp etc.), either plain or red slipped. Of these were a warped jar and a ceramic installation. In addition, six pre-LMLK jars, a Phoenician Black-on-Red juglet and a Cypriote milk bowl were sampled. The Iron I samples included only four Philistine Monochrome and four Bichrome vessels as the Iron I levels were not yet reached in large exposures at Tell es-Safi. The clay samples were taken mostly from the Elah riverbed near the tell from clay-like sediments. Of this group of 61 samples, 58 were analyzed by TSPA and 49 by ICP. As noted there was no highly reliable group of reference material for Tell es-Safi but according to the grouping of the plain vessels and some of the kiln pottery from Kfar Menahem Chemical Group 1 seems to represent a local profile. In addition, Chemical Group 3 may represent an additional profile of the site, while Petrographic Groups A2, A3, B3, D and E may fit clays occurring in the vicinity of the site.

southwards. It should be noted as well that there is yet no good chemical reference group from Ashkelon. Nevertheless Chemical Group 5 may represent a southern coastal profile typical to Ashkelon.34 Four of the vessels sampled from Ashkelon (three Philistine Bichrome— AK3, AK7 and AK16, and one Monochrome, AK22) were probably imported from inner Philistia (either Miqne or Safi). Another three vessels are local to Philistia but are inconclusive concerning their intra-regional provenance (this includes the ‘Monster Krater’, AK12, Fig. 4.29:2). Thus, tentatively (as the sample is not large), Ashkelon seems to show somewhat more intra-regional trade in Philistine pottery than Ashdod. Tel es-Safi/Gath (Table 4.11) Fifty-four vessels were sampled from Tell es-Safi/Gath, 45 were chemically analyzed. The samples are predominantly of the Iron IIA period (45 come from Stratum A3). In addition, a complete LPDW amphora collected in the area of Tell es-Safi (from a survey in the Shephelah mounds, Aharoni and Amiran 1955) was also sampled (Sample TS1), as were six sediments samples from the vicinity of the Tell (see Fig. 4.3: left). The Iron IIA samples include eighteen LPDW vessels of various types and a reference group including 21 vessels of

Two of the Philistine Monochrome samples were defined as gray fabric: a bell-shaped bowl (SF41) and a ‘feeding bottle’ jug (SF43). The former (SF41) clustered with Chemical Group 2 and was identified as Petrographic Group D3; thus, chemically grouping with the Ashdod samples. The other vessel (SF43) had coastal petrographic properties of Group A1; however chemically it grouped with Group 4A of inner plains provenance. Another vessel was of reddish Monochrome ware (bell shaped bowl, SF49). This seemed to be produced at the inner plains, both on account of chemical

34

In should be noted that according to BRF grouping one of the chemical groups is also likely to represent an Ashkelon profile according to the origin of the sherds in the group (seven are from Ashkelon) and possibly their petrographic grouping (ten are of Group B).

183

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Nineteen LPDW vessels were sampled from Tell es-Safi, of them eighteen chemically and sixteen by TSPA. Sixteen belong to Chemical Group 1, grouping with most of the Safi reference group. Three of the LPDW were clustered with the Ashdod reference group, in Chemical Group 2.36 These include two kraters (KR1B type), SF1 and SF5, and the complete AM1 amphora from the survey (TS1). The first two are of coastal provenance according to TSPA as well (SF1 is coastal loess and SF5 is fine alluvial A1c). The vessel from the survey TS1, however, showed a fabric possibly similar to inner plains loess (A3). Thus, it seems apparent that at least some of these vessels were imported from the coast, most probably from Ashdod. Most of the LPDW vessels, chemically grouped with Safi reference material, show also inner plains petrographic characteristics. Six were from inner plains dark brown soil (Fabric A2), four belong to the inner plains loess/silty soil A3. One Amphora (Type AM1) is of Fabric D1, and one of loess soil (B2). One sherd (SF30) is identified as Petrographic Group A1, though its identification as LPDW is not certain (possibly a JR1 type). Two fine LPDW jugs and a flask were made of the more calcareous A3 fabric (SF8— Fig. 4.31:1, SF9 and SF13); thus, it may be suggested that this fabric was selected for finer LPDW forms.

grouping (Group 3) and petrography (Group A2). The Philistine Monochrome samples included also one of the fine fabric (SF42); it originated from an unstratified accumulation. This was a fragment of a stirrup jar, very whitish in fabric with brown decoration. The thin section resembled Fabric C2, rich with rounded foraminifers (Fig. 4.34:1). However, chemically, this was an outlier with 26% Ca and extremely low Hf (0.277 ppm) and Ta (0.15 ppm). One possibility is that it was made of a rendzina soil, or a highly Ca diluted marl clay of inner Philistia (as Group 4B). However no constant dilution factor was evident, and although Chemical Group 4B profile is the closest to it the supposed dilution factor strongly varies from 1.2 to 1.6, while Eu and Sm are nearly the same and Hf and Ta are 4-6 times lower. Another possibility is that this vessel was imported from outside Philistia or overseas, however, no reasonable matches with published chemical profiles of Myc. IIIC1 pottery from Cyprus of Greece were made so far. The petrographic analysis does not indicate an overseas provenance as well. Four Philistine Bichrome vessels were sampled, three bell-shaped kraters and a bell-shaped bowl (SF44-SF47). Chemically they all grouped in Group 3, representing a possible Safi provenance.35 TSPA divided these between two of Group A3 and two of Group D3; all samples were rich in calcareous fragments. Although the ICP and TSPA analyses show some differences they does not bring a contradiction between the chemical and petrographic results, both indicating a local production.

Six pre LMLK jars from Stratum A3 were sampled (five analyzed chemically) as several questions came up concerning the provenance of this important late Iron IIA form (Shai and Maeir 2003; the main question whether these vessels were made locally on the sites or had a central production center). Four of them group together in Chemical Group 7 and one in Group 5. Group 7 is a different profile from the Safi vessels though probably local to the inner Shephelah. Possibly this reflects a production center of this jars in the Lachish area as was suggested for the LMLK jars (Shai and Maeir 2003:120121). Note also that the general profile published for these jars (Mommsen et al. 1984: Table 3:Col. 3; and for a new analysis, see Sharon 1989:87-95) is quite similar to the average of Chemical Group 7.37 The fifth jar had a different profile (SF52, Group 5) and may have been manufactured elsewhere. From the petrographic view two pre-LMLK samples accord with a general inner plains provenance (Group A2) one is of marl Group C and three belong to petrographic Group E, possibly representing Terra Rossa soil of the Shephelah (one is E1 and two E3, see Fig. 4.37:4). Recently, Goren noted that the LMLK jars are all made of Terra Rossa soil (Goren et al. 2004:285; Goren and Halperin 2004:2556).

The group of common Iron IIA wares from Safi included 21 vessels. Thirteen were chemically analyzed and seem to be a relatively good reference group for the site as nine of them group together with the LPDW vessels from Safi in Chemical Group 1. Two were assigned to Chemical Group 3, one to Group 7 and one to Group 5 (a juglet, SF29). Petrographic analysis showed most of these vessels to be probably local to the site though of variant wares (sixteen were decisive designations): six are of Group A2 (with poorly sorted quartz and relatively more calcareous inclusions), four of silty brown/loess, Group A3, one of Group C, one of B3 and one E1. A flat platter or installation was made of low temperature fired silty clay (Group A3, ‘Shephelah loess’?), rich with organic temper represented by voids. A small pithos (SF19) was defined as coastal Group A1 and a large ‘’Ajrud type’ (Ayalon 1995) pithos (SF32) had a very dark and porous clay, probably identified as Motza clay (Petrographic Group I). This vessel may have come from the area of the Hebron hills (?). A cooking pot (SF20), not included in the chemical reference group, was made of loess type clay rich with calcareous inclusions (Group B3). According to the sample, which was possibly yet too small, there does not seem to be any apparent correlation between specific petrographic fabrics and specific types of the plain or red slipped wares.

36 It should be noted that according to BRF grouping samples SF2 and SF3 grouped with the Ashdod material as well, while SF5 grouped with the Safi material; CS6 grouped with Group 4 as well. 37 If the two profiles are compared then out of sixteen elements jointly acquired by INAA and ICP eight elements fall into the 1σ range of the average of the 118 LMLK jars, three into the 2σ range and five are 3σ or more apart (but these include several elements which are known to be not compatible between INAA and ICP as Cr, Hf, Yb and Lu: Tsolakidou and Kilikoglou 2002:572). Considering we are comparing different chemical techniques this may be seen as a relatively good match.

35

According to BRF grouping samples SF44 and SF47 group with the calcareous Group 4.

184

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Chemical vs. petrographic provenance

100% 80% 60%

petrographic provenance

40%

Inconclusive Inner Philistia? Inner Philistia Coastal?

20% 0% Coastal Coastal?

Coastal

Inner Inner Philistia Philistia?

Other

chemical provenance Figure 4.40. Comparison of chemical and petrographic provenancing. chemical composition in them. Three of the clay samples were chemically analyzed. The Iron II sediment grouped in Group 2 while both the earlier Iron I sediment sample and the recent clay mix (CS6) were designated to Group 6. This group may probably represent an inner plains clay profile. As noted above no significance should be given to the alleged coastal provenance of CS2, aside from being different from the Iron I sediment. The petrographic identification of the clay samples were inconclusive, though they contained high amounts of moderately to well sorted amounts of quartz and lower amounts of calcareous inclusions; possibly more similar to Petrographic Group D (see Sample CS1, Fig. 4.36:4).

A short survey for clay sources was conducted around Tell es-Safi.38 As no apparent clay sources were found on or around the tell, clay samples were taken from the close by Elah riverbed, just north of the tell (See Fig. 4.3 left). Although much of the area is covered by relatively recent alluvium the river channels cut into ancient deposits in places. Two samples were taken from an ancient section dated to the Iron Age exposed by the 2002-2003 winter floods, a lower flood plain of the river. A Philistine Monochrome bowl was found in a lower layer of this section. Clay Sample 1 was taken from a lower level of this section presumably dated to the Iron I while Clay Sample 2 was taken from a fill layer presumably dated to the Iron IIA. This soil is relatively fine silty with 30% clay (Ackermann et al. 2004:320). Another three samples were taken from recent sediments of the riverbed: a muddy sediment (CS3), a lower sandy sediment (CS4) and an equal mixture of the two (CS6). The clay samples were dried and fired for about 4 hours in about 850 °C and prepared for thin section and chemical analysis. It was not expected that the composition of the clay samples would give the most typical chemical profile of the site for several reasons. First, no definite clay sources were identified; second, the raw material is often quite different in composition than the pottery vessels due to levigation, tempering, mixing etc of the clay (see discussion in Part 3.1). These samples were taken in order to receive a general impression of the inclusions and matrix of the sediments and possibly see the range of 38

In summary, the archaeometric results show that both in the Iron I and Iron IIA there was some trade in Philistine decorated wares from the coast to Tell es-Safi, although most of the vessels of these types were probably manufactured on the site (see Fig. 4.41). There are at least three vessels attesting to this trade, but possibly others as well. The local clays used were variable, with possibly a different recipe used for Philistine Monochrome, Philistine Bichrome and LPDW pottery, resulting in at least three chemical profiles and three petrographic groups (see above on the variability of clay sources in the Tell es-Safi region, Part 3.6, Figs. 4.20-4.21). The undecorated pottery selected from the site created a reasonable reference group, though further analysis can improve it in the future.

I wish to thank Oren Ackermann for his assistance in this survey.

185

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.11: Samples from Tell es-Safi/Gath Sample Ware SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SF6 SF7 SF8 SF9 SF10 SF11 SF12 SF13 SF14 SF15 SF16 SF17 SF18 SF19 SF20 SF21 SF22 SF23 SF24 SF25 SF26 SF27 SF28 SF29 SF30 SF31 SF32 SF33 SF34 SF35 SF36 SF37 SF38 SF39 SF40 SF41 SF42 SF43 SF44 SF45 SF46 SF47 SF48 SF49 SF50 SF51 SF52

LPDW Plain LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW? Plain Plain Pre-lmlk Plain Plain Plain RSB Plain RSB Plain Plain LPDW? Plain Plain Plain Plain RS Plain RS Plain Cyp WS BOR MC G MC F MC G BC BC BC BC Plain MC R Pre-lmlk Pre-lmlk Pre-lmlk

ICP group 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 Outlier loner 2 Outlier 4A 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 7 5

ICP prov.

Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal? Inner plains Inner plains Shephelah? Inner plains Cypriote ? Coastal ? Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? ? ? Coastal

TSPA group B1* E1 A2a A3 A1c A2a D1* A3 A3 A2 B2 A2b A3 A2* E? A1 B3* A2e E1* A(1?)* B(1?) A3 A2a A2?* A2* A3 A1 C1 I* A2* A2* A2* A2* A3 E1? M K D3 C1 A1 A3 D3 D3 A3 A3 A2 E3 E3 E1

186

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains ? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Southern Israel Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains?

Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? ? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Coastal? Coastal? Inner plains Judea? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains ? Cypriote ? Coastal ? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Shephelah? Shephelah? ?

? Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Shephelah? ? Southern Israel Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains Judea? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? ? Cypriote ? ? Inner plains Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? ? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains Shephelah? Shephelah? Shephelah?

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION SF53 SF54 TS1 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS6

Pre-lmlk Pre-lmlk LPDW Clay Clay Clay Clay CS 3+4

7 7 2 6 2 6

? ? Coastal Shephelah? Coastal Shephelah?

A2 C1 A3 D? D? A? A2? -

Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains? Shephelah? Shephelah? Shephelah? Inner plains?

Shephelah? Shephelah? Coastal? Tell Safi Tell Safi Tell Safi Tell Safi Tell Safi

Provenance of samples from the Philistine city sites

Other Inner Philistia? Inner Philistia Coastal? Coastal

Ashdod

Ashkelon

Miqne

Safi

Figure 4.41. Provenance of samples from the Philistine city sites (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tell es-Safi and Miqne). Kfar Menahem (Table 4.12) Eighteen vessels were analyzed from the site of Kfar Menahem (the ‘kiln site’), of these, fourteen analyzed chemically. This site is about two km from Tell es-Safi and its analysis is thus linked to the latter. Most of the vessels are undecorated pottery types as bowls, kraters, jugs and jars. A doughnut-shaped weight and a basin were also sampled. In addition, two LPDW vessels were sampled and a bowl similar to a Phoenician form. The vessels were found in the kiln chambers themselves or in the areas in front of them. At least four of the vessels (KM1 and KM14, KM15 and KM16) were covered with pottery slag and can be considered as wasters. Many of the sherds were covered by a thick whitish layer of patina, possibly effecting some of the archaeometric results (as the carbonatic infilling may have penetrated deep into the sherd; see above).

Chemical Group 2, although only one of these, a LPDW JG4 jug, was also classified to a coastal petrographic group. A perforated weight (KM19) was designated Chemical Group 7 (it appeared as a loner when ‘simplified mahalanobis’ distance was used). A loner, KM2, is an LPDW JG4 jug (initially grouped with Group 2 but excluded on account of marginal values), and an outlier, KM10, is a juglet. Sample KM10 has a high Ca value (above 24%), but despite the high calcite dilution it has a high Cr and V values (136 and 134 ppm respectively), and a relatively high values of Er, Yb and Y (2.66, 2.3 and 29.5 ppm respectively) as well.39 The petrographic results were similarly indecisive, and often contradicting the chemical ones. Three of the vessels were of dark brown clay with inner plains/Shephelah inclusions (Fabric A2), while the more dominant group is Group E, relatively rich with limestone and nari inclusions. Another five samples were indecisively classified, but seem to be similar to the Group E fabric. These samples all show high firing temperature with many traces of decomposed calcite, while sandy and silty quartz also occurs. This clay was

The archaeometric results reveal a high variability in clay composition, which is even unusual for such a small sample in a regular site, let alone a production site (see Fig. 4.42). Three of the samples belong to Chemical Group 1 and three to Group 3; these include the three wasters, though they do not all group together. Moreover, Samples KM1 and KM3 have marginal values for Group 1. Surprisingly, five samples were grouped with

39 According to BRF grouping, KM3 was grouped with the Ashdod cluster, KM14, KM15 and KM16 were grouped with the calcareous Group 4, while KM1 was an outlier or loner.

187

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.42. Chemical and petrographic classification of samples from Kfar Menahem. Table 4.12: Samples from Kfar Menahem Sample Ware KM1 KM2 KM3 KM4 KM5 KM6 KM8 KM9 KM10 KM11 KM12 KM13 KM14 KM15 KM16 KM17 KM18 KM19

Plain LPDW Plain Plain Plain Phoenician? Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Coarse LPDW? Coarse

ICP group ICP prov.

1 loner 1 2 2 2 Outlier 2 1 3 3 3 2 7

Inner plains ? Inner plains Coastal Coastal Coastal ? Coastal Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal Shephelah?

TSPA group E2? E1 E1 D1 A2 E2? E1 E2? H E1 E1 A2 A2c E2? D1 B3 A1 B3

possibly quarried from the Elah valley (maybe related to husmas soil, see above). Two samples were classified as Group D1. The two coarse ware samples (KM17 and KM19) vary chemically, but according to TSPA were made of loess type clay of Fabric B3 (inner plains inclusions?). Sample KM10, as noted above, was a loner by TSPA as well (denoted as Petrographic Group H, Fig. 4.38:4). Most of the samples indicate a high firing temperature of above 850-900 °C and were covered by thick encrustation.

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Shephelah? Shephelah? Shephelah? ? Inner plains Shephelah? Shephelah? Shephelah? ? Shephelah? Shephelah? Inner plains Inner plains Shephelah? ? Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains?

Inner plains ? Inner plains Coastal Inner plains ? Coastal? Coastal? ? Shephelah? Shephelah? Coastal? Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal Shephelah?

coast; otherwise, six of the vessels of the plain ware were made on the site, and five other vessels were imported from neighboring regions (the coast or the southern Shephelah). One or two vessels were possibly imported from further a field. Thus, the pottery displays ample evidence of trade. As this is an alleged production site with pottery coming from kilns, other explanations may be put forward for the compositional variability. In a production site, it may be possible that various clay recipes were used, thus resulting in a higher compositional variability. Perhaps some of the samples that grouped as coastal reflect a different type of clay used more rarely in the workshop and not commonly used by other regional workshops. Thus, as no good reference material for this profile is available, the samples were sometimes incorrectly grouped with the coastal

According to the variability of the results, both chemical and petrographic, the provenancing should be treated with caution. If Kfar Menahem is treated as a regular site, then it may be suggested that the LPDW vessels were both imported (especially KM18), probably from the

188

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION profile, or remain ungrouped. This type of error is more likely to happen in circumstances in which all the profiles are relatively close to each other. Also possible is that to a certain extent, the various firing conditions are responsible to the discrepancies in chemical grouping (especially in relation to the petrographic grouping). This phenomenon is known to occur mostly in the alkaline elements K, Rb, and possibly Na (Kilikoglou et al. 1988; Cogswell et al. 1996). The phenomenon of various degrees of compositional variability in production centers has been previously encountered, even in cases when most of the samples were defined as wasters (see Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2001, in Late Bronze Age kiln at Kommos Crete; Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003a, in a modern production center). Another possibility is to refute the assumption that the site is a kiln site and/or that the rectangular chambers are kiln chambers. This would seem to be supported by the chemical and petrographic results. One could also suggest that although the site does represent some pottery production (as the slag would testify) the alleged kilns are not actually kilns, or may have had a different final usage. If this is the case then many of the vessels sampled may have not been fired in the kilns. In any case the compositional results of the samples from Kfar Menahem do not strengthen the proposed identification of the site as a pottery workshop on the one hand, while on the other hand may illustrate the problems that can arise from assigning pottery from kilns as definitive reference material.

Group 4: four red Philistine Monochrome, one Philistine Bichrome, one Canaanite tradition vessel and three redslipped Philistine vessels; in the Petrographic Group C: three red Philistine Monochrome, one Philistine Bichrome and one collared rim pithos; see also Killebrew 1998a:202,206, concerning her ME-A fabric). This fact can strengthen provenancing of all these samples to Tel Miqne. Thus, nearly all fine Monochrome vessels from Miqne and other Philistine sites were most probably made at Miqne both on chemical and petrographic grounds. Moreover, the selection and treatment of a specific clay source for this ware is readily apparent. The difference between sub groups 4A and 4B does not correspond any typological or other pattern. Four of the vessels were also analyzed previously by Killebrew, giving practically the same results. Of these, MQ30 and MQ56 (Killebrew 1998a: No. 155) were described as of a typical ME-A1 fabric, one was of the same fabric but rich with foraminifers (here MQ55, Killebrew No. 97), and the fourth (here MQ52, Killebrew No. 81) was of Fabric ME-A2. Seven reddish Monochrome vessels were sampled; these include bell-shaped bowls and kraters, a CSHB, and a feeding bottle jug from the kiln in Field I which may be termed as a waster (MQ41) (a ‘feeding bottle’ type jug also discussed by Killebrew [1998a: Type AS8a, Ill. II.22:31]). Of these six were chemically analyzed and three are of Group 4A (including the waster). The hemispherical bowl (MQ15) was assigned to Chemical Group 4B and possibly Petrographic Group C. Another vessel is of Chemical Group 3 (TSPA Group D3), while a bell-shaped bowl (MQ7) was found to be of a coastal origin (Chemical Group 2; though by TSPA it is assigned to Group A2a, tentatively of inner plains provenance). Two other vessels are of Petrographic Groups A2a (MQ33) and C1 (MQ36). The two gray Monochrome vessels sampled (MQ10 and MQ16) are both of coastal origin (Group 2) supported by TSPA (Fabric A1). It seems this sub-ware was imported from Ashdod. Thus, intra-regional trade is illustrated: Ekron was an exporter of fine Philistine Monochrome ware, while it was an importer of the grayish variant of this ware (to a lesser extent). Iron I vessels including Philistine Bichrome forms imported from Ashdod to Miqne, were previously reported (Gunneweg et al. 1986:11, Table 1), although this is the first evidence of a similar trade in Philistine Monochrome as well.

Tel Miqne-Ekron (Table 2.13) Sixty samples were analyzed from Tel Miqne-Ekron (of them 41 chemically) with an emphasis on Iron I Philistine Monochrome ware (33 samples). Other samples include Philistine Bichrome (four), various Iron I vessels (four), red slipped Philistine (eight), LPDW (six), and plain Iron II vessels (five). The largest group is of fine Monochrome ware, including 24 samples (fifteen analyzed chemically). The group includes five pinkish well-levigated Monochrome vessels (‘MC P’). The forms analyzed include mainly bell-shaped bowls and kraters, but also carinated strap handles bowls, kalathoi and stirrup jars. Rarer forms, appearing only at Miqne, were also analyzed. These include a hemispherical bowl (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Type A; sample MQ15), trefoil mouthed jugs (MQ38, Fig. 4.33:3) and decorated bovine figurines (MQ59 and MQ60). This group included also at least six vessels found in or near Kiln 4104 in Field INE (MQ29, MQ38, MQ39, MQ40, MQ41, MQ42).

Due to limitations of the scope of the study only four Philistine Bichrome vessels were sampled from Miqne, though an attempt was made select representative fabrics (visually). Three were chemically analyzed: one was assigned to Group 4B, and one to Group 6. Both these vessels were designated to Petrographic Group A3 of inner plains loess or fine silty brown soil. Another sample, a Bichrome BSB made of finer clay (MQ4), was assigned to Petrographic Group C1 (it was not analyzed chemically). Thus, we see that at Miqne, Philistine Bichrome vessels were at times made of the same clay

The chemical and petrographic grouping of the fine Philistine Monochrome vessels is quite clear putting all fifteen samples in the highly calcareous Chemical Group 4 (eight in sub-group 4A, and seven in sub-group 4B) and all 24 were of the calcareous marl Petrographic Group C (of these 21 in Group C1 and three in Group C2). It should be noted that, as opposed to other sites, at Tel Miqne vessels from other wares belong to this compositional group as well. These include in Chemical 189

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY unique to Miqne) were assigned to Chemical Group 6, but classified as petrographic coastal Group A1. Other more common LPDW forms, two AM1 amphorae and one JR1 jar, were assigned to Chemical Group 2 of the coastal provenance. Smaple MQ21 belongs to Petrographic Group A1a of coastal provenance. Thus, seemingly, a large portion of the LPDW vessels was imported from the coast, probably from Ashdod. The amphoriskos (MQ22, not sampled chemically) had an inner plains petrographic classification (Group A2a). Five plain Iron II vessels (from Stratum IB) of common forms were sampled as well to assist in building a reference group for the site (MQ23-MQ27, three analyzed chemically). All five belonged to Petrographic Group A2 of inner plains alluvial/dark brown clay. Two samples grouped with Chemical Group 6, while one with Group 3. Although the samples seem to be of local provenance (also possibly strengthening the Shephelah/inner plains provenance of Group 6) they are apparently somewhat different from the Iron I vessels, which also include vessels from kilns. Thus, this could represent a different clay source used in the Iron II, though still probably in the Tel Miqne area.

that was selected for fine Monochrome ware. A Bichrome bell-shaped krater (MQ57) was found to be imported from the coast, belonging to Chemical Group 2 and Petrographic Group A1 (this result was also suggested by previous INAA results of this vessel, Gunneweg et al. 1986:11, No. 35, Table 4:Col. 3). A krater of a Canaanite form and decoration (MQ2) was also sampled, turning out also to belong to the calcareous Group 4A (and petrographic Group A2). One cooking jug (MQ40) was sampled and was assigned to Group 6, while in thin section it was shown to be of dark brown clay, with large medium sand quartz inclusions (Group A2d). Killebrew examined four Aegean-style cooking jugs (her Type AS10) from Miqne and these were all made of Ware MEB3, a calcareous fabric rich with quartz inclusions but with hardly any limestone or shell temper typical of the Canaanite cooking vessels (Killebrew 1998a: 183184,203,251, Ill. IV.5: upper; Killebrew 1999). A collared-rim was pithos sampled as well (MQ1), and was found to be a chemical loner, though the petrographic classification of inner plains calcareous/rendzina clay (Fabric C2). It has been shown that collared rim-pithoi were made in various workshops, though the provenancing of this vessels is beyond the scope of this study (for archaeometric studies of collared rimmed pithoi see e.g, Wolff and Cohen-Weinberger 2001; Yellin and Gunneweg 1989).40

Fifteen fine Monochrome vessels from Tel Miqne Field INE were analyzed by INAA among other Iron Age Miqne material (Gunneweg et al. 1986). Of these eight samples were resampled in this study, mostly of fine Monochrome ware; this was done for two reasons: 1. Establishing a better reference group, anchored in INAA results as well; 2. Trying to examine to what extent elemental comparisons of the ICP and the earlier INAA results (Berkeley and HU labs) can be made (see Appendix B for more detailed comparisons). Seven fine Monochrome vessels were designated to a Miqne provenance by INAA, while according to ICP, six of these group together in Chemical Group 4A. The seventh sample (MQ54) was of Group 4B with a higher calcium content, and according to INAA, they are also grouped separately in the higher calcium subgroup (Gunneweg et al. 1986: Lab. No. 20, Table 2: Col. 4). One Philistine Bichrome (MQ57) was provenanced by both ICP and INAA to Ashdod (Gunneweg et al. 1986:11, lab. No. 35, Table 4: Col. 3). Thus, although specific elemental comparisons are not easily made, the INAA and ICP results accord in relation to the chemical grouping.

A typologically intermediate pottery group sampled from Tel Miqne were eight red slipped Philistine vessels from Strata V-IVA in Field IV (MQ43-MQ51, four analyzed chemically). These are closed forms (mostly jugs and flasks) with thin red slip, black decoration but no burnish. The chemical grouping showed a pattern somewhat similar to the Bichrome vessels: three belonging to the calcareous groups (two are 4A and one 4B) and one to Group 6. Several of these were indecisive according to TSPA, though four seemed to be close to the inner plains brown/loess soil of Fabric A3. Three other vessels were defined as types of loess clay as well (Groups B2 and B3). The clay, however, includes sometimes ‘coastal’ type quartz inclusions, and thus the provenancing according to TSPA is inconclusive. A sherd from a jug or amphora (MQ48) was classified as Fabric A1, although it was not analyzed chemically; perhaps it was imported from the coast. Altogether, although several of the vessels from this typological group seem to have been made at Miqne, the provenance of others is not clear. Six LPDW vessels were sampled from Tel Miqne (five analyzed chemically). This ware seems to have a long range at this site and also some rare forms of it appear (see Part 1.6). One vessel comes from Stratum IV, four from Strata IIIIIB, and one possible LPDW (an amphoriskos) from Stratum IB. The compositional results of these vessels were quite interesting. Two vessels, a strainer spouted jug from Stratum IV (MQ50) and a BL4 type bowl (MQ18,

In summary, it can be noted that although no proper large reference group from Miqne was selected in this study, the chemical and petrographic patterns are quite wellfounded. The clay sources seem to differ during the Iron Age: the Iron I, with more calcareous clay, and the Iron II a more dark brown-silty soil (maybe ‘grumusol’). In the early Iron I Tel Miqne Ekron was a producer and exporter of fine Philistine Monochrome ware (as the Strata VII-VI kilns can attest as well), made of a specific clay recipe, which was occasionally used for other vessel types at Tel Miqne as well. Other types of Philistine Monochrome and Philistine Bichrome wares were produced at the site, but also, to a certain extent, imported from the coast

40 According to BRF grouping MQ1 is assigned to calcareous Group 4, and thus local to Miqne; Bichrome vessel MQ6 and red slipped Philistine MQ45, both assigned here to Group 6, are grouped by bestrelative-fit to calcareous Group 4 as well.

190

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.13: Samples from Tel Miqne-Ekron Sample Ware

ICP group

ICP prov.

TSPA group

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

loner 4A 4B 6 2 4B 2 4B 4A 4B 4B 2 4A 6 2 2

? Inner plains Inner plains Shephelah? Coastal Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Shephelah? Coastal Coastal

C2 A2 C1 C1 A3 A3 A2a C1 C1 A1 C1 C1 C1 C2 A2b/C1 A1 A2b/C? A1c/A2b? A1c/A2b? B2

Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Coastal? Coastal? Southern Israel Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? ? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Southern Israel Coastal? ? Coastal? Coastal Inner plains?

Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains? Coastal Coastal

MQ1 MQ2 MQ3 MQ4 MQ5 MQ6 MQ7 MQ8 MQ9 MQ10 MQ11 MQ12 MQ13 MQ14 MQ15 MQ16 MQ17 MQ18 MQ19 MQ20

Pithos Plain MC F BC BC BC MC R MC F MC F MC G MC F MC P MC F MC F MC R MC G MC R LPDW LPDW LPDW

MQ21 MQ22 MQ23 MQ24 MQ25 MQ26 MQ27 MQ28 MQ29 MQ30 MQ31 MQ32 MQ33 MQ34 MQ35 MQ36 MQ37 MQ38 MQ39 MQ40 MQ41 MQ42 MQ43 MQ44

LPDW LPDW? Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain MC F MC F MC P MC P MC F MC R MC R MC F-P MC R MC F MC F MC F CJ MC R MC F RSP/LPDW RSP

2 6 3 6 4A 4B 3 4A 4B 6 4A 4A -

Coastal Shephelah? Inner plains? Shephelah? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Shephelah? Inner plains Inner plains -

A1a A2a A2a A2a A2 A2 A2? C1/A3 C1 C2 C1 C1 A2a D3 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 A2d C1 C1 A3? B2

MQ45 MQ46 MQ47 MQ48 MQ49

RSP RSP/LPDW RSP/LPDW RSP/LPDW RSP

6 4B 4A

Shephelah? Inner plains Inner plains

A1? B2 B3 A1 A3?

191

Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains ? ? Inner plains Coastal? Coastal Inner plains

INAA analysis TSPA (Gunneweg et analysis al. 1986) (Killebrew 1998a)

#26, Miqne

#71, ME-A2 #155, ME-A1

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY MQ50 MQ51 MQ52 MQ53 MQ54

LPDW RSP/LPDW MC P MC F MC F

6 4A 4A 4B

Shephelah? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains

A1 A3? C1 C2 C1

Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains

? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains

MQ55 MQ56 MQ57 MQ58 MQ59 MQ60

MC F MC F BC MC R MC F MC F

4A 4A 2 4A 4B 4A

Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains

C1 C1 A1 C1 C1 C1

Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains

Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains

#15, Miqne #16, Miqne #20, Miqne (high Ca) #21, Miqne #24, Miqne #35, Ashdod #40, Miqne

Figure 4.43. Chemical and petrographic classification of the different Philistine wares.

192

#81, ME-A2 #69, ME-A1 #67, ME-A1 #97, ME-A1 #86, ME-A1 #82, ME-B7 #73, ME-A2

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.14: Samples from Tel Batash Sample Ware BT1 BT2 BT3 BT4 BT5 BT6 BT7 BT8 BT9 BT10 BT11 BT12 BT13 BT14

LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW? LPDW? RSB ‘WS’ chalice ‘WS’ chalice LPDW Plain LPDW?

ICP group 4A 3 7 7 3 4A 4A

ICP prov.

Inner plains Inner plains? Shephelah? Shephelah? Inner plains? Inner plains Inner plains

TSPA group B2? B A1/A2? A1a/A2? A1/A2? B2 A2 E1 A3/F A1c A2a A1c? E3 A2?

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Southern Israel Southern Israel ? ? ? Southern Israel Inner plains? Shephelah? Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains? Coastal? Shephelah? Inner plains?

Inner plains Southern Israel Inner plains? Shephelah? ? Southern Israel Inner plains? Shephelah? Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Shephelah? Inner plains

Shephelah provenance (Chemical Groups 3, 4A and 7).41 The presence of relative high amounts of limestone fragments inclusions in these samples, though, seems to favor an inner plains or Shephelah provenance. Furthermore, three samples from Batash are petrographic indecisive, while two belong to Group E which has no clear provenancing (but possibly from the Shephelah). Of the LPDW sherds one is classified as inner plains dark brown clay (A2) and three are of loess clay with calcareous inclusions (two are Fabric B2).42 The two decorated chalices are classified as dark brown soil clay though one seems to have coastal inclusions (BT10) and the other (BT11) inner plains ones. The cooking pot was only analyzed in thin section is classified as Group E3. The red slipped bowl is possibly of loess clay. In summary, it seems that a fine-tuned provenancing of the Batash samples is not easily made, though all LPDW samples come from the area of Philistia, most probably from the inner plains/Shephelah. It seems plausible to assume at this stage that most were produced on the site and not imported from coastal sites.

(three Philistine Monochrome were probably brought from Ashdod, of these two are of the gray fabric). During the Iron II, the LPDW seem to have been imported largely from the coast, though several of the more unique types were produced at the site. Altogether, eight or nine vessels were imported from the coast, but in the Iron II this is a more distinct phenomenon considering the relative sampling from this period. b. Sites from regions bordering Philistia (“peripheral”) Tel Batash (Table 4.14) Fourteen vessels were analyzed from Tel Batash (seven chemically), all of Iron II wares. Eight or nine are of Stratum IV dated to the Iron IIA, three of Stratum III (8th c. BCE), and two of Stratum II (seventh c. BCE). Five are LPDW vessels and an additional five are possibly LPDW (these are mainly smaller sherds); identified forms include kraters and jugs. In this case no attempt was made to sample a large reference group, though one red-slipped bowl, one cooking pot and two white slipped decorated chalices were also sampled. The main goal was to examine whether the LPDW from this site were produced in one of the centers tentatively defined at Ashdod and Tell es-Safi. According to the chemical results at least five of the vessels apparently were not produced at one of these sites: three cluster with Group 4A and two with Group 7. Two vessels (a red slipped bowl and an LPDW jug) belong to Group 3, which may point to a provenance in the vicinity of Safi (but not necessarily). As there is no reference group, it is not surprising that there are relatively more contradictions between the chemical and petrographic provenancing. Samples BT3, BT4, BT5 and BT12 are classified as variants of the dark brown soil clay according to the quartz inclusions, though at least three are chemically more probably of an inner plains or

Results of the INAA of some 45 Iron IIB-C vessels (mostly of the 8-7th century; Strata III-II) were published from Tel Batash (Gunneweg and Yellin 1991). Interestingly, they found a large portion of vessels to be imported from Ashdod (at least 13); in addition there were two inner plains/Shephelah sources related to Lachish and to Miqne. It is possible that the Lachish source is similar to Chemical Groups 3 and/or 7 here, 41 According to BRF grouping BT9 is assigned to calcareous Group 4, while BT12 and BT14 are paired together, aside from other groups. 42 Altogether approximately 15 vessels and sherds of LPDW pottery were published from Tel Batash, several of which were examined by thin section petrography (Goren in Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001). Of these, seven were defined as Fabric Group 30, four of Fabric Group 31, and two of Fabric Group 32. Both Fabric Groups 30 and 32 are made of coastal loess clay, while Fabric Group 31 possibly originates in the Shephelah (from the Tel Miqne-Ekron area?) (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:20-21).

193

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.15: Samples from Beth Shemesh Sample BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4 BM5 BM6

Ware BC BC BC BC LPDW LPDW

ICP group 4B 4A 4B 2 6

ICP prov. Inner plains Inner plains Inner plains Coastal Shephelah?

TSPA group A3 A2 E1? A1c? A1c A2?

TSPA prov. Inner plains? Inner plains? ? Coastal? Coastal Inner plains?

Final prov. Inner plains Inner plains ? Inner plains Coastal Shephelah?

A1a, D1 and E1. There is not enough evidence to add any other judgment on the provenance of this Philistine Bichrome material from Gezer.

while the Miqne source would have fallen in the 4A chemical group. However, Gunneweg and Yellin do not report any reference material from Batash, and it is not possible to assess such a profile from the reported concentrations, as these are grouped according to supposed reference material from other sites. Thus, it is not clear whether or not some of these samples could have been grouped with the locally-made pottery. In terms of geographical and geological distances, Tel Miqne and Batash are close, while Lachish is somewhat further away. Moreover, some of the seventeen outliers/loners reported in the INAA report could probably represent a local Batash profile. Nevertheless, a distinct pattern to be noted is that while during the Iron IIA there are no imports from coastal Philistia to Batash, these appear later on during the Iron IIC. Perhaps this indicates a stronger Philistine dominance in the area of Batash during the final Iron II.

A group of 28 Philistine vessels from Gezer, probably all Philistine Bichrome sherds, was analyzed by INAA in the University of Manchester (Hughes and Smith 1986). Of these 23 spread among several clusters (Clusters 2-9), which are not considerably different chemically; therefore the authors conclude that none of it is imported (Hughes and Smith 1986:274). Five others are chemical outliers. At least three of the Philistine vessels have high Hf value (above 10 ppm) possibly linking them with an Ashdod provenance (Hughes and Smith 1986: Nos. 19, 33, 37; however of these No. 19 is of high Ca content). However, not enough data was published in order to compare these results more validly with this study (see, though, their note 5 concerning inter-calibration and pottery standards). Note also an early petrographic study of various sherds from Gezer (Bullard 1970:105-113), mentioning an area of kilns nearby.

Gezer A small group of four LPDW vessels were sampled from Gezer (three chemically analyzed). These derive from Dever’s Stratum VI (Dever et al. 1974; Gitin 1990) and represent several types: a KR1 krater, an AM1 Amphora, a JR1 jar and a jug. The three chemically analyzed vessels were assigned to Groups 2 (GZ3), 3 (GZ2) and 5 (GZ1); the fourth was of Petrographic Group A1c. The petrographic results agree with the chemical analysis as GZ1 and GZ3 are also of coastal dark brown clay (A1a and A1c, Fig. 4.29:4). The fourth vessel, a krater, was of Group 3 and is probably of inner plains provenance (possibly made of Fabric D1) though not necessarily made at Gezer. Possible clay sources in the vicinity of Gezer are rendzina soils (also Taqiye formation) or Hamra (Bullard 1970:107-108; Goren et al. 2004:270) Thus, it seems most if not all of LPDW analyzed from Gezer were imported from other sites, possibly from Ashdod. In addition, four sherds of Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped kraters were also thin sectioned.43 One of the vessels was defined as ‘fine’ Bichrome (‘GZ5’) and was classified as Petrographic Group C2 (somewhat similar to the vessel from Miqne, MQ4, above). The other three sherds (‘GZ6-8’) diverge between Petrographic Groups

Beth Shemesh (Table 4.15) Six samples were analyzed from Beth Shemesh, all deriving from the 1930’s excavations (Grant 1932, 1934); five were chemically analyzed. Four were of Philistine Bichrome ware from Stratum III, a BSB, two bell-shaped kraters and a strainer spouted jug. The three Philistine Bichrome vessels that were chemically analyzed turned out to be of the calcareous groups (one of Group 4A, BM2 and two of Group 4B, BM1 and BM4). The fourth, BM3, was inconclusive by TSPA (Group E1?). Thus, it seems that these Philistine Bichrome vessels were either manufactured at Beth Shemesh (maybe of the foraminiferous marl near the site), or at nearby Tel Miqne Ekron. Two LPDW amphorae were sampled (probably coming from Stratum IIA), and the results were somewhat different than in the Iron I. Sample BM5 shows a coastal provenance according to both chemical grouping (Group 2) and TSPA (Group A1c), while BM6 was assigned to Chemical Group 6 and was inconclusive by TSPA (possibly of Fabric A2?). It should be noted that BM6 is of an unusual type of amphora. Thus, according to this very small sample, while in the Iron I Philistine ware were locally produced, in the Iron IIA the LPDW is imported, probably from Ashdod.

43

It should be noted, however, that although these sherds stored in the Rockefeller Museum as vessels from Gezer (Macalister excavations), they may come from other mounds of the Shephelah excavated in the late 19th-early 20th century by Bliss and Macalister; the results should therefore be treated with caution.

194

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.16: Samples from Ruqeish Sample RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4 RQ5 RQ6 RQ7 RQ8 RQ9 RQ10

Ware LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW? LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW

ICP group 2 3 5 5 6 3 3 3 2 -

ICP prov. Coastal Inner plains? Coastal? Coastal? Shephelah? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal -

TSPA group B(3?) D1? A1? B? D1 A1?

TSPA prov. Southern Israel ? Coastal? ? ? Coastal?

Final prov. Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Coastal? Shephelah? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal ?

Tell Hamid (Table 4.17) Ten LPDW vessels were analyzed from Tell Hamid (four chemically analyzed), a recently excavated site in the northern inner plains (Wolff and Shavit in press). Most of the samples were from Strata VI and V, dated by the excavators to Iron IIA and early Iron IIB. Several of the samples are of indicative LPDW forms (a krater, jugs, juglet and a zoomorphic head spout), while others are only sherds. Three of the four chemically analyzed vessels cluster with Chemical Group 3 of a possible inner plains provenance; one of the petrographic classifications of these vessels disagrees, assigning it to Group A1c (zoomorphic head spout HM9). Two or three of the other samples were also made of dark brown soil with inclusions more typical of inner plains (Group A2); two others are of loess soil (Group B2). Jug HM1 (JG1 type) was grouped with Chemical Group 2,45 while two other vessels are of a coastal provenance (Petrographic Fabrics A1, A1c). In summary the LPDW vessels sampled from Tell Hamid can be divided into those from inner plains provenance (either made on the site or possibly imported from Tell es-Safi, three to five samples), those imported from the coast, probably from Ashdod (three samples) and those made within the region but inconclusive further-wise (two to four samples).

Ruqeish (Table 4.16) Ten vessels were analyzed from the burial site of Ruqeish (nine chemically analyzed). These come from Petrie 1920’s excavations, published by Culican (1973). In some cases these are cremation urns or vessels associated with them. The date is supposed to be 9th-8th c BCE (see above, Part 1.6). Of the vessels five can be defined as LPDW AM1 amphorae, one KR1 krater, while four are somewhat different types of amphorae and/or kraters. Generally, the vessels from Ruqueish have a different appearance than other LPDW from Philistia being of a rather orange or pinkish color, or whitish at times. Moreover, several of the vessels have no slip or are slipped without burnish. According to the chemical and petrographic results it does not seem that any of these vessels derived from outside Philistia. However, they probably came from various areas within Philistia, which is not surprising as this was a unique burial site. According to the chemical analysis the provenance of the vessels divides between coastal and inner plains: four are coastal (two of Group 2 and two of Group 5), and five are possibly inner plains/Shephelah (four of Group 3 and one 6). As these are intact museum vessels, thin sectioning was problematic (small slides or none). Of these two can be possibly attributed to Petrographic Group D1. Generally, the vessels having the unusual form tend to be from the inner plains provenance, while more common LPDW forms are of a coastal provenance.44 Table 4.17: Samples from Tell Hamid Sample Ware HM1 HM2 HM3 HM4 HM5 HM6 HM7 HM8 HM9 HM10

LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW? LPDW?? LPDW LPDW

ICP group 2 3 3 3 -

ICP prov.

Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? -

TSPA group B2 B2 A1c A2 A1a? A1 A2b A2a A1c A2a?

44 According to BRF grouping RQ5 is assigned to his Group 5 (grouped with Ashkelon samples), while RQ3 is a loner.

45

195

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Southern Israel Southern Israel Coastal Inner plains? Coastal? Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains?

Coastal ? Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains?? Inner plains?

According to BRF grouping Sample HM1 is a chemical loner.

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Table 4.18: Samples from Khirbet el- Qôm Sample KoM1 KoM2 KoM3 KoM4 KoM5 KoM6

Ware LPDW LPDW LPDW LPDW Coarse Coarse

ICP group 5 2 2 2 -

ICP prov. Coastal? Coastal Coastal Coastal -

TSPA group E2 E2 E2 A1? A2 A2

TSPA prov. Shephelah? Shephelah? Shephelah? Coastal? Inner plains? Inner plains?

Final prov. Shephelah? Shephelah?? Coastal? Coastal Inner plains?? Inner plains?

Tel Sippor One gray Philistine Monochrome bell-shaped krater was sampled from Tel Sippor (only analyzed chemically, no thin section made). This is one of the rare Monochrome vessels appearing outside the main Philistine cities; it was found with Philistine Bichrome vessels in Stratum II (Biran and Negbi 1966: Fig. 6:7; IAA No. 63-1594). The chemical analysis grouped it with Group 2 with the Ashdod material. This agrees with other indications that the gray Monochrome ware vessels were mostly produced at Ashdod.

Khirbet el-Qôm (Table 4.18) Six vessels were analyzed from Khirbet el Qôm (Dever’s and Holladay’s excavations, Holladay 1971:176), four chemically analyzed. This site is situated near the foot of the Hebron hills. The vessels include four LPDW (three jugs and one amphoriskos) and two coarse vessels— tabun fragments (?) used for possible reference; all vessels come from Iron II deposits, Loci 1014 and 1029 (Defonzo personal communication). The chemical results from this site are somewhat surprising as all four samples, including KoM5 (the coarse fragment), were of coastal grouping: three of Chemical Group 2 and one of Group 5.46 This is one of the cases that the chemical grouping may be questioned. This is due especially to the fact that the petrographic classification of the samples points to different provenancing. The two coarse vessel fragments were assigned to Group A2, of inner plains dark brown clay. Another three LPDW vessels were classified as Group E2, with poorly sorted silty quartz inclusions, not typical of the coast but rather of the central highland area. The vessels show a high firing temperature, probably above 850°C. Only the red burnished amphoriskos (KoM4) is possibly of a coastal petrographic group (Fabric A1). Thus, in this case, either the chemical clustering in incorrect and the vessels (except KoM4) were produced from local or inner plains/Shephelah clay or the petrographic identifications are incorrect and all vessels were imported from the coast. In any case petrographic analysis clearly illustrates the difference in fabric and firing temperature between the LPDW vessels and the coarse vessel fragments.

Tel Nagila (Table 4.19) Eight Iron IIA vessels were sampled from Tel Nagila (six analyzed chemically), a site located in the southern inner plains/Shephelah. Four to six of the samples were taken from Stratum IV, dated tentatively to the late Iron IIA, and include five fragments of LPDW vessels, a krater, jugs, and possibly an amphora; three plain or red slipped vessels were sampled as well for reference. According to the chemical results, two of the vessels were grouped with Chemical Group 2 (both red slipped bowls), the three LPDW sherds were of Group 5, while a holemouth krater (NG8) was grouped with Group 4A (a loner when ‘simple Mahalanobis’ distance was used).47 According to the petrographic results four samples were classified as the loess group (Group B with inclusions more typical of the coast), one was of Fabric A1a, one A2b and one E1.

Tell Beth Mirsim One red burnished and decorated amphoriskos from Tell Beth Mirsim was chemically analyzed (Stratum A; Albright 1932:80-81 Pl. 36:7; Rockefeller Mus. No. I4968; no thin section made). The vessel was sampled as part of an attempt to characterize this type of vessel, which had both LPDW and Judean characteristics. The chemical grouping assigned it to Group 7. Thus, it was possibly made from clays originating from areas west of the site, as this is probably an inner plains/southern Shephelah profile. It should be noted though that several similar vessels from Beer Sheva were assigned to Chemical Group 7 as well.

If the chemical results are taken at face value, most or all of the LPDW vessels and plain vessels that were sampled were imported from the coast (Ashdod or Ashkelon?), while one vessel came the Tel Miqne region. The results are problematic in the sense that nearly all the samples analyzed from this site, which is located in the southern Shephelah, have a coastal provenance. According to TSPA the clay can be either inner plains or coastal provenance (Fabrics B and E). An explanation for this could be that the soil in this area (the inner plains/Shephelah south of Lachish) is richer with loess soil and more similar to the northern Negev and southern coastal Philistia (Gaza and Ashkelon; see Figs. 3.4, 3.7). Note also that coastal sand can occur as far as the Beer Sheba valley (Goren and Halperin 2004:2555). Thus, clays from the vicinity of the site of Tel Nagila could

46 According to BRF grouping Sample KoM5 is assigned to the calcareous Group 4, of inner plains provenance.

47 According to Mommsen’s grouping Sample NG8 is assigned to Group 5 (with several Ashkelon samples).

196

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Table 4.19: Samples from Tel Nagila Sample

Ware

NG1 NG2 NG3 NG4 NG5 NG6 NG7 NG8

LPDW? LPDW? LPDW LPDW LPDW Plain Plain Plain

ICP group ICP prov.

5 5 5 2 2 4A

Coastal? Coastal? Coastal? Coastal Coastal Inner plains

TSPA group A2b B(1?) A2a? B1 A1a B1 E1 B(3?)

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Inner plains? Southern Israel Inner plains? Coastal? Coastal Coastal? Shephelah? Southern Israel

Inner plains? ? Coastal? Coastal? Coastal Coastal? Coastal? Inner plains

This vessel was assigned to Chemical Group 5 and Petrographic Group A1c, thus having a coastal provenance (possibly originating from the Ashdod or Ashkelon area?). It may be difficult to distinguish the local chemical or petrographic profiles of Tell Qasile in contrast to profiles of Ashdod or other coastal sites; however hamra and grumusol soils are more dominant in the Tell Qasile area while dark brown soil is more dominant in the Ashdod and Ashkelon area. Both Philistine Bichrome and red slipped Philistine vessels seem to have been imported from the inner plains region. A petrographic study of Philistine and other Iron Age vessels from the cemetery of Azor (Ben-Shlomo in preparation) showed that most vessels are made of fabric characterized by a calcareous silty matrix, rather compact rich with rounded foraminifers with 15-30% quartz inclusions, well sorted or bimodal texture. This fabric could have been made of clay originating from the pararendzina available to the west and north of the site (Dan et al. 1972:35, 1975, 2002:302, Table 2). This could be defined as a hamric soils based on elements originating from rendzina soils and including coastal quartz grains, a fabric typical of the central coastal plains. Samples QS3-QS4 were possibly also made of this fabric and thus were locally made.

show similarities with southern coastal clays. A similar phenomenon possibly occurred at Kh. el-Qôm. However, as only few samples were analyzed, this is merely a suggestion. Yad Mordechai Two vessels were sampled from a 7th/6th century BCE pottery kiln near Yad Mordechai (Baumgarten forthcoming). These vessels (a bowl and a jar) were sampled in an attempt to get a general idea of the variability of clay composition along the southern coastline. As this is considered reference material (though the vessels are not clear wasters) one could asses the profile of clay in the southern edge of the coast. While both of the vessels belonged to Petrographic Group A1 (representing the coastal dark brown clay), only one of the samples (Bowl YM2) belongs to Chemical Group 2. The other sample, jar YM1, was grouped with Group 7 (possibly reflecting a northern Negev southern inner plains profile). There are hardly any other conclusions to be drawn from this small sample. North of Philistia Tell Qasile (Table 4.20) Five vessels were analyzed from Tell Qasile (four thin sectioned, five chemically analyzed). Two of these are Philistine Bichrome jugs from Strata XII and XI. Sample QS5 was grouped with chemical Group 4A (no thin section was made), indicating an inner plains provenance (probably from Tel Miqne). Sample QS4 is a chemical outlier, with relatively high Ca, classified as Petrographic Group C3, rich with rounded foraminifers (Fig. 4.35:2). Thus, this vessel possibly comes from the inner plains region.48 Two additional vessels were a red-slipped bellshaped bowl and a red-slipped Philistine krater from Stratum XI (QS2, QS3). Both were chemical outliers. In similarity to QS4, Sample QS3 is also of Petrographic Group C3 while QS2 was classified as Group A2. The fifth vessel (QS1) is a unique AM1 LPDW amphora with a decoration of a white horse (B. Mazar 1951: Pl. 34:C).

Yellin and Gunneweg published an INAA analysis of a group of vessels (of several types of Iron Age wares) from Tell Qasile, many are Philistine Bichrome vessels (1985; also see further analysis of the same results, Sharon 1989:130-138). Generally, they found a large general chemical group considered as local to the site and several other vessels provenanced to southern Israel (possibly pointing to the Ashdod/Ashkelon region). Two of these are also analyzed here by ICP (see Appendix B). Sample QS4, an outlier by ICP, was designated to Tell Qasile by INAA. This may not be surprising as no reference material was taken from Qasile, and thus, the profile could not have been grouped. Sample QS5, grouped by ICP as Group 4A of an inner plains provenance, was designated by INAA to a southern coastal provenance. It seems both QS4-5 are made of calcareous clay. However, it should be noted that Yellin and Gunneweg could not have compared their results to the Philistine clay profiles from Tel Miqne, which were

48

Note though that outcrops of ‘pararendzinas’ are reported in the area of Tell Qasile and other kurkar ridges in this region (Dan et al. 1972:35, 1975, 2002:302, Table 2). This soil could be similar by TSPA to the clay used in the Tel Miqne area (designated here as Petrographic Group C1 or C2).

197

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.20: Samples from Tell Qasile Sample

Ware

ICP group

QS1

LPDW

5

QS2 QS3

RSP RSP

QS4 QS5

BC BC

ICP prov.

TSPA group

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Coastal?

A1c

Coastal

Coastal

loner Outlier

? ?

A2 C3

Inner plains? Central coast?

Inner plains? Central coast?

Outlier 4A

? Inner plains

C3 -

Central coast? -

Central coast? Inner plains

INAA analysis (Yellin and Gunneweg 1985)

#57, Qasile #56, southern

Table 4.21: Samples from Aphek Sample Ware AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5

BC BC BC BC BC

ICP group 5 outlier 5 5 4B

ICP prov. TSPA group Coastal? A1 ? C2 Coastal? B1 Coastal? A2? Inner plains B1?

TSPA prov.

Final prov.

Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains?? Coastal?

Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Coastal? Inner plains?

source.49 There was no reference group from Aphek. The site of Aphek is geographically close to coastal plain but also to the Bina formation including limestone and marl soil. Thus, in principal either coastal grumusol type alluvial or marl type clay could have been used from the vicinity of the site. Nevertheless, the loess type soil and Chemical Group 5 possibly point to a more southern origin of three of the samples, possibly from the area of Ashkelon. Moreover, it is noteworthy that there were at least two types of petrographic fabrics of Philistine Bichrome vessels in the site. This could point to a pattern of trade in which vessels were imported from various sources, possibly manifested at Tell Qasile as well.

not yet available. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that several of the vessels, especially the calcareous ones, were imported from Tel Miqne or inner Philistia (but see above the calcareous fabric typical of the central coastal plains). The display of the groups according to strata rather to typology, in the INAA report, impedes better understanding of possible intra-regional Philistine wares. Moreover, the profile assigned to Tell Qasile is rather broad (see, Yellin and Gunneweg 1985: Table 18: Col. 3), with most elements spreading above 10% (see also comparison of results in Appendix B). A new analysis of the same INAA data using MVSA (Sharon 1989:130135) reached more or less the same conclusions as the ones reported in the Qedem report, though once again no new reference groups were considered. It should be noted, however, that in Sharon’s cluster analysis Sample QS5 (INAA Sample Qasile 56) was an intermediate case between the ‘southern group’ and the ‘local group’ (Sharon 1989:130, termed as Cluster ‘B1?’).

c. Sites in southern Israel Beer Sheba (Table 4.22) Seven vessels were sampled and chemically analyzed from Stratum II at Beer Sheva (the Iron IIB; Aharoni 1973; Singer-Avitz 1999); six were analyzed by TSPA. The samples include four red-slipped and burnished amphoriskoi and three plain vessels for reference. The goal was to examine whether the amphoriskoi should be assigned to the LPDW group on account of them having been produced at the same production centers. Three of the amphoriskoi (BS1, BS2 and BS3) were clustered with Chemical Group 7; the fourth, BS4, was a chemical loner. The petrographic classification of these vessels was not decisive, showing variable fabric types: one was possible dark brown soil (A1), one was probably of Group B, and another was assigned to Group E1. The three plain

Aphek (Table 4.21) Five Philistine Bichrome vessels were sampled from Aphek. All come from Stratum X10-X9, which represents a level of pits rich with Philistine Bichrome pottery (Gadot 2003). Three were bell-shaped kraters, one a jug fragment and one an amphoriskos. Three vessels (AP1, AP3 and AP4) were clustered with Chemical Group 5 of a probable coastal (southern?) provenance; of these two are of dark brown clay with coastal type inclusions. The pyxis AP5 belongs to Chemical Group 4B and classified as loess clay with possibly coastal inclusions. The krater AP2 is a chemical outlier with a high (11.65%) Ca content. This vessel is made of a foraminiferous marl clay (Group C2, Fig. 4.34:2), possibly of a rendzina soil

49

Outcrops of ‘pararendzinas’ are reported in the area of Aphek (Dan et al. 1975, 2002:302, Table 2). This soil could be similar by TSPA to the clay used in the Tel Miqne area (designated here as Petrographic Group C or C2).

198

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Table 4.22: Samples from Beer Sheva, Arad and Masos Sample Site

Ware

BS1

Beer Sheva

LPDW?

ICP group 7

ICP prov.

Shephelah?

TSPA TSPA prov. group B(3?) Southern Israel

BS2

Beer Sheva

LPDW?

7

Shephelah?

A1

Coastal?

BS3

Beer Sheva

LPDW?

7

Shephelah?

E1

Shephelah?

BS4 BS5 BS6 BS7 AR1 AR2 MS1

Beer Sheva Beer Sheva Beer Sheva Beer Sheva Arad Arad Masos

LPDW? Plain Plain Plain LPDW? LPDW LPDW

loner 3 3 3 outlier 5 3

? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? ? Coastal? Inner plains?

B3? B1 A2/E1 F B1 B?

Southern Israel Coastal? ? Inner plains?? Coastal Southern Israel

vessels grouped with Chemical Group 350, though they varied according to TSPA. Two were classified as Petrographic Group B and the third was inconclusive.51 The two chemical profiles attested could represent clays from the area of Beer Sheva, but also clays from the southern inner plains/Shephelah to the north. Both chemical and petrographic results do not show that any of the vessels were in fact imported to the site from the Philistine centers. Nevertheless, it seems that the amphoriskoi were made of a somewhat different clay recipe that the other vessels; the conclusions are limited as there is no good reference group for this area within this study.

Final prov.

Shephelah/ Northern Negev Shephelah/ Northern Negev? Shephelah/ Northern Negev ? Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? ? Coastal Inner plains?

problem as seen with the samples from Beer Sheva assigned to Chemical Group 3). d. Sites in northern Israel Tel Rehov One LPDW JG4 jug from an Iron IIA context was analyzed from Tel Rehov (Basket 44439/1, Locus 4478, Stratum VI). The clay has an orange color, somewhat different from other LPDW vessels. The sample turned out to be a chemical loner with high values of Ca (17.3%) and Cr (136 ppm), but somewhat close to Chemical Group 4B.52 The thin section illustrated a foraminiferous (biomicrite) matrix, rich with rounded and other foraminifers. Its appearance is somewhat similar to the possible foraminiferous marl fabric of Group C2 (Fig. 4.38:1, possibly indicating rendzina soil). Therefore, although this vessel is a chemical loner, it could have been made from an inner plains clay (considering also the best-relative-fit grouping as well).

Arad (Table 4.22) Two vessels, an amphoriskos and a LPDW jug, were analyzed from Iron II Arad (Singer-Avitz 2002). The jug (AR2) clustered with Group 5 representing a possible coastal profile (though of marginal values); the petrographic classification was of loess with coastal inclusions. The amphoriskos, AR1, was a chemical outlier with high Ca value (15.6%); the thin section showed it to be made of a marl clay rich with sell fragments, possibly a Taqiye marl or rendzina (BS5 has also similar shell inclusions; possibly Group F). The provenance of this vessel cannot be verified.

Tell Abu Hawam One JG4A LPDW jug was sampled from Tell Abu Hawam, Stratum III (IAA No. 34-676; Hamilton 1935:Pl. XIII:82) (no thin section was made). It was a chemical loner with a high Ca and Sr values (17.4% and 787 ppm) and extremely low Co and Mn values (7.7 and 173 ppm respectively), while Al and Nd are relatively high (at 5% and 26.2 ppm). The clay was apparently diluted with calcite rich with Sr. This result indicates that the vessel was not produced in any of the Philistine production centers identified here. It thus can be local to the site or imported from elsewhere.

Tel Masos (Table 4.22) One possible LPDW jug was sampled from Tel Masos (Stratum II). The chemical results showed it to belong to Group 3, while TSPA indicated loess type clay. As there is no reference group from the site there could be two possibilities: either the vessel was imported from southern inner plains/Shephelah, or it was made of similar local clay of the Pleshet formation (the same

Megiddo Two Iron IIA vessels were sampled from Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 8:178; Loud 1948: Pl. 89:1; no thin sections were made). Sample MG1 is an amphora very similar to the LPDW AM1 but unslipped,

50

According to BRF grouping both BS4 and BS5 group with calcareous Group 4. 51 According to a preliminary petrographic description of Y. Goren, Samples BS5 and BS6 were defined as loess, while BS7 was defined as Terra Rossa.

52 According to BRF grouping the vessel was assigned to the calcareous Group 4, indicating it originated from the inner plains.

199

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Table 4.23: Samples from Tel Dan Sample Ware DN1 DN2 DN3 DN4 DN5 DN6 DN7 DN8 DN9 DN10 DN11 DN12

BC? BC? BC? BC? BC BC BC? BC BC? BC? BC? BC

ICP group ICP prov.

Outlier Outlier Outlier loner 4B -

TSPA group TSPA prov.

? ?

L1 L2 L2 L1? L2 ? C2? Inner plains? L3 Inner plains F L3 A?* L3 L3?*

Northern Northern Northern Northern? Northern Inner plains? Northern ? Northern ? Northern Northern?

Final prov.

Northern Northern Northern Northern? Northern Inner plains? Inner plains? Inner plains? Northern ? Northern Northern?

common in the vicinity of Tel Dan. These two petrographic groups are related. Three or four samples were defined as an intermediate group, Group L3. Sample DN8 was of calcareous marl, possibly reflecting Taqiye formation (Group F), while Sample DN6 was similar to the calcareous marl defined as Group C2 (Fig. 4.35:3), a fabric, possibly of a rendzina soil, originating from the Tel Miqne area. Thus, only two or three of the samples (DN6, DN7 and DN8) indicate a possibility of being imported from Philistia, while the other vessels were most probably made in the vicinity of the site. It should be noted that the two vessels noted above are also typologically more similar to Philistine Bichrome vessels from Philistia.

while MG3 is a jug with a LPDW type decoration. Both samples clustered with Chemical Group 4B, pointing to a inner plains provenance. However, as no reference material for Megiddo was analyzed, this result should be taken with some reservation (note that MG1 was an loner when mean-log-subtracted method was used). Dan (Table 4.23) Twelve vessels were analyzed from Tel Dan (five chemically analyzed). These vessels come from an Iron I context (mostly Stratum VI; Biran 1994) and illustrate various similarities to Philistine Bichrome vessels. While eight vessels have Philistine decorative motifs they are not of distinct or ‘classical’ Philistine forms (there were kraters fragments and body sherds); four vessels are more typically Philistine with white slip and bichrome decoration (DN5, DN6, DN8 and DN12), including a bell-shaped krater and a stirrup jar. Four of the vessels were chemical outliers while one clustered with Group 4B (DN8). Samples DN2, DN6 and DN7 are closer to each other, with high 14-19% Ca values. Of these, DN6 has a low 195 ppm Mn value, while DN2 has high La, Ce, Nb and Ta values (37, 77, 28.6 and 1.9 ppm respectively). The fourth outlier, DN1, was closer to Group 7 with a low 3.51 Ca value.53 This sample has relatively high values of Fe, La, Co, Cr, Sm, Ce, Ta and Eu (7.5%, 40, 34, 164, 7.5, 88, 2.1 and 1.7 ppm respectively). These elements also have high values in a chemical profile of a reference group from Dan (Yellin and Gunneweg 1989:137, Table 3), if compared to equivalent values of pottery from Philistia (as Group I here). Thus, these two vessels (DN1 and DN2) at least have a high probability of being manufactured at Tel Dan. Eight or nine of the samples were classified as belonging to petrographic groups relating to soils in northern Israel. Two or three samples were classified as lower cretaceous (Group L1), a ferrous clay with basalt fragments. Three samples (DN2, DN3 and DN5) were classified as travertine soil (Group L2, Fig. 4.38:2),

5. Results according to the typological groups (Figs. 4.43-4.46) Philistine Monochrome The fabric sub-typology of the Philistine Monochrome ware made by visual observation was proved justified according to both chemical and petrographic results. Of the 33 fine/pink Monochrome ware54 samples 27 belong to the calcareous Petrographic Group C (of these twenty two to Fabric C1 and five to C2; Fig. 4.43). About 90% of the samples were assigned to the calcareous Chemical Groups 4A and 4B (two exceptions are Sample AS30 and AS45 from Ashdod assigned respectively to Groups 2 and 3; SF42 is an outlier) (see Figs. 4.24, 4.43, 4.44). It can be concluded that most, if not all, fine Philistine Monochrome vessels were produced from calcareous marl clay coming from the area of Tel Miqne (Fig. 4.43). Combining this with the archaeological data (the high frequency of this ware at Miqne and the kilns at Field I, Stratum VII) it can be concluded that Tel Miqne-Ekron was the main producer of this ware, exporting it during 54

Five pink Philistine Monochrome vessels should be combined with the fine Monochrome group, as basically their clay is also well levigated and light colored, though the pinkish hue of the clay (in contrast to the whitish-light brown) can not yet be explained by the compositional results.

53 According to BRF grouping DN7 is assigned to calcareous Group 4, thus, provenanced to the inner plains of Philistia.

200

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Figure 4.44. PCA scatter plot of Philistine Monochrome pottery according to different fabrics. the beginning of the 12th century; destinations included Ashdod and possibly Tell es-Safi (and Ashkelon?). As only a few fine Monochrome have as yet been found at Tell Safi, it is difficult to conclude whether this site was also a producer of such a ware (which is possible on account of the clay resources in the vicinity of the site).

or transported from the coastal cities inland (one or two cases) or vice versa (three cases) (Fig. 4.43:2). Philistine Bichrome The Philistine Bichrome ware was studied to a lesser extent in this research (23 samples from Philistia were chemically analyzed, altogether 45 sampled), as the complete array of these vessels is beyond the scope of it. Moreover, some of this material was previously analyzed by INAA. Bichrome vessels are represented in nearly all the chemical and petrographic groups. Nevertheless, there seems to be a tendency of producing these vessels from dark brown soil rich in silty quartz (TSPA Group A, and possibly also Group D). This dark fabric, rich with rounded quartz inclusions, was also identified by Edelstein and Glass as a typical Philistine clay fabric (1973:126). It seems, in similarity to the reddish Philistine Monochrome ware, that each Philistine site produced these vessels from the more common clays that were available on site. Occasionally, several of these vessels moved from the coastal cities inland (one case), or vice versa (four or five cases).

The thirteen gray Philistine Monochrome ware samples also have rather distinct chemical and mineralogical characteristics (see Fig. 4.43). Eight of the twelve examples that were sampled were grouped with Chemical Group 2 (Fig. 4.45), while seven or eight classified as Petrographic Group D. The other samples diverge between various chemical groups made of dark brown soil (Petrographic Group A), though nearly all of a coastal provenance. It is likely that this sub-ware was produced mainly at Ashdod, as it is more commonly found at Ashdod as well. However, as these vessels display no unique aesthetic quality in their appearance their occurrence at other Philistine sites is probably not due to intentional large-scale trade, but to occasional transport of the vessels. It may be suggested that their manufacture was an attempt (largely unsuccessful) to imitate the fine calcareous clay of the fine Monochrome produced inland with the clays available in the Ashdod area. The rest of the Philistine Monochrome vessels were termed as ‘reddish fabric’. Although the results show that these vessels were produced in several centers, they were made of different clays than the fine or gray Monochrome vessels, as only three of thirteen are of Chemical Group 4A and three of 26 are of Petrographic Group C (Fig. 4.43:1). It seems that each Philistine site produced these vessels from the more common clays that were available on site. Occasionally, several of these vessels were traded

The Philistine Bichrome samples analyzed from Tel Dan show that most of the vessels were probably produced in the region of the site. This may accord with the typological forms present at Dan (and other northern sites), representing an imitation, or northern variant, of the Philistine Bichrome ware. A recent study shows that several Philistine-like vessels from Dor were made in the site while other more typical Philistine Bichrome vessels were imported from Philistia (Gilboa and Sharon 2003:32; Gilboa et al. in press). In another study relating to Philistine Bichrome pottery outside Philistia, vessels of

201

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure 4.45. PCA scatter plot of LPDW vessels and reference material according to sites. this type from Tell en-Nasbeh in the central hills were sampled (Gunneweg et al. 1994). The results of this study showed that five of the sherds were of Motza clay composition, thus locally produced, four sherds matched an Ashdod profile, while the other Philistine vessels were not clearly grouped (Gunneweg et al. 1994:235). Thus, this study shows that Philistine Bichrome pottery was produced outside of Philistia too. The results also indicate the existence of several additional production centers or chemical profiles of Philistine Bichrome pottery that have not yet been identified geographically (probably including Gaza).

are of possible LPDW designation (Fig. 4.45). There were several reasons for this extensive sampling: 1. Identifying production centers within (or outside) Philistia and examining whether there are patterns according to types or fabrics. 2. Examining whether similar vessels from other sites were imported from Philistia. 3. Checking the typological validity of several of the criteria (if a certain type was defined, it could be validated by a certain profile representing a single production center). Thus, nine red-burnished amphoriskoi from various sites in southern Israel were analyzed in order to examine whether the allocation of this type to the LPDW group is verified by the composition of the vessels. 4. Examining technological aspects of the manufacture of the LPDW. 5. Fine wares can be often more indicative of specific production centers as they may be made of a more carefully prepared clay recipe. 6. Since this typological group was hardly been studied in the past, the sampling was more extensive.

Red-Slipped Philistine Only ten Philistine red-slipped ware examples were sampled (eight from Tel Miqne and two from Tell Qasile, six were chemically analyzed), and a distinct pattern was not discerned. Apparently, all of the Miqne samples were produced at the site, except one that was possibly imported from the coast. The two Tell Qasile samples are chemical outliers or loners. It seems that a finer silty clay was used for this type of vessels (in comparison with the Bichrome and LPDW pottery), but the sample is yet too small for further conclusions. Red-slipped and degenerated Philistine pottery from the cemetery of Azor was made of local calcareous clay with coastal quartz inclusions (Ben-Shlomo in preparation).

According to the results, most of the vessels were produced in Philistia; none of the vessels sampled from the Philistine city sites originated from outside the region (Figs. 4.45-4.46), and at least two production centers were identified. These are most probably Tel Ashdod (Chemical Group 2, with 20-22 samples) and Tell es-Safi (Chemical Groups 1 with fourteen-fifteen samples and possibly Group 3, with ten samples; some of these though, could have been produced at Tel Miqne as well). Ten samples are of Chemical Group 5, which may represent a different coastal provenance (maybe Ashkelon). Other chemical groups are poorly represented

Late Philistine Decorated Ware This was the largest typological group sampled in this study including up to 106 samples (77 chemically analyzed). Of these, 84 are of clear LPDW form while 22

202

PART 4: THE ARCHAEOMETRIC RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION (Group 4A—two or three, 4B, possibly two, Group 6, four, one from Group 7 and two loners; most of these vessels come from sites outside Philistia). It seems that the LPDW vessels were traded, and in particular were exported from the coast to the inner plains (with fifteen to eighteen examples, while only five to six examples indicate trade in the opposite direction; see Fig. 4.46). According to the petrographic classification most of these vessels were made of either dark brown or loess type clay, with inclusions reflecting the local environment of the sites (Petrographic Group A1, 25-29 samples, Group A2, 10-14, A3, five, and Group B, 12-14 samples; see Fig. 4.43:2). Only seven to nine vessels grouped with other petrographic groups (Petrographic Group D1—2, Group E—4 to 6 and Group G—1). A certain variant of Group A1 (Fabric A1c), with a finer silty matrix was especially popular for these vessels with fifteen to eighteen examples. Most of the vessels show relatively high firing temperatures. The results indicate that these vessels were manufactured with a specifically selected clay and clay treatment. This is more apparent for the clear LPDW types as the amphorae and kraters, while some of the jug types show more variable chemical and petrographic profiles. The less definite LPDW vessel types most probably were made at different sites, and not in the Philistine centers. As an example, five of the LPDW amphoriskoi grouped with Chemical Group 7, two were outliers or loners, while only one belonged to Group 2. Thus, the archaeometric results seem to weaken the assumption that this is a classic LPDW form, as it was not produced in the main LPDW production centers.

methods, defining broader sources of clays or interregional trade patterns. It is clear on the one hand that an intra-regional provenancing is more complicated, and on the other that it is largely derived from the geological profile, especially from its degree of variability within the region studied. While compositional differentiation could be attempted between neighboring geological or soil units, the question is whether such higher resolution provenancing is possible within the same geological formation or soil unit. This question is relevant to both chemical methods and TSPA although it is expected that high quality chemical methods (as INAA and ICP-MS) would be more competent in such fine-tuned provenancing. Few archaeometric provenance studies have attempted to identify intra-regional production centers. The more successful cases were usually those dealing with regions that have a higher geological intra-regional variability. In the region of the southern Levant a notable example is D. Adan-Bayewitz’s (1993) study of Roman common ware from the Galilee. This study successfully identified different production centers of the same wares in the Galilee and the Golan. Furthermore, a certain compatibility with sampled clay was identified, as was a correlation with rabbinic textual sources dealing with pottery production. This study succeeded for two reasons: the relatively distinct geological differences between the Galilee and the Golan, and the presence of a large and central production center at Kfar Hanania, later attested by both textual sources and archaeological remains. However, the chemical profile represents a clay that could have been used by various settlements in the Hananya Valley (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:74). A regional study of Middle Bronze II pottery in the central Jordan valley (Maeir 1997) could not identify local production centers clearly. This was mostly because not enough reference material was available and as no TSPA was carried.55 In Middle Bronze Age Transjordan several regional profiles were identified (Falconer 1987; 1994; Knapp et al. 1988; Knapp 1989). Although the location of the sources have not precisely identified, a trend of change in the number of production centers between the MBIIA and MBIIB was recognized. This study also suffered from lack of reference material and a generally small sample size (Falconer 1987:255-257, Fig. 6). In Late Helladic Greece several production centers of Mycenaean pottery were established by INAA chemical analysis (Hein et al. 1999; Mommsen et al. 1992, 2001, 2002). Usually, differences were made according to regions: Argolid, Achaia, Athica, Thessaly etc. In certain cases, though, it was needed to use mineralogical analysis to clarify distinctions between various profiles (as in Hein et al. 2002b). However, in other cases, as in the Argolid, where more abundant reference material was available,

Figure 4.46. Provenance of LPDW samples (total 105). 6. Discussion. Intra-regional Provenance Studies: Archaeometric Analysis to its Limits?

Pushing

The archaeometric results presented above represent a study aimed mainly in identifying regional production centers and intra-regional trade patterns. Such a study can be different than provenance studies, based of archaeometric (both chemical and mineralogical)

55 Also to be noted is an INAA study of sherds from the northern Negev (Berry 1986). However, this study was conducted mostly on surface finds and with a limited INAA analysis obtaining only several elements with low precision, and thus its results cannot be useful at this stage.

203

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY In the study presented here, an attempt was made to distinguish between production centers in Iron Age Philistia. It was apparent that this region could be divided, at most, into two geologically distinct areas: the coastal strip and the inner plains. However, these two areas are still closely related both geologically and pediologically. In previous INAA studies there was limited success in providing a distinction between the profiles of Tel Ashdod and Tel Miqne (e.g. in Gunneweg et al. 1986; 1994). The distinction between petrographic profiles of Ashdod and Ashkelon, both on the coastal strip, was very problematic (Master 2001; 2003; Goren et al 2004:18-19,295; Goren and Halperin 2004:2554-2555, see above). In the present study, a certain distinction in chemical and petrographic profiles was possible for some of the samples, while a considerable amount of the results were inconclusive regarding the intra-regional provenancing. The new ‘kiln site’ near Tell es-Safi (Kfar Menahem) did not provide any improvement for the fine provenancing of this region as of yet, and there is still a lack of archaeological evidence for several contemporary production centers in Philistia. As of yet for the Iron I, there is only evidence from Tel Miqne, while in the Iron II, the only clear evidence is from Ashdod. Nevertheless, a model for intra-regional trade pattern can be proposed according to the archaeometric results (see Fig. 4.41. Figs. 5.1-5.2, and below, Part 5.1).

including material from kilns, more specified centers could be identified, such as a Mycenae-Berbati and Tiryns-Asine production centers (Mommsen et al. 1988b).56 Nevertheless, the geological variability in mainland Greece is more diverse than in the southern Levant. In Cyprus it is possible to provenance clays to various regions of the island, according to TSPA or chemical analysis, distinguishing between sources even less than 20 km apart (Goren et al. 2004:60-69). Chemical analysis of Mycenaean pottery from Thessaly, attempting to achieve intra-regional provenance study without reference groups, resulted in three chemical groups interpreted as different production centers (Feuer and Schneider 2003:225-235, Fig. 9; comparison with equivalent petrographic group was made in this study as well). However, this is difficult to evaluate, according to the data presented in this article, to what extent there was overlapping between the groups. In Early Minoan Crete intra-island pottery trade was studied by TSPA and chemical analysis (Wilson and Day 1994:54-57; Day et al. 1999). In these cases, the differences between the geological outcrops in the different parts of the island were substantial enough to define several regional production centers based on petrography alone. An INAA analysis of Roman African red-slip ware kilns succeeded in identifying various production centers of this ware in northern Tunisia (Taylor and Robinson 1996a; 1996b). This was achieved by sampling groups of wasters from four kiln sites, and, after a range of statistical considerations were used, resulted in tight compositional groups representing a single kiln site each without any overlap (Taylor and Robinson 1996a:241-242). In several cases, dilution-related samples from the same source were identified.

Several points should be emphasized when conducting an intra-regional provenance study: A. The sample size should be sufficiently large. If a certain phenomenon (of a site, ware or fabric) is only sampled by one or two samples, a large risk of error is possible as the selected samples may have marginal values within the compositional group, resulting in overlapping with an adjacent group; B. The reference material preferably should be extensive and diversified: both kiln material and homogenous common ware groups; C. The required precision of the methods should be high (Bishop et al. 1990), resulting in higher resolution; lower precision will result in overlapping of closely related profiles; D. Several methods used together (usually a chemical method and TSPA) can achieve better control on the interpretation of the results; E. The integration of compositional data from other studies relevant can be very helpful; this may require attention to calibration problems between different methods (see Part 3.4).

It seems that if the general geographic region in which the pottery was produced is known, as may be the case in many intra-regional provenance studies, TSPA can more efficient than chemical analysis, especially if large welldefined reference groups are not at hand. That is because all the clays in such region, reflecting little geological variability, may fall in one broad chemical group, while TSPA may identify some variants of clays originating from slightly different soil sources (as the example from Roman pottery of the Galilee, Wieder and AdanBayewitz 1999, see above). However, if chemical methods are not used at all, there is always the risk that some vessels imported from other regions with similar soil types (but different geological sources) may not be detected.

56

In such large-scale provenance studies there could be another effect impeding the identification of intra-regional production centers. When a profile is established it has an expanding number of samples grouped to it; thus, a “gravitational” effect can take place. Thus, the main profile is gradually gaining more and more volume in the hyperspace, attracting also samples from other potential production center with profiles close to it. This could result in an obscure picture on the intra-regional level of provenance.

204

Part 5 Philistine Pottery Production and the Iron I/Iron IIA Transition: Present Schemes and Suggestions for Future Research This final discussion aims at combining the archaeological and archaeometric data on pottery production centers in Iron Age Philistia and assessing the broader social, economic, technological, and historical implications of the appearance of the various pottery wares. Although the Iron Age marks the beginning of a new era by its terminology, it has been often observed that the material culture of Iron I Canaan, especially the pottery assemblage, shows a high degree of continuity with that of the preceding LBII (Ussishkin 1985; Mazar 1990:290; Killebrew 1998a:268-270; Gadot 2003:19-211; see McGovern 1986:338-343 for general discussion). In southern coastal Canaan, however, the appearance of the Philistine material culture marks a clear distinction between the LBII and the Iron I, together with the disappearance of imported Cypriote and Mycenaean wares.

1. Production and trade patterns of Philistine pottery during the Iron Age

Several scholars suggested that the material culture of Philistia during the Iron I reflects a rise in urbanization (see Part 1.3,1.7; Stager 1995; Finkelstein 1996b; Barako 2000) with all its side effects, such as a rise in technological development and political centralization. This was associated with the political structure of the Philistine pentapolis. This notion was inspired from both the biblical descriptions of the books of Judges and Samuel, and the archaeological record (mainly at Tel Miqne and Ashkelon). On the other hand, the Iron IIA is seen as a possible period of major political and technological transitions all over Canaan (see below), although the data on Philistia during this period is still somewhat lacking. During the Iron I, several new ethnic elements appear in Canaan: Philistines, Israelites and Phoenicians2 (e.g., Mazar 1990:353-357; Herr 1997:118; Faust 2003); in the Transjordan this occurs somewhat later, during the Iron IIA or IIB, with the appearance of the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and Midianites (see e.g., Mazar 1990:358-359; Herr 1997:147-154). The gradual decrease in Egyptian influence in the country during the 12th century BCE probably encouraged this process, which matured during the subsequent period of the Iron Age IIA (see Part 1.2b). This may be the reason that the material culture, and mostly the pottery, is characterized by a greater degree of regional variability during the Iron I. The Philistine pottery can be seen as a component in this picture.

Differences between the major Philistine cities can be observed in the initial phase of the Iron I, especially between Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod. The fact that fine Philistine Monochrome pottery was much more abundant at Ekron was illuminated by the archaeometric results. This pottery ware is made of calcareous clay, not found on the coastal strip, and has the highest resemblance to Mycenaean pottery. It was exported from Tel MiqneEkron to Ashdod and probably to Ashkelon (see Figs. 5.1:1, 5.2). This is in some contradiction to Killebrew’s description that Iron I pottery vessels were hardly transported from site to site (1998a:255). Thus, the potters at Ekron were more specialized in making these more accurate imitations of Mycenaean ware, at least in the initial phase. These potters probably had a certain monopoly on this sub-ware, which could have been regarded as a higher quality product by the Philistines.

As shown in Part 1, Philistine pottery was an important component of the Philistine material culture and probably had a certain symbolic and ideological value for the Philistines, at least in the earlier stages. Thus, its study may also be significant in recognizing socio-economic and political processes in the Philistine society. While the Philistine phenomenon is seen as a phenomenon that spans the Iron Age, it can be divided into three phases: the initial stage reflecting the highest degree of Aegean affinities; the later Iron Age I stage, reflecting a certain mixture of Aegean and other elements; and the Iron Age II stage, in which a Philistine political entity existed, but there are only a few visible foreign components in its material culture.

Aside from the availability of the calcareous clay in the proximity of Tel Miqne-Ekron, its central role in fine Monochrome production can indicate that it had a more dominant, and perhaps ‘authentic’ population of immigrants of Aegean origin during the initial Iron I. While the fine Monochrome pottery alone cannot attest to this, other phenomena as the expansion of the site and other more unique components of the Philistine material culture appearing so far only at Ekron, may strengthen this assumption (see Part 1.7). Respectively, later on, during the Iron IB the Philistine population became stronger in the coastal cities as well. In addition, there was less demand for the fine Monochrome pottery made from a special clay recipe, which was hard to procure and to produce, and therefore, it was not manufactured any more. The other Monochrome pottery fabrics and the Bichrome ware were then made of the regular clay recipe, possibly produced also by traditional Canaanite potters. The forms and decorations were also more influenced by

1 Though, see Jasmin (1999:529-534, 563-566), who notes the differences between the final LBA and the Iron Age I in the Shephelah, suggesting to define the Iron I as a transitional period. 2 Note that the term ethnic here is in its more general sense (a group of common language and culture) and not necessarily in its modern definition (see above, Part 1.8).

205

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Provenance of pottery from Philistine cities Iron I 40

Coastal provenance

30

Inland provenance

20

Other or indecisive provenance

10 0

Ekron

Ashdod

Gath

Ashkelon

Iron II No. of samples 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Ekron

Ashdod

Gath

Ashkelon

Figure 5.1. Provenance of vessels from the Philistine cities: the Iron I compared with the Iron II. local pottery traditions, resulting in the development of the Philistine Bichrome pottery.3 Each Philistine city could provide for its own need for this type of pottery, but occasionally there was, naturally, some trade and movement of vessels between these cities, which were strongly linked to each other. On the other hand, it should be noted that there seems no evidence that the Philistine Monochrome pottery production, even at Tel Miqne, was production on a larger scale—factory or large-scale industry—than the one existing in other Iron I pottery workshops. The kilns at Tel Miqne are small and few, and although some resemblance to Aegean kilns and workshops may be suggested, this is not sufficiently clear in this stage. The standardization of the pottery is relatively minimal and various sub-wares were all

produced in the same place. Influences of a higher mode of production was suggested by Killebrew (1998a:275), relating to the large scale industry of Mycenaean IIIB in the Aegean (see an example of such an industry illustrated by compositional analysis in Buxeda I Garrigos et al. 2003b). It should be noted though that it is not certain that the Mycenaean pottery itself was the result of ‘large-scale’ production, although it shows high quality and standardization. The production of Philistine Iron I pottery, particularly the Monochrome ware, cannot be viewed as a product of large-scale production, especially because of its low level of standardization. It is assumed that the Philistine pottery production in Iron I Philistia was conducted solely by Philistine potters, immigrants from the Aegean or Cyprus, which brought with them the technology of Mycenaean pottery production (T. Dothan 1982:217; Killebrew 1998a:276). While there is no direct evidence on the ethnicity of the Iron I potters in Philistia, this assumption seems likely.

3

It should be noted that other classes of pottery (of Canaanite tradition) were not studied here and may reflect a different pattern of regional trade. However, as these classes are not ethnically distinct, their trade pattern should not affect the conclusions derived from the trade patterns of the Philistine pottery.

206

PART 5. PHILISTINE POTTERY PRODUCTION AND THE IRON I/IRON IIA TRANSITION

12%

13%

75% 14% 16%

70%

Safi

31%

4%

14% 18%

65% 68%

Iron Age I trade

Inland provenance Coastal provenance Other or indecisive provenance

Iron Age II trade

Figure 5.2. Iron Age trade patterns in Philistia. However, the option that traditional Canaanite potters living in the Philistine cities also produced some Philistine pottery cannot be altogether dismissed. The selection of calcareous clay at Tel Miqne for the fine Philistine pottery, together with the high resemblance of this ware to Mycenaean wares, implies its production by potters originating from the Aegean or Cyprus. Nevertheless, one may suggest that other Philistine wares, made of regular clay, could have been made by Canaanite potters. The use of calcareous clay for non-Aegean pottery groups at Tel Miqne may indicate that either Philistine potters produced Canaanite pottery as well or that the Philistine potters influenced Canaanite potters.4 There is no clear evidence for the usage of Aegean type kilns, nor that the use of the fast wheel is a phenomenon restricted to the Philistines in this period (see Part 2.5). One can also argue that the degenerated Philistine pottery was not necessarily produced by Philistine potters who underwent an assimilation or acculturation process, but

by Canaanite potters trying to imitate Philistine forms, or to create hybrid forms and styles. This phenomenon is more noteworthy in northern Israel, and may also explain the concurrent appearance of Philistine Bichrome and Philistine degenerated/red slipped pottery, as at Tell Qasile Strata XI-X, Aphek Strata X10-X9, Megiddo VIA and Azor. Another scenario would be that in the initial phase Philistine potters produced their decorated pottery and the Philistine population obtained other pottery forms from the Canaanite workshops. Later on, the differences were obscured and workshops included both Canaanite and Philistine potters working together. This could have also resulted from inter-marriages between the populations (see Sweeney and Yasur-Landau 1999:138139 on such inter-marriages). The Philistine pottery does not include all classes of vessels in any case, so a certain dependency on Canaanite potters or pottery traditions always existed for the Philistine population. The Philistine Bichrome pottery shows much more influences of local pottery traditions. Its manufacture from regular clays also could have made it easier and cheaper to produce. The mixture of various styles, Aegean, Cypriote, Canaanite and Egyptian would have

4

A similar multi-ethnic situation could have existed in LBII Beth Shean, where Egyptian and Canaanite pottery were produced. However, at Beth Shean it seems that the Egyptian pottery traditions had a stronger impact on the potters, as the raw material and firing conditions of the Canaanite vessels also show Egyptian techniques (McGovern 1989:190-191; Killebrew 1998a:274).

207

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY started to develop new ethnic identity markers. These could have included a political administration and a local dialect, such as may be indicated from the texts dated to the Iron IIB (see Part 1.2b, 1.8).

appealed more to the local non-Philistine population. The potters in Philistia, possibly a second generation to the immigrants, conform more to the local pottery tradition at this stage (Wood 1990:82-83). At the same time, rising demand for decorated Philistine pottery could have induced the Philistine (or Canaanite) potters to combine local pottery traditions in the pottery they produced and marketed. Thus, the Philistine Bichrome pottery was exported to other parts of the country, as it became a popular decorated tableware. This seems to be a better explanation that that of a movement of Philistine populations to these regions (an exception may be the Yarkon basin, which yielded larger quantities of Philistine pottery during the Iron IB).

The intra-regional trade patterns of Philistine pottery should be thus seen in the perspective of other archaeological and historical evidence. During the Iron IA Tel Miqne is the most rapidly growing city illustrating the strongest characteristics of an Aegean-Philistine culture. Later, during the Iron IB and Iron IIA5 Ashdod and Tell es-Safi become stronger; a process reaching its peak in the 9th and 8th centuries BC; meanwhile Tel Miqne is reduced to a small city. Thus, in this period, components of material culture with a certain ethnic value are produced in, and exported from Ashdod and later at Tell es-Safi/Gath. During the close of the Iron Age, the 7th century BC, Tell es-Safi is diminished and Ashdod is significantly reduced as well; meanwhile, Tel Miqne-Ekron becomes again a large and strong city. Albeit, in this stage decorated Philistine pottery is probably not produced any more. While the ethnic and political identity of the Philistine is still vibrant, the expression of this identity through pottery (and in most other aspects of material culture) is no longer essential for the Philistines. Thus, the Philistines conform to the general Levantine tendency of the period, producing more standardized, non-decorated pottery. Thus, the character of the pottery in this case may have an opposite relation to the nature of the society producing it, especially in its ethnic and political aspects. When an ethnic group is politically weak or less developed, it expresses its identity by certain pottery styles and other private objects. The administration would not effect the pottery production of this group, produced on a regional scale. When the same ethnic group becomes politically stronger and its administration more developed, less ethnic expression is given through the pottery. The administration possibly has more effect on the pottery production, and the potters may start to produce more industrially and conform to more general market demands. To summarize: the patterns of intra-regional trade in Philistine pottery during the Iron Age I and II fit well with the archaeological and historical picture, keeping in mind that this pottery is an important ethnical marker of the material culture in Philistia.

There is a continuous process of decrease in the relative quantity and variability of decorative pottery in Iron Age assemblages (see, e.g., Franken and London 1995). Decorative traditions of the LBII diminish, and at the same time are partly replaced by localized, ‘ethnic’ decorative tradition. In the final stages of the Iron I there is a reduction in the production of Philistine pottery, and the degenerated style and red-slipped treatment is introduced. In the Iron IIA, Philistine and Aegean-related forms almost disappear. The LPDW replaces this pottery in Philistia but in much smaller quantities. This pottery illustrates specific decorative techniques but with a much more limited repertoire of decorative motifs. The forms are related to coastal forms and, possibly later, are influenced by Phoenician and Assyrian forms. The archaeometric data and the distribution of this ware shows it clearly to be locally-made ware of Philistia. During the Iron II there seems to be a somewhat opposite trend in the trade of Philistine pottery within Philistia (Figs. 5.1:2, 5.2). The archaeometric results show no imports of LPDW pottery made in inner Philistia at the coastal Philistines cities. On the other hand, several LPDW vessels from Tell es-Safi, and quite a few from Tel Miqne, are imported from the coast, probably from Ashdod. Nevertheless, each Philistine city produced this pottery locally as well. It should be noted, however, that the sample from some of these sites is small (especially from Ashkelon). The data available indicated that at least Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath were producers of this ware, especially of the more typical (‘streamlined’) forms. Sites other than the four Philistine cities usually imported LPDW from either coastal or inner Philistia production centers. Several forms, less typical of the LPDW assemblage (non-‘streamlined’), were produced locally in various sites in Israel. This ware, as opposed to the Iron I Philistine Bichrome, was probably not marketed on a regular basis to northern Israel. The distribution of LPDW probably illustrates the general decrease in demand for decorated pottery. The relative smaller proportion of this ware even in Philistia may imply it had a different symbolic meaning than the Iron I Philistine ware. One may suggest that the Philistine identity in this stage, partly acculturated with local elements, may have

2. The Iron I-Iron IIA ceramic transition and relationships between pottery, technology and society The Iron I-IIA transition in the southern Levant is distinguished by the introduction of red-slipped and burnished pottery in the final Iron I and its later predominance during the Iron IIA; in the same period a decrease in decorated wares can be observed as well (see e.g., Aharoni 1982:239; Holladay 1993:90-99; Faust 2002:54). Recently, Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004), 5 This shift in power balance may have been related to the Shishaq campaign during 925 BCE (Finkelstein 2002d:116).

208

PART 5. PHILISTINE POTTERY PRODUCTION AND THE IRON I/IRON IIA TRANSITION slip. Faust suggests that the red-slipped tableware were used by males to define the male domain, in contrast to the female domain of cooking and food preparing. Later on, during the Iron IIB, when the state formation is completed and the male dominance fully accepted, this demarcation is no longer needed, and thus tableware vessels are not slipped any more. This theory, albeit interesting, has no real proof in the archaeological record. The use of red slip in the LPDW in Philistia, for example, seems to contradict the suggestion of a relation to Israelite ideology, while the male dominance relation to the rising of complexity may not be restricted to the Israelites, or to the Iron IIA. As cooking ware and storage jars are usually undecorated in other periods as well, it is not clear in what way the red slip on tableware really imposes the male dominance. One can also suggest that as other decorative ceramic traditions diminish, a more standard and simple decoration replaced them. This could have been an intermediate stage in the process of shifting to more standardized, mass-produced and undecorated pottery in the southern Levant. This process is fully evident only in the Iron IIB, when the use of red slip and burnish decreases (e.g., Zimhoni 1997b:179; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:145-150; see Faust 2002:54 for references). Nevertheless, it is clear this requires further research.

combined the data from Lachish, Levels V-IV, Arad Strata XII-XI, Beer Sheva Strata VII-IV and other sites in southern Israel and defined two phases in this period, the early and late Iron IIA, correlating roughly to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE (see also Part 1.5). In these phases, which lead to the state formation in Judah and the Shephelah, the red slip and burnish surface treatment reaches its peak (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:209210). Changes in settlement patterns—towards a process of urbanization are more marked in the late Iron IIA phase (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:232). They view this process as commencing in the Shephelah and the Beer Sheva valley rather than in Judea; thus, the lowlands play the central role in the urbanization of Iron Age Israel as they did in the Bronze Age (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004:226,235). Mazar views the process of the introduction of red slip and burnish as a more gradual one, from the Iron I to the Iron IIA (1998:377). However, the fact that by the Iron IIA many assemblages in the southern Israel have a large component of red slipped and burnished vessels cannot be ignored. The appearance red slip itself can be interpreted in several ways. Its initial dominant appearance, used as a surface treatment for most forms, notably bowls, probably occurs in southern Israel, rather than in Phoenicia (Mazar 1998:377). Generally, in the first stages, only thinner red slip was applied while later burnish was added, first by hand and later by wheel (Holladay 1990:41-50; Zimhoni 1997a:117-121; Mazar 1998:374; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:145-150). All this process spans a relatively long period from the late Iron I to the late Iron IIA-early Iron IIB, probably a period of about two hundred years (though somewhat less according to the low chronology). Red slip appearing already in the Iron I (being up to 5-10% of assemblages in southern Israel, see Mazar 1998: Table 3) becomes dominant, especially on open forms and with burnishing, in the Iron IIA.

The standardization of the pottery during the Iron II may be a result of more centralized pottery production centers, which served larger areas. Thus, it may be suggested that a series of new pottery production centers, related to the urban centers, appeared in the Iron IIA; a change in the production technology (in kilns and workshop organization) would also be expected as well. Another possibility is that the same Iron I centers continued to produce, but on a more homogenous and industrialized level. This could have been a result of more intensive contact between potters and a demand for such standardized wares, or a decrease in demand of the regional, more distinctive wares. According to the archaeological and archaeometric data available so far the second option is more plausible. The example of Philistine decorated wares in Philistia does not show a rise in centralization of pottery production in the Iron IIA. Both in the Iron I and Iron IIA there was no one center of production covering all Philistia, save perhaps in the case of fine Monochrome ware, for a short period. There were, however, shifts in internal trade patterns as noted above. As more archaeological evidence on Iron Age pottery production workshop will be uncovered this issue may be clarified. The shift to more centralized production (and marketing) possibly materialized during the Iron IIB—the 8th century BCE; maybe in relation to the Aramean or Assyrian administration, or the development of the administration of Judah. An indication for this could be found in the possible well organized production center of Kfar Menahem and some archaeometric results showing more centralized production as in the case of the LMLK jars (Mommsen et al. 1984; Goren and Halperin 2004:2556). Standardization can be caused by intensified

This surface treatment can be viewed as an improvement of the pottery vessels, making them less porous, better containers of liquids. However, as Faust noted, the slip usually does not cover the entire vessel and most liquids containers, as jars, jugs and juglets, are unslipped; thus it is not a ‘functional slip’. Consequently, a symbolic approach for this treatment was suggested by Faust, relating the red slipped ware to the Israelite religious beliefs and to an engendered usage of vessels (Faust 2002:63-64). He notes that in the transition from the Iron I to the Iron IIA, there was a rise in social complexity related to the Israelite state formation. This process was reflected in several material aspects as the deforestization in the hill country and was related to the strengthening of the male dominance within the society. Tableware, associated with public consuming of food, is linked with the male element (according to biblical and external sources), and thus, it was needed to manifest the male dominance by the table ware. This was done by the special surface treatment of the vessels—in red burnished 209

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY demand, centralization, or technological innovations. It can also reflect a tendency of reducing costs in a more industrialized production (Peackock 1981).

It has been suggested that during the Iron II, the pottery assemblages in southern Israel are more standard, diminishing regional variability, indicating a more central and powerful administration. This was related to the united monarchy of kings David and Solomon as described in the books of Samuel and Kings (see especially Holladay 1990, 1993, 1995; Faust 2002:5455). The formation of larger territorial ethnic states was also seen to be reflected by several aspects of the archaeological record as fortifications, the six chamber gates, and a rise in urbanization (e.g., Holladay 1995:371378; Faust 2003:152-156). One can also add the rise of iron metallurgy (Waldbaum 1980:90) during this period.8 The absolute date of these phenomena related to the Iron I/IIA transition is now in debate, as is the notion of a strong and central united monarchy during the 10th century BCE (e.g. Wightman 1990; Finkelstein 1996a; see discussion in Part 1.5). Nevertheless, all these components, even if transferred to the 9th century (abandoning the biblical description of a large empire of David and Solomon), still may indicate a change in the degree of complexity and centralization between the archaeological horizons of the final Iron I and the Iron IIA (Mazar 1997:164). This is a more distinct transition than the one between the LBII and the Iron Age I. Thus, the ‘true’ Iron Age, defined by cultural and socio-political and technological parameters, commences in the Iron IIA, roughly at the onset of the first millennium BCE. The Philistine decorated pottery from Philistia, which is the primary focus of this study, is but a fragment of this larger picture, and its production probably plays only a small role within the processes of the rise of political complexity. It cannot be seen as a cause or factor in this process, but it may reflect side effects, appearing after the processes took place.9

Standardization and mass production of ancient pottery production has been studied in several occasions. It could be reflected in the morphology of the vessels and/or by technological aspects of the production. Specialization may increase paste variability on account of the increased magnitude of the production centers (Arnold 2000:357359); on the other hand it may result in a more homogenous composition of the clay, servicing an industrialized production. At Tell Leilan, Syria, of the late 3rd millennium BCE, a pottery assemblage found at a workshop was studied (Blackman et al. 1993).6 The study shows how the degree of standardization, apparent in this workshop, could be identified, quantified and interpreted in a combination of compositional and morphological approaches. Similar studies on Iron Age pottery of the southern Levant are yet to be made (see though Magrill and Middleton 1997, 2004 for a more limited study). The rise of standardization and mass production of pottery production during the Iron Age II has not yet been systematically shown or studied (see, e.g., Gilboa 2001:381 for Phoenician decorated pottery). Such a systematic study should examine and define the increase in standardization of pottery forms during the Iron Age II. This should be done by comparing well-published and dated assemblages of the final Iron I, the Iron IIA and Iron IIB, by conventional typological methods and by mathematical tools (such as in Karasik 2003; Gilboa et al. 2004, defining and comparing vessel profiles by mathematical formulas). It should be examined whether the Iron II pottery assemblages are more homogeneous in forms than the preceding assemblages in a quantitative manner (aside from the use of red slip on some of the forms). A standardization would be reflected by a decrease in the number types and by less morphological variations within a certain type.7 Such a study is beyond the scope of this work; similar studies are beginning to evolve in the past years (see, e.g., Hagstrum 1985; Blackman et al. 1993; Arnold 2000).

Pottery is the most dominant form of evidence in the archaeological record of the Bronze and Iron Ages, and as such, the most studied. Many efforts were made to correlate various aspects of the pottery, whether morphological, typological, decorative, or those indicating geographical distribution and provenance, with socio-economic, cultural, ethnic, political or historical issues. These are usually the main interests of the researcher (e.g., Rice 1987:24-25,466-468; Hodder 1986:147-155, 1999:30-65). This is beyond the most widely-used role of pottery as a chronological indicator. Thus, we must ask ourselves what is the connection

6 Stacks of up to 100 identical bowls were found in the workshop; the bowls illustrated homogeneous fabric (levigated) and surface treatment. Chemical analysis by INAA showed a more compact group of eighteen samples having a CV of 1-6% in most elements; this group was suggested to be from a single load, while the rest of the samples were of similar composition but illustrated a larger spread (Blackman et al. 1993:69, Fig. 8). The bowls were also analyzed morphologically according to five parameters (rim thickness, diameter, height, base shape, base thickness). The spread in these parameters was less than 10%; bowls defined as wasters showed a lower spread in morphological parameters (Blackman et al. 1993:73-75). The measurements of the rims showed more variability than those of the bases, which accords with the general tendency of using rims as the most typologically sensitive portion of the vessel. 7 An example of low standardization, identified by statistical methods, is illustrated in a study of 17th century pottery from Japan. Pottery made by three different potters (though fired in the same kiln) was metrically examined, and the MVSA of the parameters resulted in three respective clusters (Impey and Pollard 1985).

8 For general discussions on state formation in Israel and elsewhere see, e.g., Frick 1985, Johnson and Earle 2000; Kletter 2004:21-28. 9 Interestingly, the transition from the Early Bronze Age culture of the 3rd millennium to the Middle Bronze IIA culture of the 2nd millennium BCE in the southern Levant was characterized by the appearance of red slipped pottery as well (e.g., Falconer 1987, 1994; Knapp et al. 1988:97102; Mazar 1990:182-184). This ceramic transition is associated also with the introduction of the fast potter’s wheel. Both the 2nd and most of the 1st millennia illustrate material cultures with gradually and slowly changing pottery assemblages. These two eras are characterized by other similar aspects of the material culture (as urbanization, political changes, and changes in settlement patterns and religion). However, this issue is far beyond the scope of this study.

210

PART 5. PHILISTINE POTTERY PRODUCTION AND THE IRON I/IRON IIA TRANSITION considered as a last attempt of the Philistines to produce a local variant of decorated tableware.

between pottery in particular, and material culture in general, and these broader issues. Pottery and other components of material culture can have ethnic and cultural aspects and significance as in the case the Philistine pottery. However, on the socio-economic and political level, it seems this significance is not as apparent. In these spheres, more emphasis should probably be given to the technological aspects of the material culture, rather than to aspects reflecting its visual appearance.

Comparison between the different Philistine city sites shows that in different stages of the Iron Age, different cities were more dominant. In the initial Iron I, Tel Miqne-Ekron is more dominant, while later, Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath gradually rise. During the Iron IIA and Iron IIB, Tel Miqne-Ekron diminishes, while Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath prosper. During the Iron IIC Tel MiqneEkron prospers again, while Ashdod diminishes and Tell es-Safi/Gath is possibly no longer a Philistine city (the evidence on Ashkelon is still too limited). The examination of evidence relating to the technological facets of the Philistine pottery shows a somewhat incomplete picture. Clear and detailed evidence of pottery workshops exist only from Iron Age I Tel Miqne and Iron Age II Ashdod. Generally, the kilns and other characteristics of the workshops show similarities to other contemporary pottery workshops from the southern Levant. There is no clear evidence yet of Aegean kiln types in Philistia. The site near Tell es-Safi/Gath (Kfar Menahem), dated to the Iron IIB, produced a series of installations that may represent a well-organized highly developed pottery workshop. Nevertheless, much more archaeological evidence is needed in order to reconstruct in detail Iron Age pottery production technology in southern Israel.

As a rule technological innovations should be seen as being more significant in socio-economic and historical processes. The definition of technological patterns and trends on a spatial and chronological level can be perceived as reflecting rational and evolutional progressions in human history (Kuhn 2004:566). Although this view may be accused of being too processual or materialist, the archaeologist as a scientist, should establish large-scale, enduring processes on the rational component of human behavior, rather than on its symbolic/irrational component (even though the irrational component may in fact be responsible for the majority of events in any given point of human history; see also Earle 1991; Schaafsma 1991). The problem with pottery production in this case may be that for a long period of time there was not much room for technological innovations—that is, from the invention of the vertical kiln and the fast wheel until the introduction of electrical kilns and wheels, and thus, this technology often seems rather conservative and static. However, higher modes of production and distribution relating to large-scale industries of pottery production can also be considered as technologically related developments.

The archaeological data on Philistine pottery leads to several questions that can be approached by archaeometric methods. These were related to the different Philistine Monochrome fabrics and their possible origin, the intra-regional trade in Philistine pottery during the Iron Age I and II, and a more comprehensive study of the LPDW, examining possible production centers inside and outside of Philistia. This study was connected to earlier archaeometric studies (both by INAA and TSPA), which addressed more general problems. The region of Philistia is both relatively small in size and not very diverse geologically. Therefore, an intra-regional provenance study was somewhat of a challenge. The archaeometric results led to some more clear-cut conclusions and other more tentative suggestions. The method of ICP-AES/ICP-MS (if appropriate procedures and selection of elements are applied) was seen to be sufficiently accurate for distinguishing relatively similar chemical profiles—at least as good as INAA. However, direct comparison with reference material obtained by INAA was problematic. This led to a stronger dependency on reference groups selected in this study and on the petrographic analysis. The use of both chemical analysis and TSPA turned out to be useful, as inconclusive chemical results could be examined in light of the petrography and vice versa.

Conclusions The Philistine material culture is seen here as a phenomenon of the entire Iron Age and the decorated pottery in Philistia was analyzed accordingly. During the initial phase of the Iron Age I, the Philistine Monochrome pottery appears only in the Philistine pentapolis sites and illustrates a high affinity to Mycenaean LHIIIC pottery. Fine Philistine Monochrome pottery, is a distinct subware, illustrating a higher resemblance to Mycenaean pottery on account of its fabric. Philistine Bichrome pottery appearing in a later stage is a sequential development of the Monochrome pottery, showing less affinities with Aegean pottery, and is much more widespread. This development is illustrated by the forms, fabric and decoration of the vessels. The fabric of this pottery becomes more uniform. During the final Iron Age I and the transitional Iron I-IIA, degenerated and redslipped Philistine forms, gradually, and partially, replace Philistine Bichrome pottery. The LPDW pottery of the Iron IIA and Iron IIB shows certain connections to the earlier Philistine ware, but in general illustrates a new repertoire of forms and decoration technique; it also appears in relatively smaller quantities. Nevertheless, this pottery is almost entirely limited to Philistia, and can be

One of the clearest archaeometric results showed that the fine Philistine Monochrome ware was a well-defined ceramic fabric, made of calcareous clay. According to both chemical profiles and TSPA, this ware was probably 211

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY a production center of LPDW. Thus, the Philistine cities seem to export Philistine decorated pottery to the other cities in the period in which they are stronger.

produced at Tel Miqne-Ekron and exported to the other Philistine sites, especially to Ashdod. Such a centralized production was not encountered in any of the other Philistine wares. This phenomenon should be seen in relation to other aspects of Tel Miqne’s material culture during the initial Iron Age I, as the material culture of this city illustrates the highest degree of affinity to the Aegean culture. Perhaps the city had a larger and more dominant immigrant population in this period. The archaeometric results show that about 60% of the samples could be traced to two distinguishable compositional profiles with Philistia: a coastal profile representing clays from Ashdod, and possibly Ashkelon, and inner Philistia profiles, representing clays from Tel Miqne and Tell esSafi. These profiles were relatively well defined, by both chemical and petrographic characteristics, and 90% agreement was evident between the two methods. The intra-regional provenance of the remaining samples is inconclusive, but the vast majority of all Philistine wares, including the LPDW, were clearly produced within Philistia. At least two production centers of the LPDW were identified: at Ashdod and Tell es-Safi; apparently this was not an exclusive ‘Ashdodite ware’. Nevertheless, several LPDW vessels from Tell es-Safi and Tel Miqne were found to have been imported from the coast, probably from Ashdod, possibly indicating that Ashdod was the major producer of this ware.

Many issues discussed in this research could probably be expanded or clarified when more archaeological evidence from the Philistine pentapolis sites will be available. I hope this will be a step in the building of a comprehensive, up to date, archaeological picture of the Philistine material culture. The issue of the Philistine decorated ware and its development from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age II is just a detail in the larger picture of the transformations in material culture occurring in the transition into the first millennium BCE. This subject is also one, which could highly benefit from a similar interdisciplinary approach.

Secondary results of this study showed that the group of vessels found in an alleged potter’s workshop at Ashdod Locus 4106 were not particularly homogenous in their composition; thus, one cannot assume this context to be a workshop. The analysis of the pottery from Kfar Menahem also did not confirm the identification of the site as a kiln site. However, the archaeological evidence regarding pottery production at this site cannot be ignored. Amphoriskoi from various sites outside Philistia, decorated in the LPDW style, were usually not produced in the Philistine workshops; thus, this form cannot be seen as a classic LPDW form. Evidence concerning intraregional trade of Philistine or Philistine like pottery from several northern sites as Dan, Rehov, Abu Hawam and Megiddo was usually either negative (the vessels were not from Philistia), or inconclusive. The results of the study also emphasized the problems of intra-regional provenancing, the importance of the securely defined reference groups, the importance of combining chemical and petrographic methods, and the value of certain MVSA procedures for some of the problems. The trade patterns in Philistine pottery were shown to concur with other cultural and historical aspects of the Philistine material culture, of the different Philistine pentapolis sites. During the Iron Age I, fine Philistine Monochrome is exported from inland Philistia to the coastal Philistine cities. Other Philistine wares are only occasionally traded between the cities. During the Iron Age II an opposite trend is observed, as LPDW is exported from the coast to the inland Philistine cities. During the Iron IIA, when Tell es-Safi prospers, it is also 212

Appendix A: Precision and accuracy of the Bristol ICP laboratory Data on the precision and accuracy of the ICP lab in the Earth Sciences Department at Bristol University, in which the chemical analysis of this study was undertaken is given below. Table A.1 shows the variance of measurement of the same in-house standard (3570) in up to 34 runs. This illustrates the short term and long term precision. In addition working detection limits for the elements analyzed by the lab in ICP-AES and ICP-MS (which account for the x100 sample solution ratio). Comparison of elemental results of BE-N rock standard is also given and compared with the certified values. This gives an estimate for the accuracy of the lab’s elemental results. In addition ICP results of a standard often used in INAA analysis (Coal Fly Ash 1633a) are also given with comparison with the MURR (Missouri) INAA values (data is according to Glascock 1992) (Table A.2). Calibration graphs for fourteen elements (Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, Ti, K, Mn, V, Sr, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Cr) analyzed by ICP-AES is given in Fig. A.1. The calibration is according to several international rock standards (certified values are used) having compositional values in the range required by the study. Dots, which are not filled were not selected for calibration, which is made by linear regression implemented on all selected points with an equal weight (correlation factor denoted as ‘Correl.’). Above the calibration graph the wavelength of the optical line selected for the calibration is given. In two cases, Al and Sr, data on the measured intensities were also given. Note that while in Al all points are equally spread along the range measured, this is not the case for Sr. Thus, if Sr concentrations well above 444 ppm (standard No. 7) are measured the results are less reliable. The data shows the precision for major elements by ICP-AES and for rare earth elements by ICP-MS is very high (under 10%). Exceptions are Zr, Mo, Hf and Ta. Note though that the results of Hf and Ta were considerably improved during the 2002-2003 analysis (see the precision indicated by the results of the BE-N and CFA 1633a standards). Accuracy is also within 10-15% of the certified values (better in major elements). Note that the comparison of CFA 1633a standard shows that ICP values accord to MURR values and are within the error limit in most of the elements measured by both methods (exceptions are Ni, Yb, Tb and especially Hf and Ta).

213

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure A.1. Calibration graphs for fourteen elements analyzed by ICP-AES (Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, Ti, K, Mn, V, Sr, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Cr).

214

APPENDICES

Table A.1. Elemental results and working detection limits of repeated analyses (updated to 2002). 3570 standard ICP working limit ppb Element ICP-MS Li 1.3 Sc 72.0 V 2.0 Cr 50.0 Co 2.0 Ni 30.0 Cu 25.0 Zn 25.0 Rb 1.0 Sr 2.0 Y 0.1 Zr 0.1 Nb 3.0 Mo 32.0 Cs 0.1 Ba 1.0 La 5.6 Ce 1.8 Pr 0.7 Nd 1.3 Sm 2.5 Eu 0.8 Gd 1.9 Tb 0.4 Dy 1.8 Ho 0.5 Er 1.3 Tm 0.5 Yb 2.7 Lu 0.7 Hf 0.4 Ta 0.4 Pb 123.0 Th 1.0 U 11.0 ICP-AES ppm P2O5 22.0 Al2O3 21.4 Fe2O3 4.1 MnO 0.1 MgO 13.5 TiO2 0.9 CaO 8.5 Na2O 6.6 K 2O 36.1

No. of runs

ppm

SD

CV%

No. of runs

BE-N Rec. Values

4 7 6 7 7 8 6 11 13 15 10 8 10 5 9 13 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 8 9 17 10 23

15.573 45.446 331.833 94.390 41.607 45.971 58.813 97.425 28.065 211.137 23.433 24.316 4.576 0.424 0.440 221.551 8.236 18.095 2.609 12.245 3.286 1.245 3.554 0.637 3.952 0.873 2.432 0.366 2.372 0.336 0.864 0.597 7.790 1.181 0.197 % 0.194 15.397 11.489 0.180 6.026 1.376 8.755 3.781 0.910

1.985 1.419 40.620 7.330 2.676 5.983 6.102 10.964 1.687 13.119 1.796 10.845 0.592 0.128 0.032 13.533 0.303 0.979 0.123 0.445 0.122 0.067 0.490 0.031 0.222 0.033 0.154 0.018 0.069 0.023 0.418 0.424 0.637 0.108 0.014

12.748 3.122 12.241 7.765 6.431 13.015 10.375 11.254 6.013 6.213 7.666 44.600 12.948 30.212 7.178 6.108 3.675 5.410 4.728 3.637 3.720 5.368 13.795 4.800 5.605 3.755 6.331 4.968 2.908 6.795 48.435 71.067 8.177 9.149 7.297

4 7 6 8 11 11 12 14 11 8 4 9 10 3 8 8 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 8 8 17 10 12

13.0 22.0 235.0 360.0 60.0 267.0 72.0 120.0 47.0 1370.0 30.0 260.0 105.0 2.8 0.8 1025.0 82.0 152.0 17.5 67.0 12.2 3.6 9.7 1.3 6.4 1.1 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.2 5.6 5.7 4.0 10.4 2.4

0.006 0.216 0.202 0.013 0.140 0.085 0.100 0.041 0.079

2.842 1.402 1.762 7.395 2.324 6.183 1.141 1.079 8.684

23 22 22 26 23 23 23 21 21

1.1 10.1 12.8 0.2 13.2 2.6 13.9 3.2 1.4

21 23 23 22 21 22 21 17 18

215

ppm

SD

CV%

13.004 26.104 283.155 356.436 59.364 264.916 98.855 143.561 47.357 1374 30.150 298.599 133.945 2.377 0.770 1054 83.906 152.269 17.267 67.073 12.262 3.868 10.138 1.348 6.497 1.079 2.600 0.321 1.919 0.253 5.731 7.936 4.558 11.041 2.514 % 1.071 9.859 12.277 0.183 13.326 2.611 13.816 3.237 1.380

0.819 3.414 34.307 27.716 4.387 19.897 10.447 13.610 2.040 66.340 0.328 27.197 26.123 0.371 0.034 24.386 2.473 5.713 0.669 1.566 0.317 0.189 0.684 0.062 0.236 0.047 0.076 0.015 0.060 0.015 0.397 2.055 0.743 0.796 0.237

6.301 13.080 12.116 7.776 7.390 7.511 10.568 9.480 4.308 4.826 1.087 9.108 19.503 15.596 4.464 2.314 2.948 3.752 3.874 2.335 2.587 4.880 6.743 4.567 3.626 4.341 2.930 4.719 3.117 6.009 6.927 25.891 16.303 7.209 9.423

0.062 0.136 0.209 0.011 0.507 0.078 0.150 0.048 0.076

5.749 1.379 1.705 5.818 3.804 2.991 1.088 1.485 5.518

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Table A.2: INAA and ICP results of Coal Fly Ash 1633a standard CFA 1633a INAA MURR values Element ppm error Ca% Mg% P% Ti% 0.800 0.4 Al% 14.090 0.0 Fe% 9.380 0.2 Na% 0.165 0.0 K% 1.890 0.1 Mn 190.0 10.0 Y Cr 193.0 5.0 Cu Ni 130.0 27.0 Rb 134.0 3.0 Sr 835.0 40.0 Zn 220.0 10.0 Ba 1320.0 40.0 Ce 168.3 1.6 Co 44.1 1.0 Cs 10.4 0.2 Eu 3.580 0.1 Hf 7.290 0.2 Sc 38.6 1.1 V 300.0 50.0 As 145.0 3.0 Dy 14.6 0.3 La 79.1 0.8 Lu 1.075 0.0 Nd 75.70 2.0 Sb 6.15 0.2 Sm 16.8 0.2 Ta 1.9 0.1 Tb 2.5 0.040 Th 24.0 0.3 U 10.3 0.3 Yb 7.5 0.1 Zr 240.0 30.0 Nb Pr Gd Ho Er Tm

ICP Bristol No. of runs ppm 4 1.088 4 0.443 4 0.176 4 0.803 4 14.289 4 9.665 4 0.161 4 1.864 4 172.773 4 77.733 4 208.108 4 119.798 4 147.323 1 126.45 4 829.490 4 235.350 4 1375.589 3 164.576 4 45.528 1 9.45 3 3.576 4 5.442 1 39.24 4 309.660

sd 0.027 0.017 0.008 0.013 0.036 0.088 0.004 0.017 18.135 5.634 19.444 2.619 14.371 15.276 12.317 76.314 4.629 4.113 0.023 0.100 17.479

3 3 3 3

13.375 79.806 0.937 74.014

0.454 1.219 0.113 3.545

3 4 3

15.457 3.088 2.201

0.702 0.643 0.089

3

6.608

0.518

4 3 3 3 3 3

25.096 19.545 14.460 2.505 7.146 1.118

2.970 0.739 0.754 0.227 0.310 0.194

216

APPENDICES

Appendix B: Comparison of INAA and ICP results A total of 21 samples analyzed by ICP in this study were previously analyzed by INAA. The INAA elemental results are from the Berkley and Jerusalem labs and I wish to thank Profs. Frank Asaro and Joe Yellin for their assistance in obtaining the results. Several results from Ashdod (Asaro et al. 1971) and Tell Qasile (Sharon 1989) were obtained from the publications. These vessels also belong to the pottery wares discussed in this study but their previous analysis by INAA is further advantageous giving another control for the archaeometric analysis. When possible the powder from these vessels was taken near the location of the INAA sampling (when identified) in order to minimize possible variations. The aim was to examine what differences occur in the measurements and if a calibration could be made between the methods; if so, which elements are better calibrated. Table B.1 gives comparisons between the ICP and INAA results when available, with experimental errors of the INAA results (the errors of the ICP results can be found in Appendix D). Linear calibration curves for several elements obtained by both methods were suggested by linear regression according to the compositions acquired by both methods (Figs. B.1:1-4, for Fe, Na, Eu and Ta; note the RSquare factor). Note that in the samples analyzed the range of the concentrations is very limited in many of the elements, thus, every deviation is emphasized. For this reason this group of samples may not be well-fitted for satisfactory inter-calibration. Elements measured in both methods ranged up to 23 (Al, Fe, Ca, Ti, Na, Ni, Cr, Co, Ce, La, Hf, Eu, Sm, Tb, Dy, Yb, Ta, Ba, Sc, Cs, Rb, U, Th) on some samples, at least twelve elements were obtained for all samples (Fe, Ca, Ti, Na, K, Cr, Co, Ce, La, Hf, Ta) of these at least eight may have linear compatibility and are useful for fingerprinting (Fe, Ti, Na, K, Cr, Co, Ce, La). Generally the errors of the ICP results are the same or lower than the INAA from Berkeley 1970’s, but rare earths and most trace elements are more precise by the 1980’s INAA results from the Hebrew University. The Berkeley (Ashdod samples) and Hebrew University (Tell Qasile and Miqne samples) results should be equivalent and interchangeable as inter-lab calibration was maintained (Yellin et al. 1978). Aluminum is reasonably comparable between the methods; Fe is especially well compared between INAA and ICP with differences often within the experimental error (see also Fig. B1:1); Ca is reasonably comparable; Ti is somewhat higher in INAA; K and Na are reasonably comparable but their precision is relatively low in both methods, preventing good comparison in closely related profiles. Co is relatively well comparable while Cr is consistently 20-35% higher in INAA; Mn is about 15% higher in INAA and generally not well comparable; Ni is not comparable, probably due to contamination in the ICP analysis; La is reasonable comparable, certain discrepancies may result from inner vessel differences. Cerium is not well comparable, while Dy is constantly 25% higher in INAA but too constant to achieve any calibration; Nd is 10% higher in INAA, there are high discrepancies in MQ56-57 (INAA Nos. 24,35), maybe due to lack of good calibration in ICP-MS in high Nd values. Samarium is not very well comparable; very high INAA values of MQ54-55 are possibly due to INAA calibration problems (see Fig. B.2:2); Eu is well comparable with values often within the experimental error (Fig. B.1:3); Yb is about 50% higher in INAA and not well comparable; Tb is 15-20% higher in INAA, while Lu is 30-40% higher in INAA and not well comparable. Barium is comparable in INAA Berkeley results, less so in Hebrew University ones; Hf is 3-5 times higher in INAA and not comparable; Ta is reasonably comparable, except Sample AS57 with a low ICP value, possibly an error (see Fig. B.1:4); Sc is somewhat higher in INAA and not very well comparable; Cs is also not well comparable, while Th is reasonably comparable in most samples; U is 30-40% higher in INAA. As noted there are strong discrepancies in various elements, especially in Hf, and to a certain extent in Yb. Comparison of other elements including Al, Fe, Ca, Ti, Na, K, Cr, Co, La, Dy, Nd, Eu, Ta, Th and U may suggest that if certain calibration function is applied a comparison between the data can be made, although there is no simple linier calibration. Internal compositional differences within the same vessel should also be considered (this is especially true for the high Ca group to which most fine Philistine Monochrome vessels from Miqne belong, Gunneweg et al. 1986:4). It should be noted that the high error for Rb in INAA makes the calibration with ICP useless in this case, as does the possible contamination in Ni for the ICP results. The concentrations of Cr, Mn, Dy, Lu, Yb, Tb and U are generally consistently lower according to ICP results. This could possibly be caused by incomplete dissolution of certain minerals in the samples (see discussion in Part 3.2b). In summary it is clear that the matter of calibration between previous INAA and recent ICP results is not simple and needs much more study.

217

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Figure B.1. ICP-INAA calibration graphs (Fe, Na, Eu, Ta).

218

APPENDICES

Figure B.2. ICP-INAA comparison graphs (Co, Sm, Yb, Hf).

219

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Table B.1: ICP and INAA results of identical samples Sample Element Al% Fe% Ca% Ti% AS7 ICP ppm 5.13 3.844 5.2056 0.6058 ASH-694 INAA ppm 5.3326 3.77 5.38 0.552 INAA +/- 0.13 0.07 0.41 0.02 AS8 ICP ppm 5.2 3.937 5.0034 0.6263 ASH-700 INAA ppm 5.4536 3.78 5.09 0.62 INAA +/- 0.08 0.02 0.32 0.013 AS9 ICP ppm 5.22 4.069 3.475 0.632 ASH-718 INAA ppm 5.564 4 2.73 0.674 INAA +/- 0.110 0.06 0.34 0.014 AS10 ICP ppm 5.15 3.766 6.950 0.503 ASH-709 INAA ppm 5.020 3.62 6.42 0.581 INAA +/- 0.130 0.05 0.43 0.017 AS11 ICP ppm 5.1 4.047 3.299 0.606 ASH-713 INAA ppm 5.441 3.88 3.47 0.581 INAA +/- 0.120 0.06 0.36 0.014 AS12 ICP ppm 5.36 4.217 3.362 0.610 ASH-711 INAA ppm 5.659 4.04 4.04 0.64 INAA +/- 0.090 0.06 0.33 0.014 AS13 ICP ppm 5.34 4.131 3.111 0.617 ASH-714 INAA ppm 5.383 4.03 3.43 0.607 INAA +/- 0.150 0.06 0.38 0.015 AS14 ICP ppm 4.98 3.981 5.400 0.542 ASH-708 INAA ppm 5.120 3.72 5.99 0.582 INAA +/- 0.11 0.06 0.4 0.016 AS25 ICP ppm 6.01 4.12 5.54 0.67 ASH-15 INAA ppm 5.89 4.19 5.7 0.747 INAA +/- 0.29 0.05 0.3 0.01 AS57 ICP ppm 5.28 3.57 4.40 0.64 ASH-13 INAA ppm 5.83 3.64 5.6 0.711 INAA +/- 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.008 AS58 ICP ppm 5.28 3.66 6.48 0.67 ASH-14 INAA ppm 5.52 3.49 6.9 0.723 INAA +/- 0.21 0.04 0.3 0.01 QS4 ICP ppm Qasile 57 INAA ppm INAA +/QS5 ICP ppm Qasile 56 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ28 ICP ppm 3.71 2.52 16.8 0.36 Miqne 26 INAA ppm 2.68 18.56 INAA +/0.02 1.00 MQ52 ICP ppm 4.07 2.73 11.4 0.43 Miqne 15 INAA ppm 2.74 16.11 INAA +/0.02 0.96 MQ53 ICP ppm 3.86 2.71 19.5 0.40 Miqne 16 INAA ppm 3.05 21.19 INAA +/0.02 1.06 MQ54 ICP ppm 2.41 1.51 24.7 0.21 Miqne 20 INAA ppm 1.69 23.07 INAA +/0.13 0.96 MQ55 ICP ppm 3.76 2.58 18.0 0.37 Miqne 21 INAA ppm 2.93 19.90 INAA +/0.02 1.05 MQ56 ICP ppm 3.97 2.75 16.2 0.48 Miqne 24 INAA ppm 2.97 16.37 INAA +/0.02 0.97 MQ57 ICP ppm 5.29 3.78 5.0 0.65 Miqne 35 INAA ppm 3.98 5.40 INAA +/0.03 0.90 MQ58 ICP ppm 3.90 2.68 12.0 0.50 Miqne 40 INAA ppm 2.86 12.55

K% Na% 0.5864 0.612 0.07 0.5788 0.608 0.007 0.674 0.685 0.008 0.564 0.582 0.007 0.605 0.61 0.008 0.682 0.686 0.008 0.617 0.639 0.008 0.622 0.583 0.007 0.67 0.702 0.009 0.65 0.683 0.009 0.62 0.671 0.009

1.20 1.05 0.15 1.74 1.47 0.14 1.29 1.37 0.14 1.19 1.13 0.11 1.58 1.30 0.14 1.26 1.15 0.15 1.07 1.03 0.18 1.30 1.41

0.51 0.54 0.01 0.35 0.37 0.01 0.43 0.46 0.01 0.20 0.22 0.06 0.36 0.44 0.01 0.44 0.45 0.01 0.60 0.66 0.01 0.40 0.40

220

Co 16.221 17.21 0.3 16.575 17.14 0.05 16.632 17.64 0.27 16.530 16.39 0.25 16.106 18.01 0.28 17.586 18.21 0.28 17.793 18.28 0.28 16.417 17.03 0.26 21.40 18.8 0.3 17.95 16.5 0.2 18.78 17.1 0.2 13.61 14.13

Cr 74.049 99.3 3.2 83.176 107 2.7 82.345 110.8 2.7 70.805 97.7 2.5 73.439 102.9 2.7 78.706 112.1 2.8 81.460 98.6 2.7 75.875 111.6 2.7 96.12 132 2 90.27 133 2 91.46 131 2 106.63 119.00

12.38 12.60

69.36 90.00

10.3 10.60 0.11 12.3 10.90 0.12 11.1 11.70 0.13 4.6 4.84 0.08 9.6 11.80 0.13 11.1 11.20 0.12 18.4 18.97 0.17 12.7 12.39

84.6 90.40 0.75 82.5 94.50 0.80 74.9 92.70 0.80 52.3 79.97 0.70 77.9 107.30 0.87 77.4 106.20 0.83 90.3 121.00 0.94 81.0 101.00

Mn 642 731 6 663 723 7 677 728 6 633 711 7 668 855 7 699 771 6 670 761 6 673 731 7 840 877 10 759 784 8 751 816 9

Ni

126 29.0 13.0 81.4 35.0 10.0 68.9 54.0 12.0

La 27.6 25.0 0.8 27.2 27.6 0.6 25.9 26.8 0.6 26.0 26.2 0.7 26.0 26.8 0.6 27.0 28.5 0.6 26.0 27.1 0.6 28.0 27.9 0.7 29.7 30.8 0.4 25.3 30.9 0.4 26.1 29.4 0.4 31.8 31.7

Ce 57.2 59.7 1.0 58.5 60.9 0.8 55.8 59.5 0.8 54.2 55.4 0.7 56.8 62.1 0.9 57.5 63.3 0.8 57.0 60.8 0.9 59.8 59.2 0.7

Dy Nd 4.0 4.96 0.09 3.9 4.9 0.1 3.9 4.7 0.1 3.7 4.7 0.1 3.9 5.0 0.1 4.0 5.2 0.1 3.9 4.8 0.1 3.8 4.9 0.13

26.0 24.3

49.2 43.4 3.58 20.9 48.4 22.97 0.7 0.72 47.7 3.54 21.6 47.3 24.03 0.7 0.76 42.5 3.36 21.1 46.9

49.2

482

68

570

38

425

33

24.9 24.4 0.3 26.0 24.2 0.3 24.2

246

16

18.1

30.1 2.57 14.6 33.1

383

30

430

30

759

68

506

48

23.7 26.1 0.3 26.4 25.4 0.3 30.3 30.2 0.3 23.5 24.0

41.9 51.5 0.8 49.6 51.8 0.7 62.8 68.0 0.8 46.1 51.2

3.49 19.4 22.90 0.90 3.66 21.5 29.30 0.80 3.87 26.4 34.18 0.86 3.35 20.2 19.70

APPENDICES

Sample Element AS7 ICP ppm ASH-694 INAA ppm INAA +/AS8 ICP ppm ASH-700 INAA ppm INAA +/AS9 ICP ppm ASH-718 INAA ppm INAA +/AS10 ICP ppm ASH-709 INAA ppm INAA +/AS11 ICP ppm ASH-713 INAA ppm INAA +/AS12 ICP ppm ASH-711 INAA ppm INAA +/AS13 ICP ppm ASH-714 INAA ppm INAA +/AS14 ICP ppm ASH-708 INAA ppm INAA +/AS25 ICP ppm ASH-15 INAA ppm INAA +/AS57 ICP ppm ASH-13 INAA ppm INAA +/AS58 ICP ppm ASH-14 INAA ppm INAA +/QS4 ICP ppm Qasile 57 INAA ppm INAA +/QS5 ICP ppm Qasile 56 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ28 ICP ppm Miqne 26 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ52 ICP ppm Miqne 15 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ53 ICP ppm Miqne 16 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ54 ICP ppm Miqne 20 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ55 ICP ppm Miqne 21 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ56 ICP ppm Miqne 24 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ57 ICP ppm Miqne 35 INAA ppm INAA +/MQ58 ICP ppm Miqne 40 INAA ppm INAA +/-

Sm 6.484 5.288 0.017 5.745 5.445 0.013 5.375 5.194 0.013 5.244 4.999 0.014 5.572 5.211 0.013 5.624 5.652 0.014 5.482 5.256 0.013 5.675 5.354 0.015

4.21 4.54 0.01 4.34 4.59 0.02 4.30 3.18 21.16 0.06 4.21 17.48 0.05 4.36 4.76 0.02 5.40 5.88 0.02 4.17 4.47 0.02

Eu 1.355 1.355 0.014 1.291 1.349 0.013 1.285 1.326 0.013 1.250 1.251 0.012 1.325 1.318 0.013 1.367 1.447 0.013 1.309 1.329 0.013 1.334 1.333 0.013

0.96 1.00 0.02 1.12 1.02 0.02 1.05 1.09 0.02 0.81 0.76 0.02 1.13 1.15 0.02 1.09 1.12 0.02 1.33 1.43 0.02 1.08 1.08 0.02

Yb 1.94 2.77 0.090 1.87 2.958 0.036 1.875 2.813 0.039 1.740 2.648 0.034 1.863 2.748 0.040 1.874 2.989 0.038 1.862 2.837 0.040 1.818 2.795 0.035

1.84 2.26 0.05 1.66 2.29 0.06 1.69 2.22 0.05 1.31 2.24 0.05 1.47 2.99 0.06 1.79 2.79 0.06 1.77 3.50 0.07 1.55 2.51 0.05

Tb 0.726 0.816 0.047 0.721 0.863 0.041 0.716 0.834 0.04 0.683 0.783 0.04 0.717 0.828 0.041 0.729 0.941 0.042 0.713 0.849 0.041 0.716 0.877 0.041

0.58 0.57 0.56 0.42 0.61 0.60 0.69 0.54

Lu 0.28 0.41 0.02 0.29 0.42 0.02 0.27 0.36 0.02 0.29 0.39 0.02 0.28 0.37 0.02 0.28 0.42 0.02 0.30 0.38 0.02 0.27 0.41 0.02 0.27 0.45 0.01 0.25 0.49 0.01 0.30 0.49 0.01

0.25 0.35 0.02 0.24 0.33 0.02 0.24 0.18 0.21 0.01 0.23 0.37 0.02 0.24 0.41 0.02 0.25 0.48 0.02 0.21 0.38 0.02

221

Ba

550 565 12 442 445 11 430 449 11

357 408 22 517 438 21 309 416 20 535 774 25 628 1280 4 313 341 22 348 385 23 548 552 19

Hf 3.398 10.34 0.16 3.318 12.13 0.15 3.918 11.27 0.15 2.866 9.61 0.13 3.207 10.37 0.14 3.138 10.95 0.14 3.393 10.46 0.14 2.881 10.49 0.13 2.761 12.66 0.13 2.123 15.96 0.15 2.706 14.91 0.14 1.928 9.04

Ta 1.129 1.14 0.07 1.157 1.178 0.006 1.090 1.175 0.006 1.063 1.089 0.005 1.174 1.139 0.006 1.228 1.235 0.006 1.166 1.163 0.006 1.061 1.196 0.006 1.451 1.378 0.006 0.411 1.318 0.005 1.242 1.333 0.006 0.656 0.86

2.204 10.54

0.755 0.99

2.56 6.65 0.09 2.10 8.00 0.11 1.98 6.02 0.09 1.29 3.90 0.07 1.88 6.32 0.10 2.13 10.90 0.13 2.40 12.93 0.15 2.12 10.64 0.13

0.73 0.88 0.01 1.02 0.83 0.01 0.89 0.84 0.01 0.53 0.60 0.01 0.83 0.77 0.02 0.73 1.17 0.02 1.14 1.35 0.02 0.89 0.97 0.01

Sc 11.24 12.35 0.06 11.54 12.66 0.05 11.81 12.50 0.05 10.39 11.93 0.05 11.00 12.51 0.05 12.42 13.53 0.05 11.93 12.63 0.05 11.32 12.27 0.05 11.44 13.38 0.05 9.26 12.43 0.04 10.93 12.03 0.03

Rb 32.9 56.0 20.0 35.3 68.0 13.0 32.7 48.0 13.0 34.9 53.0 13.0 30.3 66.0 14.0 38.5 65.0 15.0 29.0 33.0 13.0 38.9 64.0 13.0 49.5 70.0 11.0 37.7 72.0 9.0 42.5 59.0 9.0

Cs 0.90 0.84 0.21 1.01 1.15 0.18 0.93 1.19 0.18 1.18 1.65 0.17 0.91 1.22 0.18 1.31 1.51 0.19 0.82 1.15 0.19 1.19 1.55 0.18 1.52 1.68 0.19 1.12 1.44 0.15 1.32 1.98 0.16

10.11 39.2 1.13 9.56

45.3 1.26

9.10 0.02

39.6 1.29 3.0 0.10

9.37 0.02

41.5 0.87 3.0 0.10

10.20 43.8 1.22 0.02 3.1 0.11 6.6 0.02

25.3 0.65 2.30 0.02

10.4 0.02

46.6 1.47 3.15 0.11

10.17 55.3 0.86 0.02 3.4 0.10 13.14 69.6 1.69 0.03 4.1 0.12 9.60 0.02

40.1 0.84 3.20 0.10

Th 7.12 7.00 0.15 7.19 7.64 0.12 7.71 7.10 0.12 6.35 6.42 0.11 6.77 7.23 0.12 6.34 7.46 0.12 6.93 7.26 0.12 6.59 6.71 0.11

U 1.50 1.96 0.03 1.79 2.59 0.04 1.47 2.05 0.03 1.34 2.16 0.03 1.19 1.92 0.03 1.81 2.08 0.03 1.27 1.98 0.03 1.37 1.87 0.03

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Appendix C: List of samples taken and the archaeological data Appendix C lists all samples analyzed in this study by ICP and/or TSPA. The data on the samples includes: sample number (according to sites in alphabetical order), sample preservation, type, ware, registration number/basket, locus number, locus type, stratum, publication reference, analysis carried, figure in this work and other remarks. Note that stratigraphic data is missing for some of the sites, while in several cases, when the excavations are not published yet (as at Tel Miqne or Ashkelon), it is preliminary or tentative. Abbreviations include: Sample no.=sites (same abbreviations used in appendices D and E): AH=Tell abu Hawam; AK=Ashkelon; AP= Aphek; AR= Arad; AS=Ashdod; BM=Beth Shemesh; BS= Beer Sheva; BT= Tel Batash; CS= Clay Sample; DN= Tel Dan; GZ= Gezer; HM= Tell Hamid; KM= Kfar Menahem; KoM= Khirbet el Qom; MG= Megiddo; MQ= Tel MiqneEkron; MR= Tel Mor; MS= Tel Masos; NG= Tel Nagila; QS= Tell Qasile; RH= Tel Rehov; RQ= Ruqeish; SF= Tell es-Safi/Gath; SP= Tel Sippor; TBM= Tel Beit Mirsim; TS= Tell es-Safi survey; YM= Yad Mordechai. VP=vessel preservation: C=complete (or almost complete); R= rim (vessel with rim but not complete); S= body sherd; H= handle. Type: Note the in Philistine Monochrome the type according to T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004 is given in parenthesis; type numbers are also given to LPDW, while other vessels are only denoted by general forms (if a number is given in parenthesis it denoted the type number according to the publication); AM=amphora; AMPS= amphoriskos; BL=bowl; BSB=bell-shaped bowl; BS-KR=bell-shaped krater; CH= chalice; CJ=cooking jug; CP=cooking pot; CSHB=carinated strap handled bowl; FB=feeding bottle jug; FL=flask; HM=holemouth; JG=jug; JGT=juglet; JR=jar; KR=krater; plmlk=pre LMLK; PT=pithos; SSJ=strainer spouted jug (beer jug); SUJ=stirrup jar; ZF= zoomorphic figurine; ZV= zoomorphic vessel. Ware: BC= Philistine Bichrome (f= denotes fine, ns= denotes not slipped, also in other wares); BOR= Black on Red; LPDW= Late Philistine Decorated Ware; MC F= fine Philistine Monochrome; MC G= gray Philistine Monochrome; MC P= pink Philistine Monochrome; MC R= red Philistine Monochrome; ND= non-decorated pottery; RS= redslipped pottery; RSP= red-slipped/degenerated Philistine; WS= Cypriote White Slip. Registration No.: Basket number or registration number; IAA denotes Israel Antiquities Authority number. Locus type: dest.= destruction; ts= topsoil. Stratum: T.S=Temporary Stratum; unstrat.= unstratified. Publication: ‘as’ before the reference means the vessel sampled is similar in form to the one published in the reference; AM= Amiran 1969; Arad= Singer-Avitz 2002; Ashdod II-III= M. Dothan 1971; Ashdod IV= M. Dothan and Porath 1982; Ashdod V= M. Dothan and Porath 1993; Ashdod VI= M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005; ASII= Grant 1931-32; ASIII= Grant 1934; BS I= Aharoni 1973; Batash II= Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001; Gez. II= Dever et al. 1974; Gez III= Gitin 1990; Gunn. 1986= Gunneweg et al. 1986; Hamid= Wolf and Shavit in press; LPDW= Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004; Miqne IV= T. Dothan and Zukerman forthcoming b; Nagila= Ilan forthcoming; Masos= Fritz and Kempinski 1983; Safi= Maeir 2001; Analysis: mode of analysis carried; ICP= chemical analysis; TS= Thin section petrographic analysis. Figure: illustration in this work (referring to Figures in part 1). Remarks: this includes special properties of the vessels, IAA numbers, and previous INAA/TSPA with sample number.

222

APPENDICES

223

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

224

APPENDICES

225

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

226

APPENDICES

227

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

228

APPENDICES

229

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

230

APPENDICES

231

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Appendix D: Chemical compositions of samples according to ICPMS/ICP-AES Appendix D presents the chemical results of the samples analyzed by ICP-AES and ICP-MS in the Bristol laboratory during 2002-2003. The raw compositions of all elements obtained are given (first number), arranged according to alphabetical sample numbers, with the respective experimental error (second number). Major elements are given by elemental percentage (Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, K, Na and Ti), P is given in oxide percentage (P2O5); all other elemental compositions are in part-per-million (ppm). Note that several elements as Nb, Sc, Rb, Cs, U, and Th were obtained only for part of the samples. Note also that high values for Ni, Cu and Zn are probably result of sampling contamination.

232

233

0.04

0.04

0.003

0.001

0.002

0.015

0.002

0.14

0.7

0.1

1.4

0.36

1.4

1.60

0.9

0.34

0.66

0.12

0.37

0.04

0.13

0.01

0.03

0.04

0.015

0.09

0.016

0.09

0.004

0.19

0.11

6

0.04

0.033

2.59

17.43

0.762

0.371

0.251

1.281

0.259

7.69

84.8

35.2

173.2

45.96

787.7

81.65

101.6

28.43

51.13

6.91

26.23

1.15

4.82

0.63

4.17

3.75

0.748

1.99

0.369

1.92

0.293

21.40

10.45

358

1.59

0.734

Al%

Fe%

Ca%

Mg%

P2O5%

Ti%

K%

Na%

Co

Cr

Cu

Mn

Ni

Sr

V

Zn

La

Ce

Pr

Nd

Eu

Sm

Tb

Gd

Dy

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

Th

Cs

Rb

Sc

0.02

AH1 5.05

1.359

2.48

390.3

16.76

20.58

0.280

1.89

0.363

2.00

0.770

3.96

4.58

0.68

5.23

1.28

26.34

6.79

52.90

25.68

55.1

101.6

363.9

48.6

698.8

22.4

86.7

18.81

0.620

1.520

0.582

0.204

1.039

7.05

3.77

AK6 5.34

0.026

0.06

5.0

0.15

0.16

0.007

0.05

0.019

0.02

0.021

0.19

0.17

0.01

0.12

0.04

1.01

0.20

1.02

0.25

0.6

1.3

2.8

0.9

4.2

0.4

0.1

0.46

0.004

0.028

0.004

0.002

0.012

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.761

1.90

301.8

11.43

19.06

0.263

1.70

0.317

1.79

0.666

3.26

3.85

0.56

4.41

0.96

21.86

5.71

44.43

22.37

49.3

71.5

390.0

44.4

501.7

24.7

75.2

12.38

0.407

1.337

0.457

0.195

0.606

13.58

2.59

AK7 3.62

0.035

0.08

3.6

0.07

0.10

0.011

0.08

0.016

0.03

0.005

0.14

0.08

0.01

0.06

0.03

0.19

0.07

0.60

0.07

0.5

1.2

3.7

0.8

1.9

0.7

0.5

0.10

0.003

0.012

0.002

0.002

0.004

0.16

0.03

0.01

1.239

2.82

323.2

18.22

23.55

0.266

1.73

0.272

1.91

0.657

3.88

4.58

0.67

5.17

1.29

26.16

6.93

59.34

28.77

59.3

88.1

308.2

42.4

707.1

23.4

84.1

18.39

0.610

1.167

0.627

0.121

1.438

6.27

4.03

AK9 5.61

0.029

0.09

7.5

0.65

0.47

0.011

0.06

0.003

0.10

0.028

0.14

0.17

0.04

0.04

0.02

1.01

0.24

1.48

0.39

1.5

1.5

2.3

0.1

6.0

0.2

1.0

0.64

0.008

0.013

0.003

0.001

0.012

0.04

0.01

0.06

0.918

2.13

349.5

13.55

17.27

0.238

1.61

0.308

1.69

0.626

3.29

4.00

0.58

4.85

1.08

23.93

6.28

54.68

23.65

57.4

92.0

243.2

52.2

714.9

23.6

86.3

17.90

0.605

1.200

0.616

0.173

0.934

4.22

3.39

AK10 4.81

0.005

0.04

3.4

0.07

0.17

0.002

0.06

0.016

0.04

0.015

0.02

0.08

0.01

0.17

0.03

0.37

0.16

1.31

0.24

0.6

0.6

3.0

0.3

6.6

0.2

0.5

0.29

0.001

0.016

0.004

0.003

0.003

0.04

0.02

0.09

1.040

2.68

328.4

16.33

23.46

0.273

1.86

0.319

2.06

0.778

4.26

4.77

0.69

5.47

1.40

26.94

6.83

58.52

28.87

58.5

90.7

403.8

81.7

642.1

36.2

87.6

17.54

0.554

1.365

0.572

0.200

1.276

8.79

3.72

AK11 5.29

0.518

2.49

317.1

11.58

21.50

0.233

1.63

0.266

1.74

0.648

3.75

4.32

0.62

5.00

1.18

24.79

6.40

55.18

27.53

55.2

78.9

304.0

83.0

621.9

19.2

88.1

16.91

0.487

1.051

0.560

0.154

1.282

6.96

3.49

AK12 5.01

D1

0.036

0.04

2.8

0.32

0.12

0.009

0.10

0.008

0.02

0.027

0.21

0.10

0.06

0.06

0.04

0.50

0.22

1.00

0.85

1.0

0.5

2.8

1.9

0.8

0.4

0.5

0.74

0.002

0.020

0.005

0.002

0.007

0.06

0.02

0.03

0.019

0.03

1.0

0.34

0.30

0.014

0.09

0.014

0.07

0.012

0.15

0.16

0.00

0.09

0.06

0.28

0.02

1.23

0.20

1.2

1.2

4.6

0.7

3.7

0.4

0.8

0.25

0.003

0.009

0.000

0.001

0.010

0.07

0.02

0.02

Appendix D: Chemical compositions of samples according to ICP-MS/ICP-AES

1.336

2.88

286.5

18.78

24.49

0.329

2.18

0.407

2.33

0.874

4.42

5.26

0.78

6.13

1.37

30.30

7.80

63.94

29.75

67.7

110.8

325.6

48.7

801.9

35.0

98.6

21.30

0.734

1.277

0.658

0.456

1.296

6.17

4.27

AK13 5.89

0.055

0.08

3.9

0.75

0.15

0.007

0.01

0.001

0.06

0.031

0.11

0.07

0.01

0.16

0.02

0.44

0.15

1.42

0.49

0.9

1.7

3.7

0.8

3.6

0.4

0.8

0.21

0.004

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.007

0.03

0.02

0.05

0.953

2.36

393.8

14.66

18.77

0.248

1.69

0.317

1.81

0.683

3.43

4.02

0.59

4.70

1.09

23.45

6.21

50.70

23.06

62.5

85.0

363.5

73.2

643.2

22.0

85.2

17.31

0.463

1.642

0.539

0.195

0.909

4.80

3.52

AK14 4.81

0.042

0.09

5.5

0.15

0.30

0.010

0.01

0.009

0.01

0.018

0.02

0.09

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.27

0.15

1.06

0.40

0.5

1.0

3.1

2.0

5.5

0.3

0.8

0.12

0.006

0.019

0.005

0.001

0.007

0.04

0.01

0.07

1.218

2.90

328.9

17.21

23.63

0.277

1.99

0.316

2.26

0.738

4.23

4.78

0.71

5.51

1.31

26.47

7.06

62.56

30.43

62.6

85.3

329.8

75.1

702.1

20.4

89.8

17.45

0.609

1.163

0.610

0.130

1.489

7.87

3.72

AK15 5.29

0.038

0.18

1.7

0.41

0.13

0.017

0.04

0.005

0.08

0.006

0.03

0.06

0.02

0.06

0.05

0.39

0.09

0.56

0.39

0.6

2.0

4.8

0.5

2.4

2.2

1.2

0.56

0.007

0.005

0.005

0.001

0.008

0.03

0.01

0.04

1.301

2.75

368.8

18.68

23.96

0.308

2.03

0.398

2.27

0.859

4.36

5.21

0.75

6.00

1.37

29.44

7.74

62.75

28.90

60.6

103.5

283.7

57.7

839.3

22.9

90.5

20.37

0.588

1.326

0.607

0.126

1.230

5.58

4.34

AK16 5.93

0.069

0.05

6.1

0.26

0.12

0.004

0.02

0.009

0.04

0.024

0.03

0.08

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.43

0.08

0.66

0.09

0.2

1.9

3.8

1.7

2.6

0.6

0.9

0.67

0.002

0.014

0.005

0.002

0.006

0.08

0.04

0.03

1.059

2.28

265.1

15.06

18.78

0.256

1.73

0.324

1.81

0.658

3.44

4.12

0.59

4.84

1.08

23.82

6.22

50.88

23.09

65.2

81.2

308.4

38.6

638.0

24.0

70.0

17.33

0.414

1.466

0.541

0.087

0.819

5.43

3.32

AK17 4.56

0.027

0.07

6.3

0.22

0.40

0.005

0.12

0.019

0.02

0.009

0.07

0.07

0.01

0.08

0.01

0.32

0.09

0.81

0.32

0.2

0.4

3.4

0.9

2.6

0.2

1.2

0.26

0.006

0.016

0.004

0.001

0.003

0.04

0.02

0.04

APPENDICES

234

0.012

0.02

0.004

0.18

0.27

2.3

0.07

0.003

0.350

1.83

0.269

20.70

15.85

301.8

2.35

1.060

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

U

Th

Cs

Rb

Sc

0.10

1.96

Nd

Er

0.48

25.72

Pr

0.032

0.10

6.85

Ce

0.742

0.84

55.16

La

Ho

0.68

25.52

Zn

0.13

0.6

52.7

V

3.74

2.3

92.2

Sr

Dy

6.9

327.9

Ni

0.08

0.5

65.4

Mn

4.51

7.4

738.2

Cu

Gd

0.1

20.0

Cr

0.01

1.1

86.7

Co

0.66

0.54

17.79

Tb

0.005

0.633

Na%

0.09

0.014

1.247

K%

5.22

0.003

0.538

Ti%

Sm

0.000

0.126

P2O5%

0.03

0.012

1.170

Mg%

1.17

0.08

6.99

Ca%

Eu

0.02

3.58

Fe%

1.140

2.61

248.8

16.31

18.00

0.224

1.58

0.247

1.63

0.550

3.03

3.38

0.51

4.25

1.07

20.14

5.30

49.00

22.88

49.0

74.6

300.5

32.4

570.2

38.1

77.5

15.12

0.480

1.442

0.561

0.120

0.975

6.84

3.43

0.05

0.078

0.03

0.9

0.12

0.13

0.024

0.07

0.006

0.05

0.020

0.12

0.17

0.02

0.15

0.04

0.25

0.12

0.98

0.69

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.3

2.5

0.9

0.8

0.20

0.005

0.007

0.002

0.001

0.010

0.05

0.02

0.07

AK19

4.93

AK18

5.13

Al%

1.197

2.67

258.5

17.05

23.69

0.283

1.91

0.305

2.25

0.750

4.42

4.95

0.71

5.57

1.42

27.84

7.33

63.89

31.04

63.9

93.7

262.6

56.0

784.9

28.0

96.6

20.01

0.566

1.113

0.644

0.125

1.347

5.34

3.97

0.009

0.10

3.3

0.23

0.51

0.032

0.10

0.034

0.09

0.051

0.31

0.15

0.04

0.16

0.12

0.84

0.35

3.87

2.41

3.9

0.3

1.7

0.5

3.3

0.2

0.8

0.31

0.004

0.007

0.005

0.001

0.016

0.01

0.01

0.01

AK20

5.56

1.371

2.58

355.4

17.32

23.11

0.242

1.80

0.288

1.97

0.697

4.23

4.71

0.71

5.37

1.43

27.10

7.08

61.27

30.75

61.3

99.5

315.7

114.2

681.3

52.2

109.4

18.78

0.644

1.138

0.632

0.308

1.436

5.21

3.98

0.036

0.07

4.4

0.16

0.35

0.025

0.10

0.029

0.05

0.005

0.27

0.19

0.05

0.13

0.11

0.85

0.11

2.07

0.63

2.1

2.4

1.8

1.6

6.4

0.3

0.7

0.56

0.002

0.012

0.004

0.005

0.008

0.01

0.04

0.01

AK21 5.52

1.486

3.02

427.5

20.35

24.93

0.297

2.06

0.295

2.27

0.824

4.66

5.47

0.78

6.09

1.49

30.63

7.73

69.36

33.79

69.4

102.7

322.1

102.6

742.0

366.7

106.3

20.30

0.710

1.219

0.680

0.189

1.573

6.00

4.41

AP1

0.028

0.13

5.2

0.40

0.54

0.024

0.04

0.020

0.09

0.041

0.17

0.39

0.04

0.55

0.11

0.91

0.41

2.94

0.64

2.9

0.7

2.3

2.2

2.5

3.5

0.7

0.49

0.011

0.012

0.761

1.85

359

14.31

18.38

0.244

1.62

0.315

1.78

0.679

3.52

4.25

0.62

5.01

1.14

25.23

6.64

53.07

25.60

59.2

83.87

233.3

121

682.9

52.6

89.2

16.53

0.594

1.188

0.489

0.192

0.0004

0.004

0.937

4.46

3.23

4.72

0.002

0.06

0.01

0.05

AK22 6.10

AP2

0.822

1.88

968

9.99

35.01

0.491

3.17

0.595

3.26

1.195

5.41

5.94

0.85

6.18

1.43

29.78

7.76

54.93

33.39

93.3

93.32

395.6

68.83

874.4

23.9

120.5

15.57

0.281

1.401

0.405

0.916

0.591

11.65

2.75

4.19

D2

0.045

0.08

3

0.11

0.19

0.017

0.06

0.018

0.03

0.033

0.19

0.12

0.03

0.14

0.09

1.02

0.39

2.25

1.80

0.5

1.43

2.5

1.88

0.7

0.6

1.1

0.36

0.011

0.002

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.02

0.02

0.05

0.036

0.05

14

0.27

0.28

0.006

0.05

0.007

0.02

0.016

0.15

0.07

0.02

0.08

0.03

0.60

0.10

0.84

0.32

1.1

1.23

5.0

0.70

3.2

0.3

0.9

0.19

0.001

0.021

0.003

0.007

0.001

0.05

0.00

0.09

AP3

0.961

2.30

357

15.57

19.84

0.247

1.68

0.308

1.73

0.666

3.25

3.95

0.57

4.52

1.12

22.18

5.73

45.53

22.12

78.7

81.50

292.4

47.96

704.4

26.5

71.3

16.51

0.558

1.787

0.470

0.177

1.004

7.33

3.25

4.57

0.017

0.10

3

0.26

0.21

0.009

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.018

0.03

0.16

0.02

0.06

0.03

0.37

0.12

1.38

0.86

0.9

2.07

3.9

0.10

5.0

0.4

0.7

0.37

0.008

0.011

0.005

0.002

0.006

0.03

0.02

0.02

AP4

0.935

1.90

292

15.91

19.14

0.283

1.90

0.348

1.94

0.738

3.68

4.46

0.65

5.29

1.20

26.40

6.92

56.78

26.99

52.7

85.74

222.5

92.43

668.4

16.7

91.2

17.02

0.552

1.130

0.559

0.126

0.859

5.68

3.10

4.53

0.033

0.08

6

0.23

0.29

0.008

0.08

0.010

0.07

0.034

0.07

0.08

0.02

0.19

0.02

0.48

0.03

0.56

0.33

0.7

0.19

3.1

2.72

6.3

0.2

0.3

0.30

0.006

0.010

0.005

0.001

0.003

0.03

0.02

0.02

AP5

0.441

1.60

219

10.15

17.05

0.225

1.58

0.270

1.59

0.583

2.85

3.42

0.50

3.81

0.85

18.66

4.91

40.54

19.42

69.4

60.04

228.2

59.48

582.7

37.6

68.5

12.44

0.355

1.281

0.379

0.206

0.611

10.20

2.26

3.29

0.039

0.12

4

0.27

0.19

0.013

0.08

0.010

0.01

0.013

0.05

0.07

0.01

0.06

0.05

0.10

0.08

0.01

0.28

0.6

1.40

0.4

0.75

1.6

0.1

0.5

0.10

0.003

0.010

0.002

0.001

0.006

0.07

0.03

0.02

AR1

0.750

1.88

804

12.84

28.65

0.354

2.43

0.435

2.41

0.884

4.30

4.91

0.71

5.49

1.27

25.85

6.66

46.85

27.92

69.4

81.87

392.3

42.16

574.9

22.4

98.7

12.45

0.607

1.852

0.375

0.469

1.031

15.80

2.76

4.38

0.074

0.09

3

0.18

0.26

0.002

0.03

0.015

0.02

0.010

0.04

0.25

0.02

0.08

0.02

0.41

0.02

0.05

0.36

0.9

1.97

7.1

0.62

3.8

0.4

0.6

0.11

0.005

0.007

0.003

0.006

0.005

0.07

0.01

0.06

AR2

1.075

2.30

303

18.41

15.40

0.221

1.26

0.239

1.26

0.479

2.46

3.01

0.44

3.69

0.79

18.76

5.01

44.37

19.44

52.8

82.63

185.4

71.16

486.8

17.8

92.5

16.83

0.789

2.367

0.614

0.176

0.791

1.21

3.34

4.99

0.019

0.03

3

0.28

0.16

0.013

0.02

0.006

0.01

0.012

0.07

0.05

0.00

0.15

0.02

0.23

0.03

0.28

0.24

0.5

0.23

1.0

0.46

1.7

0.0

1.0

0.30

0.010

0.018

0.005

0.001

0.002

0.01

0.05

0.02

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

235

0.08

0.025

0.01

0.009

0.61

2.14

0.310

1.92

0.297

17.89

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

10.51

0.09

0.031

0.28

1.07

0.029

0.11

0.05

590

3.68

1.303

12.90

40.06

1.003

7.32

1.30

Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

Th

U

Nb

0.008

0.775

Ho

Nd

0.16

0.22

26.05

Pr

4.04

0.05

6.56

Ce

Dy

0.84

58.51

La

0.14

0.17

25.66

Zn

4.71

0.2

147.6

V

Gd

0.8

141.9

Sr

0.02

5.1

278.0

Ni

0.73

17.6

760.9

Mn

Tb

2.9

698.7

Cu

0.08

0.3

33.9

Cr

0.03

2.0

88.0

Co

5.92

0.49

22.59

1.32

0.010

0.614

Na%

Sm

0.017

1.475

K%

Eu

0.010

0.065

0.0003

0.069

0.631

0.004

1.149

Mg%

Ti%

0.05

4.60

Ca%

P2O5%

1.277

0.02

4.31

Fe%

1.92

7.72

1.384

42.68

12.64

1.184

3.47

397

18.51

0.289

1.94

0.298

2.16

0.767

4.06

4.74

0.73

5.62

1.29

26.42

6.67

58.62

27.76

148.5

156.7

219.1

1093

730.9

34.6

82.5

23.83

0.685

0.968

0.639

3.93

4.20

AS02

5.64

0.05

AS01

5.94

Al%

0.08

0.32

0.022

1.32

0.30

0.032

0.10

4.37

0.48

0.007

0.02

0.006

0.05

0.010

0.11

0.01

0.02

0.26

0.05

0.33

0.13

0.86

0.42

0.7

1.0

3.3

21.6

1.8

0.3

1.3

0.50

0.013

0.037

0.004

0.001

0.010

0.01

0.01

0.10

AS03

1.39

7.10

0.855

32.78

11.58

0.982

3.31

520

18.18

0.278

1.93

0.295

2.13

0.745

3.99

4.60

0.69

5.58

1.29

25.91

6.51

57.79

26.50

177.9

155.0

257.3

701.9

953.8

105.9

81.4

22.94

0.580

1.415

0.645

0.058

1.204

4.68

4.01

5.36

0.06

0.17

0.030

1.69

0.71

0.027

0.16

4.59

0.91

0.012

0.02

0.010

0.03

0.013

0.05

0.04

0.02

0.06

0.02

0.06

0.02

0.29

0.37

1.1

0.44

15.51

35.65

3.00

0.4

4.8

1.22

0.005

0.014

0.012

0.0002

0.002

0.04

0.00

0.09

AS04

1.31

7.02

0.934

35.07

12.64

1.272

3.57

639

17.37

0.283

1.86

0.285

2.08

0.741

3.78

4.48

0.70

5.49

1.27

25.45

6.33

56.31

25.46

128.4

137.0

238.7

405.7

690.7

33.5

86.3

19.86

0.624

1.127

0.673

0.053

1.086

3.83

4.10

5.49

0.03

0.12

0.015

0.88

0.46

0.041

0.14

3.69

0.58

0.019

0.05

0.005

0.01

0.010

0.04

0.05

0.00

0.11

0.04

0.43

0.10

0.65

0.28

0.6

0.7

7.2

12.4

8.4

0.3

3.0

0.68

0.008

0.004

0.006

0.0003

0.006

0.03

0.06

0.01

AS05

1.44

7.20

1.459

43.92

13.35

1.299

3.46

261

19.43

0.288

1.95

0.314

2.29

0.818

4.20

5.10

0.78

5.91

1.42

28.88

7.16

60.85

29.33

133.9

160.0

234.6

104.4

815.6

50.8

91.6

19.76

0.661

0.955

0.677

0.080

1.433

5.04

4.67

5.94

0.09

0.05

0.028

1.20

0.46

0.019

0.13

2.38

0.30

0.004

0.04

0.008

0.06

0.012

0.06

0.14

0.01

0.11

0.02

0.63

0.02

0.73

0.21

0.1

0.9

4.1

2.5

3.6

0.5

2.3

0.47

0.007

0.038

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.05

0.03

0.04

AS06

1.86

7.64

1.326

42.60

13.35

1.340

3.75

394

19.06

0.281

2.01

0.316

2.21

0.822

4.26

5.06

0.77

6.00

1.41

28.92

7.22

62.84

29.58

605.9

153.8

252.6

99.7

745.2

841.0

95.6

19.25

0.666

1.122

0.666

0.055

1.370

5.15

4.61

5.99

D3

0.09

0.22

0.006

1.86

0.74

0.013

0.08

4.72

0.93

0.003

0.07

0.018

0.07

0.003

0.08

0.05

0.01

0.29

0.04

1.13

0.27

2.23

0.99

4.3

0.4

11.0

4.7

6.8

1.6

4.3

0.75

0.005

0.000

0.010

0.001

0.005

0.02

0.01

0.06

AS07

1.50

7.12

0.897

32.92

11.24

1.129

3.40

1190

18.18

0.283

1.94

0.297

2.19

0.774

3.98

4.71

0.73

6.48

1.36

27.30

6.79

57.15

27.58

118.5

117.2

320.7

251.5

642.2

33.8

74.0

16.22

0.586

1.492

0.606

0.061

1.118

5.21

3.84

5.33

0.06

0.01

0.012

0.24

0.29

0.017

0.14

3.28

0.23

0.014

0.03

0.006

0.08

0.003

0.14

0.09

0.01

0.09

0.00

0.42

0.04

0.28

0.22

0.5

0.8

4.0

3.0

7.6

0.4

0.7

0.14

0.001

0.017

0.009

0.0004

0.008

0.03

0.04

0.07

AS08

1.79

7.19

1.006

35.34

11.54

1.157

3.32

456

17.33

0.288

1.87

0.304

2.07

0.740

3.91

4.66

0.72

5.74

1.29

27.04

6.71

58.46

27.17

422.3

127.7

321.6

573.4

662.8

560.8

83.2

16.58

0.579

1.262

0.626

0.067

1.115

5.00

3.94

5.45

0.02

0.12

0.030

1.15

0.30

0.054

0.12

2.74

0.59

0.014

0.06

0.008

0.09

0.025

0.08

0.04

0.00

0.10

0.00

0.55

0.07

0.16

0.46

4.1

1.1

6.4

12.1

5.3

0.9

1.7

0.48

0.007

0.048

0.006

0.001

0.004

0.02

0.02

0.02

AS09

1.47

7.71

0.933

32.68

11.81

1.090

3.92

318

16.53

0.271

1.88

0.290

2.12

0.750

3.85

4.57

0.72

5.38

1.29

26.49

6.59

55.78

25.94

112.1

113.3

238.6

236.5

676.8

40.4

82.3

16.63

0.674

1.335

0.632

0.050

1.017

3.48

4.07

5.56

0.03

0.22

0.014

0.67

0.34

0.010

0.04

3.20

0.46

0.012

0.04

0.013

0.10

0.020

0.19

0.04

0.01

0.10

0.05

0.27

0.08

0.12

0.06

0.2

1.2

3.3

2.4

4.6

0.7

1.7

0.25

0.002

0.042

0.008

0.0001

0.004

0.01

0.01

0.02

AS10

1.34

6.35

1.177

34.92

10.39

1.063

2.87

258

16.45

0.285

1.74

0.275

1.96

0.724

3.74

4.41

0.68

5.24

1.25

25.83

6.39

54.25

25.97

108.6

80.5

260.1

840.1

633.4

25.2

70.8

16.53

0.564

0.955

0.503

0.063

1.051

6.95

3.77

5.02

0.04

0.26

0.031

0.47

0.22

0.015

0.09

0.80

0.27

0.028

0.01

0.013

0.06

0.023

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.07

0.02

0.35

0.13

0.59

0.22

0.1

0.2

2.3

10.6

4.7

0.2

0.9

0.23

0.007

0.063

0.006

0.001

0.001

0.04

0.03

0.05

AS11

1.19

6.77

0.907

30.33

11.00

1.174

3.21

434

16.43

0.282

1.86

0.300

2.13

0.740

3.93

4.60

0.72

5.57

1.33

26.60

6.61

56.79

26.05

106.3

112.0

274.3

248.9

668.2

30.6

73.4

16.11

0.605

1.338

0.606

0.047

1.014

3.30

4.05

5.44

0.02

0.12

0.045

0.53

0.24

0.032

0.10

2.97

0.06

0.010

0.07

0.020

0.01

0.024

0.04

0.13

0.02

0.11

0.05

0.19

0.04

0.33

0.23

0.4

0.8

4.9

2.5

6.3

0.2

1.0

0.28

0.005

0.039

0.009

0.0004

0.001

0.01

0.03

0.06

AS12

1.81

6.34

1.313

38.53

12.42

1.228

3.14

276

17.49

0.278

1.87

0.295

2.18

0.782

4.01

4.78

0.73

5.62

1.37

27.34

6.81

57.47

26.98

117.8

130.9

189.9

344.9

698.6

36.4

78.7

17.59

0.682

0.887

0.610

0.052

1.098

3.36

4.22

5.66

0.04

0.06

0.048

0.79

0.24

0.024

0.09

3.91

0.18

0.014

0.05

0.006

0.06

0.014

0.02

0.06

0.01

0.06

0.03

0.45

0.05

0.55

0.18

0.4

0.7

4.7

7.7

5.9

0.4

1.1

0.37

0.006

0.042

0.003

0.0003

0.006

0.02

0.03

0.06

236

0.007

0.04

0.020

0.43

0.300

1.86

0.301

16.95

Yb

Lu

Y

7.04

0.06

0.007

0.33

0.68

0.001

0.30

0.09

311

3.39

1.166

11.93

28.97

0.822

6.93

1.27

Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

Th

U

Nb

0.02

2.15

Tm

Nd

Er

0.18

26.85

Pr

0.014

0.04

6.61

Ce

0.756

0.47

57.00

La

Ho

0.03

25.97

Zn

0.06

1.2

137.4

V

3.95

1.2

106.8

Sr

Dy

6.8

264.1

Ni

0.07

11.7

529.8

Mn

4.64

4.4

670.4

Cu

Gd

0.2

56.0

Cr

0.02

1.5

81.5

Co

0.71

0.38

17.79

Tb

0.005

0.617

Na%

0.05

0.038

1.335

K%

5.48

0.004

0.617

Ti%

Sm

0.001

0.044

P2O5%

0.03

0.003

1.037

Mg%

1.31

0.01

3.11

Ca%

Eu

0.02

4.13

Fe%

1.37

6.59

1.194

38.86

11.32

1.061

2.88

278

16.77

0.268

1.82

0.289

2.11

0.775

3.82

4.70

0.72

5.68

1.33

28.58

7.11

59.76

27.97

110.8

107.3

229.6

402.6

672.8

30.5

75.9

16.42

0.622

1.022

0.542

0.059

1.207

5.40

3.98

AS14

5.12

0.06

AS13

5.38

Al%

0.03

0.14

0.031

1.44

0.23

0.050

0.07

5.01

0.53

0.009

0.06

0.008

0.06

0.035

0.11

0.08

0.03

0.08

0.01

0.15

0.05

0.42

0.11

0.5

0.24

5.50

10.34

2.98

0.3

2.1

0.28

0.009

0.029

0.004

0.001

0.005

0.02

0.02

0.01

AS25

2.76

1.525

49.50

11.44

1.451

0.006

0.55

0.11

0.073

0.03

10.2

0.34

549.9

0.12

17.91

0.009

0.06

0.021

0.06

0.020

0.05

0.11

0.03

0.42

0.06

0.70

0.18

1.58

0.87

0.7

1.9

1.0

0.2

2.4

0.0

1.0

0.69

0.008

0.005

0.006

0.003

0.008

0.04

0.02

0.10

21.38

0.272

1.94

0.315

2.10

0.761

4.17

5.08

0.67

5.91

1.54

29.03

7.08

61.16

29.73

65.9

97.0

270.7

125.7

840.3

32.0

96.1

21.40

0.673

1.433

0.674

0.186

1.204

5.54

4.12

6.01

AS26

1.298

41.84

9.25

1.103

2.50

399.8

14.87

20.67

0.267

1.98

0.318

2.11

0.778

3.95

4.82

0.75

5.29

1.29

26.87

6.80

57.94

27.39

54.4

92.5

250.2

166.1

823.0

25.5

84.0

20.68

0.639

1.293

0.649

0.178

1.096

6.37

3.72

5.52

0.044

0.82

0.31

0.040

0.04

8.2

0.18

0.40

0.011

0.04

0.005

0.03

0.011

0.12

0.08

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.12

0.16

0.94

0.29

0.1

1.5

1.5

0.5

2.3

3.0

1.1

0.88

0.005

0.011

0.003

0.004

0.009

0.04

0.01

0.03

AS27

1.155

39.43

8.79

0.810

2.16

465.9

13.19

18.89

0.254

1.62

0.262

1.78

0.637

3.53

4.52

0.61

5.36

1.20

25.88

6.30

53.97

26.56

49.5

81.9

240.2

80.9

703.3

21.7

69.5

16.22

0.615

1.290

0.544

0.162

0.963

5.45

3.20

4.96

0.024

1.02

0.26

0.022

0.02

16.4

0.33

0.72

0.020

0.05

0.015

0.04

0.012

0.10

0.17

0.005

0.13

0.04

0.42

0.11

0.42

0.52

0.5

1.6

1.4

1.1

5.1

0.2

0.0

0.83

0.007

0.014

0.003

0.002

0.004

0.05

0.03

0.07

AS28

1.202

40.04

8.91

0.672

2.10

467.1

10.85

18.00

0.209

1.62

0.266

1.76

0.627

3.39

4.32

0.58

4.98

1.19

23.65

5.80

49.92

24.64

53.1

75.8

249.6

75.6

719.6

23.6

68.3

16.56

0.619

1.302

0.587

0.164

0.977

5.29

3.31

4.98

D4

0.022

0.81

0.37

0.041

0.08

6.9

0.22

0.20

0.011

0.02

0.008

0.03

0.033

0.09

0.11

0.02

0.25

0.13

0.11

0.08

1.27

0.44

0.1

1.7

3.2

0.2

1.6

0.4

0.5

0.28

0.009

0.022

0.005

0.001

0.007

0.05

0.02

0.06

AS29

0.838

26.88

7.64

0.931

2.54

421.5

13.23

22.07

0.247

1.80

0.282

1.91

0.691

3.46

4.23

0.63

4.56

1.10

22.49

5.80

48.16

24.10

67.5

74.2

387.9

42.5

543.7

36.6

77.8

13.41

0.464

1.223

0.413

0.534

1.310

15.19

2.96

4.36

0.021

0.95

0.25

0.011

0.03

8.1

0.17

0.37

0.009

0.02

0.011

0.04

0.021

0.08

0.10

0.01

0.06

0.02

0.17

0.05

0.58

0.27

0.5

0.9

2.1

0.5

3.3

0.4

0.7

0.57

0.006

0.018

0.004

0.006

0.007

0.06

0.01

0.00

AS30

1.299

33.99

9.62

0.897

3.04

365.3

14.51

27.61

0.319

2.12

0.339

2.41

0.825

4.40

4.99

0.71

5.72

1.35

26.61

6.52

54.05

29.04

70.1

72.2

549.1

58.0

684.9

24.1

86.2

15.68

0.431

1.239

0.447

0.384

1.266

18.15

3.40

5.01

0.048

0.34

0.33

0.029

0.07

1.8

0.12

0.39

0.024

0.17

0.030

0.08

0.050

0.21

0.14

0.03

0.08

0.10

0.53

0.13

0.39

0.65

0.4

1.5

3.9

1.2

4.6

0.1

1.0

0.67

0.005

0.010

0.002

0.003

0.006

0.10

0.04

0.05

AS31

0.755

16.75

3.92

0.509

1.30

675.7

7.05

17.59

0.195

1.35

0.218

1.44

0.528

2.56

3.04

0.46

3.32

0.83

15.20

3.89

28.84

17.33

55.8

47.7

602.9

20.5

256.8

17.2

58.7

4.83

0.261

0.812

0.190

0.451

0.672

29.58

1.55

2.38

0.046

0.61

0.16

0.035

0.09

15.1

0.04

0.49

0.008

0.03

0.005

0.04

0.007

0.08

0.03

0.01

0.08

0.02

0.21

0.06

0.49

0.16

1.2

0.7

7.3

0.5

1.0

0.3

0.3

0.12

0.003

0.021

0.001

0.007

0.003

0.30

0.01

0.03

AS32

1.284

41.60

9.31

1.057

2.36

527.9

15.10

19.94

0.242

1.69

0.278

1.88

0.701

3.55

4.47

0.68

5.24

1.30

25.63

6.52

55.21

26.60

59.6

124.4

288.2

66.1

717.8

35.7

85.7

18.37

0.627

1.371

0.649

0.454

1.030

6.42

3.52

5.42

0.060

0.84

0.23

0.031

0.04

13.0

0.50

0.37

0.011

0.06

0.017

0.02

0.013

0.08

0.06

0.00

0.08

0.04

0.35

0.02

0.54

0.36

0.5

2.3

1.7

1.3

5.4

0.5

0.5

0.35

0.002

0.015

0.002

0.002

0.007

0.03

0.02

0.01

AS34

1.040

26.70

6.21

0.699

1.92

539.1

10.47

21.43

0.231

1.67

0.256

1.83

0.620

3.31

3.94

0.56

4.51

1.06

21.08

5.04

39.96

22.94

49.8

72.0

447.9

32.6

389.0

17.8

68.5

8.83

0.242

1.384

0.331

0.316

0.823

21.82

2.23

3.36

0.036

0.80

0.26

0.028

0.09

22.5

0.35

0.89

0.033

0.11

0.006

0.07

0.020

0.20

0.14

0.03

0.07

0.06

0.97

0.17

1.09

0.63

0.3

0.3

0.3

1.4

1.7

0.4

0.7

0.56

0.004

0.006

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.16

0.01

0.03

AS45

1.432

43.99

10.25

1.398

2.74

447.0

16.96

23.12

0.302

1.95

0.327

2.28

0.802

4.43

5.43

0.70

5.94

1.47

29.80

7.18

60.50

30.80

54.5

97.4

232.5

58.8

745.6

26.0

93.4

18.31

0.584

1.330

0.661

0.219

1.143

5.86

3.85

5.77

0.017

1.18

0.40

0.077

0.05

9.0

0.22

0.46

0.007

0.04

0.026

0.15

0.032

0.17

0.26

0.01

0.30

0.09

1.08

0.15

1.05

0.39

0.3

0.5

2.6

1.2

4.5

0.3

1.2

0.22

0.012

0.006

0.002

0.003

0.011

0.02

0.03

0.03

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

237

0.014

0.09

0.025

0.34

0.10

18.3

0.08

0.034

0.23

0.68

0.021

0.272

1.78

0.271

23.82

11.66

496.2

2.67

0.829

7.84

20.27

1.070

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

U

Th

0.05

1.96

Nd

Er

0.30

20.51

Pr

0.016

0.08

4.99

Ce

0.677

0.63

41.77

La

Ho

0.08

22.94

Zn

0.10

1.3

68.1

V

3.51

0.8

60.9

Sr

Dy

1.4

417.5

Ni

0.16

1.6

100.4

Mn

3.93

3.0

472.6

Cu

Gd

0.7

44.3

Cr

0.03

1.7

71.4

Co

0.55

0.30

10.04

Tb

0.004

0.405

Na%

0.24

0.005

1.016

K%

4.43

0.001

0.349

Ti%

Sm

0.006

0.608

P2O5%

0.07

0.007

0.805

Mg%

1.07

0.06

20.50

Ca%

Eu

0.03

2.79

Fe%

0.631

21.26

5.92

0.594

1.83

688.4

10.12

18.79

0.214

1.53

0.240

1.61

0.583

2.94

3.54

0.48

4.45

0.99

18.72

4.72

37.44

21.30

43.4

54.4

423.4

45.5

382.0

17.4

59.1

8.40

0.336

1.202

0.376

0.307

0.535

19.56

1.98

AS48

2.85

0.03

AS47

3.77

Al%

0.034

0.32

0.10

0.040

0.10

16.6

0.13

0.17

0.021

0.14

0.017

0.05

0.023

0.21

0.10

0.02

0.09

0.03

0.17

0.10

0.28

0.23

0.4

0.5

2.0

0.6

1.6

0.3

0.4

0.08

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.06

0.02

0.02

AS50

1.228

38.84

10.15

0.992

2.58

482.8

14.85

22.49

0.327

1.96

0.293

2.06

0.749

3.92

4.73

0.67

5.61

1.36

26.42

6.68

56.25

29.20

66.1

101.3

238.9

354.9

722.5

27.6

85.0

18.77

0.634

1.312

0.641

0.215

1.056

5.37

3.54

5.13

0.064

0.97

0.68

0.030

0.10

3.4

0.19

0.32

0.023

0.10

0.019

0.10

0.016

0.08

0.18

0.04

0.15

0.07

0.11

0.27

0.78

0.21

0.3

1.1

2.5

3.6

3.6

0.5

0.3

0.43

0.002

0.004

0.004

0.001

0.003

0.01

0.02

0.09

AS51

1.489

42.79

12.62

1.476

3.06

367.6

19.50

25.48

0.277

2.07

0.331

2.23

0.826

4.32

5.31

0.69

6.06

1.47

29.00

7.24

61.65

31.39

65.7

112.5

317.4

68.0

800.7

25.5

104.3

21.68

0.720

1.288

0.677

0.201

1.426

6.63

4.40

6.05

0.039

0.96

0.44

0.047

0.05

4.9

0.75

0.64

0.016

0.10

0.020

0.05

0.030

0.19

0.03

0.01

0.07

0.05

0.85

0.11

0.65

0.06

0.4

1.1

5.7

0.5

1.6

0.2

0.8

0.82

0.010

0.021

0.004

0.002

0.009

0.02

0.01

0.02

AS52

1.461

41.70

11.53

1.346

2.71

392.1

18.09

23.59

0.263

1.91

0.285

1.98

0.751

3.83

4.96

0.67

5.77

1.32

27.90

6.78

57.66

29.08

57.2

95.9

212.1

118.7

770.8

26.3

106.6

19.14

0.674

1.248

0.592

0.165

1.030

4.13

4.05

5.70

0.031

0.50

0.33

0.052

0.11

2.2

0.56

0.51

0.006

0.05

0.020

0.08

0.015

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.16

0.09

0.73

0.07

0.75

0.20

0.8

0.8

0.9

2.0

11.0

0.2

0.9

0.71

0.003

0.006

0.004

0.001

0.002

0.01

0.05

0.07

AS53

1.409

43.05

11.82

1.203

2.70

444.9

16.22

23.82

0.282

1.97

0.288

2.05

0.750

4.10

5.07

0.70

5.83

1.38

28.11

6.93

59.91

30.14

61.8

100.9

247.9

95.4

796.9

23.5

105.1

20.10

0.695

1.420

0.687

0.173

1.087

5.18

4.12

5.85

AS54

1.253

38.52

10.88

1.239

2.63

355.2

17.04

21.89

0.258

1.88

0.281

1.96

0.721

3.64

4.46

0.63

5.40

1.36

26.29

6.28

54.32

27.30

56.1

84.6

317.7

101.1

709.7

23.5

102.6

17.65

0.636

1.241

0.589

0.130

1.307

6.98

3.90

5.41

D5

0.062

0.71

0.29

0.071

0.07

8.4

0.25

0.31

0.016

0.04

0.017

0.01

0.058

0.11

0.29

0.02

0.05

0.01

0.56

0.14

0.56

0.28

0.5

2.0

1.2

2.0

2.6

0.0

0.6

1.00

0.008

0.004

0.005

0.002

0.005

0.04

0.01

0.10

0.014

1.14

0.46

0.047

0.10

2.2

0.21

0.23

0.028

0.06

0.005

0.13

0.040

0.07

0.11

0.02

0.29

0.07

1.17

0.03

0.49

0.28

0.4

1.4

3.9

0.3

1.9

0.3

1.0

0.11

0.009

0.018

0.005

0.002

0.006

0.05

0.02

0.04

AS55

1.184

35.57

9.53

0.970

2.38

461.3

14.98

21.39

0.237

1.77

0.282

1.87

0.662

3.54

4.40

0.58

5.29

1.21

25.41

6.06

52.33

26.61

56.5

86.3

309.8

115.0

680.3

26.5

86.3

15.63

0.580

1.264

0.523

0.190

1.111

7.62

3.40

4.86

0.008

0.32

0.21

0.028

0.08

12.4

0.45

0.51

0.005

0.08

0.019

0.12

0.030

0.09

0.09

0.01

0.20

0.02

0.95

0.16

0.99

0.52

0.9

1.4

3.3

0.4

8.0

0.2

1.4

0.15

0.008

0.014

0.008

0.001

0.008

0.01

0.02

0.05

AS57

1.123

37.67

9.26

0.411

2.12

442.2

10.46

19.39

0.247

1.79

0.287

1.82

0.666

3.60

4.12

0.57

5.10

1.22

24.15

5.85

51.27

25.34

53.9

96.9

251.2

81.4

759.1

26.2

90.3

17.95

0.654

1.413

0.637

0.228

0.966

4.40

3.57

5.28

0.059

0.71

0.00

0.030

0.07

3.0

0.20

0.22

0.015

0.08

0.034

0.08

0.019

0.05

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.09

1.10

0.18

1.47

0.74

0.3

3.7

2.4

0.6

7.6

0.2

1.0

0.90

0.002

0.008

0.003

0.001

0.002

0.02

0.02

0.03

AS58

1.323

42.50

10.93

1.242

2.71

430.0

17.50

25.70

0.302

2.02

0.331

2.13

0.761

3.98

4.60

0.65

5.41

1.30

25.12

6.20

52.66

26.08

55.3

96.9

245.5

68.9

751.4

21.9

91.5

18.78

0.624

1.289

0.665

0.189

1.091

6.48

3.66

5.28

0.010

1.08

0.31

0.040

0.08

18.1

0.91

1.20

0.016

0.07

0.007

0.05

0.012

0.09

0.08

0.02

0.09

0.06

0.30

0.09

0.25

0.21

0.5

1.3

4.2

1.1

2.1

0.1

0.5

1.30

0.003

0.023

0.004

0.001

0.003

0.04

0.03

0.05

BM1

0.600

1.59

574

12.74

19.75

0.231

1.60

0.292

1.66

0.625

3.10

3.63

0.53

4.29

0.99

20.30

5.24

41.89

21.01

64.3

71.38

403.3

107.8

536.2

24.9

80.8

12.16

0.465

1.166

0.383

0.292

0.890

13.80

2.37

3.56

0.042

0.07

6

0.08

0.41

0.004

0.08

0.009

0.05

0.018

0.09

0.11

0.01

0.14

0.03

0.09

0.09

0.44

0.38

0.5

1.16

2.4

1.23

5.4

0.0

1.0

0.39

0.011

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.09

0.00

0.03

BM2

0.920

1.98

347

15.37

21.68

0.282

1.92

0.339

1.92

0.712

3.54

4.17

0.62

4.89

1.10

23.26

5.96

49.24

23.92

73.6

83.94

366.0

46.08

489.4

23.0

84.6

14.90

0.611

1.335

0.479

0.338

0.950

12.24

2.80

4.14

0.058

0.07

2

0.24

0.08

0.008

0.04

0.003

0.05

0.013

0.04

0.08

0.02

0.11

0.03

0.75

0.21

1.72

0.51

0.4

1.35

2.3

0.41

1.6

0.3

0.4

0.24

0.001

0.017

0.001

0.005

0.006

0.19

0.05

0.08

APPENDICES

238

U

Th

0.791

0.012

0.11 1.685

3.03

326 0.028

0.08

5

0.26

1.598

2.87

291

19.11

23.24

0.023

0.01

1

0.32

0.29

0.018

1.701

3.03

343

19.81

24.77

0.357

2.40

D6

0.025

0.06

5

0.06

0.51

0.007

0.04

0.001

1.119

2.27

192

13.68

19.37

0.271

1.83

0.338

1.91

0.716

3.55

4.21

0.61

4.79

1.06

24.04

6.34

51.96

24.78

67.2

90.7

390.8

46.4

492.2

17.8

117.3

13.84

0.486

1.462

0.432

0.127

2.108

15.82

3.00

0.021

0.11

1

0.12

0.35

0.008

0.09

0.012

0.05

0.020

0.13

0.02

0.02

0.14

0.04

0.22

0.07

0.72

0.28

0.8

1.3

3.6

0.7

1.7

0.2

0.8

0.49

0.002

0.018

0.002

0.001

0.003

0.08

0.02

0.03

BS5

1.243

2.74

430

15.74

23.15

0.328

2.22

0.398

2.33

0.849

4.32

5.10

0.74

5.90

1.32

29.00

7.58

59.52

28.18

93.1

87.5

295.1

50.0

739.9

28.7

84.2

16.06

0.771

1.921

0.525

0.256

0.996

8.01

3.63

5.18

0.055

0.03

3

0.30

0.29

0.005

0.07

0.013

0.02

0.015

0.07

0.07

0.01

0.07

0.03

0.31

0.13

0.82

0.42

0.8

1.2

5.2

0.5

4.0

0.6

0.4

0.49

0.011

0.015

0.001

0.007

0.002

0.06

0.01

0.04

BS6

1.331

2.91

488

16.80

22.18

0.317

2.11

0.397

2.23

0.803

4.16

4.90

0.72

5.72

1.32

28.56

7.56

61.85

27.70

73.9

86.0

359.5

47.2

847.1

25.5

81.5

18.46

0.647

2.017

0.535

0.147

1.250

5.69

3.86

5.58

0.066

0.09

3

0.07

0.14

0.008

0.04

0.015

0.03

0.007

0.11

0.19

0.02

0.15

0.02

0.42

0.11

0.89

0.41

0.2

1.49

2.1

1.06

0.7

0.3

1.5

0.33

0.002

0.015

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.04

0.01

0.09

BS7

1.596

3.14

440

19.64

24.92

0.353

2.43

0.441

2.47

0.925

4.61

5.54

0.82

6.40

1.47

30.98

8.24

65.09

30.89

75.1

117.5

374.9

51.77

801.2

25.8

100.0

22.43

0.865

1.692

0.720

0.204

1.290

7.98

4.43

6.03

0.026

0.18

8

0.37

0.20

0.012

0.09

0.005

0.08

0.005

0.11

0.04

0.00

0.09

0.01

0.73

0.15

1.11

0.53

0.5

2.61

4.5

0.80

6.4

0.5

0.9

0.10

0.007

0.014

0.005

0.001

0.009

0.02

0.06

0.02

BT1

2.19

1200

11.43

22.14

0.256

1.85

0.301

1.93

0.656

3.58

4.28

0.57

5.08

1.32

21.74

5.33

42.35

23.36

55.4

77.2

398.8

28.5

647.6

15.6

69.8

13.02

0.463

1.206

0.400

0.250

0.962

11.53

2.87

4.22

0.08

14.6

0.32

0.19

0.002

0.12

0.010

0.01

0.023

0.08

0.15

0.02

0.15

0.08

0.40

0.07

0.95

0.38

0.8

1.1

5.6

0.4

2.7

0.1

0.4

0.19

0.002

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.10

0.01

0.05

0.030

0.015

2.27

12.22

19.62

0.27

0.328

0.05

0.454

0.04

0.013

0.10

0.06

0.01

0.18

0.03

0.14

0.12

2.04

0.65

1.2

0.9

5.1

0.9

10.3

0.5

3.6

0.51

0.003

0.011

0.002

0.001

0.008

0.03

0.06

BS4 4.71

0.41

0.961

0.08

1064

0.28

24.58

0.005

2.18

0.012

2.51

0.965

4.77

5.71

0.85

6.81

1.51

34.01

9.03

79.64

33.83

134.0

113.6

326.3

84.2

1355

35.3

137.7

25.65

0.476

1.674

0.684

0.155

1.077

7.48

4.30

0.09

1.095

0.029

0.778

Ta

2.37

14

13.35

0.22

0.343

0.05

0.413

0.06

0.014

0.05

0.15

0.02

0.10

0.05

1.15

0.28

2.19

1.04

0.6

1.8

0.9

2.7

2.7

0.3

1.2

0.07

0.006

0.012

0.005

0.001

0.002

0.01

0.03

BS3 6.12

33.63

0.07

1.59

Hf

714

0.22

22.13

0.012

2.30

0.017

2.24

0.847

4.17

5.02

0.73

6.02

1.28

29.75

7.90

67.26

30.35

82.2

121.1

236.5

138.0

774.6

20.2

149.1

19.49

0.465

1.469

0.645

0.136

0.580

5.24

4.17

0.01

Cs

5

318

Ba

14.25

0.23

0.279

0.07

0.445

0.06

0.010

0.05

0.02

0.01

0.10

0.01

0.39

0.17

0.90

0.40

1.2

0.1

3.2

2.1

2.1

0.4

0.7

0.62

0.007

0.010

0.004

0.002

0.006

0.04

0.02

BS2 5.95

Rb

0.07

13.00

Nb

20.45

0.002

1.88

0.013

2.48

0.920

4.59

5.67

0.82

6.60

1.45

33.16

8.83

79.78

33.60

109.5

125.9

231.5

170.2

1080

46.0

194.5

23.49

0.426

1.271

0.663

0.142

0.632

5.32

4.53

0.02

0.03

0.11

18.20

Y

0.281

0.05

0.356

0.02

0.018

0.08

0.04

0.01

0.06

0.03

0.63

0.10

1.03

0.64

0.6

3.50

1.15

2.94

2.80

0.1

0.6

0.28

0.005

0.016

0.004

0.001

0.011

0.06

0.02

BS1 6.40

8.43

0.014

0.207

Lu

1.91

0.007

2.02

0.761

3.84

4.60

0.66

5.50

1.30

25.13

6.60

53.34

25.51

59.9

90.76

370.8

87.58

720.4

21.1

87.9

17.27

0.483

1.036

0.486

0.185

1.165

7.98

3.58

0.01

Sc

0.09

1.43

Yb

0.354

0.04

0.017

0.10

0.13

0.01

0.05

0.05

0.49

0.23

1.34

0.46

0.4

0.58

2.1

1.18

5.1

0.4

1.0

0.17

0.008

0.017

0.003

0.001

0.007

0.04

BM6

4.94

0.038

0.006

0.271

Tm

1.98

0.756

3.79

4.55

0.66

5.40

1.21

26.46

6.91

55.51

25.98

67.6

89.02

348.6

59.08

698.0

23.3

84.6

19.20

0.583

1.597

0.633

4.47

0.02

0.02

0.754

0.04

1.49

Nd

Er

0.41

19.90

Pr

0.027

0.11

5.12

Ce

0.576

0.62

40.42

La

Ho

0.21

20.10

Zn

0.03

0.9

65.6

V

2.89

1.73

71.26

Sr

Dy

1.0

303.0

Ni

0.13

0.76

76.32

Mn

3.46

2.3

461.6

Cu

Gd

0.2

19.8

Cr

0.01

1.0

54.9

Co

0.51

0.20

11.96

Tb

0.008

0.510

Na%

0.01

0.010

1.179

K%

3.93

0.001

0.382

Ti%

Sm

0.0001

0.280

P2O5%

0.02

0.005

0.832

Mg%

0.89

0.151

0.10

12.88

Ca%

Eu

0.980

0.03

2.44

Fe%

3.64

BM5

5.03

0.03

BM4

3.49

Al%

BT3

1.421

39.86

11.77

1.166

2.84

656.4

14.60

21.47

0.265

1.96

0.323

2.14

0.798

4.07

5.08

0.76

6.00

1.43

28.76

7.21

61.62

29.37

63.1

106.1

230.5

58.7

801.9

29.7

102.2

21.12

0.642

0.833

0.656

0.103

1.179

4.13

4.16

5.74

0.035

0.99

0.44

0.054

0.10

14.2

0.14

0.69

0.014

0.03

0.007

0.03

0.019

0.04

0.13

0.02

0.12

0.03

0.12

0.12

1.25

0.51

0.7

1.8

1.3

0.6

3.4

0.3

0.8

0.41

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.0001

0.007

0.03

0.01

0.05

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

239

0.011

0.09

0.004

0.32

0.72

13.3

0.04

0.028

0.30

0.96

0.069

0.355

2.13

0.293

25.42

20.67

641.0

3.13

1.620

14.66

49.90

1.724

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

U

Th

0.01

2.43

Nd

Er

0.27

32.42

Pr

0.017

0.04

8.27

Ce

0.920

0.08

69.04

La

Ho

0.38

33.51

Zn

0.06

1.1

75.7

V

4.69

0.6

118.9

Sr

Dy

1.0

262.0

Ni

0.03

0.6

61.6

Mn

5.77

6.3

822.4

Cu

Gd

2.6

20.9

Cr

0.01

1.1

109.5

Co

0.86

0.50

24.60

Tb

0.015

0.742

Na%

0.08

0.005

0.990

K%

6.66

0.007

0.750

Ti%

Sm

0.002

0.170

P2O5%

0.04

0.005

1.355

Mg%

1.59

0.03

4.85

Ca%

Eu

0.02

4.73

Fe%

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.6

0.9

0.26

0.21

0.10

0.02

0.16

0.03

0.10

0.08

0.08

8.7

1.707 0.007

50.23 0.58

13.70 0.20

1.613 0.026

3.34

1157

20.62 0.22

26.12 0.26

0.315 0.010

2.20

0.355 0.012

2.39

0.886 0.022

4.53

5.59

0.84

6.69

1.64

31.92 0.79

8.06

68.26 1.40

32.25 0.42

78.5

104.8 1.8

255.8 1.8

194.7 1.4

778.3 13.1

37.1

129.4 1.8

21.63 0.81

0.664 0.006

1.330 0.008

0.693 0.006

0.191 0.002

1.238 0.005

4.96

4.38

BT8

6.22

0.05

BT4

6.68

Al%

BT9

1.198

35.43

12.14

1.229

2.68

1411

15.40

29.62

0.366

2.57

0.373

2.66

0.932

4.77

5.71

0.78

6.92

1.74

30.38

7.37

56.32

33.24

90.9

103.9

386.6

71.6

786.5

31.6

114.8

18.07

0.397

1.289

0.474

0.294

1.353

11.35

3.91

5.96

0.017

0.51

0.27

0.039

0.09

36.8

0.57

0.76

0.004

0.09

0.019

0.08

0.021

0.09

0.39

0.02

0.10

0.02

0.60

0.19

1.74

0.48

0.5

0.7

2.5

0.4

3.3

0.2

0.5

0.12

0.008

0.004

0.002

0.004

0.007

0.06

0.03

0.13

BT12

0.693

25.73

7.66

0.756

2.18

2009

11.63

18.23

0.221

1.55

0.229

1.57

0.554

2.95

3.51

0.52

5.23

1.42

19.45

4.76

39.55

20.82

66.5

59.8

311.3

45.1

526.9

39.5

66.8

12.35

0.358

0.854

0.416

0.226

0.936

10.56

2.87

4.12

0.019

0.37

0.27

0.024

0.05

77

0.39

0.32

0.021

0.12

0.010

0.04

0.012

0.08

0.22

0.01

0.19

0.03

0.56

0.18

0.49

0.59

0.8

1.8

3.1

0.4

3.5

0.8

0.4

0.09

0.002

0.009

0.002

0.003

0.006

0.08

0.01

0.02

BT14

0.776

24.75

7.50

0.939

2.16

1896

11.82

17.83

0.220

1.56

0.235

1.71

0.582

3.15

3.77

0.50

5.20

1.35

20.05

4.94

41.82

20.37

68.7

61.5

320.0

76.4

597.8

29.9

62.4

13.14

0.332

0.980

0.394

0.168

0.913

8.42

3.09

4.06

CS1

0.018

0.16

0.03

0.010

0.08

42.7

0.28

0.35

0.013

0.04

0.007

0.05

0.014

0.02

0.14

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.19

0.12

0.47

0.33

0.8

0.7

1.8

1.3

3.2

0.3

0.9

0.18

0.004

0.006

1.600

58.68

28.30

0.517

2.46

337.5

14.18

22.41

0.236

1.75

0.271

1.83

0.689

3.70

4.52

0.61

5.62

1.27

27.62

6.95

61.03

29.52

59.7

92.6

264.1

58.7

518.1

22.9

81.8

17.30

0.620

1.248

0.624

0.136

0.0004

0.003

1.114

2.61

3.71

5.54

0.007

0.05

0.02

0.06

0.039

0.97

0.82

0.024

0.09

1.4

0.14

0.29

0.009

0.01

0.024

0.13

0.006

0.02

0.24

0.02

0.17

0.02

0.72

0.10

1.03

0.62

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

7.8

0.4

0.3

0.57

0.003

0.011

0.006

0.001

0.009

0.00

0.02

0.04

CS2

D7

1.457

55.41

27.08

1.195

2.21

353.6

17.50

24.36

0.277

1.82

0.304

2.10

0.724

3.96

4.96

0.66

5.71

1.31

27.55

6.87

58.40

30.13

69.3

97.0

360.3

66.9

607.7

38.4

81.4

16.82

0.569

1.301

0.586

0.339

1.212

7.62

3.47

5.06

0.012

1.67

1.22

0.106

0.28

18.1

0.46

0.88

0.026

0.06

0.028

0.09

0.029

0.11

0.31

0.02

0.37

0.04

0.26

0.21

0.34

0.19

1.5

2.6

2.5

0.6

3.1

0.2

1.0

0.39

0.002

0.005

0.008

0.002

0.005

0.02

0.04

0.03

CS6

1.357

44.94

25.00

0.940

2.08

383.0

15.44

26.44

0.283

2.12

0.329

2.31

0.818

4.28

5.27

0.71

6.06

1.41

29.86

7.41

62.98

33.09

62.2

89.0

250.6

43.1

770.1

28.1

67.2

17.60

0.381

1.005

0.561

0.220

1.573

14.27

3.20

4.65

0.070

2.08

1.26

0.066

0.06

13.3

0.39

0.76

0.018

0.06

0.004

0.12

0.021

0.12

0.04

0.02

0.16

0.06

1.27

0.16

1.12

0.43

1.3

0.5

0.7

0.8

2.9

0.4

1.0

0.43

0.003

0.008

0.008

0.004

0.013

0.01

0.02

0.08

DN1

2.164

3.66

384

35.10

32.73

0.394

2.70

0.519

2.85

1.081

5.31

6.37

0.95

7.50

1.73

37.63

10.19

88.59

40.76

118.9

150.6

173.1

87.8

737.6

41.2

164.4

34.09

0.312

1.076

0.996

0.179

0.529

3.51

7.54

8.92

0.081

0.05

2

0.45

0.19

0.009

0.03

0.019

0.07

0.024

0.09

0.06

0.02

0.18

0.04

0.56

0.07

1.01

0.72

0.3

0.8

5.0

2.2

1.6

0.4

1.1

0.21

0.001

0.015

0.005

0.001

0.003

0.03

0.11

0.11

DN2

1.898

3.07

360

28.61

27.71

0.317

2.16

0.402

2.31

0.877

4.44

5.44

0.81

6.54

1.44

33.57

9.09

77.34

37.25

132.9

106.9

253.8

57.3

581.4

36.7

96.3

20.38

0.143

1.237

0.578

0.306

0.398

14.05

4.51

6.91

0.036

0.03

5

0.15

0.26

0.008

0.08

0.022

0.02

0.010

0.14

0.09

0.01

0.06

0.02

0.28

0.12

1.03

0.92

1.2

1.7

3.4

2.0

3.4

0.4

1.0

0.28

0.001

0.012

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.03

0.01

0.09

DN6

1.188

1.95

683

12.92

22.76

0.323

2.19

0.407

2.31

0.843

4.21

5.25

0.78

6.42

1.39

33.65

8.84

71.81

36.31

120.0

88.5

467.8

50.4

195.5

27.9

100.4

12.29

0.239

1.706

0.377

0.337

0.724

14.75

3.57

6.65

0.010

0.07

3

0.29

0.29

0.012

0.06

0.010

0.02

0.018

0.03

0.13

0.01

0.17

0.05

1.32

0.25

2.66

1.24

0.8

0.81

0.6

0.66

2.3

0.2

0.1

0.07

0.001

0.010

0.003

0.003

0.005

0.07

0.02

0.11

DN7

1.294

2.36

702

22.72

25.45

0.277

1.83

0.349

2.01

0.770

3.92

4.67

0.69

5.57

1.26

28.74

7.52

60.44

32.40

122.2

78.81

370.1

41.21

547.2

21.5

69.6

15.57

0.141

0.984

0.429

0.215

0.562

19.20

3.23

4.92

0.018

0.03

11

0.19

0.25

0.006

0.05

0.009

0.02

0.035

0.13

0.07

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.53

0.16

0.29

0.32

1.6

0.96

2.1

0.67

6.1

0.1

0.2

0.49

0.003

0.010

0.006

0.001

0.001

0.09

0.02

0.07

APPENDICES

240

GZ2

GZ3

HM1

HM4

HM5

2.141

50.44

12.59

1.034

2.86

608.9

15.30

22.07

0.283

2.00

0.339

2.26

0.850

4.40

5.56

0.83

6.39

1.48

31.83

8.02

67.93

33.11

176.0

105.5

254.8

250.2

697.4

181.3

115.1

20.14

0.437

0.990

0.608

0.331

1.275

4.94

4.52

6.11

D8

0.009

0.49

0.12

0.043

0.10

23.2

0.26

0.48

0.007

0.06

0.010

0.03

0.025

0.12

0.06

0.02

0.06

0.02

1.09

0.07

0.84

0.27

8.6

2.0

1.7

4.4

12.7

3.0

0.6

1.18

0.005

0.013

0.004

0.002

0.008

0.02

0.06

0.15

0.014

0.88

0.12

0.032

0.10

12.1

0.31

0.21

0.009

0.02

0.008

0.02

0.016

0.04

0.11

0.01

0.23

0.02

0.51

0.05

0.45

0.31

1.9

2.8

2.4

3.1

7.7

0.6

1.3

0.28

0.003

0.004

0.002

0.003

0.006

0.01

0.02

0.05

HM9

1.551

45.03

14.00

1.277

3.26

758.6

17.24

22.58

0.297

2.07

0.353

2.27

0.843

4.28

5.21

0.80

6.27

1.53

29.95

7.60

64.86

30.36

59.2

111.6

262.2

431.3

810.5

24.4

103.4

24.19

0.761

0.902

0.711

0.135

1.353

3.71

4.73

6.49

0.007

0.32

0.07

0.042

0.07

7.9

0.28

0.56

0.007

0.04

0.013

0.07

0.013

0.06

0.04

0.01

0.05

0.01

0.39

0.06

0.65

0.22

1.7

1.1

2.6

14.0

8.1

0.3

0.8

0.25

0.004

0.007

0.003

0.002

0.005

0.02

0.06

0.11

15.36

14.02

1.640

4.92

370

24.36

0.392

2.64

0.405

2.97

1.056

5.32

5.79

0.91

6.80

1.54

32.17

7.95

68.34

32.32

205.5

125.7

293.6

259.3

674.7

209.2

95.4

19.27

1.622

1.028

0.715

0.220

2.086

8.41

4.43

0.25

0.36

0.056

0.13

1.94

0.35

0.006

0.04

0.005

0.04

0.011

0.18

0.01

0.01

0.06

0.05

0.19

0.03

0.91

0.34

2.1

0.4

5.6

6.5

9.5

2.1

2.3

0.48

0.009

0.027

0.006

0.002

0.004

0.03

0.04

0.02

KM01 6.28

0.03

1.186

42.32

12.67

1.376

3.02

1030

16.67

21.94

0.300

2.06

0.343

2.24

0.853

4.32

5.29

0.79

6.35

1.50

29.59

7.35

61.42

29.18

301.9

110.4

268.1

122.7

913.3

287.6

106.6

26.22

0.562

1.158

0.667

0.196

1.147

3.47

4.38

6.01

1.87

0.003

0.41

0.16

0.027

0.05

38.8

0.16

0.27

0.001

0.02

0.006

0.02

0.010

0.05

0.01

0.01

0.11

0.03

0.51

0.06

1.51

0.33

1.1

4.0

1.8

2.5

8.2

0.3

0.8

0.32

0.003

0.018

0.001

0.002

0.007

0.02

0.01

0.02

U

0.770

39.71

11.75

1.366

2.98

1466

15.62

20.14

0.271

1.92

0.333

2.10

0.783

3.87

4.83

0.74

6.09

1.50

26.83

6.82

60.57

26.76

93.0

113.4

354.1

154.4

1368

51.7

107.1

26.50

0.473

1.636

0.578

0.142

0.979

3.68

3.89

5.62

0.24

0.022

0.66

0.43

0.038

0.12

33.8

0.50

0.62

0.016

0.10

0.010

0.14

0.021

0.28

0.05

0.01

0.20

0.04

0.75

0.04

0.87

0.63

0.2

1.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

0.6

2.2

0.06

0.005

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.013

0.03

0.03

0.04

8.90

1.400

48.34

27.16

1.090

2.89

694.2

17.41

25.29

0.282

2.03

0.321

2.08

0.785

4.14

5.05

0.65

5.93

1.54

28.48

6.94

58.81

29.88

63.9

102.6

231.4

61.8

794.0

22.2

105.3

20.55

0.599

1.108

0.630

0.102

1.212

4.50

4.06

5.65

Th

0.048

0.96

4.98

0.017

0.07

9.9

0.22

0.54

0.031

0.04

0.023

0.08

0.013

0.19

0.17

0.02

0.23

0.07

0.57

0.21

1.08

0.27

1.2

2.0

1.4

0.9

3.1

0.4

1.5

0.30

0.000

0.011

0.001

0.002

0.007

0.02

0.02

0.07

0.017

1.649

51.98

32.26

1.182

2.77

654.2

16.87

27.41

0.302

2.25

0.326

2.37

0.840

4.39

5.51

0.76

6.51

1.59

30.73

7.61

72.90

33.24

66.2

108.7

198.4

82.0

1099

25.0

113.9

23.45

0.468

1.017

0.687

0.174

1.174

5.16

4.03

5.78

0.252

0.014

1.216

0.15

10.9

Cs

0.032

0.856

Ta

2.59

437.3

0.56

0.05

1.60

Hf

0.33

39.15

5

403

Ba

17.04

0.69

Rb

0.08

13.24

Nb

20.15

0.034

0.32

0.50

17.01

Y

0.251

0.02

10.41

0.003

0.197

Lu

1.59

0.010

Sc

0.01

1.28

Yb

0.263

0.10

0.039

0.16

0.25

0.02

0.28

0.09

0.32

0.07

1.01

0.56

0.8

1.5

1.5

1.6

0.7

0.5

1.0

0.28

0.006

0.013

0.003

0.002

0.006

0.01

0.023

0.007

0.245

Tm

1.74

0.656

3.45

4.25

0.52

5.05

1.21

23.51

5.93

55.20

25.84

56.9

97.2

301.6

72.2

767.9

16.3

95.1

18.93

0.703

1.387

0.591

0.163

1.220

4.62

0.04

0.04

1.021

0.03

1.33

Nd

Er

0.16

16.84

Pr

0.012

0.04

4.42

Ce

0.487

0.40

34.35

La

Ho

0.18

19.15

Zn

0.03

0.2

79.8

V

2.46

1.59

63.28

Sr

Dy

2.3

217.8

Ni

0.10

0.47

42.86

Mn

2.91

2.5

285.6

Cu

Gd

0.4

36.4

Cr

0.01

0.5

87.0

Co

0.42

0.19

11.06

Tb

0.000

0.116

Na%

0.04

0.007

0.616

K%

3.27

0.001

0.296

Ti%

Sm

0.002

0.211

P2O5%

0.02

0.003

0.491

Mg%

0.76

0.09

20.29

Ca%

Eu

0.02

2.68

Fe%

3.64

GZ1

5.29

0.08

DN8

4.23

Al%

2.73

7.76

3.907

71.75

21.63

0.904

2.58

115

15.75

0.260

1.81

0.288

2.15

0.768

4.09

4.79

0.75

5.70

1.40

27.78

6.82

58.01

26.10

149.1

183.6

200.8

49.4

455.4

29.8

118.0

20.55

0.274

2.479

0.543

0.109

1.604

5.34

5.51

0.04

0.28

0.046

2.15

0.39

0.023

0.12

1.38

0.16

0.007

0.06

0.008

0.03

0.031

0.09

0.06

0.02

0.15

0.03

0.60

0.09

1.00

0.33

0.8

1.3

4.7

0.9

1.7

0.4

3.0

0.53

0.002

0.038

1.57

8.26

1.698

44.93

11.97

1.444

3.56

447

20.02

0.313

2.15

0.341

2.48

0.885

4.61

5.36

0.84

6.48

1.52

31.35

7.87

65.98

30.92

109.5

99.8

326.6

63.4

805.3

28.6

87.4

16.99

0.993

1.472

0.650

0.084

0.0001

0.003

1.537

7.95

4.40

0.05

0.04

0.033

1.07

0.42

0.019

0.07

4.55

0.58

0.002

0.01

0.009

0.05

0.007

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.16

0.01

0.33

0.07

0.67

0.24

0.5

0.9

5.8

1.2

3.8

0.4

1.9

0.33

0.006

0.037

0.008

0.001

0.004

0.06

0.02

0.04

KM03 6.06

0.014

0.01

0.06

0.24

KM02 11.09

1.02

7.60

0.981

39.94

11.62

1.141

2.89

413

18.44

0.283

1.88

0.310

2.18

0.788

4.21

4.87

0.76

5.92

1.36

28.65

7.12

60.59

28.22

111.6

110.2

246.6

84.4

662.2

35.5

83.1

16.31

0.739

1.735

0.611

0.063

1.170

5.26

4.02

0.03

0.37

0.039

0.25

0.09

0.026

0.10

2.73

0.14

0.011

0.02

0.013

0.04

0.021

0.004

0.03

0.01

0.09

0.02

0.35

0.01

0.23

0.18

0.3

1.2

3.1

0.4

2.6

0.4

0.3

0.36

0.006

0.040

0.005

0.001

0.005

0.01

0.03

0.03

KM04 5.67

241

0.014

0.07

0.007

0.59

0.310

1.94

0.289

18.63

Yb

Lu

Y

8.82

0.08

0.018

0.15

1.04

0.024

0.13

0.01

498

2.81

1.107

9.00

31.77

1.089

6.64

0.81

Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

Th

U

Nb

0.03

2.23

Tm

Nd

Er

0.38

27.57

Pr

0.012

0.12

6.73

Ce

0.801

1.24

60.55

La

Ho

0.21

26.91

Zn

0.11

0.6

87.6

V

4.20

1.1

77.0

Sr

Dy

6.6

245.3

Ni

0.12

1.7

67.5

Mn

4.83

3.6

868.6

Cu

Gd

0.3

23.2

Cr

0.02

2.3

69.5

Co

0.73

0.52

16.49

Tb

0.002

0.437

Na%

0.06

0.014

0.868

K%

5.89

0.004

0.556

Ti%

Sm

0.001

0.087

P2O5%

0.02

0.006

0.925

Mg%

1.35

0.05

5.08

Ca%

Eu

0.02

3.50

Fe%

1.27

7.12

1.365

40.57

11.08

1.469

3.32

246

17.44

0.277

1.92

0.300

2.23

0.780

4.04

4.73

0.73

5.58

1.33

27.18

6.72

57.62

26.53

108.1

102.7

213.8

643.6

682.3

24.7

83.3

17.84

0.830

1.203

0.651

0.061

1.294

4.03

4.18

0.06

0.03

0.09

0.020

0.83

0.04

0.047

0.06

0.50

0.56

0.002

0.06

0.009

0.01

0.005

0.16

0.02

0.00

0.03

0.02

0.36

0.05

0.31

0.28

0.4

0.9

3.6

12.5

8.2

0.2

2.2

0.46

0.003

0.020

0.003

0.001

0.005

0.05

0.02

0.07

KM09

5.68

KM08

4.79

Al%

6.06

4.51

0.367

8.12

8.95

0.595

1.97

320

29.48

0.365

2.29

0.362

2.66

0.914

4.27

4.75

0.71

4.87

1.15

23.35

5.57

35.52

25.69

117.3

134.5

582.1

73.9

200.9

29.6

135.9

9.09

0.295

0.181

0.268

0.414

1.453

24.18

3.10

0.03

0.11

0.016

0.25

0.41

0.017

0.11

5.59

0.58

0.013

0.04

0.005

0.08

0.014

0.06

0.08

0.02

0.08

0.00

0.53

0.08

0.50

0.51

0.7

0.9

16.3

2.1

0.6

0.2

4.0

0.21

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.15

0.01

0.03

KM10

4.20

1.02

8.03

1.607

45.05

10.23

1.291

3.07

449

18.70

0.292

1.96

0.320

2.25

0.825

4.30

5.13

0.78

6.17

1.44

29.48

7.30

60.86

28.37

100.1

91.0

232.3

444.4

716.1

26.7

80.4

16.88

0.662

1.375

0.654

0.067

1.142

6.52

3.96

0.05

0.20

0.051

0.94

0.14

0.032

0.14

5.69

0.20

0.017

0.04

0.018

0.04

0.010

0.08

0.05

0.02

0.16

0.04

0.78

0.14

1.49

0.37

0.2

0.7

6.1

9.3

5.8

0.3

1.6

0.37

0.003

0.035

0.004

0.001

0.004

0.03

0.05

0.04

KM13 5.51

4.57 1.311

0.023

0.08

6.9

0.37

337.8

0.79

19.54

0.033

0.06

0.025

0.09

0.016

0.23

0.17

0.04

0.20

0.06

0.66

0.03

0.86

0.69

0.2

0.3

2.1

1.1

6.8

0.3

0.8

0.27

0.001

0.016

0.003

0.003

0.005

0.04

0.01

33.96

0.367

2.61

0.388

2.92

0.910

4.86

5.22

0.85

5.83

1.42

28.36

7.25

60.04

32.27

13.3

90.2

378.2

63.7

601.0

22.3

108.5

16.01

0.503

0.717

0.551

0.223

1.655

13.10

3.72

0.02

KM14 5.37

1.429

3.58

466.5

20.51

30.39

0.356

2.36

0.370

2.64

0.897

4.75

5.18

0.84

5.86

1.45

28.40

7.41

64.76

32.40

8.2

97.3

301.1

80.0

772.0

26.0

106.3

19.64

0.687

1.048

0.640

0.161

1.563

7.69

4.23

D9

0.050

0.04

8.4

0.46

0.62

0.015

0.17

0.012

0.14

0.042

0.18

0.09

0.02

0.20

0.01

0.27

0.12

0.58

0.03

0.3

1.2

2.7

0.2

9.0

0.2

0.9

0.45

0.011

0.010

0.005

0.002

0.015

0.06

0.03

0.05

KM15 5.97

1.286

2.99

451.2

19.55

28.77

0.322

2.34

0.346

2.61

0.824

4.70

5.09

0.79

5.72

1.41

28.63

7.20

64.33

31.47

7.6

88.7

252.8

80.7

689.5

30.1

100.6

18.61

0.701

1.306

0.707

0.208

1.172

7.68

3.71

0.039

0.03

3.7

0.15

0.13

0.010

0.14

0.002

0.19

0.048

0.15

0.15

0.01

0.31

0.04

0.63

0.18

0.51

0.35

0.5

2.0

1.0

1.2

3.5

0.2

1.1

0.22

0.005

0.010

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.06

0.02

0.06

KM16 5.28

1.438

2.66

551.4

17.16

21.85

0.304

2.04

0.399

2.23

0.848

4.29

5.20

0.76

6.16

1.39

30.47

8.03

66.90

30.97

67.9

109.8

336.2

50.3

927.4

23.5

95.7

21.83

0.558

1.581

0.662

0.443

1.321

5.11

3.99

0.039

0.11

2.2

0.13

0.18

0.004

0.08

0.006

0.03

0.018

0.12

0.03

0.03

0.05

0.03

0.17

0.09

0.75

0.35

1.2

0.1

2.0

1.3

6.4

0.1

0.7

0.45

0.005

0.019

0.002

0.001

0.009

0.01

0.01

0.03

KM17 5.56

1.144

2.39

333.6

17.61

22.23

0.246

1.74

0.278

2.00

0.721

4.01

4.96

0.70

5.32

1.37

26.72

6.75

61.13

30.00

52.5

83.2

287.7

39.2

658.3

22.7

107.0

17.04

0.617

0.931

0.632

1.284

1.271

5.49

3.88

0.037

0.13

5.7

0.76

0.92

0.021

0.06

0.034

0.12

0.028

0.13

0.05

0.04

0.24

0.01

0.52

0.02

1.85

0.58

0.4

0.3

3.6

0.6

2.4

0.2

0.3

0.23

0.004

0.007

0.007

0.011

0.009

0.03

0.02

0.04

KM18 5.19

1.851

3.49

559.4

21.61

27.03

0.367

2.54

0.469

2.71

1.006

5.09

5.97

0.89

6.87

1.62

33.66

8.93

72.18

33.94

82.1

101.5

410.3

64.8

1014

40.7

111.8

25.60

0.713

1.060

0.732

0.336

1.790

5.28

4.95

0.008

0.10

4.4

0.04

0.06

0.013

0.03

0.010

0.06

0.036

0.02

0.18

0.02

0.15

0.03

1.16

0.24

1.00

1.23

0.8

1.0

2.2

0.8

17.5

0.3

0.2

0.25

0.011

0.017

0.009

0.007

0.011

0.02

0.01

0.11

KM19 6.65

1.272

40.79

9.94

1.016

2.38

364.6

13.67

16.32

0.201

1.46

0.249

1.62

0.621

3.09

3.93

0.59

4.58

1.06

22.53

5.77

51.99

23.52

51.8

84.4

211.3

70.2

579.5

18.2

86.3

16.38

0.610

1.260

0.582

0.118

1.060

3.36

3.51

0.017

0.26

0.14

0.036

0.06

4.1

0.17

0.12

0.011

0.07

0.009

0.05

0.004

0.07

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.02

0.35

0.06

0.99

0.33

1.1

0.6

1.0

1.2

4.9

0.3

1.6

0.34

0.004

0.009

0.006

0.001

0.007

0.02

0.05

0.01

KoM2 5.17

1.591

47.24

11.64

1.109

2.77

330.8

15.24

20.74

0.252

1.90

0.320

2.09

0.758

3.82

4.83

0.73

5.44

1.27

27.40

6.93

61.21

28.56

69.8

95.5

303.8

63.7

749.5

24.2

96.5

19.29

0.635

1.600

0.625

0.212

1.214

5.14

3.86

0.030

1.01

0.22

0.034

0.05

6.5

0.26

0.10

0.008

0.09

0.016

0.02

0.014

0.07

0.02

0.00

0.04

0.01

0.38

0.06

0.69

0.73

0.2

1.1

0.6

0.6

4.4

0.3

0.9

0.34

0.005

0.008

0.003

0.001

0.010

0.01

0.02

0.04

KoM3 5.89

242

0.008

0.04

0.002

0.30

0.64

2.8

0.18

0.018

0.13

0.28

0.034

0.302

1.80

0.250

20.72

14.35

288.9

2.58

1.191

10.43

38.19

1.408

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

U

Th

0.04

1.98

Nd

Er

0.10

25.67

Pr

0.025

0.08

6.58

Ce

0.756

0.44

53.96

La

Ho

0.57

26.87

Zn

0.04

0.8

59.5

V

3.79

1.8

87.1

Sr

Dy

6.5

361.9

Ni

0.07

0.5

53.9

Mn

4.64

4.1

648.3

Cu

Gd

0.3

26.0

Cr

0.02

0.8

83.3

Co

0.70

0.06

16.92

Tb

0.004

0.546

Na%

0.11

0.009

1.151

K%

5.18

0.001

0.522

Ti%

Sm

0.003

0.199

P2O5%

0.04

0.007

1.206

Mg%

1.23

0.02

7.33

Ca%

Eu

0.00

3.63

Fe%

1.443

41.08

10.09

1.065

3.14

353.0

14.28

21.73

0.278

2.11

0.316

2.16

0.755

4.03

4.97

0.65

5.43

1.25

26.57

6.53

54.25

27.73

58.1

84.4

226.4

40.0

615.8

23.3

80.8

16.41

0.591

1.793

0.528

0.144

1.326

9.06

3.50

0.05

0.045

0.83

0.11

0.041

0.03

4.4

0.32

0.45

0.018

0.11

0.018

0.10

0.037

0.04

0.15

0.02

0.07

0.08

0.67

0.09

0.19

0.28

0.1

0.7

2.7

0.9

7.9

0.2

0.7

0.11

0.005

0.022

0.004

0.002

0.009

0.03

0.01

0.02

KoM5

5.20

KoM4

5.16

Al%

MG1

0.423

1.70

488

10.76

15.66

0.209

1.40

0.277

1.42

0.561

2.87

3.22

0.50

3.86

0.94

19.33

4.93

38.18

19.20

967.6

54.17

447.7

43.20

402.3

1428

53.5

10.29

0.338

1.651

0.311

0.138

1.239

19.91

2.42

3.46

0.016

0.07

5

0.27

0.08

0.014

0.04

0.017

0.02

0.006

0.09

0.08

0.02

0.09

0.04

0.56

0.07

0.33

0.20

3.6

0.41

2.4

0.44

4.6

12.3

1.0

0.21

0.004

0.019

0.002

0.001

0.009

0.01

0.04

0.01

MG3

0.641

1.54

504

10.03

15.25

0.210

1.40

0.261

1.40

0.527

2.55

2.94

0.44

3.39

0.84

16.51

4.34

33.19

17.39

91.1

53.99

304.4

71.44

365.6

49.0

58.0

10.61

0.284

1.207

0.289

0.613

0.637

22.68

2.29

2.97

0.068

0.07

6

0.17

0.10

0.013

0.05

0.003

0.05

0.028

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.10

0.04

0.17

0.01

0.55

0.40

2.4

0.91

0.6

2.85

1.6

0.4

0.9

0.31

0.005

0.016

0.001

0.007

0.003

0.13

0.02

0.02

MQ1

0.803

1.81

943

12.42

25.05

0.317

2.08

0.401

2.18

0.793

3.66

4.23

0.62

4.93

1.15

22.99

6.04

43.92

25.78

101.6

92.92

447.6

52.31

628.4

31.2

100.0

14.54

0.349

1.709

0.378

0.473

1.036

15.33

2.93

4.58

0.005

0.09

8

0.05

0.13

0.004

0.07

0.019

0.07

0.002

0.10

0.13

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.60

0.14

1.33

0.36

1.4

2.59

4.9

0.58

6.6

0.3

0.8

0.32

0.004

0.011

0.005

0.005

0.007

0.05

0.03

0.04

MQ2

0.772

2.28

329

12.87

21.04

0.247

1.82

0.276

1.76

0.608

3.36

3.98

0.57

4.66

1.10

22.16

5.43

45.25

23.78

64.9

75.86

292.6

44.86

493.4

28.5

81.0

13.55

0.396

1.374

0.443

0.212

1.036

10.36

2.91

4.15

MQ5

0.468

1.42

241

8.99

15.93

0.161

1.21

0.193

1.45

0.481

2.59

2.91

0.43

3.18

0.76

16.37

4.26

34.30

18.96

36.8

47.19

382.8

42.43

305.6

15.6

57.8

7.72

0.307

1.239

0.294

0.241

0.719

11.53

1.92

2.80

D10

0.028

0.04

8

0.46

0.12

0.028

0.17

0.011

0.05

0.018

0.02

0.07

0.02

0.17

0.06

0.63

0.11

1.01

0.22

0.0

1.56

1.6

0.38

3.0

0.3

0.2

0.57

0.002

0.014

0.002

0.002

0.008

0.06

0.01

0.01

0.008

0.05

4

0.13

0.21

0.010

0.03

0.020

0.08

0.029

0.05

0.29

0.02

0.12

0.06

1.07

0.27

1.58

0.87

0.3

0.64

2.9

0.25

0.6

0.1

0.4

0.09

0.004

0.014

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.08

0.03

0.03

MQ6

0.407

2.06

452

12.56

23.04

0.247

1.81

0.274

1.87

0.682

3.53

4.28

0.58

5.07

1.18

24.62

5.81

52.14

26.71

78.0

78.79

427.2

49.94

555.1

52.9

81.0

13.67

0.435

1.256

0.506

0.299

0.978

12.80

2.84

4.22

0.023

0.10

8

0.43

0.40

0.016

0.13

0.016

0.10

0.028

0.09

0.16

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.89

0.12

0.65

0.33

0.9

0.19

2.2

0.59

2.9

0.4

0.4

0.15

0.005

0.006

0.004

0.001

0.007

0.12

0.02

0.02

MQ7

1.331

2.51

429

19.91

25.30

0.283

1.88

0.307

2.08

0.737

3.91

4.97

0.65

5.81

1.39

26.94

6.84

58.29

30.36

74.0

104.0

330.5

59.29

764.3

47.2

100.0

17.89

0.648

1.365

0.632

0.247

1.117

5.92

3.63

5.55

0.077

0.11

2

0.31

0.52

0.025

0.11

0.017

0.06

0.039

0.08

0.12

0.03

0.17

0.03

0.67

0.10

0.53

0.08

1.5

0.7

1.3

0.57

5.6

0.7

0.6

0.29

0.009

0.024

0.004

0.002

0.008

0.04

0.01

0.03

MQ8

0.611

1.63

3538

10.74

21.84

0.238

1.53

0.252

1.61

0.585

3.04

3.60

0.48

6.74

1.79

19.62

4.84

38.43

22.20

55.7

86.7

598.5

28.45

387.8

17.5

71.0

8.79

0.388

1.807

0.358

0.555

0.784

18.27

2.16

3.34

0.021

0.07

110

0.27

0.17

0.022

0.13

0.006

0.04

0.037

0.12

0.15

0.03

0.16

0.08

1.08

0.11

0.57

0.40

0.3

0.9

8.6

0.45

0.8

0.2

0.2

0.34

0.006

0.033

0.003

0.002

0.004

0.11

0.03

0.02

1.203

2.42

367

19.70

24.57

0.282

2.05

0.286

2.08

0.747

4.03

4.99

0.65

5.71

1.40

27.69

6.90

59.95

30.31

60.8

105.6

235.1

63.33

883.6

24.2

102.2

21.50

0.666

1.134

0.688

0.169

1.060

4.30

4.04

0.038

0.04

19

0.53

0.24

0.009

0.10

0.035

0.03

0.047

0.17

0.20

0.03

0.18

0.03

0.84

0.20

0.95

0.26

1.0

0.85

1.9

0.52

8.0

0.1

1.0

0.44

0.005

0.008

0.003

0.006

0.006

0.01

0.01

0.05

MQ10 5.70

0.313

0.88

350

4.08

17.47

0.204

1.37

0.227

1.55

0.512

2.92

3.32

0.51

3.67

0.88

18.07

4.68

37.69

20.77

37.7

55.16

506.6

26.77

361.7

13.9

66.5

8.20

0.433

1.546

0.359

0.267

0.637

19.58

2.11

0.007

0.04

5

0.12

0.17

0.008

0.05

0.007

0.07

0.045

0.06

0.09

0.02

0.18

0.03

0.22

0.03

1.19

0.49

1.2

2.00

4.1

0.59

3.4

0.2

0.4

0.12

0.004

0.010

0.002

0.005

0.0002

0.21

0.02

0.01

MQ11 3.10

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

243

0.02

0.06

0.013

0.26

0.26

5

0.03

0.030

0.30

1.89

0.276

22.44

13.14

312

2.35

1.067

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

U

Th

Cs

Rb

Sc

0.09

1.99

Nd

Er

1.08

24.29

Pr

0.006

0.10

6.25

Ce

0.706

0.71

51.25

La

Ho

0.58

27.94

Zn

0.07

0.71

51.25

V

3.85

1.0

74.2

Sr

Dy

2.5

556.5

Ni

0.14

0.35

35.87

Mn

4.30

1.7

404.8

Cu

Gd

0.27

23.25

Cr

0.027

0.9

82.7

Co

0.672

0.09

10.43

Tb

0.008

0.530

Na%

0.19

0.006

2.088

K%

4.92

0.000

0.416

Ti%

Sm

0.004

0.323

P2O5%

0.07

0.003

0.800

Mg%

1.18

0.07

15.39

Ca%

Eu

0.03

3.11

Fe%

0.510

1.96

539

7.78

20.83

0.227

1.69

0.25

1.81

0.616

3.32

3.79

0.571

4.19

1.03

20.53

5.31

42.59

24.15

42.59

64.2

605.2

34.22

414.7

30.52

73.5

8.61

0.412

1.794

0.338

0.460

0.720

18.06

2.41

0.03

0.043

0.05

5

0.14

0.11

0.022

0.11

0.02

0.04

0.035

0.11

0.04

0.045

0.15

0.03

0.15

0.24

0.23

0.50

0.23

0.8

7.2

0.48

3.5

0.40

0.4

0.22

0.005

0.020

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.23

0.02

0.02

MQ14

3.49

MQ12

4.54

Al%

0.690

1.93

425

9.78

19.07

0.204

1.54

0.25

1.61

0.563

3.12

3.47

0.543

3.97

0.95

19.42

5.01

41.53

22.57

41.53

56.7

425.5

35.27

419.8

21.89

67.9

9.39

0.335

1.561

0.363

0.284

0.692

15.14

2.41

0.049

0.04

14

0.28

0.40

0.015

0.08

0.02

0.07

0.033

0.11

0.18

0.011

0.17

0.09

0.16

0.19

1.17

0.85

1.17

1.0

2.3

0.87

2.9

0.18

0.4

0.03

0.003

0.006

0.002

0.001

0.005

0.03

0.01

0.04

MQ15

3.57

1.174

2.47

549

16.35

20.96

0.257

1.98

0.28

1.94

0.690

4.08

4.77

0.701

5.66

1.41

27.47

7.18

60.65

30.38

60.65

116.1

380.1

57.43

971.7

41.04

91.7

18.50

0.614

1.348

0.638

0.602

1.059

5.35

3.96

0.060

0.03

7

0.60

0.42

0.015

0.09

0.03

0.16

0.009

0.06

0.14

0.020

0.17

0.05

0.45

0.10

0.58

0.70

0.58

0.4

7.1

0.50

4.1

0.84

0.3

0.43

0.011

0.024

0.003

0.005

0.007

0.06

0.05

0.03

MQ16 5.49

0.838

2.37

362

12.96

20.76

0.239

1.72

0.28

1.95

0.653

3.61

4.03

0.605

4.66

1.16

22.78

5.87

50.30

25.94

50.30

74.0

417.6

39.38

530.9

37.72

76.6

12.67

0.389

1.398

0.432

0.344

1.055

12.66

3.16

0.025

0.10

2

0.19

0.16

0.027

0.10

0.01

0.14

0.022

0.13

0.04

0.053

0.18

0.05

1.09

0.19

0.97

0.94

0.97

1.0

5.1

0.46

5.2

0.37

0.8

0.23

0.002

0.002

0.005

0.005

0.007

0.07

0.04

0.01

MQ17 4.31

1.026

2.82

1327

14.75

22.99

0.260

1.94

0.30

2.16

0.709

4.02

4.66

0.701

5.51

1.41

25.82

6.71

55.87

28.42

55.87

82.1

443.8

50.51

713.2

33.94

84.2

17.05

0.466

0.925

0.542

0.195

1.191

6.61

3.81

D11

0.019

0.16

5

0.09

0.19

0.019

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.016

0.23

0.04

0.018

0.12

0.05

0.50

0.12

0.90

0.54

0.90

1.2

5.1

0.63

5.3

0.52

0.5

0.25

0.002

0.012

0.002

0.001

0.002

0.03

0.04

0.03

MQ18 5.03

1.108

2.62

345

13.99

22.93

0.250

1.94

0.29

2.05

0.710

4.08

4.81

0.705

5.41

1.36

26.94

6.91

58.01

29.65

58.01

87.3

341.9

82.55

691.8

19.65

106.2

16.90

0.562

1.091

0.544

0.158

1.407

7.03

3.83

0.018

0.07

4

0.32

0.29

0.011

0.09

0.00

0.11

0.022

0.10

0.12

0.010

0.16

0.05

0.35

0.11

0.68

0.94

0.68

2.1

4.4

0.77

5.6

2.13

1.1

0.73

0.005

0.007

0.004

0.002

0.018

0.02

0.03

0.06

MQ19 5.24

0.983

2.76

478

14.28

22.88

0.262

1.96

0.30

2.07

0.708

4.15

4.68

0.704

5.20

1.30

26.06

6.64

55.90

28.29

55.90

86.5

381.9

44.77

628.2

25.19

83.7

16.30

0.649

1.479

0.527

0.211

1.296

7.15

3.83

0.022

0.08

6

0.33

0.44

0.009

0.17

0.02

0.12

0.005

0.05

0.22

0.027

0.08

0.04

0.50

0.03

0.64

0.70

0.64

1.0

3.4

0.35

6.4

0.25

0.7

0.37

0.007

0.012

0.005

0.001

0.009

0.05

0.01

0.04

MQ20 5.17

1.135

2.75

462

15.33

22.21

0.270

1.91

0.31

2.16

0.715

4.22

4.94

0.737

5.62

1.37

28.59

7.31

62.55

31.28

62.55

96.6

263.5

68.33

681.5

20.52

112.9

18.32

0.658

1.158

0.649

0.134

1.316

4.61

4.24

0.021

0.02

15

0.58

0.64

0.014

0.07

0.01

0.05

0.000

0.13

0.21

0.015

0.12

0.08

0.20

0.03

0.41

0.64

0.41

1.2

3.3

0.56

2.8

0.17

1.1

0.20

0.003

0.012

0.005

0.002

0.012

0.04

0.02

0.03

MQ21 5.75

0.532

2.48

486

14.25

22.82

0.244

1.77

0.30

2.00

0.725

4.18

4.74

0.711

5.25

1.36

26.21

6.66

57.22

29.03

57.22

86.2

266.5

80.63

824.9

21.98

93.1

17.49

0.529

0.907

0.526

0.177

1.270

6.87

3.80

0.043

0.11

7

0.35

0.36

0.004

0.04

0.02

0.09

0.021

0.04

0.20

0.024

0.06

0.10

0.62

0.15

0.64

0.36

0.64

2.6

2.6

0.11

4.9

0.37

0.9

0.72

0.001

0.004

0.004

0.002

0.007

0.05

0.03

0.04

MQ24 5.04

1.215

2.73

497

16.71

26.59

0.291

2.09

0.34

2.24

0.800

4.79

5.40

0.831

6.40

1.52

31.11

7.87

66.26

34.68

66.26

96.0

289.1

53.89

772.6

20.56

101.8

19.62

0.648

1.176

0.639

0.192

1.570

6.89

4.47

0.033

0.14

10

0.36

0.18

0.021

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.007

0.19

0.03

0.005

0.10

0.07

0.81

0.17

0.95

0.20

0.95

2.2

2.8

0.86

2.9

0.31

0.5

1.02

0.005

0.015

0.006

0.001

0.006

0.03

0.02

0.01

MQ26 6.14

0.810

2.59

442

13.09

22.92

0.255

1.88

0.30

2.03

0.722

4.36

4.94

0.734

5.74

1.38

28.38

7.25

60.78

31.50

60.78

87.0

270.7

75.74

645.4

23.37

91.5

17.00

0.560

0.973

0.566

0.165

1.428

7.46

4.06

0.016

0.05

4

0.19

0.32

0.014

0.03

0.01

0.04

0.041

0.14

0.11

0.020

0.17

0.10

0.74

0.13

1.68

0.61

1.68

1.9

1.6

0.82

6.1

0.11

0.1

0.60

0.005

0.007

0.002

0.001

0.008

0.02

0.01

0.03

MQ27 5.56

APPENDICES

244

0.02

0.11

0.022

0.53

0.25

1

0.07

0.022

0.28

1.84

0.252

24.35

12.59

357

2.56

0.732

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

U

Th

Cs

Rb

Sc

0.23

1.85

Nd

Er

0.81

20.88

Pr

0.027

0.10

5.43

Ce

0.660

1.18

43.42

La

Ho

0.88

24.94

Zn

0.14

0.84

68.23

V

3.58

1.1

60.1

Sr

Dy

4.7

524.6

Ni

0.29

0.55

67.78

Mn

3.87

1.5

482.2

Cu

Gd

0.27

22.06

Cr

0.041

0.2

84.6

Co

0.579

0.16

10.28

Tb

0.003

0.507

Na%

0.15

0.006

1.196

K%

4.21

0.002

0.364

Ti%

Sm

0.010

0.710

P2O5%

0.03

0.005

1.198

Mg%

0.96

0.07

16.82

Ca%

Eu

0.03

2.52

Fe%

0.751

1.79

407

9.92

19.56

0.210

1.51

0.23

1.64

0.557

2.97

3.42

0.515

3.93

0.92

19.00

4.93

40.36

22.29

40.36

69.3

559.4

44.82

309.0

109.8

82.7

7.05

0.417

1.567

0.338

1.233

0.765

21.00

2.19

0.03

0.031

0.03

6

0.05

0.21

0.013

0.10

0.01

0.09

0.012

0.04

0.09

0.041

0.06

0.02

0.41

0.08

0.29

0.26

0.29

0.7

1.5

0.31

1.3

1.8

1.4

0.28

0.003

0.007

0.003

0.020

0.003

0.16

0.02

0.02

MQ29

3.29

MQ28

3.71

Al%

1.373

2.73

466

18.47

22.97

0.264

1.91

0.31

2.07

0.752

4.31

4.96

0.738

5.88

1.44

28.85

7.53

67.96

32.70

67.96

101.0

295.5

56.65

893.6

194.6

99.0

19.72

0.569

1.235

0.694

0.195

1.370

6.30

4.21

0.040

0.06

2

0.29

0.34

0.005

0.06

0.02

0.04

0.022

0.27

0.02

0.048

0.24

0.06

0.70

0.17

1.26

0.53

1.26

1.5

3.2

1.29

4.3

2.33

1.5

0.71

0.005

0.015

0.006

0.001

0.005

0.02

0.04

0.01

MQ34

5.71

0.818

2.04

308

11.16

21.30

0.243

1.69

0.26

1.79

0.619

3.59

4.03

0.613

4.42

1.09

22.96

5.95

50.10

26.47

50.10

73.5

407.9

30.91

586.4

16.76

73.6

12.37

0.481

1.806

0.467

0.328

0.773

14.42

2.78

0.038

0.04

6

0.36

0.37

0.021

0.03

0.01

0.04

0.025

0.12

0.18

0.035

0.22

0.08

0.94

0.04

0.61

0.16

0.61

0.3

4.0

0.48

4.3

1.81

0.8

0.33

0.005

0.014

0.002

0.003

0.002

0.08

0.00

0.11

MQ38 4.10

0.766

2.16

662

11.21

20.82

0.216

1.45

0.25

1.54

0.544

3.04

3.34

0.500

3.81

0.92

18.26

4.67

39.20

21.10

39.20

74.9

581.3

23.07

359.5

18.18

68.7

6.92

0.371

1.508

0.325

0.716

0.853

22.55

2.13

0.071

0.11

39

0.52

0.99

0.007

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.014

0.09

0.16

0.020

0.13

0.01

0.52

0.20

1.24

0.81

1.24

1.2

1.4

0.47

1.6

0.27

0.6

0.22

0.001

0.016

0.005

0.005

0.004

0.05

0.01

0.01

MQ39 2.94

0.940

2.43

314

15.00

20.80

0.242

1.89

0.29

2.08

0.702

4.13

4.56

0.646

5.52

1.30

25.79

6.75

59.58

28.89

59.58

85.5

231.6

83.32

686.7

19.38

94.8

16.74

0.454

0.910

0.577

0.138

1.271

6.19

3.68

D12

0.038

0.04

4

0.22

0.15

0.016

0.15

0.01

0.06

0.057

0.12

0.04

0.012

0.20

0.06

0.58

0.51

1.77

0.91

1.77

1.7

0.7

0.42

5.1

2.58

0.7

0.43

0.002

0.011

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.07

0.02

0.02

MQ40 5.10

0.949

2.38

439

13.76

22.26

0.231

1.74

0.26

1.80

0.628

3.58

4.19

0.612

4.66

1.10

22.94

5.85

49.48

26.69

49.48

72.2

411.7

95.30

406.2

16.04

83.7

10.85

0.720

1.481

0.438

0.276

1.168

13.96

2.72

0.037

0.14

18

0.50

1.03

0.015

0.08

0.01

0.08

0.016

0.10

0.12

0.025

0.10

0.02

0.54

0.19

0.32

0.47

0.32

0.7

4.9

0.97

3.0

0.07

0.4

0.45

0.014

0.010

0.003

0.003

0.012

0.06

0.03

0.04

MQ41 4.33

0.907

2.17

559

14.54

19.87

0.232

1.62

0.26

1.73

0.553

3.27

3.90

0.593

4.47

1.09

21.39

5.71

50.79

25.44

61.49

67.1

343.6

53.30

521.1

38.10

74.1

14.42

0.425

1.655

0.473

0.190

1.053

7.27

3.18

0.006

0.02

18

0.11

0.26

0.011

0.04

0.01

0.06

0.018

0.08

0.20

0.010

0.14

0.10

0.21

0.08

1.08

0.85

0.85

0.8

3.3

1.56

1.9

0.35

0.3

0.29

0.003

0.010

0.002

0.002

0.004

0.04

0.02

0.03

MQ43 4.53

0.891

2.27

479

17.08

24.24

0.248

1.88

0.29

1.96

0.719

4.06

4.59

0.669

5.02

1.30

25.61

6.46

53.65

29.12

54.30

81.7

340.6

59.64

523.7

23.72

83.9

14.60

0.517

0.985

0.493

0.229

1.327

9.81

3.54

0.021

0.03

6

0.17

0.18

0.008

0.19

0.04

0.06

0.037

0.21

0.40

0.053

0.42

0.10

1.74

0.12

2.59

1.56

0.93

0.8

2.6

1.62

4.3

0.79

0.2

0.17

0.005

0.010

0.002

0.001

0.006

0.06

0.01

0.08

MQ45 5.05

0.609

1.85

766

11.16

19.20

0.189

1.48

0.23

1.54

0.551

3.14

3.42

0.510

4.02

1.02

18.67

4.87

40.11

21.20

60.34

57.4

371.1

27.48

612.0

31.80

55.0

9.63

0.327

1.223

0.353

0.264

0.815

11.87

2.38

0.004

0.09

21

0.11

0.08

0.024

0.12

0.01

0.14

0.016

0.12

0.10

0.025

0.08

0.09

0.77

0.18

0.54

0.54

0.51

1.0

2.3

0.58

3.5

0.73

0.8

0.19

0.003

0.014

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.03

0.02

0.02

MQ46 3.44

0.649

2.04

412

12.03

19.84

0.238

1.65

0.25

1.62

0.585

3.29

3.81

0.561

4.37

1.11

20.99

5.42

46.97

23.93

54.49

55.8

316.9

55.44

516.6

22.03

70.3

12.35

0.361

1.187

0.425

0.153

1.087

9.28

2.80

0.017

0.03

6

0.27

0.13

0.015

0.08

0.02

0.02

0.015

0.09

0.07

0.019

0.08

0.09

0.37

0.14

0.26

0.56

0.48

1.4

2.7

1.00

4.5

0.33

0.3

0.33

0.004

0.007

0.004

0.002

0.005

0.03

0.01

0.07

MQ49 4.10

0.630

1.91

1359

9.10

26.13

0.285

2.10

0.32

2.30

0.787

4.61

5.18

0.770

6.29

1.55

28.44

7.49

65.05

33.22

65.05

96.0

371.5

75.86

757.4

24.15

102.3

18.57

0.536

0.946

0.559

0.226

1.343

6.09

3.85

0.019

0.04

13

0.16

0.22

0.015

0.08

0.01

0.07

0.038

0.13

0.20

0.008

0.22

0.06

0.14

0.13

0.16

0.48

0.16

1.6

0.9

0.38

4.9

0.17

0.6

0.12

0.008

0.006

0.006

0.003

0.006

0.04

0.02

0.08

MQ50 5.55

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

245

0.03

0.20

0.031

0.27

0.08

6

0.02

0.040

0.28

1.66

0.241

22.74

14.13

517

2.10

1.018

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

U

Th

Cs

Rb

Sc

0.08

1.90

Nd

Er

0.66

21.56

Pr

0.025

0.05

5.64

Ce

0.633

0.30

47.74

La

Ho

0.27

26.02

Zn

0.29

0.27

63.78

V

3.54

0.3

89.2

Sr

Dy

3.6

498.1

Ni

0.40

0.64

38.09

Mn

3.96

1.2

570.4

Cu

Gd

0.30

29.98

Cr

0.010

0.4

82.5

Co

0.567

0.26

12.25

Tb

0.003

0.349

Na%

0.19

0.010

1.737

K%

4.34

0.004

0.435

Ti%

Sm

0.001

0.550

P2O5%

0.04

0.009

1.419

Mg%

1.12

0.08

11.44

Ca%

Eu

0.02

2.73

Fe%

0.887

1.98

309

13.80

22.57

0.242

1.69

0.27

1.98

0.614

3.36

3.84

0.563

4.30

1.05

21.11

5.40

42.54

24.22

59.06

74.1

466.8

33.15

425.4

30.73

74.9

11.06

0.432

1.295

0.398

0.336

1.147

19.52

2.71

0.00

0.026

0.04

4

0.08

0.72

0.019

0.06

0.03

0.13

0.032

0.13

0.15

0.021

0.33

0.02

0.50

0.16

1.51

0.89

0.62

1.4

2.8

0.56

2.0

0.41

1.0

0.34

0.006

0.009

0.000

0.004

0.008

0.14

0.01

0.04

MQ53

3.86

MQ52

4.07

Al%

0.534

1.29

535

8.39

18.08

0.176

1.31

0.19

1.39

0.467

2.57

2.78

0.420

3.18

0.81

14.62

3.72

30.07

18.14

51.49

53.0

524.8

16.33

246.3

20.96

52.3

4.55

0.200

1.192

0.215

0.394

0.704

24.67

1.51

0.031

0.06

7

0.07

0.33

0.009

0.09

0.04

0.14

0.042

0.02

0.06

0.028

0.20

0.08

0.44

0.12

0.40

0.76

0.88

0.5

5.8

0.24

1.5

0.07

0.4

0.09

0.005

0.024

0.001

0.001

0.007

0.09

0.01

0.03

MQ54

2.41

0.833

1.88

628

13.09

22.16

0.233

1.47

0.27

1.75

0.573

3.49

3.84

0.609

4.21

1.13

19.39

5.15

41.89

23.70

75.08

79.0

576.7

29.77

383.4

27.21

77.9

9.57

0.365

1.577

0.369

0.491

1.593

17.96

2.58

0.031

0.04

5

0.21

0.53

0.046

0.24

0.02

0.13

0.034

0.24

0.39

0.060

0.27

0.15

1.00

0.30

2.53

1.16

0.96

1.9

4.4

0.51

3.0

0.31

1.3

0.10

0.003

0.022

0.002

0.002

0.023

0.18

0.03

0.07

MQ55 3.76

0.734

2.13

313

14.02

23.80

0.240

1.79

0.27

1.71

0.675

3.66

4.07

0.595

4.36

1.09

21.52

5.66

49.62

26.39

63.57

64.3

471.0

29.85

430.5

20.87

77.4

11.07

0.435

1.261

0.475

0.511

0.982

16.18

2.75

0.023

0.10

5

0.26

0.46

0.024

0.04

0.02

0.23

0.027

0.25

0.30

0.038

0.18

0.03

1.41

0.33

3.35

1.51

0.59

1.0

4.2

0.29

1.2

0.24

0.4

0.08

0.003

0.006

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.05

0.01

0.04

MQ56 3.97

1.139

2.40

348

18.24

24.41

0.254

1.77

0.31

2.17

0.694

3.87

4.86

0.694

5.40

1.33

26.45

6.98

62.75

30.28

54.29

88.7

233.6

68.09

759.2

21.35

90.3

18.42

0.601

1.075

0.654

0.144

1.177

5.04

3.78

D13

0.006

0.04

3

0.11

0.68

0.017

0.19

0.01

0.12

0.052

0.06

0.17

0.042

0.34

0.16

0.81

0.17

1.38

0.63

0.80

0.8

1.6

0.74

4.2

0.24

1.0

0.22

0.003

0.013

0.007

0.003

0.002

0.02

0.01

0.04

MQ57 5.29

0.893

2.12

548

14.34

21.06

0.205

1.55

0.26

1.63

0.595

3.35

3.67

0.538

4.17

1.08

20.23

5.19

46.06

23.50

61.21

63.5

492.0

47.72

505.7

32.14

81.0

12.65

0.398

1.297

0.498

0.228

0.952

12.00

2.68

0.020

0.08

13

0.30

0.41

0.014

0.08

0.02

0.15

0.032

0.15

0.18

0.036

0.13

0.01

1.05

0.20

0.88

0.94

0.40

0.9

4.0

0.17

1.4

0.14

0.4

0.07

0.003

0.019

0.002

0.001

0.006

0.07

0.01

0.04

MQ58 3.90

0.677

1.82

576

11.77

19.22

0.206

1.50

0.27

1.67

0.536

3.14

3.60

0.486

4.07

0.91

20.30

4.94

42.48

22.35

55.99

64.2

372.2

23.98

292.7

36.44

66.4

9.47

0.361

1.592

0.410

0.313

0.844

14.54

2.13

0.016

0.01

6

0.12

0.46

0.014

0.15

0.05

0.18

0.024

0.26

0.31

0.081

0.30

0.01

1.37

0.34

2.45

1.00

0.90

0.3

5.5

0.10

2.4

0.13

0.8

0.18

0.002

0.010

0.003

0.003

0.007

0.05

0.01

0.06

MQ59 3.52

0.706

2.19

472

13.24

22.73

0.215

1.60

0.24

1.73

0.596

3.39

3.92

0.571

4.35

1.06

20.58

5.47

46.30

24.51

51.95

66.3

469.2

33.59

478.4

20.74

75.0

11.50

0.436

0.942

0.444

0.439

0.928

17.23

2.58

0.019

0.05

6

0.12

0.48

0.015

0.08

0.01

0.13

0.028

0.23

0.61

0.040

0.17

0.11

0.89

0.34

4.25

1.98

0.56

0.4

3.6

0.28

3.2

0.39

0.7

0.35

0.009

0.000

0.003

0.008

0.001

0.12

0.02

0.03

MQ60 3.82

MS1

1.244

2.51

266

18.88

23.84

0.325

2.07

0.41

2.21

0.849

4.25

4.82

0.748

5.43

1.34

28.35

7.27

56.08

27.86

67.16

92.6

425.2

44.57

730.7

26.27

82.8

18.90

1.345

1.845

0.563

0.156

1.401

8.20

3.93

5.43

0.062

0.09

5

0.12

0.28

0.014

0.07

0.01

0.11

0.015

0.03

0.07

0.022

0.05

0.02

0.55

0.17

1.54

0.82

1.12

1.5

2.7

0.72

2.2

0.11

0.2

0.23

0.004

0.017

0.001

0.001

0.007

0.08

0.003

0.04

NG3

1.190

2.63

572

18.90

19.17

0.242

1.68

0.31

1.68

0.607

3.16

3.72

0.549

4.50

1.03

22.20

5.91

54.26

22.74

68.78

94.5

338.7

75.68

719.7

22.04

100.5

20.97

0.599

1.412

0.661

0.249

0.976

2.49

4.04

5.51

0.023

0.08

2

0.23

0.08

0.009

0.03

0.01

0.06

0.012

0.06

0.11

0.004

0.02

0.01

0.43

0.08

0.21

0.11

1.25

2.2

2.6

2.53

12.0

0.32

1.0

0.18

0.013

0.015

0.006

0.005

0.006

0.02

0.03

0.08

NG4

1.152

2.40

918

17.26

19.89

0.268

1.71

0.33

1.81

0.652

3.21

3.95

0.592

4.98

1.16

23.53

6.13

50.53

23.03

62.43

79.5

302.6

59.41

737.3

22.83

83.9

18.15

0.567

1.195

0.578

0.150

0.897

4.00

3.35

4.66

0.014

0.06

12

0.11

0.23

0.004

0.06

0.04

0.04

0.012

0.13

0.04

0.005

0.11

0.05

0.57

0.08

1.02

0.56

0.78

1.3

3.9

0.59

3.2

0.54

0.3

0.44

0.004

0.014

0.002

0.001

0.006

0.02

0.03

0.01

APPENDICES

246

0.01

0.06

0.010

0.08

0.08

2

0.05

0.018

0.33

1.77

0.263

20.27

12.11

437

2.06

0.584

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb

Ba

Hf

Ta

U

Th

Cs

Rb

Sc

0.01

1.87

Nd

Er

0.20

25.35

Pr

0.010

0.08

6.54

Ce

0.706

0.67

52.76

La

Ho

0.25

24.72

Zn

0.03

0.57

55.20

V

3.58

0.9

89.9

Sr

Dy

0.8

280.4

Ni

0.17

1.02

139.4

Mn

4.24

8.2

666.0

Cu

Gd

0.56

35.61

Cr

0.007

0.9

95.4

Co

0.623

0.16

16.84

Tb

0.011

0.679

Na%

0.10

0.009

1.072

K%

5.13

0.002

0.556

Ti%

Sm

0.002

0.156

P2O5%

0.03

0.005

1.033

Mg%

1.17

0.01

4.93

Ca%

Eu

0.02

3.36

Fe%

1.062

2.45

465

17.17

21.92

0.282

1.80

0.35

1.89

0.715

3.59

4.34

0.638

5.16

1.18

25.31

6.71

53.55

25.41

59.27

89.2

368.7

60.21

671.4

19.99

80.3

18.27

0.735

1.645

0.608

0.133

0.972

4.18

3.44

NG6

4.95

0.04

NG5

4.74

Al%

NG7

0.033

0.06

1

0.22

0.22

0.017

0.08

0.01

0.02

0.035

0.08

0.08

0.032

0.02

0.02

0.34

0.12

1.21

0.59

0.62

2.1

1.6

2.13

3.3

0.38

0.4

0.24

0.002

0.002

1.047

2.09

469

15.74

21.22

0.329

1.92

0.36

1.96

0.739

3.73

4.43

0.660

5.19

1.19

25.81

6.67

51.93

25.66

65.35

100.3

557.1

54.79

661.8

19.26

77.2

16.06

0.727

1.405

0.502

0.200

0.0001

0.004

1.249

10.75

3.35

4.75

0.005

0.01

0.02

0.10

0.057

0.02

5

0.28

0.36

0.015

0.05

0.01

0.02

0.026

0.08

0.10

0.011

0.16

0.06

0.21

0.09

0.53

0.60

1.03

1.1

2.9

0.58

5.9

0.32

0.3

0.23

0.010

0.009

0.002

0.0005

0.005

0.09

0.02

0.03

NG8

0.948

2.17

549

15.13

20.14

0.259

1.73

0.33

1.80

0.676

3.43

4.05

0.592

4.86

1.12

23.14

6.05

47.40

22.70

71.15

76.7

303.5

73.73

514.3

27.76

75.2

14.43

0.445

1.085

0.477

0.145

1.106

7.55

3.16

4.46

0.034

0.05

7

0.42

0.24

0.004

0.04

0.00

0.06

0.006

0.09

0.17

0.020

0.03

0.02

0.80

0.10

0.08

0.38

0.85

1.0

2.4

0.76

6.0

0.43

0.6

0.28

0.002

0.012

0.005

0.001

0.003

0.02

0.04

0.02

QS1

1.111

2.25

398.5

16.85

18.78

0.238

1.63

0.25

1.69

0.588

3.41

4.07

0.576

4.60

1.18

22.61

5.89

54.36

25.86

51.7

82.4

279.1

64.4

618.5

20.7

86.1

17.05

0.605

1.178

0.598

0.130

1.134

5.08

3.56

4.99

0.022

0.03

0.5

0.24

0.38

0.008

0.10

0.01

0.15

0.036

0.06

0.26

0.044

0.09

0.15

0.34

0.12

2.31

0.68

1.0

1.1

1.9

0.2

2.5

0.1

0.6

0.29

0.007

0.018

0.002

0.003

0.008

0.04

0.03

0.06

QS2

1.094

2.25

1183

15.97

28.96

0.303

2.30

0.35

2.39

0.824

4.51

4.95

0.731

5.63

1.48

27.23

6.80

58.20

31.72

78.2

89.6

573.0

67.0

673.7

20.5

105.0

15.10

0.605

1.213

0.546

0.553

0.809

6.44

3.20

4.99

D14

0.036

0.04

12.2

0.28

0.49

0.038

0.13

0.01

0.17

0.012

0.31

0.17

0.026

0.14

0.05

0.45

0.13

1.00

0.22

1.3

1.7

4.2

1.1

8.8

0.1

1.2

0.11

0.008

0.013

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.03

0.03

0.03

QS3

0.839

2.27

426.7

14.43

28.70

0.323

2.13

0.33

2.20

0.786

4.23

4.86

0.687

5.27

1.23

25.32

6.71

55.14

30.33

70.1

75.2

231.1

48.8

773.4

22.2

98.2

15.87

0.373

1.591

0.494

0.363

0.800

7.56

3.04

4.66

0.016

0.11

3.8

0.13

0.23

0.017

0.06

0.02

0.12

0.027

0.41

0.11

0.033

0.20

0.02

0.72

0.20

0.77

0.27

1.2

1.4

1.0

0.7

4.0

0.2

1.0

0.47

0.001

0.041

0.002

0.002

0.000

0.04

0.01

0.11

QS4

0.656

1.93

674.7

11.87

35.29

0.337

2.46

0.41

2.98

0.914

4.93

5.25

0.795

5.34

1.36

26.42

6.65

49.25

31.82

131.5

70.6

508.2

66.2

803.3

136.7

106.6

13.61

0.358

1.072

0.437

0.755

0.616

12.11

2.54

3.90

0.017

0.07

8.9

0.19

0.67

0.012

0.09

0.02

0.05

0.041

0.09

0.03

0.015

0.07

0.05

0.28

0.08

0.57

0.35

1.0

1.2

2.9

0.7

8.1

2.2

0.2

0.24

0.005

0.013

0.001

0.009

0.002

0.07

0.03

0.02

QS5

0.755

2.20

470.9

13.36

22.88

0.257

1.84

0.27

1.86

0.665

3.77

3.89

0.597

4.44

1.11

23.01

5.85

49.23

25.97

57.1

67.6

375.0

32.3

546.0

24.1

69.4

12.38

0.425

1.461

0.482

0.270

0.859

13.28

2.84

4.05

0.029

0.05

2.6

0.13

0.50

0.025

0.10

0.02

0.07

0.038

0.00

0.40

0.052

0.16

0.08

1.36

0.30

2.48

1.55

0.1

0.9

1.1

1.1

3.2

0.3

0.6

0.31

0.002

0.038

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.11

0.02

0.05

RH1

1.133

2.45

230

18.96

28.51

0.334

2.22

0.40

2.25

0.840

4.14

4.79

0.707

5.21

1.20

25.36

6.64

52.94

26.26

131.1

91.2

277.0

82.93

599.0

46.85

136.6

17.53

0.411

1.599

0.503

0.718

1.018

17.34

3.59

4.49

0.057

0.08

3

0.23

0.40

0.002

0.04

0.01

0.03

0.014

0.08

0.11

0.010

0.14

0.03

0.31

0.13

0.31

0.14

1.41

1.4

2.2

1.52

2.2

0.76

0.8

0.13

0.004

0.027

0.001

0.003

0.006

0.20

0.01

0.01

RQ1

1.083

2.92

754.0

16.21

23.03

0.254

1.87

0.27

1.99

0.711

4.08

4.44

0.674

5.40

1.32

25.88

6.56

58.65

28.36

58.7

74.7

268.6

56.6

795.5

31.0

82.7

18.77

0.653

1.279

0.621

0.157

1.299

5.62

4.24

5.66

0.017

0.05

14.0

0.12

0.19

0.020

0.03

0.01

0.04

0.024

0.04

0.15

0.011

0.27

0.02

0.31

0.08

1.35

0.69

1.4

1.2

2.7

1.0

4.8

0.4

0.9

0.22

0.008

0.007

0.002

0.001

0.013

0.06

0.06

0.08

RQ2

1.547

3.20

790.5

21.19

26.89

0.282

2.19

0.33

2.41

0.826

4.91

5.50

0.845

6.47

1.67

31.52

8.25

72.27

35.86

72.3

94.8

431.5

56.5

868.2

33.8

105.3

20.14

0.732

1.606

0.640

0.226

1.835

6.87

4.81

6.53

0.039

0.09

6.4

0.13

0.59

0.008

0.07

0.01

0.17

0.034

0.05

0.42

0.041

0.04

0.07

0.62

0.14

1.69

0.34

1.7

1.9

7.9

0.5

4.2

0.2

0.6

0.19

0.009

0.012

0.008

0.001

0.010

0.02

0.04

0.07

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

247 1.389

D15

0.038

0.08

19.0

1.335

2.95

979.3

0.020

0.03

32.0

0.47 3.48

454

18.14

0.04

3

0.77

0.01

0.02

0.011

2.94

1023

19.92

0.12

0.28

0.02

1.34

1.192

0.09

5.1

0.32

25.34

0.009

1.91

0.002

U

0.039

2.32

668.3

20.95

0.89

0.266

0.14

0.299

0.02

0.00

0.07

0.05

0.024

0.07

0.03

0.07

0.02

0.26

0.04

0.1

0.9

18.91

3.3

3

0.1

4.4

0.82

0.006

0.026

0.004

0.001

0.001

0.00

0.03

0.04

1.408

0.07

11.1

0.10

23.54

0.006

2.06

0.03

2.14

0.78

3.95

4.57

0.703

5.50

1.26

25.66

6.38

54.21

23.75

100.1

93.8

342

62.5

791

33.1

75.7

16.91

0.552

0.956

0.593

0.041

1.144

3.93

3.85

0.06

7.57

0.009

2.62

504.8

18.23

0.29

0.256

0.05

0.32

0.22

0.033

0.11

0.08

0.006

0.15

0.02

0.47

0.18

0.52

1.34

0.8

0.2

4.2

0.8

4.8

0.2

0.7

SF01 5.12

Th

0.910

0.06

9.2

0.40

24.39

0.009

1.78

0.03

2.24

0.770

4.46

5.20

0.732

5.96

1.50

27.80

7.28

62.24

30.86

83.0

70.3

308.6

51.1

746.5

39.7

87.1

0.04

0.004

0.003

0.006

0.001

0.001

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.03

0.027

2.21

525.7

19.78

0.08

0.324

0.11

0.28

0.06

0.035

0.11

0.30

0.067

0.06

0.03

0.61

0.14

1.18

0.79

1.9

1.2

2.3

0.5

4.9

0.6

0.5

18.97

0.511

0.0004

0.10

1.311

0.577

0.183

1.450

7.39

4.41

0.010

0.005

0.001

0.010

0.04

0.02

RQ9 5.92

1.79

1.019

0.02

1.9

0.39

22.81

0.010

2.17

0.02

1.99

0.711

4.07

4.51

0.699

5.58

1.44

26.05

6.73

59.60

28.82

75.8

94.7

315.4

53.9

727.6

47.5

93.1

22.40

0.978

1.283

0.732

0.206

1.359

4.98

4.66

0.07

0.85

0.068

1.158

Ta

2.55

1018

15.56

0.33

0.265

0.05

0.39

0.06

0.025

0.19

0.13

0.015

0.18

0.02

0.27

0.17

0.92

0.66

1.1

0.6

2.4

0.8

7.0

0.4

0.8

0.33

0.004

0.013

0.003

0.003

0.007

0.06

0.01

RQ8 6.30

30.21

0.08

2.93

Hf

0.46

22.29

0.014

1.93

0.03

2.24

0.872

4.25

5.12

0.770

6.03

1.45

28.65

7.43

57.73

28.38

74.2

94.0

369.6

89.2

778.5

33.1

85.7

19.52

0.649

1.283

0.468

0.158

1.372

8.76

4.11

0.08

Cs

15

1029

Ba

15.72

0.43

0.297

0.06

0.31

0.09

0.005

0.05

0.02

0.019

0.07

0.03

0.92

0.07

0.29

0.51

2.6

0.6

2.8

1.2

14.2

2.0

0.9

0.22

0.005

0.002

0.007

0.002

0.009

0.02

0.02

RQ7 5.64

Rb

0.39

18.07

Nb

19.46

0.014

1.95

0.02

2.04

0.706

4.37

5.21

0.758

5.91

1.43

29.10

7.54

66.99

31.69

289.8

87.4

246.7

108.3

786.4

308.0

105.4

21.93

0.607

1.046

0.741

0.149

1.599

4.71

4.58

0.03

0.62

0.34

20.12

Y

0.219

0.04

0.39

0.03

0.025

0.05

0.04

0.016

0.11

0.05

0.87

0.22

0.87

0.29

0.5

0.8

2.8

0.8

9.5

0.0

0.6

0.24

0.005

0.001

0.003

0.002

0.006

0.02

0.005

RQ6 6.00

10.39

0.009

0.232

Lu

1.69

0.02

2.13

0.799

4.11

4.70

0.712

5.64

1.40

28.92

7.42

55.79

27.24

60.6

71.2

261.7

48.9

739.5

25.3

78.9

16.79

0.525

0.986

0.515

0.124

1.168

7.28

3.53

0.05

Sc

0.07

1.82

Yb

0.25

0.15

0.008

0.08

0.24

0.038

0.25

0.06

0.43

0.09

2.68

0.87

0.4

1.0

1.6

0.6

7.4

0.1

0.5

0.11

0.005

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.007

0.02

RQ5

4.83

0.015

0.02

0.26

Tm

1.78

0.621

3.73

4.18

0.681

5.09

1.35

23.62

6.25

53.64

25.91

45.3

66.0

301.7

41.4

595.2

21.9

70.0

15.82

0.528

1.017

0.584

0.106

1.067

6.23

0.01

0.02

1.202

0.06

1.86

Er

0.35

22.26

Nd

0.018

0.04

5.78

Pr

0.595

0.26

55.91

Ce

Ho

0.46

24.02

La

0.12

1.3

81.8

Zn

3.65

1.2

86.8

V

Dy

0.2

259.5

Sr

0.12

0.4

60.6

Ni

3.90

4.2

763.3

Mn

Gd

0.6

93.5

Cu

0.016

0.7

101.0

Cr

0.636

0.37

23.50

Co

Tb

0.004

0.652

Na%

0.07

0.023

1.524

K%

4.91

0.002

0.689

Ti%

Sm

0.003

0.187

P2O5%

0.03

0.008

1.319

Mg%

1.21

0.02

2.93

Ca%

Eu

0.03

4.83

Fe%

3.59

RQ4

4.93

0.03

RQ3

5.99

Al%

SF02

1.51

8.64

1.52

47.27

11.76

1.456

3.84

325

20.97

0.34

2.24

0.345

2.61

0.94

4.75

5.75

0.868

6.74

1.58

32.22

7.96

66.59

31.16

105.2

115.5

238

81.6

687

25.7

82.8

17.04

0.834

1.350

0.712

0.070

1.311

3.85

4.64

6.35

0.03

0.01

0.04

0.61

0.32

0.029

0.07

4

0.16

0.01

0.02

0.006

0.10

0.03

0.10

0.05

0.014

0.05

0.02

0.46

0.11

1.34

0.27

0.4

0.3

4.22

1.7

6

0.4

1.4

0.35

0.007

0.022

0.002

0.001

0.003

0.03

0.01

0.03

SF03

1.54

8.44

1.36

42.82

12.27

1.431

4.13

367

21.39

0.34

2.27

0.360

2.62

0.92

4.75

5.45

0.862

6.44

1.53

31.03

7.60

63.62

29.35

107.3

116.6

281

80.9

796

28.1

91.8

18.32

0.832

1.043

0.761

0.071

1.503

4.46

5.00

6.62

SF04

0.05

0.17

0.02

1.17

0.32

0.045

0.14

3

0.38

0.01

0.11

0.004

0.07

0.01

0.11

0.13

0.023

0.08

0.06

0.50

0.16

1.16

0.36

0.8

1.1

7.79

2.6

2

0.2

2.5

0.60

0.005

0.019

1.45

8.91

0.98

43.01

15.42

2.052

5.20

614

22.88

0.34

2.34

0.358

2.47

0.90

4.66

5.52

0.822

6.59

1.56

31.48

7.84

68.60

33.17

111.7

139.2

478

59.3

775

33.1

102.2

21.70

0.783

1.484

0.665

0.070

0.0002

0.011

1.363

3.18

4.94

6.54

0.005

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.05

0.16

0.02

1.01

0.29

0.013

0.08

11

0.32

0.01

0.06

0.016

0.07

0.00

0.04

0.10

0.011

0.08

0.03

0.38

0.10

0.41

0.13

0.5

0.5

8.94

0.9

3

0.3

2.5

0.37

0.007

0.039

0.006

0.001

0.012

0.01

0.02

0.11

SF05

1.17

5.78

0.69

28.82

10.65

1.475

3.62

736

16.20

0.26

1.62

0.253

1.77

0.65

3.32

3.91

0.592

4.98

1.14

22.41

5.58

49.15

24.08

78.3

94.3

245

122.5

598

25.1

65.2

14.90

0.495

0.955

0.481

0.038

0.855

3.37

3.60

4.86

0.06

0.20

0.04

0.86

0.38

0.102

0.15

10

0.60

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.02

0.00

0.04

0.11

0.005

0.09

0.01

0.38

0.08

0.78

0.43

0.4

0.4

7.66

4.3

5

0.2

2.3

0.41

0.007

0.028

0.003

0.0002

0.007

0.01

0.03

0.04

APPENDICES

248

0.01

0.19

0.017

0.02

0.004

0.26

2

0.24

0.069

0.15

0.29

0.05

0.18

0.008

0.78

2.26

0.321

1.90

0.279

20.20

442

4.34

1.818

13.21

45.21

1.30

7.08

1.351

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

Th

U

Nd

0.32

27.97

Pr

0.05

0.26

6.96

Ce

4.26

0.06

61.19

La

4.91

0.77

30.10

Zn

Dy

0.46

105.6

V

Gd

0.8

133.4

Sr

0.03

0.8

279

0.009

2.64

102.0

Ni

0.727

0.4

796

Mn

5.80

0.1

4

45.7

Cu

Tb

1.0

91.9

Cr

Sm

0.09

19.07

Co

0.002

0.003

0.580

Na%

1.382

0.014

1.044

K%

Eu

0.002

0.003

0.121

0.594

1.186

Mg%

Ti%

0.003

0.005

5.41

Ca%

P2O5%

0.015

4.422

0.07

Fe%

SF06

5.87

Al%

1.360

8.59

1.30

44.37

12.41

1.941

4.26

387

20.57

0.297

2.00

0.322

2.28

0.83

4.11

5.13

0.758

6.01

1.412

29.41

7.35

64.27

31.19

99.9

131.0

271

88.7

667

25.2

93.6

17.62

0.730

1.280

0.673

0.073

0.979

4.01

4.155

SF07

5.69

0.038

0.15

0.03

0.55

0.26

0.032

0.10

5

0.22

0.011

0.03

0.008

0.03

0.00

0.11

0.10

0.006

0.08

0.039

0.32

0.03

1.08

0.68

0.2

0.9

3.53

2.1

2

0.2

1.3

0.30

0.011

0.005

0.005

0.001

0.005

0.02

0.023

0.07

1.376

8.09

0.85

33.78

12.70

1.895

4.83

669

18.80

0.301

1.96

0.322

2.25

0.80

4.12

4.89

0.736

6.03

1.393

27.80

6.96

62.30

29.27

98.1

117.0

334

50.0

732

30.4

82.3

18.34

0.596

1.088

0.613

0.054

1.175

4.30

4.493

SF08

5.96

0.061

0.043

0.08

0.01

1.12

0.35

0.023

0.05

6

0.52

0.007

0.05

0.009

0.06

0.03

0.13

0.05

0.006

0.06

0.025

0.38

0.09

0.76

0.38

0.4

1.1

10.08

1.8

3

0.1

2.5

0.52

0.004

0.005

1.502

8.73

1.02

37.92

13.11

1.943

4.67

1058

18.99

0.283

1.99

0.311

2.21

0.80

4.19

4.98

0.750

6.62

1.438

29.79

7.35

67.70

31.65

92.2

121.2

315

44.6

787

29.0

87.3

19.06

0.663

1.068

0.635

0.0003

0.007

1.170

4.41

4.636

SF09

6.21

0.004

0.03

0.018

0.06

0.064

0.024

0.10

0.01

0.73

0.27

0.063

0.18

10

0.27

0.013

0.02

0.012

0.06

0.04

0.09

0.21

0.034

0.18

0.046

0.69

0.13

1.44

0.54

0.3

0.6

5.55

0.6

7

0.2

1.2

0.22

0.008

0.044

1.305

7.82

1.37

44.47

13.13

1.929

4.41

423

20.30

0.322

1.98

0.319

2.24

0.83

4.30

5.12

0.774

5.95

1.448

29.48

7.36

63.70

31.27

87.4

132.1

287

99.2

794

28.2

92.6

19.31

0.678

1.094

0.632

0.0005

0.006

1.249

4.97

4.485

SF10

5.97

0.006

0.03

0.024

0.03

0.016

0.19

0.04

1.13

0.25

0.048

0.07

9

0.88

0.015

0.03

0.013

0.02

0.03

0.10

0.09

0.024

0.03

0.010

0.27

0.04

0.54

0.50

0.3

1.4

8.62

1.6

5

0.2

2.9

0.71

0.005

0.031

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.04

0.028

0.01

1.646

8.07

0.98

38.88

15.10

2.053

5.23

1119

20.78

0.315

2.14

0.332

2.30

0.86

4.49

5.29

0.804

6.84

1.519

30.14

7.36

68.89

31.28

108.5

126.4

282

77.5

916

40.5

103.3

22.91

0.622

1.246

0.685

0.060

1.129

3.11

5.275

SF11

6.63

1.338

8.16

0.85

32.47

12.23

1.979

4.93

1017

19.53

0.292

1.98

0.306

2.20

0.82

4.10

5.05

0.751

6.56

1.427

28.71

7.13

63.33

30.03

93.5

113.0

283

94.5

748

27.9

86.1

17.95

0.590

1.066

0.650

0.059

1.125

4.58

4.474

SF12

5.78

D16

0.036

0.12

0.02

0.93

0.35

0.042

0.07

27

0.51

0.005

0.05

0.006

0.05

0.01

0.12

0.12

0.007

0.15

0.035

0.13

0.03

0.87

0.41

0.6

0.5

6.41

1.4

9

0.6

1.8

0.46

0.005

0.048

0.004

0.001

0.006

0.03

0.053

0.05

0.037

0.04

0.03

0.61

0.37

0.024

0.07

5

0.20

0.001

0.05

0.009

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.012

0.02

0.020

0.41

0.07

0.20

0.11

0.1

0.1

7.96

2.6

6

0.2

2.6

0.45

0.006

0.050

0.010

0.001

0.003

0.01

0.019

0.02

1.343

7.85

0.89

29.65

11.58

1.882

4.60

1026

19.39

0.295

1.97

0.315

2.21

0.78

4.17

4.92

0.724

6.28

1.364

28.23

6.98

61.09

29.84

85.8

108.7

243

53.7

649

30.5

84.9

17.02

0.521

1.183

0.589

0.062

1.122

5.56

4.154

SF13

5.54

0.037

0.09

0.02

0.30

0.05

0.057

0.10

10

0.07

0.003

0.02

0.007

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.09

0.003

0.06

0.025

0.44

0.10

0.59

0.45

0.6

1.1

1.64

0.5

5

0.2

0.8

0.20

0.006

0.015

0.007

0.001

0.010

0.03

0.026

0.04

1.445

7.35

0.85

33.54

12.50

1.925

4.59

630

17.69

0.289

1.86

0.299

2.05

0.74

3.91

4.60

0.699

5.69

1.321

26.73

6.68

60.54

27.67

85.7

112.0

360

79.8

744

28.2

87.4

18.65

0.568

0.971

0.588

0.054

1.235

3.21

4.619

SF14

5.82

0.016

0.16

0.02

1.21

0.59

0.031

0.06

8

0.79

0.008

0.03

0.009

0.01

0.01

0.06

0.05

0.014

0.07

0.045

0.65

0.13

0.97

0.48

0.4

0.4

14.29

4.7

4

0.4

4.9

0.84

0.002

0.017

0.004

0.0004

0.006

0.01

0.044

0.05

1.368

8.61

1.07

38.20

13.01

2.084

5.04

427

22.49

0.342

2.30

0.373

2.53

0.92

4.64

5.56

0.834

6.39

1.548

31.55

7.84

67.45

33.65

100.0

129.7

261

103.7

818

36.3

93.5

19.41

0.649

1.333

0.676

0.077

1.235

3.13

4.727

SF15

6.23

0.025

0.14

0.03

1.22

0.43

0.044

0.17

1

0.76

0.003

0.05

0.027

0.03

0.00

0.03

0.08

0.007

0.07

0.027

0.48

0.06

0.84

0.62

0.8

0.7

8.54

3.0

5

0.1

3.0

0.66

0.003

0.032

0.005

0.001

0.003

0.005

0.028

0.06

1.203

7.34

0.83

33.19

11.15

1.822

4.50

1251

17.73

0.282

1.81

0.289

2.06

0.75

3.79

4.51

0.685

6.08

1.317

25.73

6.34

56.77

26.59

88.4

104.4

328

173.6

687

36.0

77.9

16.88

0.537

1.146

0.596

0.061

1.114

4.14

4.322

SF16

5.71

0.027

0.08

0.04

1.31

0.51

0.034

0.07

14

0.94

0.012

0.05

0.006

0.01

0.01

0.09

0.12

0.004

0.16

0.014

0.14

0.06

0.38

0.18

0.2

0.9

14.79

7.1

2

0.2

3.6

0.70

0.002

0.036

0.004

0.001

0.004

0.03

0.017

0.05

1.674

7.83

1.29

42.90

11.87

1.814

4.45

780

19.42

0.296

1.92

0.310

2.19

0.79

4.03

4.90

0.722

5.99

1.361

27.65

6.88

60.60

29.70

93.4

120.5

293

317.7

678

22.1

80.6

18.05

0.621

1.524

0.570

0.146

1.138

4.17

4.443

SF17

6.02

0.06

0.040

0.09

0.01

0.91

0.38

0.035

0.06

6

0.37

0.003

0.02

0.005

0.08

0.03

0.11

0.07

0.004

0.05

0.018

0.44

0.05

0.43

0.16

0.3

1.5

4.22

5.7

3

0.2

1.6

0.42

0.004

0.026

0.008

0.001

0.003

0.01

0.037

249

0.095

0.628

0.007

0.001

0.007

0.048

0.011

0.08

1.2

0.1

4

0.7

1.84

0.4

0.4

0.03

0.11

0.04

0.27

1.212

P2O5% 0.063 0.669

1.322

0.690

18.18

90.2

28.5

774

97.7

239

127.8

94.7

32.92

66.96

7.63

30.76

Mg%

K%

Na%

Co

Cr

Cu

Mn

Ni

Sr

V

Zn

La

Ce

Pr

Nd

0.021

0.03

0.028

0.02

0.06

0.02

0.07

0.005

0.06

0.002

0.65

16

0.11

0.066

0.28

0.11

0.11

0.15

0.057

1.508

6.57

0.806

5.36

4.38

0.86

2.30

0.324

2.03

0.296

20.26

607

4.67

2.049

12.29

47.33

1.54

9.15

1.646

Eu

Sm

Tb

Gd

Dy

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

Th

U

Ti%

0.02

4.32

Ca%

1.589

8.40

1.20

39.48

12.22

1.943

4.88

339

19.04

0.284

1.96

0.311

2.11

0.79

4.11

4.89

0.723

5.71

1.334

28.08

6.93

64.23

29.26

97.5

124.2

340

73.5

782

33.7

87.7

18.75

0.634

0.969

1.123

3.12

4.699

0.003

SF19

5.92

4.719

0.07

Fe%

SF18

6.24

Al%

0.031

0.17

0.01

0.88

0.29

0.096

0.04

5

0.18

0.004

0.05

0.014

0.02

0.01

0.07

0.08

0.017

0.05

0.028

0.27

0.00

0.71

0.19

0.5

0.8

4.27

2.1

8

0.3

1.9

0.45

0.010

0.005

0.004

0.001

0.002

0.01

0.062

0.04

1.655

2.99

0.074

0.04

0.34

0.04 11

21.89

0.003

0.01

0.003

0.07

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.005

0.02

0.027

0.28

0.11

1.35

0.43

1.8

0.5

2.1

1.1

12

0.4

0.9

0.23

0.009

0.015

0.002

0.001

0.005

0.03

0.023

0.04

18.32 1189

0.303

2.10

0.393

2.21

0.83

4.26

5.02

0.731

6.38

1.420

29.46

7.89

66.43

30.20

64.6

109.5

371.7

66.8

880

17.6

105.6

23.29

0.795

1.345

0.747

0.145

0.921

3.20

3.993

SF22

5.60

1.344

8.29

1.07

39.60

11.53

1.818

4.46

500

19.67

0.305

2.02

0.327

2.19

0.82

4.25

5.01

0.766

6.00

1.362

28.92

7.20

61.89

30.58

94.0

121.8

423

84.2

699

27.4

91.3

17.05

0.617

1.196

0.654

0.058

1.248

5.83

4.373

SF24

5.69

0.040

0.05

0.02

0.64

0.10

0.029

0.19

4

0.09

0.012

0.07

0.015

0.05

0.01

0.14

0.07

0.004

0.10

0.027

0.52

0.06

0.93

0.38

0.3

0.9

2.80

0.4

7

0.1

0.4

0.33

0.005

0.034

0.005

0.001

0.005

0.03

0.016

0.10

1.399

8.64

1.16

43.61

12.99

1.965

4.99

825

21.94

0.324

2.14

0.328

2.32

0.85

4.38

5.16

0.767

6.38

1.453

29.53

7.25

62.65

30.89

105.2

130.6

365

119.5

749

30.6

99.9

19.75

0.614

1.072

0.654

0.101

1.328

5.44

4.900

SF25

6.16

0.031

0.12

0.05

3.29

0.66

0.060

0.01

18

1.47

0.007

0.03

0.009

0.07

0.01

0.01

0.09

0.016

0.08

0.023

0.51

0.14

1.05

0.66

0.4

0.2

22.85

5.8

5

0.3

6.2

1.32

0.004

0.042

0.006

0.002

0.013

0.05

0.041

0.07

1.816

7.99

1.53

43.77

12.63

2.106

5.43

433

21.19

0.328

2.17

0.345

2.45

0.91

4.65

5.36

0.822

6.29

1.511

30.65

7.57

62.46

31.89

89.7

127.8

248

70.1

710

27.2

95.3

18.61

0.867

0.906

0.657

0.057

1.465

5.89

5.230

SF26

6.61

1.312

8.22

1.10

38.53

11.55

1.899

4.72

1076

21.91

0.323

2.22

0.349

2.44

0.91

4.66

5.50

0.821

6.94

1.507

31.18

7.72

65.32

32.54

94.7

106.4

384

61.9

742

32.2

90.2

18.16

0.457

0.946

0.580

0.056

1.168

9.39

4.416

SF28

5.78

D17

0.017

0.09

0.04

0.97

0.38

0.023

0.17

5

0.71

0.006

0.02

0.007

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.008

0.06

0.027

0.52

0.06

0.55

0.29

0.4

0.9

5.76

2.0

1

0.4

2.5

0.61

0.006

0.042

0.004

0.001

0.001

0.05

0.073

0.09

0.028

0.20

0.03

1.94

0.32

0.013

0.09

7

0.84

0.018

0.07

0.006

0.01

0.04

0.04

0.14

0.020

0.09

0.010

0.34

0.04

0.16

0.47

0.5

0.9

16.63

2.3

1

0.2

2.4

0.94

0.006

0.020

0.009

0.001

0.004

0.04

0.018

0.07

1.556

3.28

18.33 980

16.46

0.224

1.53

0.283

1.55

0.55

2.76

3.30

0.488

4.23

0.944

20.11

5.43

54.86

21.24

73.7

102.5

211.6

90.3

599

38.1

98.1

21.71

0.565

1.467

0.691

0.190

1.144

1.46

4.260

SF29

5.86

0.059

0.070

0.08

0.29 15

0.08

0.006

0.02

0.006

0.04

0.01

0.08

0.09

0.017

0.06

0.007

0.32

0.07

1.30

0.40

1.4

0.7

0.9

1.2

2

0.7

0.2

0.34

0.008

0.014

1.509

8.46

1.23

41.16

11.37

1.936

4.74

724

19.50

0.305

2.17

0.315

2.31

0.84

4.30

5.17

0.782

6.26

1.425

29.61

7.32

64.02

30.71

91.4

119.7

290

50.2

704

30.7

91.4

17.24

0.654

1.146

0.624

0.0003

0.005

1.185

4.61

4.578

SF33

5.98

0.004

0.01

0.017

0.10

0.014

0.05

0.02

0.44

0.14

0.092

0.09

9

0.12

0.014

0.24

0.005

0.07

0.01

0.10

0.03

0.018

0.05

0.010

0.12

0.05

0.48

0.46

0.5

0.3

3.14

1.3

2

0.2

1.1

0.24

0.007

0.033

0.004

0.001

0.014

0.02

0.016

0.05

1.532

7.72

0.82

34.37

11.05

1.860

4.74

574

19.31

0.281

1.90

0.301

2.13

0.78

3.96

4.74

0.714

5.77

1.318

26.99

6.64

59.74

27.90

87.7

108.9

415

92.0

734

28.4

80.2

18.01

0.563

1.040

0.554

0.049

1.199

5.15

4.335

SF34

5.58

0.005

0.07

0.02

0.67

0.16

0.026

0.10

5

0.35

0.014

0.03

0.005

0.01

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.016

0.01

0.057

0.22

0.14

1.15

0.52

0.3

0.4

8.61

2.8

1

0.5

1.4

0.47

0.005

0.009

0.009

0.0001

0.004

0.04

0.003

0.08

1.704

3.25

20.12 446

25.01

0.337

2.26

0.427

2.42

0.92

4.72

5.61

0.832

6.56

1.531

32.35

8.40

67.59

32.55

67.8

125.6

280.0

114.0

891

24.9

109.4

24.88

0.882

0.929

0.712

0.128

1.574

5.24

4.838

SF35

6.46

0.065

0.18

0.26 4

0.39

0.014

0.07

0.005

0.06

0.02

0.10

0.19

0.028

0.02

0.004

0.89

0.23

2.06

0.60

1.1

0.5

2.0

1.6

4

0.4

1.4

0.57

0.014

0.009

0.002

0.001

0.006

0.05

0.029

0.11

1.282

8.20

0.87

37.25

10.28

1.841

4.64

1116

17.68

0.281

2.00

0.302

2.11

0.77

3.95

4.74

0.706

6.24

1.347

26.94

6.62

60.88

27.22

90.4

98.9

367

67.9

749

30.5

80.1

16.38

0.615

1.094

0.628

0.065

1.061

3.81

4.366

SF37

5.70

0.03

0.007

0.07

0.01

0.57

0.08

0.034

0.19

9

0.63

0.005

0.05

0.014

0.04

0.02

0.02

0.10

0.028

0.01

0.062

0.47

0.10

0.19

0.36

0.4

0.6

6.32

1.6

6

0.2

1.4

0.47

0.006

0.019

0.006

0.001

0.001

0.02

0.026

250

0.03

0.02

0.10

0.005

0.04

0.001

1.23

1

0.12

0.037

1.25

0.80

0.02

0.02

0.006

0.60

1.77

0.257

1.68

0.254

13.71

101

2.68

0.991

37.82

23.39

1.17

4.36

0.933

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Y

Nb Ba

Hf

Ta

Sc

Rb

Cs

Th

U

Nd

2.92

0.05

12.95

Pr

Dy

0.03

3.19

Ce

0.05

0.46

32.29

La

2.87

0.18

13.57

Zn

Gd

0.4

76.8

V

0.019

2.1

251.6

Sr

0.459

2.03

61

Tb

14.0

380.8

Ni

0.06

9

1045

Mn

2.89

0.2

38.5

Cu

Sm

12.5

380.9

Cr

0.011

1.55

42.78

Co

0.745

0.006

0.578

Na%

Eu

0.057

0.430

0.003

0.625

0.001

K%

0.053

0.011

3.239

Mg%

P2O5% 0.024 0.439 Ti%

0.01

2.30

Ca%

1.030

9.83

2.27

46.40

11.65

1.817

3.78

813

16.86

0.248

1.73

0.266

1.92

0.74

3.80

4.83

0.713

6.23

1.349

27.61

6.87

68.42

28.34

93.4

111.4

183

92.5

1083

68.9

87.3

23.88

0.308

1.092

1.108

2.50

4.583

0.073

SF40

6.98

8.043

0.11

Fe%

SF39

10.57

Al%

0.014

0.17

0.10

2.27

0.63

0.017

0.13

15

0.71

0.011

0.13

0.003

0.04

0.02

0.05

0.04

0.002

0.17

0.033

0.31

0.03

0.96

0.26

0.4

0.7

8.97

4.1

13

0.3

3.8

0.88

0.001

0.013

0.007

0.001

0.004

0.01

0.017

0.11

1.44

40.95

11.37

0.946

0.01

1.23

0.48

0.028

0.14

0.37 15

13.02 405

2.55

1.09

0.012

0.02

0.011

0.02

0.02

0.17

0.15

0.013

0.20

0.044

1.21

0.06

0.73

0.11

0.9

1.5

2.7

0.6

4

0.5

0.9

0.14

0.003

0.019

0.004

0.001

0.009

0.04

0.064

0.05

23.45

0.270

1.91

0.309

1.98

0.71

4.06

5.16

0.665

5.68

1.341

26.62

6.71

57.49

28.24

59.7

88.5

255.6

92.2

768

20.8

94.5

18.24

0.609

1.202

0.628

0.163

1.052

5.45

3.917

SF41

5.39

0.62

13.18

4.83

0.152

0.28

2.37 1081

17.39

0.170

1.30

0.196

1.37

0.47

2.51

2.82

0.377

3.62

0.942

13.85

3.44

25.92

15.77

56.9

40.5

619.4

43.4

264

36.9

54.5

4.22

0.238

0.497

0.204

0.335

0.599

26.31

1.443

SF42

2.27

0.03

0.12

0.24

0.020

0.03

0.05 29

0.50

0.028

0.03

0.002

0.11

0.04

0.03

0.14

0.044

0.08

0.043

0.78

0.03

0.22

0.25

0.6

1.2

3.0

0.8

2

0.3

0.5

0.13

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.004

0.003

0.37

0.005

0.03

0.99

32.73

9.04

0.632

2.13

11.30 395

18.89

0.223

1.64

0.236

1.65

0.61

3.31

4.08

0.534

4.53

1.181

22.53

5.53

45.63

23.52

54.2

72.3

356.1

70.6

596

19.2

79.2

14.77

0.536

1.197

0.499

0.126

1.060

7.41

3.139

SF43

4.52

0.03

1.19

0.51

0.031

0.06

0.24 11

0.92

0.016

0.06

0.010

0.04

0.02

0.08

0.11

0.012

0.08

0.046

0.52

0.05

0.49

0.32

0.9

0.9

3.5

0.2

5

0.2

1.4

0.09

0.004

0.013

0.003

0.001

0.006

0.04

0.012

0.04

1.16

34.94

12.00

1.193

3.24

16.57 571

26.50

0.323

2.22

0.351

2.31

0.81

4.33

4.98

0.679

5.98

1.399

28.31

6.95

59.20

29.23

86.5

95.0

308.9

55.9

800

37.5

91.9

19.35

0.609

1.426

0.654

0.186

1.071

4.83

3.751

SF44

5.36

0.02

0.72

0.46

0.027

0.16

0.37 13

1.20

0.027

0.08

0.005

0.10

0.02

0.15

0.15

0.021

0.06

0.085

0.87

0.33

1.69

0.99

1.5

0.9

3.8

0.4

7

0.3

0.4

0.11

0.007

0.005

D18

1.369

2.56

21.42 457

26.04

0.361

2.28

0.442

2.37

0.90

4.52

5.30

0.789

6.14

1.390

30.28

8.02

66.72

30.82

77.8

112.1

322.3

59.6

762

24.7

97.3

21.12

0.659

1.457

0.677

0.192

0.0004

0.005

1.109

4.66

4.209

SF45

5.85

0.007

0.01

0.010

0.05

0.038

0.05

0.21 5

0.04

0.002

0.02

0.019

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.08

0.029

0.05

0.015

0.29

0.12

0.55

0.83

0.9

1.5

4.7

0.8

3

0.0

0.4

0.51

0.004

0.014

0.007

0.001

0.003

0.02

0.033

0.07

1.15

38.30

11.97

1.252

2.89

18.75 514

25.76

0.278

2.17

0.326

2.21

0.83

4.55

5.29

0.733

6.25

1.515

29.97

7.48

65.12

31.54

80.6

101.5

312.0

65.8

838

26.5

104.8

21.05

0.632

1.472

0.674

0.188

1.164

4.52

4.085

SF46

5.84

0.06

0.84

0.51

0.032

0.11

0.15 10

0.37

0.012

0.10

0.021

0.08

0.03

0.09

0.13

0.033

0.23

0.054

1.20

0.36

2.36

1.38

1.6

1.6

1.3

0.6

3

0.2

0.2

0.06

0.005

0.010

0.005

0.001

0.003

0.02

0.015

0.04

1.05

36.22

10.98

1.399

2.65

18.51 527

26.83

0.337

2.19

0.349

2.34

0.80

4.42

5.25

0.752

6.00

1.441

29.53

7.18

60.92

30.97

88.1

93.4

371.6

55.7

709

53.2

97.9

18.18

0.587

1.477

0.624

0.229

1.046

7.03

3.590

SF47

5.22

0.03

0.87

0.46

0.015

0.05

0.67 26

0.29

0.006

0.04

0.021

0.14

0.01

0.09

0.08

0.040

0.31

0.141

0.27

0.17

2.56

0.94

1.0

1.2

4.7

0.2

6

1.0

1.2

0.79

0.001

0.010

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.03

0.033

0.09

0.94

36.64

12.72

1.199

3.01

19.88 609

26.52

0.306

2.10

0.350

2.22

0.82

4.29

5.25

0.696

6.15

1.468

29.51

7.13

65.97

31.06

803.6

107.2

423.8

80.6

939

1015

107.6

23.52

0.619

1.858

0.696

0.203

1.112

4.01

4.235

SF48

5.97

0.01

1.48

0.82

0.037

0.19

0.62 13

1.05

0.021

0.05

0.031

0.00

0.10

0.19

0.11

0.009

0.27

0.049

0.91

0.09

0.47

0.57

10.1

1.4

2.9

1.4

10

8.1

0.6

0.55

0.006

0.004

0.008

0.001

0.010

0.02

0.027

0.05

1.80

49.79

14.28

1.376

3.08

21.93 496

29.49

0.335

2.25

0.339

2.43

0.86

4.69

5.85

0.767

6.63

1.537

32.84

8.06

70.34

35.20

78.8

110.6

297.3

87.8

900

27.5

101.8

22.16

0.761

1.542

0.676

0.458

1.289

4.21

4.319

SF49

6.22

0.03

1.15

0.40

0.010

0.12

0.94 18

0.99

0.037

0.12

0.024

0.07

0.04

0.04

0.16

0.049

0.04

0.123

0.60

0.08

0.96

0.75

1.6

0.8

0.4

1.5

1

0.5

1.2

0.29

0.002

0.013

0.008

0.003

0.010

0.03

0.045

0.03

1.766

3.07

19.30 657

25.69

0.341

2.30

0.447

2.51

0.94

4.77

5.92

0.862

6.71

1.585

33.67

8.69

71.49

34.72

1417

109.4

276.5

71.8

955

2128

111.7

23.40

0.439

1.062

0.665

0.182

1.153

9.38

4.285

SF50

5.99

0.062

0.03

0.43 8

0.14

0.005

0.06

0.012

0.03

0.01

0.08

0.12

0.002

0.18

0.013

0.52

0.11

0.68

0.51

9.8

3.1

1.4

0.3

13

4.1

1.1

0.44

0.007

0.009

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.06

0.022

0.12

251

U

0.040

0.08 1.479

3.25 0.017

0.01

0.18 3 1.676

3.16

18.87 1184

28.49

0.050

0.10

0.16 11

0.35

0.015

1.246

2.73

17.92 313

24.54

0.262

1.99

0.010

0.10

0.46 8

0.70

0.025

0.17

0.009

1.377

2.58

20.72 644

24.94

0.342

2.33

0.433

2.45

0.027

0.06

0.28 5

0.19

0.018

0.12

0.010

0.05

0.05

2.76

17.97 881

24.35

0.289

1.90

0.293

2.07

0.73

3.93

4.92

0.650

6.02

1.475

26.19

6.55

57.14

28.36

74.8

86.1

454.7

76.1

757

34.1

100.4

18.23

0.565

1.327

0.590

0.157

1.137

5.47

0.11

0.51 18

0.59

0.017

0.02

0.005

0.05

0.04

0.15

0.13

0.023

0.22

0.043

0.49

0.11

0.96

0.45

1.7

2.4

3.3

0.8

8

0.3

0.5

0.32

0.004

0.014

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.01

0.032

D19

0.02

Th

1.810

3.10

19.61 358

0.28

0.391

0.03

0.305

0.05

0.91

0.14

0.10

0.012

0.17

0.028

0.32

0.18

1.07

0.27

0.9

1.5

1.4

1.8

4

3.7

1.5

0.88

0.002

0.011

0.004

0.002

0.005

0.02

3.760

0.06

0.52

0.041

1.614

Ta

0.31 22

25.23

0.012

2.61

0.008

2.03

0.02

4.80

5.56

0.814

6.83

1.545

33.80

8.90

83.07

33.66

342.1

123.0

354.2

122.7

1190

241.9

117.8

25.09

0.388

1.606

0.582

0.117

0.897

6.24

0.008

TS1

5.36

0.91

0.08

3.13

Hf

20.44 1270

0.26

0.364

0.05

0.495

0.07

0.74

0.03

0.29

0.041

0.09

0.092

0.19

0.15

0.78

0.45

0.7

1.2

0.7

3.0

3

0.4

1.4

0.35

0.018

0.013

0.003

0.003

0.012

0.05

4.200

0.03

TBM1

6.04

32.10

0.37 3

18.78 721

Nb Ba

17.29

0.007

2.44

0.020

2.72

0.02

4.07

4.47

0.717

5.15

1.271

24.74

6.62

57.93

28.01

74.0

90.8

317.6

227.3

687

31.2

119.4

17.78

0.694

1.417

0.608

0.153

1.509

6.94

0.011

0.07

Cs

0.30

23.42

Y

0.250

0.03

0.462

0.02

1.02

0.06

0.05

0.006

0.08

0.063

0.50

0.19

0.92

0.19

1.2

3.5

1.6

2.1

5

0.5

0.8

0.33

0.005

0.024

0.004

0.001

0.004

0.05

3.902

SP1

5.38

Rb

0.003

0.330

Lu

1.62

0.020

2.59

0.02

5.01

5.98

0.848

7.01

1.636

32.87

8.69

65.62

34.64

100.7

118.7

301.2

113.3

900

51.5

121.2

21.92

0.381

1.337

0.661

0.208

0.962

7.93

0.026

0.06

0.37

0.06

2.31

Yb

0.301

0.04

0.97

0.10

0.10

0.008

0.11

0.032

0.29

0.04

0.60

0.64

1.1

2.4

3.8

1.6

10

0.0

0.3

0.60

0.014

0.013

0.001

0.002

0.004

0.01

4.214

SF54

5.93

11.38

0.009

0.438

Tm

1.68

0.02

4.98

5.93

0.858

6.94

1.544

34.15

9.06

75.04

35.23

77.2

123.3

268.3

69.6

764

31.5

118.6

26.13

0.746

1.243

0.750

0.180

1.386

3.98

0.013

0.04

Sc

0.08

2.41

Er

0.62

0.04

0.05

0.017

0.05

0.018

0.34

0.04

0.46

0.44

1.6

1.3

4.6

0.6

5

0.4

0.5

1.34

0.006

0.010

0.001

0.005

0.003

0.00

4.733

SF53

6.15

0.021

0.04

0.89

Ho

3.12

3.81

0.549

5.12

1.138

24.00

6.47

60.42

26.12

112.9

105.1

323.1

86.4

664

87.1

112.7

20.74

0.560

1.680

0.887

2.95

0.017

0.01

1.077

0.16

Nd

4.48

0.08

31.63

Pr

Dy

0.21

8.23

Ce

0.07

1.08

69.51

La

5.42

0.39

32.96

Zn

Gd

1.1

147.6

V

0.015

3.0

114.7

Sr

0.780

3.0

284.7

Tb

0.1

74.4

Ni

0.09

3

858

Mn

6.47

1.3

134.0

Cu

Sm

0.6

113.8

Cr

0.028

0.65

22.88

Co

1.435

0.002

0.453

Na%

Eu

0.008

0.776

0.008

1.166

0.001

K%

0.315

0.004

1.077

Mg%

P2O5% 0.216 0.679 Ti%

0.08

7.50

Ca%

3.769

0.027

SF52

6.13

4.388

0.02

Fe%

SF51

6.23

Al%

1.090

2.72

20.79 237

27.01

0.344

2.40

0.462

2.54

1.00

4.93

5.84

0.858

6.60

1.557

32.56

8.50

66.88

32.14

90.4

127.3

306.8

91.2

843

53.9

111.0

26.45

0.705

1.082

0.741

0.114

1.460

5.90

4.879

YM1

6.51

0.063

0.11

0.32 4

0.41

0.005

0.01

0.002

0.08

0.02

0.13

0.01

0.019

0.19

0.042

0.20

0.17

0.61

0.37

0.7

2.7

2.5

1.3

4

0.3

0.7

0.06

0.004

0.016

0.007

0.002

0.016

0.01

0.041

0.13

1.107

2.22

18.67 339

23.44

0.297

1.98

0.370

2.14

0.81

4.11

4.98

0.733

5.87

1.362

28.81

7.49

58.65

28.24

70.9

102.1

360.6

67.1

761

32.1

90.9

20.76

0.569

1.199

0.620

0.125

1.078

9.14

3.842

YM2

5.42

0.030

0.07

0.19 7

0.38

0.014

0.07

0.006

0.04

0.01

0.10

0.17

0.016

0.12

0.012

0.45

0.05

1.34

0.51

0.2

1.5

6.4

0.9

7

0.3

0.3

0.11

0.002

0.022

0.004

0.001

0.006

0.04

0.035

0.08

APPENDICES

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

Appendix E: Petrographic descriptions of thin sections of the samples Appendix E presents the detailed petrographic descriptions of the thin sections. Notes and abbreviations for the descriptions: The descriptions include: Sample: similar abbreviations to Appendix C. Group: petrographic group according to this study, see Part 4.3. Soil: according to soil maps and various publications; see Part 3.6 for discussion. Cal=calcareous. Matrix: type, optical activity, color (if relevant), density of particles (spacing: os=open spaced, ds=double spaced, ss=single spaced, cs=closely spaced), frequency of voids as percentage of the slide, relative silt component within the matrix (highly, moderately, poorly). Inclusions: 1. Mineralogy: QS=quartz, LS=limestone, CC=calcareous concentrations, FR=foraminifers, OP=opaque (ferrous) minerals; 2. Relative frequency of mineral population as percentage of slide area or relative occurrence (several=occasional occurrence but less than 1% of the slide, rare=few/singular occurrences). 3. Texture: sorting (well/moderately/poorly), bimodal (two separate size ranges); 4. Sizes, all in microns (10-6 m or 1\1000 mm)[note grain size in microns: 2000-1000=very coarse sand, 1000-500=coarse sand, 500-250=medium sand, 250-125=fine sand, 12562=very fine sand, 62-31=coarse silt, 31-16=medium silt, 16 and under=fine silt]; 5. Shape (see Adams et al. 1984: Fig. A), r=rounded, sr=sub-rounded, a=angular, sa=sub-angular. Remarks: other observations regarding the slide; DC=disintegrated calcite; HF= high firing temperature (estimated over 900ºC); LQ= low quality slide.

252

253

Dark brown

Dark brown

Loess

Dark brown?

Loess?

Loess

Dark brown

A1

B1

A1?

B?

B2

A1

AK13

AK14

AK15

AK16

AK17

AK18

Dark brown

A1

AK09

A1b

Dark brown

A1a

AK08

AK12

Loess

B3

AK07

Dark brown

Dark brown

A1

AK06

A1/A2?

Dark brown

A1

AK05

AK11

Dark brown

A1b

AK04

Dark brown

Cal/loess

C1

AK03

A1

Dark brown

A1?

AK02

AK10

Soil type Dark brown

Group A1

Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty.

Inactive, ss, 25% voids, moderately silty(?). Carbonate?, red, inactive, ds, 40% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, sp, 20% voids, moderately silty.

Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? inactive, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty.

Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, non silty. Inactive, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty.

Carbonate, active, ss-ds, 7% voids, highly silty.

Matrix Slightly active, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ds, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 30% voids, highly silty. Slightly active, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 35% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty. Laminated voids.

E1

QZ: 25%, bimodal, 30-80 a, 150-300 r; several: mica 40-100 sa; rare: OP 30-80 sr, LS 60-80 sa, heavy minerals 10-30.

QZ: 8%, poorly sorted, 20-100 a; mica: 1%, moderately sorted, 20-100 sa; OP: 1% 20-60 sra. QZ: 15%, 40-80 sa, 200-300 sr (several ferrous QZ); Bioclast/CC: 1%, 100-300 r; several: LS 100-200 sr, mica 30-100 sr; rare: OP 10-20 r.

QZ: 20%, bimodal(?) 40-80 sa, 100-200 r; rare: clay pellets/shales(?) 100-200 r, OP 30-60.

QZ: 25%, bimodal(?), 30-60 a, 150-250 r; several: shell 100-1000, clay pellets 150-300 r; Rare: LS 30-80 a, mica 20-40 sa, feldspar 20-40 a. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a-sa; LS: 3%, 50-150 sr; OP: 1%, 60-150 r; several: shell 4080, mica 30-70 sr; rare: hornblende 30-60 sa, grog/shale 700 r. QZ: 25%, bimodal, 40-60 a, 150-250 sr-r (some ferrous QZ 120-180); CC: 1%, 300-700 r; Laminated voids. several: mica 30-120 sr; rare: OP 20-40 r, feldspar 100 sa. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-150, sa; several: OP 30-50 r, mica 30-80 sr; rare: feldspar 30-50 Orientation of Quartz a, heavy minerals 10-30 a. inclusions? QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 120-300 sr (several ferrous QZ 200 r); several: LS 50-80 a, chalk/CC 200-500 r; rare: nari(?) 40-60 sa, OP 20-40 sr, mica 10-30 sr.

QZ: 30%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 150-400 r; rare: feldspar 20-40 sa, rock frag(?) 500 r, horblende 80 sr, mica 20-50 a, OP 20-40. QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-120 sa (several 300-400r); several: chert 50-150 sa, LS 5080 sa, mica 20-80 sr; rare: hornblende 40-100 sr, heavy minerals 20-60 a.

QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 50-150 a; LS: 2%, 50-120 sa; several: shell 30-80, OP 20-60 sr, mica 40-150 a; rare: chalk 60 r, hornblende 30-50 a, clay pellets 20-40.

QZ: 25%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 150-400 r; several: LS 100-250 sr; rare: mica 30-60 sa, chert 100-150 sr. QZ: 25%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-250 r; mica: 1%, 20-40 sa; rare: LS 40-80, feldspar 20-30, bioclast 60-100 r.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 150-250 r; several mica 20-50 sr; one CC 1500.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a, some r; several: LS 50-100 a; Rare: rock frag 500 sr, mica 20-50 sr, bioclast 250 r elongated, gloucophene(?) 100 elongated. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-60 sub a, 150-300 r; Several: mica 30-100 sr, OP 20-60 r; Rare: LS 40-60 sr. LS: 5%, 100-200 sr; QZ: 5% 10-60 a; several: chalk 100-150 r.

Appendix E. Thin section petrographic analysis: desciptions of the samples.

Sample AK01

254

Soil type ?

Dark brown

Dark brown

Dark brown?

Dark brown

Cal-loess-Rendzina

Loess

Dark brown?

Loess

Loess?

Loess

Loess

Dark brown

Brown/loess

Loess

Dark brown

Dark brown

Brown/loess

Group G

A1

A1a

A1/A2?

A1

C2

B1

A2?

B1?

F

B1

B2

A(1?)

A1c

B1

A1a

A1

A1c

Sample AK19

AK20

AK21

AK22

AP1

AP2

AP3

AP4

AP5

AR1

AR2

AS01

AS02

AS03

AS04

AS05

AS06

AS07

Inactive, ds, 20% voids, non silty(?). Carbonate? inactive, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 20% voids, highly silty. inactive, very dark, os, 25% oriented voids, non silty. Inactive, ds, 20% voids, non silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ss, 35% voids, poorly silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive, ds, 5% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Slightly active, ds, 15% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds-os, 15% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ds-os, 25% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds-os, 30% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate (30% bio micritic), active, ds, 5% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 20% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss-os, 25% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Orientation of some QZ. LQ

Remarks

E2

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-200 r (few 400-500 r); several: LS 60-120 a, CC 40-60 r; rare: OP 10-30 sa, mica 10-20. QZ: 10%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 150-250 r; rare: mica 20-60, LS 40-60 sa, garnet(?) 60 sa.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-180 r (some polycristalline).

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 120-200 r; several LS 60-120 a; rare: OP 20-30, silicified bone(?) 40-80 elongated. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 40-80 a, 100-200 sr; several LS 40-80 sa.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-250 r.

Laminated voids.

LQ

QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 20-80 a; CC/bioclasts: 7%, 40-150 sr; FR: 5%, 80-150 r (cellular, several ferrous 500-600 r); LS: 2%, 60-200 sr; rare: shell 300, mica 20-60 sa,OP 2060 sa, feldspar 20-30 a. QZ: 25%, bimodal, 30-80 a, 100-300 r, some ferrous QZ; bioclast: 1% (one 1200 r), silicified shell(?) 300 sa; several: LS 40-80 sr, mica 20-60 sa, OP 20-60 sr. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 sa, 100-250 sr, several with ferrous inclusions; OP (red): 1%, 30- DC 50 r (few oolites?); several: deteriorated calcite 50-100 sr; rare: mica 20-40 sa.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-50 a, 150-350 sr; several: OP 20-50 sr; rare: LS 40-80 sa, chalk 120- DC 150 r, feldspar 30-80 a. QZ: 25%, bimodal? 20-70 a, 120-300 sr, some ferrous; LS/nari: 5%, moderately sorted, 120- DC 450 sr; several OP 30-80 sr. QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-60 a, 100-200 sa; rare chalk 100-150 r. DC

FR: 20%, 40-150 r (several cellular); QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 30-150 a; several: LS 50-120 sa, shell 100-200, OP 20-50 sr; rare: mica 20-50 sa.

QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-150 , a (several r); several: LS 40-80 and 150-300, mica 30- DC 80 sa; rare: OP 20-40 sr, chert 50 sa. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 15-50 a, 100-400 sr; several OP 20-50 sr; rare: mica 50-80 sa. Laminated voids.

Inclusions QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-80 sa, 200-400 sr; FR (amphirea?): 1%, 150-250, r; several: mica 40120 sr; rare: LS 100-120 a, OP 20-40 sr. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 150-400 sr; several: LS 100-150 a, mica 20-60 sa; rare: feldspar 20-50 a, nari 100 sr, bioclast 40-70 r. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 sa, 120-250 sr; several: LS 60-150 sa, mica 20-50 sa, OP 20-40 sa.

255

Loess

Dark brown

Brown/loess

Brown/loess

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

B1

A1a

A1c

A1c

D1

D1

AS21

AS22

AS23

AS24

AS25

AS26

Brown/loess

A1c

AS17

Loess

Brown/loess

A1c

AS16

B1

Brown/loess

A1c

AS15

AS20

Dark brown

A1

AS14

Dark brown

Brown/loess

A1c

AS13

A1

Dark brown

A1

AS12

AS19

Brown/loess

A1c

AS11

Dark brown

Dark brown

A1a

AS10

A1

Brown/loess

A1c

AS09

AS18

Soil type Loess

Group B(1?)

Sample AS08

LQ

LQ

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-50 a, 100-180 sr; several: LS 40-80 sa, mica 20-60 sr, OP 10-30 sa.

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 15-50 a, 150-300 sr; several mica 20-40 sr; rare: feldspar 120 sa.

LQ

Laminated voids.

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 30-60 r, 100-200 sr (several 400-500, several ferrous QZ); several: LS 50- LQ 100 a, mica 30-60 sr. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-70 a, 100-180 sa, several ferrous QZ; several: LS 60-120 sr, mica 30- LQ 50 sr; rare: heavy minerals 10-20 a.

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 30-50 a, 100-250 r; rare: OP 10-30 sr, mica 20-40 sa.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-250 sa; several mica 20-100 a.

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-300 r; rare: LS 20-30, mica 10-20, heavy minerals 10-20.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-80 a, 100-250 r; several: LS 50-120 sa, mica 30-80 sa, feldspar 100120 a; rare: OP 20-50 r. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-200 r; several: mica 20-40.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-150 sa; LS: 1%, moderately sorted, 60-120 sr; several: mica 3060 sr, OP 20-40 r; rare: hornblende 100 a. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-80 a, 100-250 sa; several: LS 40-60 a, OP 20-60 r; rare: mica 10-30, heavy minerals 10-20. QZ: 25%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-350 sr; rare: feldspar 150 sa, LS(?) 60.

E3

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 200-400 r, several ferrous QZ; several: LS 50-100 a, OP 30-80 sr; rare: mica 10-40 sa, feldspar 100 sa, hornblende 60 a. QZ: 15%, bimodal 15-50 a, 100-250 sr (several polycristalline QZ; several ferrous QZ); several: OP 30-70 r, LS 40-80 r, mica 20-50 sr; shell 2000; rare: feldspar 40 sa, chalk 80-100 r. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, QZ: 10%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-200 r; several: mica 15-40 sr, OP 20-50 sr; rare: shell 500, non silty LS 50-100 sr, chert 100-120 sa, feldspar 80 sa, olivine(?) 80 sr. Inactive, os, 40% voids, poorly QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-40 a, 80-150 r; several: LS 40-60 a, mica 20-50 sa, OP 25-60 r. silty. Carbonate? slightly active, os, QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-40 a, 150-350 r, several weathered QZ; rare: mica 20-40 a. LQ 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 8% voids, non QZ: 40%, well sorted, 20-50 a; OP: 2%, moderately sorted, 20-60 sr; several: mica, 20-80 silty. sa, LS 40-80 sa; rare: bioclast/CC 120-150 r. Inactive, dark, ss, 5% voids, non QZ: 35%, well sorted, 30-100 a; OP: 2%, 20-60 sa; LS: 1%, 40-80 a; rare: mica 10-20 sa, silty. feldspar 50 sr.

Inactive, dark, open-ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, os, 25% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 20% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, dark, os, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, os, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Carbonate, active, ds, 7% voids, highly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ds, 20% voids, silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, non silty. Slightly active, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, os, 30% voids, non silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty.

256

Dark brown

Brown

Brown/loess

Mycenaean

Brown/loess

?

A1

A2?

A1c

J

A1c

A?

AS40

AS41

AS42

AS43

AS44

AS45

Dark brown

A1

AS36

Dark brown

Loess

B3

AS35

A1

Cal-loess-Rendzina

C2

AS34

AS39

Dark brown

A1a

AS33

Brown/loess?

Dark brown?

D3

AS32

A1c?

Cal-loess-Rendzina

C2

AS31

AS38

Cal/loess

C1

AS30

Brown/loess

Cal/loess?

C1?

AS29

A1c

Dark brown?

D3

AS28

AS37

Soil type Dark brown?

Group D2

Sample AS27

Inactive, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, os, 30% voids, moderately silty. Slightly active, os, 30% voids, moderately(?) silty. Inactive, ds, 25% voids, portly silty Inactive, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive, ds, 15% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, well levigated, os, 5% voids, very fine. Carbonate? inactive, ds-os, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, non silty.

Inactive, very dark, 25% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 7% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Inactive, cs, 20% voids, non silty. Inactive, red, cs-ss, 15% voids, non silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 15% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive, os, 5% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 5% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 10% voids, non silty.

LQ

LQ

E4

QZ: 15%, bimodal? 30-70 a, 120-250 sr; several: LS 50-160 sa, OP 20-40 r; rare: mica 2030, feldspar 60 sa. QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-100 a; several OP 40-60 sa.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 120-250 r (few); OP: 1%, 10-30 r; several: LS 30-60, mica 1030. OP: 1%, 10-20 r; QZ: 1%, 10-15 a.

QZ: 5%, moderately sorted, 20-60 sa; OP: 1%, poorly sorted, 15-70 sr.

LQ

LQ

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-300 sr; OP: 2%, 10-50 r; rare; mica 10-20, heavy minerals 10-20. QZ: 25%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-350 r, several ferrous QZ; several LS 100-300 r. LQ

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-40 a, 10-250 r.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 15-40 a, 120-300 r; LS: 1%, 50-100 sa; several OP 30-60 sr.

QZ: 25%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-250 r, several ferrous QZ; several: LS 60-80 a.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-200 sr; LS: 1%, 50-100 sa; several: mica 10-40 a, OP 10- DC 30 sr; rare: heavy minerals 10-15. LS: 15%, moderately sorted, 50-120 sa; QZ: 5%, poorly sorted, 30-80 a; OP: 1%, 15-40 r; several: shell, 40-80 mica 10-20 sa, FR 40-70 r; rare: feldspar 50 a. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-180 sa-r; LS: 1%, 50-150 sr; several: mica 20-80 sr, OP 50-80 DC r, bioclast 40-80 r, rare: feldspar 120 sa.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-80 a; LS: 5%, 50-150 sa; OP: 1%, 30-60 sr; Chert: 1%, 50100 sr; several: chalk 80-120 r; rare: clay pellets 100-150 r, feldspar 60 sr. QZ: 45%, moderately sorted, 30-100 a; LS: 5%, 50-250 sr; OP: 5%, 30-60 r; several: chalk DC 60-120 r, mica 20-40 a, shell 300-400. QZ: 10%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-300 sr; several: OP 30-60 r, LS 30-60 sa; rare: grog/shale 200. QZ: 8%, poorly sorted, 30-150 a-sr; LS: 8%, moderately sorted, 40-100 sa; several: mica 20- DC 80 a, hornblende 60-100 a; rare: chert 50-80 sa, OP 20-50 r. FR: 8%, moderately sorted, 30-80 sa (cellular; including relics); QZ: 7%, moderately sorted, 20-80 a; several: shell 50-70, OP 20-40 sa; rare: CC 60-100 r, mica 20-40 sr. QZ: 30%, moderately sorted, 20-70 a; LS: 5%, poorly sorted, 40-120 sa; chalk/CC: 2%, 60120 sr; OP: 1%, 30-80 sa; several miace 20-50 sa; rare: feldspar 60 sr.

257

Loess

Dark brown

?

Brown/loess

Brown/loess

Dark brown?

A3

A2

E1?

A1c

A1c

A2?

BM1

BM2

BM3

BM4

BM5

BM6

Brown?

A?

AS55

Dark brown?

?

A1c?

AS54

D1

Dark brown

A(1?)

AS53

AS58

Dark brown

A1

AS52

Dark brown?

Brown/loess?

A1c?

AS51

D2

Dark brown

A1

AS50

AS57

Cal/loess

C1

AS49

Brown/Cal

Cal/loess

C1

AS48

A2?

Loess?

C1?

AS47

AS56

Soil type Dark brown??

Group D1?

Sample AS46

Inactive, ds, 20%? voids, moderately(?) silty. Carbonate, active, os, 10% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss-cs, 15% voids, non silty. Inactive, ss, 10% voids, non silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, highly silty. Inactive, ss, 15% voids (elongated), poorly silty. Inactive, dark, os, 25% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? inactive, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, os, 20% voids, poorly silty.

Matrix Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, non silty. Carbonate, inactive, os, 15% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive, os, 7% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 7% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, os, 30% voids, moderately(?) silty. Inactive, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? inactive, ds, 20?% voids, moderately silty. Small slide.

E5

QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 20-100 sa, several 200-400 r; LS: 2%, 40-120 sa; several: mica 3070 sa; rare: bioclast 40-60 r, feldspar 60 sr. QZ: 35%, moderately sorted, 20-100 sa, several 120-180 sr; LS: 1%, 40-100 sr; mica: 1%, 15-60 sr; several: chert 60-80 r. QZ: 40%, moderately sorted, 20-80 sa, several 120-150 r; LS: 2%, 50-100 sa; several: mica 20-50 sr; rare: feldspar 50 sr. QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a-sr; LS: 10%, moderately sorted, 40-150 sr; several: OP 3080 sr, bioclast/CC 60-100 sr; rare: mica 30-50 sa. QZ: 20%, bimodal(?) 20-60 a, 100-300 sr; LS: 5% 100-500 r; several: mica 20-80 sr, OP 2050 sr; rare: clay pellets 60-80 r. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-120 a; several: mica 20-80 sa, OP 20-60 sr, chalk 100-200 r; rare: chert 120 sr. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-50 a, 100-300 r-sa; several: LS 50-100 sa, chalk 80-150 r; rare: DC bioclast 40-80 r, mica 20-40 sa. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 20-150 sa-sr; several: LS 40-100 sr; rare: clay pellets/OP 1000 r, DC OP 20-40 sa, mica 20-40 sa. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-20 a, 80-250 sa; LS: 3%, poorly sorted, 60-200 sr; rare: mica 40-100 sa, OP 20-40 sr.

QZ: 20%?, bimodal?, 30-60 a, 100-200 r; several: mica 60-150 sr, LS 50-80 sr, chert 80 sr.

QZ: 30%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-160 r; several: LS 50-100 a, mica 10-40 sa, rare feldspar 40 Small slide. sr. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-150 sa-a; several: LS 40-80 sa, mica 30-100 sr; rare: feldspar 100 sa, hornblende 60 sa. QZ: 20%?, 10-50 a? several: LS 50-100, mica 20-60. Small slide.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 30%, bimodal?, 40-80 a, 100-160 sa; several: LS 50-120 a, chalk 50-100 r, OP 20-60 r; rare: chert 100 sr, feldspar 50 sr, kurkar(?). QZ: 8%, bimodal, 15-40 a, 100-160 sr; LS: 5%, 50-100 a; several OP 20-50 r; rare: mica 10- Small slide. 20. QZ: 5%, poorly sorted, 20-60 a; LS: 2%, 50-100 sa; shell/FR (at least 3 types): 2%, 40-80 elongated and r; OP: 1%, 20-60 r; several: mica 20-50 sa. LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 30-120 sa; QZ: 5%, moderately sorted, 20-80 sa; several: OP 3070 sr; rare: mica 10-30 sa. QZ: 30%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-160 r, several 300-400 r; several: LS 50-100 a, mica 10-40 sa, OP 30-60 sr; rare: nari 80 sr. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-200 r; LS: 2%, 50-120 sr; several: mica 30-80 sr. Small slide.

258

Loess

Dark brown

Brown/Terra Rossa?

?

Brown/loess

Dark brown

Brown

A2

E1

A3/F

A1c

A2a

A1c?

BT07

BT08

BT09

BT10

BT11

BT12

Dark brown

A1/A2?

BT03

B2

Loess

B

BT02

BT06

Loess?

B2?

BT01

Dark brown

?

A2/E1

BS7

A1/A2?

Loess

B1

BS6

BT05

Loess

B(3?)

BS5

Dark brown

Brown/Terra Rossa?

E1

BS3

A1a/A2?

Dark brown

A1

BS2

BT04

Soil type Loess?

Group B(3?)

Sample BS1

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 10%, bimodal 10-70 a, 100-250 r; LS: 1% poorly sorted, 120-350 sr; rare: mica 20-40 sa, hornblende 60 a, OP 20-50 sr. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 150-350 r; several: LS 50-120 sa, OP 10-30 sr; rare: mica 10-30 Small slide. sa. QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-80 a; LS: 15%, poorly sorted, 50-250 sr and elongated; DC rare: cellular FR 120. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-100 a; clay balls/shales: 1%, 600-1000 r; LS: 1%, 50-150 sa; several: chalk 200-300 r, OP 20-60 sa; rare: shell 250, mica 20-30 sa, feldspar 20-30 sa.

E6

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-60 a, 200-400 r; several: OP black 40-150 sa, OP red 20-50 sr; rare: mica 20-40 sa, LS 40-80 sa, hornblende 60 a. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-120 a; LS: 4%, poorly sorted, 40-200 sr; several: chalk/CC 120250 r, mica 30-100 sr, OP 30-60 sr; rare: feldspar 40-60 sa. LS: 15%, moderately sorted, 50-150 (rare 800 a), sr; QZ: 10%, bimodal, 40-60, sr, 150-350 sr (several with zoned extinction); several: CC/FR 60-150 sr, OP 20-40 r; rare: mica 20-30 sr. Carbonate, active, ds, 10% QZ: 20%, bimodal moderately sorted, 30-70 sa, 100-150 sr; several: clay pellets 50-150 r, DC voids, moderately silty. LS 100-250 sa; rare: mica, 20-60 sr, feldspar 40-80 sa. Inactive, dark, ss, 25% voids, QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-300 sr; LS: 3% 100-300 sa; rare: mica 20-50 sr, feldspar 40non silty. 60 sr. Inactive, very dark, ss, 25% QZ: 25%, bimodal 30-80 a, 120-300 sr; LS: 2%, 100-200 sr; several: mica 20-60 sr; rare: DC voids, non silty. heavy minerals 30-50 sa. Slightly active, ss, 15% voids, QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 30-150 sr; LS: 1%, 100-250 sr; several: chalk 60-120 r, chert 40-80 moderately silty. sr, clay pellet 60-120 r, grog(?)/shale 300-1000 r, OP 20-50 r, feldspar 30-60 sa, mica 20-40 sr, gloukophene(?) 40-50 sa. Carbonate, active, ss-cs, 20% QZ: 10%, bimodal? 30-70 sr, 100-400 r; LS: 7%, well sorted, 40-80 sa; OP: 2%, 30-80 sr; voids, highly silty. rare: feldspar 30-50 sr, heavy minerals 10-20. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-200 sa; LS: 3%, 50-150 sa; several: clay pellets 60-120 sr, Carbonate, slightly active, ss, feldspar 40-150 sa, OP 20-60 r. 5% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss-cs, 5% voids, QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-100 sa; LS: 8%, poorly sorted, 40-150 sr; rare: OP 40-50 sr, moderately silty. feldspar 40-80 sa, chalk 40-80 r, mica 20-50 sa. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, LS: 20%, poorly sorted, 60-500 sr; QZ: 5%, well sorted, 30-80 (elongated) a; several: chalk Orientation of QZ 15% voids, highly silty. 80-150 r, OP 20-60 r; rare: shell 100, heavy minerals 20-30 sa. inclusions. Inactive, ds, 30% voids, QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-300 sr; several: LS 40-60 sa, OP 30-60 r; rare: feldspar 40moderately silty. 80 sa. Inactive, dark, ss, 10% voids, QZ: 15%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-200 r; LS: 5%, 80-200 sr; several: mica 20-80 sr; rare: non silty. chalk 80-100 r, feldspar 40-60 sa. Carbonate? slightly active, ss, QZ: 20%, bimodal, mostly 100-400 r, several 20-60 a; LS: 4%, 50-100 sa; OP: 1%, 20-60 sr. 15% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, os, 5% voids, highly silty. Inactive, ds, 7% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 7% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Carbonate, inactive, ds, 15% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ss, 10% voids, non silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 5% voids, highly silty.

259

Travertine

Cal/Rendzina?

Travertine

Taqiye?

C2?

L3

F?

DN06

DN07

DN08

Travertine

L2

DN02

L2

Lower cretaceous?

L1

DN01

DN05

Alluvial/dark brown?

A1?

CS7

Lower cretaceous?

Dark brown?

A2?

CS4

L1?

Dark brown?

A?

CS3

DN04

Brown?

D?

CS2

Travertine

Alluvial/brown

D?

CS1

L2

Brown/loess?

A2?

BT14

DN03

Soil type Brown/Terra Rossa?

Group E3

Sample BT13

Carbonate, slightly active, os, 20% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 5% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, ss-ds, 7% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate (50% biomicrite?), slightly active, cs, 15% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, cs, 5% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, cs, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ferruginous, ds, 10% voids, poorly silty.

Matrix Slightly active, ds, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ss, 5% voids, moderately silty.

DC

Fired at 730C and 930C

LQ

Not fired.

Fired at 900C

Fired at 900C

Remarks

E7

LS: 10%?, 30-100 sr; QZ: 5%, poorly sorted, 20-200 sa; several: shell 500 r.

LQ DC

LS: 20%, moderately sorted, 40-120 sr; QZ: 5%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a; several: OP black 20-60 sr. LS/CC: 15%, poorly sorted, 40-400 sr; QZ: 7%, moderately sorted, 20-60 a; OP: black 1%, DC 20-40 sr; rare: clay pellets 50-100 r, shell 120-200 heavy minerals 10-20 sr, eolithic basalts(?). FR/CC: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-300 sa; QZ: 2%, poorly sorted, 20-100 a; several: clay DC pellets, 60-250 r (pear shaped), OP reddish 20-60 sr, OP black 30-80 sa; rare: mica 20-50 sa, FR 400 a. LS: 30%, poorly sorted, 30-250 sr, one 1000 r (nari?); QZ: 2%, moderately sorted, 20-50 a; OP: black, 1%, 20-50 sr; several: calcite(?) 30-60 sa, bioclasts 40-80 sr.

LS/CC: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-300 sr; QZ: 2%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a-sa; OP: dark, 1%, 20-150 sr; several: reddish ferrous/clay pellets 40-80 r; rare feldspar: 20-40 sa.

QZ: 45%, well sorted, 60-120, sa; several: OP 20-40 sr; rare: CC 1000 r, feldspar 100 sr, LS 20-60 sr. QZ: 30%, poorly sorted, 10-100 sa, several 200-300 sr; several: chalk 100-300 r; rare: mica 20-50 sa, LS 40-60 sa. QZ: 35%, moderately sorted, 20-150 a-sa; several: chalk 60-150 r, OP dark/red 10-40 sr; rare: mica 20-40 sa. CC: 20%, 400-800, r; LS: 5%, 100-300 sr; QZ: 15% poorly sorted, 30-400 a-sr; rare: mica 20-40 sr. QZ: 40%, moderately sorted,150-500 r (several cracked; sub spherecal), several 20-50 a; rare: LS 250 r. QZ: 7%, moderately sorted, 10-60 a, several 100-200 sr; LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 80-150 sr; OP: dark 1%, 20-60 sr; several: clay pellets 40-200 r; rare: OP red 20-50 sa, mica 10-30 sa, bioclasts 40-60 r. LS/CC: 30%, moderately sorted, 30-150 sr, few 250-300 sa; QZ: 5%, moderately sorted, 1050 sa, few 120-180 r; CC: 5%, 40-80 r; several: OP dark 40-120 sr, clay pellets(?)/shales 50120 r, bioclasts 30-70 r, (one 800 r); rare: basalt 350 a, calcite 50 sa, mica 10-30 sr.

Inclusions QZ: 10% poorly sorted, 30-150 sa; LS: 10%, bimodal, 60-80 sa, 500-1000 sr; several: nari 500-600 sr; rare: feldspar 40-60 sa, FR 50-60. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-350 sr; LS: 10%, 40-100 sa; several: OP 20-50 sr; rare: feldspar 20-40 sr, heavy minerals 10-20.

260

Dark brown

Loess

Loess

Brown/loess

Dark brown

Dark brown?

Dark brown

B2

B2

A1c

A2

A1a?

A1

HM01

HM02

HM03

HM04

HM05

HM06

Cal-loess/Rendzina

C2

GZ5

A1a

Brown/loess

A1c

GZ4

GZ8

Dark brown

A1c

GZ3

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

D1?

GZ2

D1

Dark brown

A1a

GZ1

GZ7

Travertine??

L3?

DN12

Brown/Terra Rossa?

Travertine?

L3

DN11

E1

?

A?

DN10

GZ6

Soil type Travertine?

Group L3

Sample DN09

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 200 -300 r; several LS, 60-100 sa; rare: mica 20-40 sr, feldspar 150 sr, heavy minerals 20-40 r. QZ: 30%, moderately sorted, 30-60 a, 100-300 r; LS: 3%, 50-100 sa; shell/bioclast: 1%, 300800 r elongated; several: hornblende 30-60 sr, mica 20-40 sr; rare: feldspar 60-80 sr.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 200 -300 sr; LS: 2%, 60-200 sa; rare: chalk 30-60 sr, OP 50-60 a, hornblende 40 sa. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 200 -300 r; LS: 2%, 60-80 sa; several: nari 60-120 sr, mica 2040 sr; rare: bioclasts 30-40 r, heavy minerals 20-40 r.

QZ: 30%, moderately sorted, 20-80 a; several: nari 150-300 sr, LS 50-150 sa, ferrous CC/bioclasts 250-500 r, OP 30-60 r, mica 20-50 sa; rare hornblende 60 a. QZ: 35%, moderately sorted, 15-70 a; several: LS 60-250 sr, few ferrous LS; rare: mica 2040 sa, feldspar 20-40 sa. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-50 a, 100-300 sr; several mica 10-60 sa; rare: OP 10-40 r.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-40 a, 100-300 r; LS: 1%, poorly sorted, 30-200 sa; rare: mica 10-30 sr, feldspar 60-80 sa. QZ: 8%, poorly sorted, 30-180 sa; FR, 7%, 60-120 r cellular; LS: 3%, 40-100 sr; rare: clay pellets 50-80 r, shell 60-150 elongated, feldspar 20-40 a.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 120-300 r; several: LS 50-150 sr; rare mica 20-50 sa.

QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a; OP?: 5%, black, 100-500 r; several: LS 50-150 sa, bioclast 120-600 r, OP (red) 30-80 a; rare: shell 100-120 sa, feldspar 20-40 a, mica 20-60 sr.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 10-60 a, 100-400 sr-a; several: LS 50-120 sa, mica 20-80 sa.

LS: 10%?, 30-100 sr; QZ: 3%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a; several: OP black 20-50 sr, clay pellets 40-60 r.

E8

Orientation of QZ inclusions.

LQ DC

Inclusions Remarks LS: 15%, moderately sorted, 30-120 sa; QZ: 5%, poorly sorted, 10-100 a; several: OP black DC 20-40 sa; rare: biocalst 40-60 r, chalk 50-70 r. LS/CC: 10%, poorly sorted, 40-150 sa; QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 30-80 a; several: basalt(?) 150-250 sa, OP 20-50 sr; rare: hornblende 100 a. LS: 15%, poorly sorted, 30-300 sa-sr; QZ: 2%, poorly sorted, 20-120 a; several: OP black DC 20-60 sa; rare: basalt(?) 60 sa, mica(?) 120 sa.

Inactive, very dark, ds, 25% QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-120 sa; several LS 50-100 a; rare: mica 30-50 sa. voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss-cs, 15% voids, QZ: 30%, moderately sorted 20-100 sa; several: LS 50-100 a, OP 30-100 sa, mica 20-50 sr. poorly silty.

Slightly active, dark, ss, 25% voids, moderately silty. Slightly active, ss, 15% voids, moderately silty.

Slightly active, ds, 30% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds-os, 20% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate (25% biomicrite), slightly active, os, 20% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, very dark, ss, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 20% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, dark, ss, 25% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, very dark, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 20% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Carbonate, active, ss-ds, 20% voids, moderately silty. Slightly active, ds, 15% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty.

261

Soil type Brown/loess

Dark brown

Brown/loess

Brown/loess?

?

Brown/Terra Rossa?

Brown/Terra Rossa?

Dark brown?

Dark brown

?

Brown/Terra Rossa?

?

?

Terra Rossa

Brown/Terra Rossa?

Dark brown

Dark brown

?

Group A2b

A2a

A1c

A2a?

E2?

E1

E1

D1

A2

E2?

E1

E2?

H

E1

E1

A2

A2c

E2?

Sample HM07

HM08

HM09

HM10

KM01

KM02

KM03

KM04

KM05

KM06

KM08

KM09

KM10

KM11

KM12

KM13

KM14

KM15

Inactive, dark, os, 15% voids, poorly silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 5% voids, moderately silty.

Slightly active, ss, 7% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, osss, 20% voids, moderately silty.

Inactive, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 15% voids, higly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty.

Inactive, dark, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty.

Inactive, ss, 10% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, os, 15% laminated voids, poorly silty. Inactive, red, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty.

Matrix Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Slightly active, ss, 8% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ss, 15% voids, moderately silty.

Remarks Orientation of QZ inclusions.

Thick patina.

E9

QZ: 7%, poorly sorted, 20-150 sa; several: LS 50-120 r,OP 10-30 sr; rare: mica 10-30 sa, feldspar 30-50 sa, hornblende 60-80 sa.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 150-350 sa, many cracked QZ; LS: 5%, 50-150 sr; several: OP 20-60 r: rare: mica 20-60 sr.

HF

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-80 a, 150-400 sr; several: mica 20-120 sr, LS 50-150 sa, OP 20-50 (brown and dark) r; rare: nari 1000 sa, feldspar 60 sr. QZ: 20%, well sorted, 20-60 a; CC: 3%, 40-150 r; several: clay pellets(?) 400-1500 r, OP 50- DC 100 a, chalk 80-120 r, mica 20-80 sr; rare: oolite? 60-80 r, hornblende 40-60 a.

OP: 7%, 30-150 sr (black and brown; oolites?); QZ: 2%, 20-50 a; several: clay pellets 20-60 DC, calcareous r, LS 40-60 sr, charcoal(?) 50-120 r; rare: mica 20-30 sr, hornblende 80 sr. infilling? QZ: 25%, well sorted 30-80 (few 100-150 r) sa-a; LS: 1%, 50-120 sa; several: OP 10-30 sr, DC nari 100-300 r, mica 20-40 sr, chert 50-100 sa.

QZ: 10%, 30-80 sa, 150-450 sr, few with inclusions; CC/nari: 2%, 80-250 (one 1500); OP: DC 1%, 20-60 sr; several: mica 20-40 r; rare: hornblende 60 sa. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-250 r; CC: 3%, poorly sorted, 50-180 (few 300-400) r; LS: Carbonate patina 2%, 50-120 sr; several: mica 10-40 sa; rare: feldspar 120 a. coating. QZ: 20%, bimodal? 20-60 a, 100-350 sr; LS/nari: 5%, 200-800 sr; several: chalk 100-300 r; chert: one 2000 sa, mica 20-50 sa, feldspar 20-40 a. QZ: 10%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-300 sa; several: OP 10-30 r, mica 15-40 sa, LS 50-80 sr.

QZ: 25%, moderately sorted, 20-100 a; several: CC 500-1500 (bioclast?) r, LS 50-100 sr, mica 20-40 sa.

QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 15-250 a-sr, several polycristalline and red inclusions; OP: 1%, 1020 r; mica: 1%, 20-60 , sr; several: chert 50-120 sa, LS 80-160 sa. QZ: 30%, moderately sorted, 20-80 sa, mostly polycristalline; LS: 3%, well sorted, 80-150 sr; OP: 1%, 10-30 r; several: mica, 10-30 sa, chert 30-60 sa; rare: heavy minerals 10-30 a.

QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 10-100 sa-sr; LS: 7%, moderately sorted, 50-100 a; several: OP 3050 sr. QZ: 10%, bimodal, 15-40 a, 80-250 r; OP: 1%, 10-25 r; rare: LS 40-80 sr, mica 20-30 sa. DC

Inclusions QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-130 sa-sr; LS: 3%, 50-160 a; several: bioclasts 50-150 r, chalk/CC 100-200 sr; rare: mica 20-50 sr, OP 30-60 sr. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 30-60 a, 100-200 sr; LS: 10%, 60-300 r; FR: 2%, 600-800 r (inner rounded cells); several: mica 20-40 a, heavy minerals 10-30 sr. QZ: 25%, bimodal 30-60 a, 120-240 r; rare: OP 30-50 r.

262

Cal/loess

Loess

Loess

Dark brown

Cal/loess

Cal/loess

C1

A3

A3

A2a

C1

C1

MQ04

MQ05

MQ06

MQ07

MQ08

MQ09

Dark brown/loess

A2

KoM6

Cal/loess

Dark brown

A2

KoM5

C1

Dark brown

A1?

KoM4

MQ03

Brown/Terra Rossa?

E2

KoM3

Dark brown

Brown/Terra Rossa?

E2

KoM2

A2

Brown/Terra Rossa?

E2

KoM1

MQ02

Loess

B3

KM19

Cal-loess-Rendzina

Dark brown

A1

KM18

C2

Loess

B3

KM17

MQ01

Soil type Dark brown?

Group D1

Sample KM16

Carbonate, active, doubles ss, 20% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 30% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive, dark, ds, 20 % voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, very dark, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ds, 10% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate? slightly active, ss, 20% voids, highly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ss, 20% voids, highly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, doubles ssaced, 20%, moderately silty.

Matrix Inactive, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, inactive, ds-os, 30% voids, highly silty. Inactive, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, ss-cs, 5% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, very dark, ds, 25% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% laminated voids, poorly silty. Orientation of inclusions.

E10

LS: 30%, poorly sorted, 60-150 sr; QZ: 15% moderately sorted 40-80 sa; OP: 2%, 20-40 r; rare: mica 20-30, chalk 100 r; shell 30, chert 40. LS: 30%, moderately sorted 60-150 sr; QZ: 10%, bimodal 40-80 sa, 200-250 r; OP: 2%, 2040 r; rare: mica 20-30, chert, 40-80.

QZ: 20%, bimodal 30-80 a, 150-300 r; LS: 10%, 50-100 sa; CC/chalk: 2%, 30-60 r; rare: piroxene(?) 60. QZ: 30%, 20-60 moderately sorted a; rare: LS: 50-100, sr, mica: 20-30, OP 80.

LS: 5%, 50-150 mic; QZ: 5%, 60-120 poorly sorted, sr; rare: mica: 50-60 a, hornblende, chert. LS: 20%, 50-100 sr; QZ: 10% moderately sorted 30-80 r; mica: 1%, 30-80 r; several: FR 5080 r; rare: feldspar 60 sa. QZ: 20%, bimodal 30-80 a, 150-300 r; LS: 10%, 20-50 sa; rare: mica 100. Laminated voids.

QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 20-80 a; LS: 2%, 40-100 a; several: chalk/CC 100-150 r, OP 20-50 r, mica 20-40 sr. QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 20-80 a; LS: 3%, 40-100 a; several: OP 20-50 r, mica 20-40 sr; rare: hornblende, 40 a. LS: 10% poorly sorted, 100-200 r; FR: cellular 10%, 100-250 r; QZ: 10% moderately sorted, 50-150 sa; chalk/CC: 5% 150-250 a; rare: shell 60 r. QZ: 15%, bimodal 30-80, 150-250, sr; LS: 10%, 50-80 mic; rare: mica 10.

QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-120 sa; chalk: 2%, 150-350 r; LS: 2%, 50-200 sa; OP: 1%, 4080 sa; several: mica 20-50 sr, FR 100-300 r. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 80-200 r; several: LS 50-100 a, mica 20-40 sa; rare: chert, 150 a.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 25%, moderately sorted, 30-120 a; OP: 1%, 30-80 sr; several: feldspar 20-50 sa; rare: LS 30-60 sa, mica 20-40 sa, shell 150. QZ: 10%, well sorted, 20-60, sa; LS: 10%, one large 2000 r; several: deteriorated calcite, 50- DC 100 OP 20-50 r; rare: mica 20-40 sa. QZ: 15%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-250 sr; several: LS 30-80 sr, mica 20-80 sr, OP 20-40 sr; rare: feldspar 40-100 sa. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-120 sa; several: mica 20-70 sa, OP (red) 20-50 r, LS 50-100 sr; rare: unidentified blue mineral 30-80 a, bioclast (?) 40-60 r. QZ: 35%, moderately sorted, 50-200 sr-sa; several: mica 30-60 sr, LS 50-100 sa; rare: feldspar, 60-80 sr. QZ: 30%, poorly sorted 30-250 a-sr; rare: LS 30-50 a, mica 50-70 sa.

263

Dark brown

Dark brown

Dark brown

Dark brown

Dark brown?

Loess

A2a

A2a

A2

A2

A2?

C1/A3

MQ23

MQ24

MQ25

MQ26

MQ27

MQ28

Dark brown

A1c/A2b

MQ19

Dark brown

Dark brown

A1c/A2b

MQ18

A2a

Loess

A2b/C1

MQ17

MQ22

Dark brown

A1

MQ16

Dark brown

Loess

A2b/C1

MQ15

A1a

Cal-loess-Rendzina

C2

MQ14

MQ21

Cal/loess

C1

MQ13

Loess

Cal/loess

C1(a?)

MQ12

B2

Cal/loess

C1

MQ11

MQ20

Soil type Dark brown

Group A1

Sample MQ10

Carbonate, active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os-ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 20% voids, highly silty. Slightly active, dark, ss, 40% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 20% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 10% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, very dark, ds, 35% voids, non silty. Inactive, very dark, ss, 20% voids, non silty. Inactive, very dark, ss, 20% voids, non silty. Inactive, dark, os, 40% voids, non silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20 % voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20 % voids, poorly silty. Inactive, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, active, os, 5% voids, highly silty.

Matrix Inactive, dark, ss, 25% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 25% voids, highly silty.

E11

QZ: 15%, bimodal 30-60 sa, 150-200 r; LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 120-200 sr; CC/chalk; 2%, 120-250 r; bioclasts: 1%, 150-300 r; mica: 1% 20-60 sr. QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 50-200 sa; LS: 10%, moderately sorted, 50-100 sr.

QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-200 sa; several: mica 20 sr, feldspar 50 r, chert 150 sr.

QZ: 30%, moderately sorted 40-80 a, 200-300 sr; CC: 5%, moderately sorted, 80-120 r ; rare: OP 100, hornblende 100 a, mica 30-40, chert 60-80 r. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted 50-180 a; rare: LS 60-80 r, feldspar 160 r, mica 40-60 sr.

QZ: 20%, poorly sorted 30-200, sr-sa; rare: mica 20-40, feldspar 80 sr.

QZ: 20%, bimodal 20-50 a, 150-200 r; LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 60-100 sa; rare: mica 2050 r, OP 30-40 r. QZ: 15%, bimodal 30-80 sa, 150-250, r (several 400-500 polycrystaline QZ); LS: 3%, 50-80; rare: mica 10-30 sa, chert 100 r. QZ: 30%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a; rare: mica 30-50 sr, feldspar 40, LS 50 a.

QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 30-200 sr; LS: 8%, well sorted, 30-60 r; OP: 2%, moderately sorted, 40-80 sr; rare: mica 30-50 sa. QZ: 25%, bimodal 40-60 sa, 150-250 sr; LS: 2%, moderately sorted, 80-100 sr; rare: chert 60 r, feldspar 150 sa. QZ: 20%, bimodal 20-50 a, 150-200 sa; rare: LS 100 r, mica 20-50 r, OP 30-40 r.

FR: 15%, 50-150, r; QZ: 8%, moderately sorted, 60-100 sr; LS: 8%, 60-100 sr; rare: CC 50,F46 mica 20 r, OP 50, chert 30-60. QZ: 5%, poorly sorted 20-350 sr; LS: 5% 60-80 sr; OP: 3% well sorted, 30-60 r; rare: mica 20 r. QZ: 30%, bimodal 20-60 a, 100-250 r; rare: OP 20-40 r, mica 20-50 sr.

QZ: 10%, moderately sorted 30-100 a; LS: 5%, 80-120, r; OP: 2%, 20-40, very r; rare: mica 60. QZ: 10%, well sorted, 20-60 sa; OP: 3%, 30-50 r; LS: 2%, 30-60 r; rare: FR 50-100 r.

LS: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-120 sr; QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 40-80 a; mica: 1%, 20-30 r; rare: chert 20-50 r, OP 50 mic; clay balls 120, feldspar 50 r, shell.

Inclusions QZ: 25%, bimodal 40-60 a, 200-300 r; rare: LS 50-80, mica 20-40 r.

Remarks

264

Dark brown

Cal/loess

Cal/loess

Loess?

Loess

Dark brown

Loess

C1

C1

A3?

B2

A1?

B2

MQ41

MQ42

MQ43

MQ44

MQ45

MQ46

Cal/loess

C1

MQ37

A2d

Cal/loess

C1

MQ36

MQ40

Cal/loess

C1

MQ35

Cal/loess

Dark brown?

D3

MQ34

C1

Dark brown

A2a

MQ33

MQ39

Cal/loess

C1

MQ32

Cal/loess

Cal/loess

C1

MQ31

C1

Cal-loess-Rendzina

C2

MQ30

MQ38

Soil type Cal/loess

Group C1

Sample MQ29

Carbonate, active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 25% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate, active, os, 8% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 15% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Slightly active, dark, os, 40% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 7% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss-cs, 5% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, dark, ss, 15% voids, highly silty.

Carbonate, active, ss, 3% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss-cs, 20% voids, non silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 15% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 15% voids, moderately silty.

Carbonate, active, ss, 5% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 5% voids, moderately silty.

DC

E12

QZ: 20%, bimodal 20-60 a, 100-250 sr; LS: 2%, 50-100 sr; several: feldspar 80-100 sa, mica 10-30 a; rare: clay ball 200. QZ: 10%, bimodal 20-50 a, 100-200 r; LS: 5%, poorly sorted, 50-200 sr; several mica 10-30 a, feldspar 60-100 mic; rare: heavy minerals 10-20. QZ: 15%, bimodal 20-60 a, 120-250 sa; LS: 3%, 50-100 a; several: mica 10-30 r; rare: feldspar 120 a, OP 100 r, heavy minerals 10-20.

QZ: 15%, bimodal 30-50 a, 300-500 sr; LS: 15%, 60-400, sr; several: CC 200-300 r, mica 20, heavy minerals 20. QZ: 15%, moderately sorted 20-50 a, 100-180 sr; LS: 5%, 50-100 sa; rare: chalk 30-50, mica 20, gloucophane (?) 60 a. QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 50-120 a; LS: 7%, 40-80, sa; CC/chalk: 5%, 50-120 r; several: mica 10-40 sa. QZ: 15%, bimodal 20-40 a, 100-200 r; LS: 7%, poorly sorted, 30-200 sr; several: mica 10-30 a, nari 100-120 r; rare: feldspar 120, heavy minerals 10-20, shell 60.

LS: 10%, well sorted, 30-80 sa; QZ: 5%, moderately sorted, 40-80 a; several: clay pellets 5070 r, mica 20-30 a, OP 20-40 r. QZ: 15%, well sorted, 50-100 a; LS: 10%, 50-120 sr; several mica 30-80 sr; rare: FR 40-60 r, DC chert 100, feldspar 50, heavy minerals 20-30. QZ: 10%, well sorted, 50-100 a; LS: 5%, 50-100 sa; several: mica 30-50 s, nari 60-80 r.

QZ: 25%, well sorted, 50-100 a; CC: 8%, 50-150 r; LS: 2%, 50-100 sr; several: mica 20-40 sr; rare: nari 100 r, feldspar 50 sr. QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 30-120 sa; LS: 10%, 50-100 sr; several: mica 30-70 sa, OP 30- DC 50 sr; rare: heavy minerals 20-30. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 50-300 sr; LS: 10%, 30-100 sr; several: bioclast 40-80 r. DC

QZ: 15%, poorly sorted 40-250 sr; LS: 3%, 400-500 r; rare; mica 40-50 a.

LS: 25%, 50-120 r; QZ: 7%, well sorted, 30-60 sa ; Several mica 20-60 sr;

LS: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-100 sa; FR: 5%, 50-100 r; QZ: 5%, moderately sorted, 30-80 sa; several: mica 50-100 sr. LS: 10%, 50-100 sr; QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 30-100 sa; CC/chalk: 7%, 60-400 r; clay balls/shales: 2%, 100-250 r; several: FR 60-100 r, chert 50-60, mica 20-40.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 30-150 a; LS: 7%, 50-100 sr; chalk: 3%, 50-100 r; several: mica 30- DC 60 r; rare: olivine(?) 60 r.

265

Cal/loess

Dark brown

Brown/loess

Brown/loess

Dark brown

loess?

C1

A1

A1c

A1c

A1

B?

MQ60

MR1

MR2

MR3

MR4

MS1

Cal/loess

C1

MQ56

Cal/loess

Cal/loess

C1

MQ55

C1

Cal/loess

C1

MQ54

MQ59

Cal-loess-Rendzina

C2

MQ53

Cal/loess

Cal/loess

C1

MQ52

C1

Loess?

A3?

MQ51

MQ58

Dark brown

A1

MQ50

Dark brown

Loess?

A3?

MQ49

A1

Dark brown

A1

MQ48

MQ57

Soil type Loess

Group B3

Sample MQ47

Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, ss, 20% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 20% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ds, 20% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 25% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 8% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, dark, ss, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 15% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, ss, 10% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, ds, 5% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, active, os, 20% voids, highly silty.

Remarks

E13

QZ: 20%, bimodal? 20-60 a, 120-300 sr; several: LS 50-80 sa; rare: OP 20-60 sa, feldspar 2070 sr. QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 15-50 a; LS: 3%, moderately sorted, 40-250 sr; several: nari 500-600 sr, OP 20-40 sr; rare: FR (arched) 250, mica 20-60 sa.

LS: 20%, well sorted, 40-80 sa; QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 20-60 a-sr; several: chalk 4080 r, mica 20-50 sr. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-400 sr; several: LS 40-80 sr; rare: OP black 20-40 sr, feldspar 10-30 sa, pyroxene? 100 a, FR 80 r. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 10-60 a, 120-350 sr, some ferrous QZ; several: LS 50-150 sa, chalk 50100 r; rare: mica 20-50 sa. QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 20-80 a; several: OP 10-30 sa.

LS: 10%, moderately sorted, 30-80 sr; QZ: 10%, well sorted, 30-70 a; several: bioclasts 80120 r, mica 20-40 sr, OP 60-80 sa; rare: calcite 30 r. QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 40-80 a; LS: 8%, 50-120 sr; several: mica 20-50 r; OP, 20-40 a; rare: chert 30-40 r. QZ: 30%, bimodal 20-60 a, 100-250 r (several polycristalline 500-600 r); several: LS 30-60 sr, mica 20-50 a; rare: heavy minerals 20-60 a. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-120 sa-r; LS: 8%, 40-120 sa; several: chalk 40-8o r, mica 20-40 sr, OP 20-50 r. QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 30-80 sa; LS: 10%, 60-120 sr; OP: 5%, 30-100 r; CC/chalk: 3%, 50-100 r; clay nodules/shales: 2%, 20-60 sr; several: FR 40-80 r; rare: mica, 30-40 sr.

LS: 15%, 50-120 sa; QZ: 3%, moderately sorted, 40-80 a; several: CC/chalk 80-120 r.

Small slide.

QZ: 20%, bimodal 30-60 a, 100-200 r; LS: 3%, 50-150 a; several: bioclast 40-60 r, chalk 300400 r; rare: feldspar 100 a, mica 50 sa. QZ: 25%, bimodal 30-60 a, 80-250 sa; LS: 3%, 50-200 sa; Rare: ferrous 30-50 r, heavy minerals 10-20 Nari 60 r; QZ: 15%, bimodal 20-40 a, 80-120 r; LS: 7%, 50-100 sr; several: mica 10-30 sr; rare: heavy minerals 10-20. QZ: 15%, bimodal 30-60 a, 100-250 r, 600 r polycristalline; LS: 10%, 50-120 r; rare: Orientation of feldspar 40-50 r, mica 50 r. inclusions, DC. LS: 10%, 50-100 sa; QZ: 8%, moderately sorted, 20-60 sr; several: FR 150 r, OP 180 sr.

QZ: 20%, bimodal/poorly sorted, 30-60 a, 100-200 sr; several: LS 60-150 a.

Matrix Inclusions Carbonate, slightly active, open- QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 20-200 a-sr; LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 30-100 sr; several: spaced, 15% voids, highly silty. chert 60-100 r, clay pellets 100-200 r; rare: feldspar 100-150 r.

266

Cal-loess-Rendzina

Taqiye?

Loess

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

Loess?

Dark brown?

F/C2

B(3?)

D1?

A1?

B?

D1

RH1

RQ01

RQ02

RQ03

RQ05

RQ08

Brown/loess

A1c

QS1

C3

Loess

B(3?)

NG8

QS4

Brown/Terra Rossa?

E1

NG7

Cal-loess-Rendzina

Loess

B1

NG6

C3

Dark brown

A1a

NG5

QS3

Loess

B1

NG4

Dark brown

Dark brown

A2(a?)

NG3

A2

loess

B(1?)

NG2

QS2

Soil type Dark brown

Group A2b

Sample NG1

Carbonate, active, os, 15% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 30% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, non silty. Inactive, very dark, ds, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, inactive, os? 10% voids(?) moderately silty(?). Inactive, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty.

Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 8% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, very dark, ss-cs, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, inactive, dark, ss, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 10% voids, poorly silty. Carbonatic, inactive, ss, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, ss-cs, 15% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 30% large voids, highly silty. Carbonate? slightly active, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, ds-ss, 25% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 10% large voids, highly silty.

E14

QZ: 35%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a-sr; several: OP (dark red) 20-50 sr; rare: mica 20-40 sa, LS 20-50 sa.

QZ: ?%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-200 r; several: mica 20-30, LS 20-50.

QZ: 30%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-300 sr, some ferrous QZ; several: OP 20-50 sa.

Small slide.

Small slide.

FR: 15%, 80-250 r; QZ: 10%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 150-250 sr; LS: 3%, moderately sorted, 50200 sr; several: oolites 60-100 r, bioclasts (shell/bone?) 150-250 a, chalk 40-100 sr, clay pellets 400-500 r. FR: 15%, 80-250 r; chalk/CC: 10%, 600-900 sr; QZ: 5%, 50-100 sa; several: clay pellets 60- LQ 120 r, LS 50-250 sr; rare: mica 40-100 a, chert 80 a. QZ: 8%, poorly sorted, 10-50 a, 150-350 sr; OP: 1%, 20-60 sr; several: mica 15-40 sa, OP black 20-40 sr; rare: LS 100-200 sr. QZ: 30%, well sorted, 30-80 a; rare: mica 20-40 sr, LS 30-70 sa.

QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-60 a, 100-350 r; LS: 2%, moderately sorted, 100-250 sr; rare ferrous 10-30 sr, kurkar(?) 150 r. QZ: 10%, bimodal? 20-60 a, 150-350 sa; LS: 3%, moderately sorted, 50-150 sa; FR: 1%, 5080 r; several: oolites(?) 50-80 r.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 120-300 sr; rare LS 40-60 sr.

QZ: 25%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-300 sr; several: LS 100-200 sa, mica 30-80 sa; rare: shell 50 a. QZ: 25%, bimodal, 30-80 a, 100-350 sa; several: LS 40-80 sa; rare: chalk 50-100 sr, feldspar 50-200 sa, LS (coated by QZ?) 250 sr. QZ: 20%, bimodal? 20-60 a, 120-250 sr; several: LS 80-150 sr; rare: OP 30-50 r, heavy minerals 10-30 sa. QZ: 30%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-300 sr; several: LS 60-150 sr, OP 20-60 sr, feldspar 15-40 a; rare: mica 10-30 sa. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a-sa; chalk/CC: 1%, 100-250 r; several: nari 30-100 sa; feldspar 20-40 a; rare: mica 20-60 sa, hornblende 20-60 sr, epidote/augite(?) 30. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 30-200 sa-sr; several: chalk 80-500 r, mica 30-70 sr. Small slide.

Inclusions Remarks QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-160 a-sa; LS: 3%, poorly sorted, 100-250 sa; rare: OP 20-40 sr, feldspar 120 a.

Carbonate, active, ss, 8% voids, QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-400 a-sr; several: chalk 100-400 r ( LS inclusions), OP black 20moderately silty. 50 sr, OP red 20-40 sa; rare: LS 50-100 sa, mica 30-60 sa, feldspar 30-40 sa.

Matrix Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, moderately silty.

267

Soil type Dark brown?

Loess

Brown/Terra Rossa?

Dark brown

Loess

Brown/loess

Dark brown

Dark brown?

Loess

Loess

Dark brown

Loess

Dark brown

Loess

Dark brown

?

Dark brown

Loess

Group A1?

B1

E1

A2a

A3

A1c

A2a

D1

A3

A3

A2

B2

A2b

A3

A2

E?

A1

B3

Sample RQ10

SF01

SF02

SF03

SF04

SF05

SF06

SF07

SF08

SF09

SF10

SF11

SF12

SF13

SF14

SF18

SF19

SF20

Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 10% voids, highly silty. Slightly active, ss, 15% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, active, os, 15% voids, highly silty. Inactive, os, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds-os, 30% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 15% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 10% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss-cs, 20% laminated voids, poorly silty.

Carbonate, inactive, dark, ds, 25% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 25% laminated voids, poorly silty.

Matrix Inactive, double-os, 15% voids, poorly silty Carbonate, slightly active, ds, 25% voids, highly silty. Active, ss, 7% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, very dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, os, 15% voids, highly silty.

DC

LQ

LQ

Remarks LQ

E15

QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a, few ferrous QZ; several: LS 80-400 sa, mica 20-80 sa; rare: feldspar 20-40 sa. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 120-500 r, few ferrous QZ; several: LS 50-100 sr, OP 20-50 r; rare: feldspar 30-80 a, mica 20-50 sa. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-80 a; LS: 3%, moderately sorted, 50-120 sa; CC/chalk: 2%, 60120 sr; several: OP 50-200 r; rare mica 20-40.

Orientation of voids orientation? LQ

QZ: 25%, bimodal, 15-60 a, 100-200 r, few ferrous QZ; LS: 1%, 50-200 sa; rare: mica 20-30 DC sr, feldspar 20-40 sa. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 30-240 a/r; LS: 2%, moderately sorted, 60-200 r (one elongated 500); several: mica 20-80 sa; rare: feldspar 20-40 sa, clay pellets 80 r. QZ: 7%, poorly sorted, 30-100 a-sr; LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 60-160 sr; several: CC 50100 r, mica 20-40 sr. QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 50-150 sr; rare: LS 40-60 sa. LQ

QZ: 30%, moderately sorted, 30-100 a; several: mica 60 sr, LS 40-70 sr; rare: heavy minerals 10-20 sa. QZ: 20%, well sorted, 20-80 a, several 100-1600 sr; LS: 1%, poorly sorted, 50-200 sa; several: OP 30-80 r, mica 20-70 sa. QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 20-100 a; LS: 5%, moderately sorted, 40-150 sa; OP: 2%, 3060 r; several: CC/chalk 40-70 r; rare: mica 10-30 sa, feldspar 30-60 sr. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 20-60 a, 100-180 sr; LS: 5%, poorly sorted, 50-400 sr-sa; rare: bioclasts 60-150 r, mica 20-40 sa, ferdspar 20-40 a.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-300 sr, several 500-600 sr; several LS 40-120 sr, nari(?) 7080 sa. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-60 a, 150-250 sr; several mica 20-70 sa; rare: LS 40-80 sa, feldspar 20-40 sa.

QZ: 15%, well sorted, 30-60 sa; LS: 5%, 40-150 sa; several: shell 200-400 chert 40-80 sr; rare: OP 20-60 r, mica 20-40 sa, bioclast 80 r, feldspar 30-40 sa, hornblende 40 sr.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 30-50 a, 100-300 r, several ferrous QZ; several: mica 20-40 sa; rare: feldspar 100 sr, calcite(?) 80-100. QZ: 35%, moderately sorted, 30-80 a, few 150-200 sr; several: feldspar 20-40 sa; rare: LS 150-250 sa, chert 20-50 sa. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-100 sa-sr; several: LS 50-80 sr, mica 20-60 sa.

Inclusions QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 30-120 a; OP: black, 2%, 30-50 r.

268

Dark brown

Dark brown

Dark brown

Loess

?

A2

A2

A2

A3

E1?

SF34

SF35

SF36

SF37

SF38

Dark brown

A1

SF30

Dark brown

Loess

A3

SF29

A2

Dark brown

A2

SF28

SF33

Dark brown?

A2?

SF27

Motza clay?

Dark brown

A2a

SF26

I

Loess

A3

SF25

SF32

Loess

B(1?)

SF24

Cal/loess

Brown?

A(1?)

SF23

C1

Brown/Terra Rossa?

E1

SF22

SF31

Soil type Dark brown

Group A2e

Sample SF21

Inactive, dark, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20 % voids, moderately silty. Inactive, very dark, os, 25% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, os, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, ds, 15% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 25% voids, moderately silty.

Matrix Inactive, very dark, ds, 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 10% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, inactive, ds, 10% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive, ss, 7% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty. Slightly active, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, active, ds-os, 10% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss, 30% voids, highly silty. Carbonate, inactive?, dark, os, 50% voids, highly silty.

E16

QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a-sr, few ferrous QZ; several: LS 50-120 sa, FR 400-600 r; rare: mica 10-40 sa, OP 10-20 sr. QZ: 20%, well sorted, 30-70 a (several 150-200); LS: 5%, 40-250 sa; CC: 2%, 100-250 r; several: OP/clay pellets(?) 400-500 r, chert 40-80 sr; rare: mica 15-30 sr.

QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a; LS: 5%(?) 60-250 sa.

QZ: 20%, moderately sorted 10-50 a, 80-180 sr; several: LS, 40-80 sr; rare: bioclast 700, mica 20-50 sr. QZ: 15, poorly sorted, 20-180 a; several LS 30-60 a.

QZ: 20%, poorly sorted 30-200 sa; rare: mica 40-60 sr, LS 40-80 r, kurkar 400 r.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 100-400 sr; several: mica 15-50 sa; rare: LS 40-80 sa, feldspar 80 a. QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 30-80 sr-sa; CC/chalk: 5%, 50-150 sa; LS: 1%, 60-120 sr; several: OP 20-60 sr; rare: mica 20-40, feldspar 30 sa, hornblende 40 sa. Dolomite/CC: 25%, 40-400 mic; QZ: 1%, 10-30 a; LS: 1:, 30-80 sr.

QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-100 sa; several: OP 20-60 sa, mica 10-40 sr; rare LS 40-80.

QZ: 15%, moderately sorted, 30-100 a; LS: 5%, 50-200 sr; several: CC 40-80 r.

QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-150 a-sr; several: LS 50-250 sa; rare: mica 20-50 sa, OP 10-30 sr. QZ: 20%, bimodal, 30-60 a, 100-250 r.

QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-60 a, 100-200 sa; several LS 50-180 r; rare: OP 20-60 r, mica 20-40 sr, feldspar 60-120 sr. QZ: 30%, bimodal?, 20-60 a, 100-300 sa; several: LS 40-100 sa, chalk 100-150 r, mica 2060 sa, FR 60-250 r/elongated; rare: feldspar 100 a. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 20-80 sa, several 100-200 sr; several: OP 30-70 r, LS 40-80 sr.

Inclusions QZ: 20%, moderately sorted, 20-100 sa; CC: 10%, poorly sorted, 100-600 sr-r; rare: nari 100-150 sr, mica 20-40 sa. QZ: 30%, poorly sorted, 30-120 sa-sr; several: LS 50-120 sr, chalk 60-80 r, OP 30-60 r.

HF

Orientation of QZ?

LQ HF

LQ

LQ

Decomposed dolomite and calcite; LQ. LQ

LQ

LQ

DC

Orientation of QZ?

LQ

LQ

Remarks

269

Soil type Cypriote

?

Dark brown?

Cal/loess

Dark brown

Loess

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

Loess

Loess

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

Dark brown?

Dark brown

Cal/loess

Loess

Dark brown

Group M

K

D3

C1

A1

A3

D3

D3

A3

A3

A2

E3

E3

E1

A2

C1

A3

A1a

Sample SF39

SF40

SF41

SF42

SF43

SF44

SF45

SF46

SF47

SF48

SF49

SF50

SF51

SF52

SF53

SF54

TS1

YM1

QZ: 25%, moderately sorted, 40-120 a, several 150-250 sr; LS: 5%, 50-150 sa; rare: chert 100-120 sr, OP 50-70 sr, mica 20-40 sr. QZ: 5%, poorly sorted, 40-150 sa; FR and shell: 5%, 50-150 r-elongated; OP: 3%, 20-60 r; LS: 2%, 50-100 sa; several: mica 20-40 sa; rare: hornblede 60-80 sr, feldspar 40-50 a.

QZ: 2%, 10-20 a; bioclasts: 2%, 30-60 mic; clay pellets: 1%, 20-50 r; several: OP 20-40.

Inclusions QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 30-200 a; mica: 10%, poorly sorted, 50-250 a; several: hornblende(?) 30-120 a, LS 50-250 sr.

Inactive, very dark, os, 40% laminated voids, poorly silty.

HF

Remarks

QZ: 20%, poorly sorted 15-120 a-sr; several: mica 20-60 sr, LS 50-80 sr; rare: feldspar 20-30 sa, chert 80 sa. LS: 10%, poorly sorted, 100-400 sr; QZ: 7%, moderately sorted, 20-100 sa; several: chalk 200-400 r, mica 20-60 sr, shell 300-500 r; rare: feldspar 20-40 sa, OP 20-40 r.

LS: 10%, poorly sorted, 100-600 sa-r; QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 20-60 a; nari: 5%, 100400 sa; CC: 3%, 100-400 r; rare: mica 20-50 sr, chert 40 sa. QZ: 15%, well sorted, 30-60 a; LS: 10%, 100-600 r; several: CC/chalk 100-250 r; rare: mica 20-40 sa, bioclast (bone?) 300-400 sa. QZ: 20%, poorly sorted, 20-120 a; several: LS 50-100 sa; rare: chert 600 a, mica 20-40 sa.

E17

QZ: 15%, bimodal 20-50 a, 80-200 sa.

Small slide.

QZ: 35%, poorly sorted, 20-80 a; LS: 3%, poorly sorted, 40-250 sr; OP: 1%, 20-40 r; several: mica 20-50 sr, clay pellets, 20-50 r; rare: feldspar, 50 sa. QZ: 10%, moderately sorted, 20-80 sa-sr; LS: 3%, 50-150 sa; several: OP 20-40 r, mica 2040 sr; rare: FR 50-100 r, clay pellets 30-50 r. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted, 20-150 a; LS: 3%, 50-100 sa (one 1000 r); several: mica 30-70 sa, OP 20-40 r. QZ: 25%, poorly sorted, 30-150 a; several: LS 50-150 sr, mica 20-60 sr; rare: feldspar 40 sa. Orientation of QZ?

QZ: 30%, moderately sorted, 40-150 a; LS: 5%, poorly sorted, 50-500 sr; OP: 1% 30-100 sa; HF chert: 1% 50-120 sr; several: feldspar 30-60 sa, mica 20-40 sr; rare: hornblende 60 sa.

Carbonate, active, ds, 5% voids. QZ: 15%, poorly sorted/bimodal?, 30-200 a-sr; LS: 2%, 50-100 sa; rare: mica 20-50 sr.

Inactive, ds, 25% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, inactive, ds, 20% voids, moderately silty. Carbonate, active, ds-os, 25% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 30% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ds, 25% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark-red, ds, 20% voids, poorly silty. Inactive, dark, ss, 20% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, os, 10% voids, highly silty.

Inactive, dark, ds, 15% voids, poorly silty.

Inactive, dark, ds, 15% voids, QZ: 20%, bimodal, 20-50 a, 150-350 sa; rare: LS 50-60 a, QZ with blue inclusion. poorly silty. Carbonate, slightly active, ss-ds, QZ: 20%, well sorted, 20-80 a; several: LS 50-100 sa, FR 80-200 sr, OP 30-60 r; rare: mica 25% voids, moderately silty. 20-40 sr, feldspar 50-60 a.

Inactive, ss, 15% voids, poorly silty. Carbonate, active, os, 5% voids, highly silty.

Matrix Micaceous/"Schistic"(?), inactive, very dark, os, 20% voids, moderately silty. Inactive, os, 5% voids, fine.

270

Sample YM2

Group A1

Soil type Dark brown

Matrix Inactive, ss, 20% voids, poorly sorted.

E18

Inclusions QZ: 30%, bimodal, 20-80 a, 120-250 r; several: LS 50-200 sa, OP (black) 20-60 sa; rare: clay pellets 100-300 r, OP red 10-30 sa.

Remarks

Abbreviations AA AASOR ABSA ADAJ AJA AJBA ANET BA BAR B.A.R. BASOR BIES BSAE CAH EI IAA IES IEJ IJES JAS JCS JEA JFA JMA JNES NEA NEAEHL OBO OJA PEF PEQ QDAP RB RDAC SHAJ SIMA TA UF VT WA ZPDV

Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Archaologischer Anzeiger Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the British School of Archaeology in Athens Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan American Journal of Archaeology Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology Pritchard 1969 Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeologist Review British Archaeological Researches Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society British School of Archaeology in Egypt Cambridge Ancient History Eretz Israel Israel Antiquities Authority Israel Exploration Society Israel Exploration Journal Israel Journal of Earth Sciences Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Near Eastern Archaeology Stern et al. 1993. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oxford Journal of Archaeology Palestine Exploration Fund Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue Biblique Reviews of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Tel Aviv Ugarit Forschungen Vetus Testamentum World Archaeology Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinai Vereins

271

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY

References Åkerström, A. 1987. Berbati Vol. 2. The Pictorial Pottery. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. and Duistermaat, K. 2001. A Middle Assyrian Pottery Kiln at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Pp. 12-19 in J-W. Meyer, M. Novák and A. Pruss (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Frankfurt Au Main. Al-Tawel, H.H. 1979. Neutron Activation Analysis of Ancient Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Manchester University. Albright, W.F. 1932. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. I (AASOR 12). New Haven. Albright, W.F. 1975. Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia. CAH Vol. II/2:507-534. Aldenderfer, M.S. and Blashfield, R.K. 1984. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills Cal.: Sage. Alizadeh, A. 1985. A Protoiliterate Kiln from Choga Mish. Iran 23:39-50. Alt, A. 1944. Ägyptische Temple in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister. ZPDV 67:1-20. Amiran R. 1965. The Beginning of Pottery Making in the Near East. Pp. 240-247 in R.F. Matson ed., Ceramics and Man. Chicago: Aldine. Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada. Amiran (Kallner), R. and Vroman, J. 1946. Petrographic Examination of Pottery. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 12:10-15 (in Hebrew). Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. 1965. A Canaanite-Hyksos City at Tell Nagila. Archaeology 18:113-23. Amiran, R. and Shenhav, D. 1984. Experiments with an Ancient Potter’s Wheel. Pp. 107-112 in P.M. Rice ed., Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology,. Los Angeles: University of California Institute of Archaeology Monograph No. 24. Anderson, K.M. 1969. Ethnographic Analogy and Archaeological Interpretation. Science 163:133-138. Anderson, W.P. 1987. The Kilns and Workshops of Sarepta (Sarafend, Lebanon): Remnants of a Phoenician Ceramic Industry. Berytus 35:41-66. Anderson, W.P. 1989. The Pottery Industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon), with Parallels to Kilns from Other Eastern Mediterranean Sites. Pp. 197-215 in P.E. McGovern ed., Cross-Craft and CrossCultural Interactions in Ceramics. Westerville, OH: The American Ceramic Society, Inc. Anderson, W.P. 1990. The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style and Ceramic Technology in Early Phases of the Phoenician Iron Age. BASOR 279:35-54. Annis, M.B. 1985. Resistance and Change: Pottery Making in Sardinia. WA 17:240-255. Annis, M.B. and Geertman, H. 1987. Production and Distribution of Cooking Ware in Sardinia. Newsletter Department of Pottery Technology 7:154-196. Arnold, D. 1993. Techniques and Traditions of Manufacturing Pottery of Ancient Egypt. Pp. 11-101

Ackermann, O, Maeir, A.M. and Bruins, H.J. 2004. Unique Human-Made Catenary Changes and their Effect on Soil and Vegetation in the Semi-Arid Mediterranean Zone: a Case Study on Sarcopoterium Spinosum Distribution Near Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. Catena 57:309-330. Adams, A.E., MacKenzie, W.S. and Guilford, C. 1984. Atlas of Sedimentary Rocks Under the Microscope. Hong Kong: Longman Scientific and Technical. Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study in Local Trade. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Adan-Bayewitz, D. and Perlman, I. 1985. Local Provenience Studies: A Role for Clay Analysis. Archaeometry 27/2:203-217. Adan-Bayewitz, D. and Wieder, M. 1992. Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization. JFA 19:189-205. Adan-Bayewitz, D., Asaro, F. and Giauque, R.D. 1999. Determining Pottery Provenance: Application of a New High-Precision X-Ray Fluorescence Method and Comparison with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. Archaeometry 41/1:1-24. Aghanabatani, A. 1986 Geological Map of the Middle East. Cartography by Sajedian Cartographic Co. Paris: Commission de la carte géologique de monde. Aharoni, M. 1993. Arad. Pp. 82-87 in NEAEHL. Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Rachel I. Rome: Universita degli studi. Aharoni, Y. 1967. ‘Arad. In Notes and News, IEJ 17:270272. Aharoni, Y. 1973. Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel BeerSheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Aharoni, Y. 1975. Lachish V: Investigations at Lachish. The Sanctuary and the Residency. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Aharoni, Y. 1982. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Aharoni, Y. 1987. Eretz Israel in Biblical Times. A Geographical History. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Publications (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R. 1955. A Survey in the Shephelah Mounds. BIES 19:222-225 (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R. 1958.A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron Age of Palestine. IEJ 8:171184. Aitchison, J., Barceló-Vidal, C. and Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. 2002. Some Comments on Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeometry, in Particular the Fallacies in Tangri and Wright’s Dismissal of Logaritio Analysis. Archaeometry 44/2:295-304. Åkerström, A. 1968. A Mycenaean Potter’s Factory at Berbati near Mycenae. Pp. 48-53 in Atti e memorie del 1 Congresse Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma 27 settembre – 3 ottobre 1967. Rome.

272

REFERENCES Avisar, R.S. 2004. Reanalysis of the Bliss and Macalister’s Excavations at Tell es-Safi in 1899. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bar Ilan University (Hebrew). Ayalon, E. 1995. The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud), TA 22:141205. Bachmann, H-G. 1982. The Identification of Slags from Archaeological Sites. London: Institute of Archaeology. Badre, L., Gubel, E., Capet, E. and Panayot, N. 1994. Tell Kazel (Syrie) Rapport Préliminaire sur les 4e-8e Campagnes de Fouilles (1988-1992). Syria 71:259346. Bakler, N. 1982. The Geology of Tel Ashdod. Pp. 65-69 in Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M, M. Dothan and Y. Porath. ‘Atiqot 15. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities. Balensi, J. 1981. Tell Keisan, témoin original de l’apparition du ‘Mycénien IIIC 1a’ au Proche Orient. RB 88:399-401. Balfet, H. 1981. Production and Distribution of Pottery in the Maghreb. Pp. 257-269 in H. Howards and E.L. Morris eds., Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint.. B.A.R. International Series No. 120. Oxford. Banks, M. 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructs. London: Routledge. Barag, D. 1993. A Glass Inlay with Cartouche of Ramesses II. Appendix 3, pp. 115-116 in M. Dothan and Y. Porath Ashdod V. Barako, T.J. 2000. The Philistine Settlement as a Mercantile Phenomenon? AJA 104:513-530. Barako, T.J., 2001 The Seaborne Migration of the Philistines. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge MA. Barako, T.J. 2003a. How Did the Philistines Get to Canaan? One: By Sea. BAR 29/2:27-33,64-66. Barako, T.J. 2003b. Philistines Upon the Seas. BAR 29/4:22-23. Barako, T.J. In Press. Tel Mor: A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Outpost in Southern Coastal Canaan . The Excavations Directed by Moshe Dothan 1959–1960. Jerusalem: IAA Reports. Barnett, R.D. 1975. The Sea Peoples. CAH Vol. II/2:359378. Barth, F. 1969. ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Bauer, A.A. 1998. Cities of the Sea: Maritime Trade and the Origin of Philistine Settlement in the Early Iron Age Southern Levant. OJA 17/2:149-168. Baumgarten, Y. Forthcoming. Horbat Bakhita (Yad Mordechai Junction). ‘Atiqot (Hebrew). Baxter, M.J. 1994. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh: University Press. Baxter, M.J. 1999. Detecting Multivariate Outliers in Artifact Compositional Data. Archaeometry 41:321338. Baxter, M.J. 2001. Statistical Modeling of Artifact Compositional Data. Archaeometry 43/1:131-147.

in D. Arnold and J. Bourriau (eds.) An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Arnold, D.E. 1971. Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatán Potters: Etics and Emics. American Antiquity 36:2040. Arnold, D.E. 1981. A Model for the Identification of nonLocal Ceramic Distribution: A View from the Present. Pp. 31-44 in H. Howard and E.L. Morris eds., Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. B.A.R. International Series No. 120. Oxford. Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: University Press. Arnold, D.E. 2000. Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes Really Mean Specialization? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7/4:333-375. Arnold, D.E., Rice, P.M., Jester, W.A., Deutsh, W.N., Lee, B.K. and Kirsch R.I. 1978. Neutron Activation Analysis of Contemporary Pottery and Pottery Materials from the Valley of Guatemala. Pp. 543-586 in R.K. Wetherington ed., The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyú, Guatemala. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Arnold, D.E., Neff, H. and Bishop, R.L. 1991. Compositional Analysis and ‘Sources’ of Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. American Anthropologist 93:70-90. Arnold, D.E., Neff, H. and Glascock, M.D. 2000. Testing Assumptions of Neutron Activation Analysis: Communities, Workshops and Paste Preparation in Yucatán, Mexico. Archaeometry 42/2:301-316. Artzy, M. 1997. Nomads of the Sea. Pp. 1-16 in S. Swiny, R.L. Hohlfelder and H.W. Swiny eds. Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Atlanta: Scolars. Artzy, M. 1998. Routes, Trade, Boats and ‘Nomads of the Sea’. Pp. 439-448 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Artzy, M. Asarro, F. and Perlman, I. 1973. The Origin of the Palestinian Bichrome Ware. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93:446-461. van As, A. 1984. Reconstructing the Potters’ Craft. Pp. 129-164 in S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard eds., The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Asaro, F., Dothan, M. and Perlman, I. 1971. An Introductory Study of Mycenaean IIIC:1 Ware from Tel Ashdod. Archaeometry 13:169-175. Asaro, F. and Perlman, I. 1973. Provenience Studies of Mycenaean Pottery Employing Neutron Activation Analysis. Pp. 213-224 in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Nicosia 27th March-2nd April 1972. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Attas, M., Fossey, J. and Yaffee, L. 1982. Variations in Ceramic Composition with Time: A Test Case Using Lakonian Pottery. Archaeometry 24:181-190.

T

T

273

T

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Baxter, M.J. and Jackson, C.M. 2001. Variable Selection in Artifact Compositional Studies. Archaeometry 43/2:253-268. Bear, L. M. 1963 Geological Map of Cyprus. Drawn by Geological Survey Department, Government of Cyprus. Limassol: D. Couvas & Sons Ltd. Beck, P. 1995. Catalogue of Cult Objects and Study of the Iconography. In I. Beit Arieh ed., Horbat Qitmit. An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev (Tel Aviv Monograph Series 11). Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. van Beek, G.W. 1977. Tell Jemmeh 1975-1976. IEJ 27:171-176. van Beek, G.W. 1983. Digging Up Tell Jemmeh. Archaeology 36:12-19. Beiber, A.M. 1978. Neutron Activation Analysis. Appendix C, pp. 87-89 in P.M. Beiber, A.M., Jr., Brooks, D.W., Harbottle, G. and Sayre, E.V. 1976. Application of Multivariate Techniques to Analytical Data on Aegean Ceramics. Archaeometry 18/1:59-74. Beier, Th. and Mommsen, H. 1994. Modified Mahalanobis Filters for Grouping Pottery by Chemical Composition. Archaeometry 36:287-306. Beith, M., Shirav, M., Halicz, L. and Bogosh, R. 1988. The Procedure: Geochemical Orientation Survey. Geological Survey of Israel Report GSI/15/88. Ben-Shlomo, D. 1999. Zoomorphic Terracottas of the Early Iron Age (12th-10th centuries B.C.E.) from Philistia, Focusing on Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Ashdod. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ben-Shlomo, D. 2003. The Iron Age Sequence at Tel Ashdod: A Rejoinder to “Ashdod Revisited” By I. Finkelstein and L. Singer-Avitz. TA 30/1: 83-107. Ben-Shlomo, D. In press a. Zoomorphic Terracottas from Tel Miqne-Ekron: Religious and Secular Aspects. In The Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, Paris, 2002, eds. P. de Miroschedji, J.C. Margueron, and J.P. Thalmann. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Ben-Shlomo, D. In press b. Regional Production Centers of Iron Age Pottery Wares in Philistia. In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Archaeometry of the Hellenic Society of Archaeometry held in Athens May 2003. B.A.R. International Series. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Ben-Shlomo, D. In preparation. The Cemetery of Azor. M. Dothan’s Excavations (1958, 1960). Jerusalem: IAA Reports. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I. and Maeir, A.M. 2004. Late Philistine Decorated Ware (“Ashdod Ware”): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers. BASOR 335: 1-35. Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I. Zukerman, A and Maeir, A.M. Forthcoming. “… as for the pot, and as flesh within the cauldron” (Micah 3:3): Iron Age Cooking Jugs in Philistia and the Southern Levant: Technological, Cultural, Social, and Ideological Aspects.

Ben-Tor, A. and Ben-Ami, D. 1998. Hazor and the Chronology of the Tenth Century B.C.E. IEJ 48:1-37. Bennett, W.J., Jr., Blakely, J.A., Brinkmann, R. and Vitaliano, Ch.J. 1989. The Provenance Postulate: Thought on the Use of Physical and Chemical Data in the Study of Ceramic Materials. Pp. 31-44 in J.A. Blakely and W.J. Bennett eds. Analysis and Publication of Ceramics. B.A.R. International Series 551. Oxford. Berry, B.J.L. 1967. The Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Berry, J.D. 1986. A Preliminary Study of Ceramics from the Northern Negev; Tracing Pottery Production with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Fullerton: California State University. Berry, J.W. 1997. Immigration, Acculturation and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 46/1:5-34. Betancourt, P.P. 2000. The Aegean and the Origin of the Sea Peoples. Pp. 298-303 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Beydoun, Z. 1977. The Levantine Countries: the Geology of Syria and Lebanon (maritime regions) Pp. 319-353 in A. E. M. Nairn and F. G. Stehli eds., The Ocean Basins and Margins, Volume 4a, the Eastern Mediterranean. New York: Plenum Press. Bierling, N. 1992. Giving Goliath His Due. New Archaeological Light on the Philistines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Bierling, N. 1998. Report of the 1995-1996 Excavations of Field XNW (Miqne Field Reports Series 7). Jerusalem: Albright Institute. Bietak, M. 1993. The Sea Peoples and the End of the Egyptian Administration in Canaan. Pp. 292-306 in A. Biran and J. Aviram eds., Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Jerusalem: IES. Bikai, P. N. 1978. The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster. Bikai, P. N. 1987. The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation. Biran, A. 1974. Tell er-Ruqeish to Tell er-Ridan (Notes and News). IEJ 24/2:141-142. Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: IES. Biran, A. and Negbi, O. 1966. The Stratigrafical Sequence of Tell Sippor. IEJ 16: 160-173. Bishop, R.L., Rands, R,L. and Holley, G.R. 1982. Ceramics Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 275-330 in M.B. Schiffer ed., Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5,. New-York: Academic Press. Bishop, R.L., Canouts, V., Crown, P.L. and DeAtley, S.P. 1990. Sensitivity, Precision and Accuracy: Their Roles in Ceramic Compositional Data Bases. American Antiquity 55:537-46. Blackman, M.J. 1992. The Effect of Human Size Sorting on the Mineralogy and Chemistry of Ceramic Clays. Pp. 113-124 in H. Neff ed., Chemical 274

REFERENCES Bullok, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., and Tursina, T. 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research Publications. Bunimovitz, S. 1986. Is the “Philistine Material Culture” Really Philistine? Methodological Problems in the Study of the Philistine Culture. Archeologia 1:11-21 (in Hebrew). Bunimovitz, S. 1990. Problems in the ‘Ethnic’ Identification of the Philistine Material Culture. TA 17:210-222. Bunimovitz, S. 1998. Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Israel: A Comparative Study of Immigration Processes. Pp. 103-113 in Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Bunimovitz, S. 1999. Lifestyle and Material Culture: Behavioral Aspects of 12th Century B.C.E. Aegean Immigrants in Israel and Cyprus. Pp. 146-160 in A. Faust and A.M. Maeir eds., Material Culture, Society and Ideology. New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Universiy (Hebrew). Bunimovitz, S. and Faust, A. 2001. Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and Iron Age Low Chronology. BASOR 322:1-10. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2001. The Iron Age Fortifications of Tel Beth Shemesh: A 1990-2000 Perspective. IEJ 51:121-147. Bunimovitz, S. and Yasur-Landau, A. 1996. Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People. TA 23:88-101. Burdajewicz, M. 1994. La céramique palestinienne du Fer I—la contribution de Tell Keisan site de la Galilée maritime. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Warsaw University. Burdajewicz, M. 2000. Gaza pendant les périodes du Bronze moyen et recent et de l’Âge du Fer. Pp. 31-39 in T. Bauzou et al. eds., Gaza Méditerranéenne. Histoire et archéologie en Palestine. Editions Errance. Burmeister, S. 2000. Archaeology and Migration. Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41/4:539-567. Burton, J.H. and Simon, A.W. 1993. Acid Extraction as a Simple and Inexpensive Method for Compositional Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 58:45-59. Burton, J.H. and Simon, A.W. 1996. A Pot is not a Rock: A Reply to Neff, Glascock, Bishop and Blackman. American Antiquity 61:405-413. Buxeda I Garrigós, J. 1999. Alteration and Contamination of Archaeological Ceramics: The Perturbation Problem. JAS 26:295-313. Buxeda I Garrigós, J., Kilikoglou, V. and Day, P.M. 2001. Chemical and Mineralogical Alteration of Ceramics from a Late Bronze Age Kiln at Kommos, Crete: The Effect on the Formation of a Reference Group. Archaeometry 43/3:349-371.

Characterization of Ceramic Pastes. Madison: Prehistory Press. Blackman, M.J., Stein, G.J. and Vandiver, P.B. 1993. The Standardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Production: Technical, Compositional and Metric Indexes of Craft Specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58:60-80. Bliss, F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine 1898-1900. London: PEF. Bonatz, D. 1998. Imported pottery. Pp. 211-230 in S.M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni eds., Tell Afis (Siria). The 1988-1992 Excavations on the Acropolis. Pisa: ETS. Bonfil, R. and Greenberg, R. 1997. Area A. Pp. 15-176 in A. Ben-Tor ed., Hazor V. Jerusalem: IES. Bonzon, J. 2003. Petrographical and Mineralogical Study of Neolithic Ceramic from Arbon-Bleiche 3 (Canton of Thurgau, Switzerland). Pp. 25-50 in Di Pierro et al. eds., Ceramic in the Society. Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. Fribourg. Bresenham, M.J. 1985. Descriptive and Experimental Study of Contemporary and Ancient Pottery Techniques at Busira. Berytus 33:89-101. Brodie, N.J. and Steel, L. 1996. Cypriot Black-on-Red Ware: Towards a Characterization. Archaeometry 38/2:263-278. Brooks, D., Bieber, A.M., Jr., Harbottle, G. and Sayre, E.V. 1974. Biblical Studies through Activation Analysis of Ancient Pottery. Pp. 48-80 in C.W. Beck ed., Archaeological Chemistry. Advances in Chemistry 138. Washington DC: Society of American Archaeology. Brug, J.F. 1985. A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. Oxford: BAR International Series No. 265. Brumond, R.H., Bower, N.W., and Smith, R.H. 1976. Inclusions in Ancient Ceramics: An Approach to the Problem of Sampling for Chemical Analysis. Archaeometry 18:218-221. Bryan, N.D., French, E.B., Hoffman, S.M.A. and Robinson, V.J. 1997. Pottery Sources in Bronze Age Cyprus: A Provenance Study by Neutron Activation. RDAC 1997:31-64 Buchbinder, B. 1969. Geological Map of Hashephela Region, Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Buchbinder, B. 1975. Stratigraphic Significance of the Alga Amphiroa in Neogene-Quaternary Bioclastic Sediments from Israel. IJES 24:44-48. Buko, A. 1984. Problems and Research Prospects in Determination of Provenance of Pottery. WA 15/3:348-365. Buko, A. 1995. Clays for Ancient pottery Production: Some Current Problems of Analysis. Pp. 29-36 in A. Lindahl and O. Stilborg eds., The Aim of Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in Archaeology, April 7-9 1995 in Lund Sweden In Honor of Brigitta Huth. Vitterhets: Historie Och Antikvetets Akademien. Bullard, R.G. 1970. Geological Studies in Field Archaeology. BA 33:98-132.

275

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Buxeda I Garrigós, J., Cau Ontiveros, M.A. and Kilikoglou, V. 2003a. Chemical Variability in Clays from a Traditional Cooking Pot Production Village: Testing Assumptions in Pereruela. Archaeometry 45/1:1-17. Buxeda I Garrigós, J., Jones, R.E., Kilikoglou, V., Levi, S.T., Maniatis, Y., Mitchell, J, J., Vagnettil, L., Wardle, K.A. and Andreou, S. 2003b. Technology Transfer at the Periphery of the Mycenaean World: The Cases of Mycenaean Pottery Found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy). Archaeometry 45/2:263-284. Carriveau, G.W. 1980. Contamination of Hard-Fired Ceramics during Sampling with Diamond Burrs. Archaeometry 22/2:209-210. Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton. Catling, H.W., Blin-Stoyle, A.E. and Richards, E.E. 1961. Spectrographic Analysis of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery. Archaeometry 4:31-38. Catling, H.W., Richards, E.E. and Blin-Stoyle, A.E. 1963. Correlations between Composition and Provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery. ABSA 58:94-115. Cau Ontiveros, M.A., Day, P.M. and Montana, G. 2002. Secondary Calcite in Archaeological Ceramics: Evaluation of Alteration and Contamination Processes by Thin Section Study. In V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y. Maniatis eds., Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. B.A.R. S1011. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Cecchini, S.M. 2000. The Textile Industry in Northern Syria during the Iron Age According to the Evidence of the Tell afis Excavations. Pp. 211-233 in G. Bunnens ed., Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7. Louvian: Peeters Press. Chambon, A. 1980. Le Niveau 5. Pp. 157-179 in J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert eds., Tell Keisan (19711976) une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1. Fribourg; Éditions Universitaires Fribourg. Chambon, A. 1984. Tell el-Far’ah I. L’Âge du Fer. Memoire 31. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Chapman, S.V. 1972. A Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qrayé and Qasmieh of South Lebanon. Berytus 21:55-194. Chayes, F. 1949. On Ratio Correlation in Petrography. Journal of Geology 57/3:239-54. Cifola, B. 1994. The Role of the Sea Peoples and the End of the Late Bronze Age: A Reassessment of Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Orientis Antiqui Miscellenea I:1-23. Clark, J. and Parry, W. 1990. Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346. Cline, E.H. 1994. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. B.A.R. International Series No. 591. Oxford: BAR Publishing. 276

Cogswell, J.W., Neff, H. and Glascock, M.D. 1996. The Effect of Firing Temperature on the Elemental Characterization of Pottery. JAS 23:283-287. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 1998. Petrographic Analysis of the Egyptian Forms from Stratum VI at Tel BethShean. Pp. 406-412 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Cohen-Weinberger, A and Wolff, S.R. 2001. Production Centers of Collared Rim Pithoi from Sites in the Carmel Coast and Ramat Menashe Regions. Pp. 63957 in S.R. Wolff ed., Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Neighbouring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 59; ASOR Books 5. Chcago: The Oriental Institute. Cook, R.M. 1961. The ‘Double Stoking Tunnel’ of Greek Kilns. ABSA 56:64-67. Cook, V. 1988. Cyprus and the Outside World during the Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Opuscula Atheniensia XVII:13-32. Costin, C.L. 2000. The Use of Ethoarcaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7/4:377-403. Crowfoot, G.M. 1957. Analysis of Pottery and Clays. Pp. 471-477 in G.M. Crowfoot et al. The Objects Samaria, Samaria Sebaste III. London: PEF. Culican, W. 1973. The Graves at Tell er-Reqeish. AJBA 2: 66-105. Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah During the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Survey. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Dan, J., Yaalon, D.H., Koyumdjisky, H. and Raz, Z., 1972. The soil Association Map of Israel. IJES T21T:29–49. Dan, J, Raz, Z, Ya’alon, D.H. and Koyumdjisky, H. 1975. Soil Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Agriculture. Dan, J, Ya’alon, D.H., Koyumdjisky, H. and Raz, Z. 1976. The Soils of Israel. Pamphlet No. 159. Beit Dagan: Volcanic Center. Dan, J. and Bruins, H.J., 1981. Soils of the Southern Coastal Plain. Pp. 143–187 in Dan, J., Gerson, R., Koyumdjisky, H. and Yaalon, D.H. eds., Aridic Soils of Israel. Volcani Center, Bet Dagan. Dan, J., Ya’alon, D.H. and Fine, P. 2002. The Origin and Distribution of Soils and Landscapes in the Pleshet Plains. Pp. 289-318 in Z. Safrai and N. Sagiv eds., Ashkelon, Bride of the South. Studies in the History of Ashkelon from the Middle Age to the End of the Twentieth Century. Tel Aviv: Eretz (Hebrew). David, N., Sterner, J. and Gavua, K. 1988. Why Pots are Decorated. Current Anthropology 29:365-389. Davies, N. de G. 1930. The Tomb of Ken-anun at Thebes (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, Vol. XI. Ney York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

REFERENCES Di Pierro, S. 2003. Matrix – Temper Separation of Neolithic Ceramics: An Experimental Approach to Characterize the original Raw Materials and Determine their Provenance. Pp. 109-132 in Pierro et al. eds. Ceramic in the Society. Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. Fribourg. Di Pierro, S., Serneels, V and Maggetti, M. (eds.) 2003. Ceramic in the Society. Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. Fribourg: Department of Geosciences, Mineralogy and Petrography, University of Fribourg. Dikaios, P. 1969. Enkomi Excavations 1948-1958 Vols. IIII. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Dolukhanov, P. 1994. Environment and Ethnicity in the Middle East. Aldershot: Averbury. Dothan, M. 1960. The Excavations at Tel Mor 1959. BIES 24:120-132 (Hebrew). Dothan, M. 1961. Excavations at Azor, 1960. IEJ 11:161165. Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III. ‘Atiqot 9-10. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums. Dothan, M. 1972. Relations between Cyprus and the Philistine Coast in the Late Bronze Age (Tel Mor, Ashdod). ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΩΝ ΛΕΥΚΩΣΙΑ (Practika). Pp. 51-56. Dothan, M. 1986. Šardadu at Akko? Studies in Sardinian Archaeology II, ed. M.S. Balmuth. Ann Harbor: University of Michigan. Dothan, M. 1988. The Significance of Some Artisans’ Workshops Along the Canaanite Coast. Pp. 295-303 in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski eds., Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Dothan, M. 1989a. Archaeological Evidence for Movements of the Early ‘Sea Peoples’ in Canaan. Pp. 59-70 in S. Gitin and W.G. Dever eds., Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in the Iron Age Archaeology, ASOR 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dothan, M. 1989b. A Cremation Burial from Azor, A City of Dan. EI 20:164-174 (Hebrew). Dothan, M. 1992. Why was Ashdod not Mentioned in the New Kingdom Sources? EI 23:51-54 (Hebrew). Dothan, M. 1993a. ‘Akko. Pp. 17-24 in NEAEHL. Dothan, M. 1993b. ‘Afula. Pp. 37-39 in NEAEHL. Dothan, M. 1993c. Ashdod. Pp. 93-102 in NEAEHL. Dothan, M. 1993d. Ethnicity and Archaeology: Some observations on the Sea Peoples. Pp. 53-55 in A. Biran and J. Aviram eds., Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990. Jerusalem: IES. Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005. Ashdod VI. Excavations of Areas H and K (1968-1969). IAA Reports No. 24. Jerusalem: IAA. Dothan, M. and Conrad, D. 1978. ‘Akko 1978 in Notes and News. IEJ 28:264-266. Dothan, M. and Conrad, D. 1979. ‘Akko 1979 in Notes and News. IEJ 29:227-228.

Davies, N. de G. 1943. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes, Vol. I. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Davis, S. 1985. The Large Mammal Bones. Pp. 148-150 in A. Mazar Excavations at Tell Qasile Part Two. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Day, P.M. 1989. Technology and Ethnography in Petrographic Studies of Ceramics. Pp. 139-147 in Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Archaeometry. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Day, P.M., and Haskell, H.W. 1995. Transport Stirrup Jars as Indicators of Trade and Production in the Late Bronze Age III Aegean. Pp. 87-109 in C. Gillis and C. Risberg eds., Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of Trade. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Day, P.M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A. and Kilikoglou, V. 1999. Group Therapy: A Comparison between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Bronze Age Pottery from Central and East Crete. JAS 26:1025-36. Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1999. Drink and be Merry: Wine and Beer in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Dayagi-Mendels, M. 2002. The Akhziv Cemeteries. The Ben-Dor Excavations, 1941-1944. IAA Reports 15. Jerusalem: IAA. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A. and Zussman, J. 1992 (2nd ed). An Introduction to the Rock-Forming Minerals. London: Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow. De-Groot, A., Geva, H. and Yezerski, I. 2003. Iron Age II Pottery. Pp. 1-49 in H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Volume II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2. Jerusalem: IES. Delcroix, G. and Hout, J.-L. 1972. Les fours dits “de potier” dans l’orient ancient. Syria 49:35-95. Demsky, A. 1966. The ‘House of Achzib’ (A Critical Note on Micah 1:14b). IEJ 16:211-215. Demsky, A. 1997. The Name of the Goddess of Ekron: A New Reading. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 25:105. Dever, W.G. 1985. Solomonic and Assyrian Period ‘Palaces’ at Gezer. IEJ 35/5:217-230. Dever, W. G., ed.1986a. Gezer IV. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology IV. Jerusalem: Keter. Dever, W. G.1986b. Late Bronze Age and Solomonic Defenses at Gezer: New Evidence. BASOR 262:9-34. Dever, W.G. 1992. The Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Horizon in Syria-Palestine: Egyptian, Canaanites, ‘Sea Peoples’ and Proto-Israelites. Pp. 99-110 in W.A Ward and M Joukowsky eds., The Crisis Years- The 12th Century BC. Iowa: Kendal/Hunt. Dever, W. G. 2003. Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein. TA 30: 259-282. Dever, W.G., et al. 1974. Gezer II: Reports on 1967-1970 Seasons in Fields I and II. Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology II. Jerusalem: Keter.

277

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Dothan, T. and Zukerman, A. Forthcoming b. The Iron I Pottery. In Y. Garfinkel, T. Dothan and S. Gitin eds., Excavations 1985-1995 - Field IVNE/NW (Lower): Iron Age I-II, The Elite Zone. Jerusalem: ELES No. 10. Drews, R. 1993. The End of the Bronze Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Earle, T.K. 1991. Toward a Behavioral Archaeology. Pp. 83-93 in R.W. Preucel ed. Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Carbondale: CAI. Edelstein, G. and Aurant, S. 1992. The Philistine Tomb at Tel ‘Aitun. ‘Atiqot 21: 23-41. Edelstein, G. and Glass, J. 1973. The Origin of Philistine Pottery in Light of Petrographic Analysis. Pp. 125132 in Y. Aharoni ed., Excavations and Studies in Honor of Shmuel Yeivin. Tel Aviv: Carta. (Hebrew). Ehrlich, C.S. 1991. Coalition Politics in Eighth Century B.C.E. Palestine: The Philistines and the SytoEphraimite War. ZPDV 107:48-58. Ehrlich, C.S. 1996. The Philistines in Transition. A History from ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. Leiden: Brill. Ehrlich, C.S. 1997. “How the Mighty Are Fallen”: The Philistines in Their Tenth Century Context. Pp. 179201 in L. Handy ed., The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Studies History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11. Leiden: Brill. Eitam, D. 1985. The Oil Industry in the Iron Age in Tel Miqne. Jerusalem. Emberling, G. 1997. Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research 5:295-344. Endicott-West, E. 1989. Mongolian Rule in China. Local Administration in the Yuan Dynasty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eph‘al, I. 1997. The Philistine Entity and the Origin of the Name ‘Palestine’. Pp. 31*-35* in M. Cogan, B.L. Eicheler, and J.H. Tigay eds., Tehillah Le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. (Hebrew). Fabian, P. and Goren, Y. 2002. A New Type of Late Roman Storage Jar from the Negev. Pp. 145-154 in J.H. Humphrey ed., The Roman and Byzantine Near East Vol. 3. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement No. 49. Falconer, S.E. 1987. Village Pottery Production and Exchange: a Jordan Valley Perspective. Pp. 251-259 in SHAJ 3. Falconer, S.E. 1994. The Development and Decline of Bronze Age Civilization in the Southern Levant: A Reassessment of Urbanism and Ruralism. Pp. 305334 in C. Mathers and S. Stoddart eds., Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs No. 8. Sheffield: J.R. Collins Publications. Faust, A. 2002. Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy Iron Age Israelite Society. JMA 15.1:53-73.

Dothan, M. and Conrad, D. 1983. ‘Akko 1983 in Notes and News. IEJ 33:113-114. Dothan, M., and Freedman, D.N. 1967. Ashdod I. ‘Atiqot 7. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums. Dothan, M., and Porath, Y. 1982. Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M. ‘Atiqot 15. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities. Dothan, M., and Porath, Y. 1993. Ashdod V. ‘Atiqot 23. Jerusalem: IAA Dothan, T. 1967. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and the IES (Hebrew). Dothan, T. 1979. Excavation at the Cemetery of Deir elBalah. Qedem 10. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: IES. Dothan, T. 1985. Deir el-Balah: The Final Campaign. National Geographic Research 1:32-43. Dothan, T. 1989. The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in the Early Iron Age Canaan. Pp. 1-22 in S. Gitin, and W.G. Dever eds., Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in the Iron Age Archaeology, ASOR 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dothan, T. 1992. Social Dislocation and Cultural Change in the 12th Century B.C.E. Pp. 93-98 in W.A Ward and M Joukowsky eds., The Crisis Years- The 12PthP Century BC. Iowa: Kendal/Hunt. Dothan, T. 1998a. Initial Philistine Settlement: from Migration to Coexistence. Pp. 148-161 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Dothan, T. 1998b. An Early Phoenician Cache from Ekron. Pp. 259-272 in J. Magness and S. Gitin eds., Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Dothan, T. 2000. Reflections on the Initial Phase of Philistine Settlement. Pp.145-58 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Dothan, T. 2002. Bronze and Iron Objects with Cultic Connotations from Philistine Temple Building 350 at Ekron. IEJ 52/1:1-27. Dothan, T. 2003. The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions. Pp. 189-213 in W.G. Dever and S. Gitin eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns. Dothan, T. and Dothan, M. 1992. People of the Sea: In Search of the Philistines. New York: Macmillan. Dothan, T and Gitin S. 1993. Tel Miqne. Pp. 1051-1059 in NEAEHL. Dothan, T. and Zukerman, A. 2004. A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblage from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod. BASOR 333:1-54. Dothan, T. and Zukerman, A. Forthcoming a. The Iron I Philistine Pottery. In S. Gitin ed., The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors: From the Neolithic through the Hellenistic Period. 278

REFERENCES Franken, H.J. 1971. Analysis of Methods of Pot-making in Archaeology. Harvard Theological Review 64:227255. Franken, H.J. 1982. A Technological Study of Iron Age I Pottery from Deir ‘Alla. Pp. 141-144 in SHAJ 1. Franken, H.J. 2005. A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient JerusalemExcavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. London: Equinox. Franken, H.J. and London, G. 1995. Why Painted Pottery Disappeared at the End of the Second Millennium BCE. BA 58:214-222. Franken, H.J. and Steiner, M.L. 1990. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967 Volume II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 2. Oxford: University Press. Franklin, U.M. and Vitali, V. 1985. The Environmental Stability of Ancient Ceramics. Archaeometry 27/1:315. Frick, F. S. 1985. The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories. The Social World of Biblical Antiquity 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Fritz. V.1994. An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology. JSOT Supplement Series 172. Sheffield: JSOT Press Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A. 1983. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšāš (Tēl Māśōś), 1972-1975. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fritz, V. and Muenger, S. 2002. Vorbericht über die zweite Phase der Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el‘Oreme) am See Gennesaret, 1994-199. ZPDV 118/1:2-32. Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification. Stockholm. Furumark, A. 1944. The Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery and its Relation to Cypriote Fabrics. Opuscula Archaeologica 3:194-265. Furumark, A. 1965. The Excavations at Sinda. Some Historical Results. Opuscula Atheniensia VI:99-116. Gadot, Y. 2003. Continuity and Change: Cultural Processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel’s Central Coastal Plains. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). García-Heras, M., Fernández-Ruiz, R. and Tonero, J.D. 1997. Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics by TXRF and Contrasted by NAA. JAS 24:1003-1014. García-Heras, M., Blackman, M.J., Fernández-Ruiz, R. and Bishop, R.L. 2001. Assessing Ceramic Compositional Data: A Comparison of Total Reflection X-Ray Fluorescence and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis on Late Iron Age Spanish Celtiberian Ceramics. Archaeometry 43/3:325-347. Garfinkel, Y. 1997. Area L. Pp. 177-294 (Chapter Three) in A. Ben-Tor ed., Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavations. Jerusalem: IES. Garfinkel, Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem No. 39. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University

Faust, A. 2003. Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and the Formation of the Israelite State. NEA 66/4:147-161. Fernández-Ruiz, R., Tonero, J.D., and García-Heras, M. 1999. Advances in the Application of Total Reflection X-Ray Fluorescence (TXRF) to the Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics. Pp. 137-44 in 4th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. Archaeological and Archaeometric Studies. Andora: Govern d’Andora. Feuer, B. and Schneider, G. 2003. Chemical Analysis and Interpretation of Mycenaean Pottery from Thessaly. JMA 16.2:217-247. Fewkes, V.J. 1940. Methods of Pottery Manufacture. American Antiquity 6/2:172-173. Fillières, D.G., Harbottle, G. and Sayre, E.V. 1983. Neutron Activation Study of Figurines, Pottery and Workshop Materials from the Athenian Agora, Greece. JFA 10:55-69. Finkelstein, I. 1986. ‘Izbet Sartah. An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha‘ayin, Israel. B.A.R. International Series No. 299. Oxford. Finkelstein, I. 1995. The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. TA 22: 213-239. Finkelstein, I. 1996a. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Levant 28:177-87. Finkelstein, I. 1996b. The Philistine Countryside. IEJ 46:225-242. Finkelstein, I. 1998. Philistine Chronology: High, Middle or Low? Pp. 140-147 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Finkelstein, I. 2000. The Philistine Settlements: When, Where and How Many? Pp. 159-180 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Finkelstein, I. 2002a.Chronology Rejoinders. PEQ 134/2: 118-129. Finkelstein, I. 2002b. Gezer Revisited and Revised. TA 29:262-296. Finkelstein, I. 2002c. The Philistines in the Bible: A Late Monarchic Perspective. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 27:131-167. Finkelstein, I. 2002d. The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine. A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity. ZDPV 118/2:109-134. Finkelstein, I. 2004. Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology. Levant 36:181-188. Finkelstein, I., and Singer-Avitz, L. 2001. Ashdod Revisited. TA 28:231-259. Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D and Halpern, B. (eds.) 2000. Megiddo III. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Fraley, C. and Raftery, A.E. 1998. How Many Clusters? Which Clustering Method? Answers via Model-based Cluster Analysis. Computer Journal 41:578-588. Franken, H.J. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Allā I. Leiden: Brill.

279

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Archaeology, ASOR 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gitin, S. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tel Gezer. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology III. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Gitin, S. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City State. Pp. 61-79 in S. Gitin ed., Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor and Ashkelon. Duboque: Kendall/Hunt. Gitin, S. 1997. Late Philistines. Pp. 311-313 in E. Meyers ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 4,. New York: Oxford University. Gitin, S. 1998a. Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century B.C.E. and Beyond. Pp. 162-183 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Gitin, S. 1998b. The Philistines in the Prophetic Texts and the Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 273-290 in J. Magness and S. Gitin eds., Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Providence, RI: Brown University. Gitin, S. 2003a. Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Hegemony over Ekron in the Seventh Century BCE: A Response to Lawrence E. Stager. EI 27:*55-*61. Gitin, S. 2003b. Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeological Record: The “Smoking Gun” Phenomenon. Pp. 279-295 in W.G. Dever and S. Gitin eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns. Gitin, S. and Dothan, T. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines. Recent Excavations at an Urban Border Site. BA 50:197-222. Gitin, S., Dothan, T. and Naveh, J. 1997. A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 48/1-2: 1-16. Gitin, S., Mazar, A. and Stern E. eds. 1998. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Glanzman, W.D. and Fleming, S.J. 1986. Technology: Fabricating Methods. Pp. 164-177 in P.E. McGovern, The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baq’ah Valley Project, 1977-1981. Philadelphia: University Museum Monographs. Glascock, M.D. 1992. Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation analysis and Multivariate Statistics. Pp. 11-26 in H. Neff ed., Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Madison WI: Prehistory Press. Glass, J., Goren, Y., Bunimovitz, S., and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Petrographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I Pottery Assemblages. Pp. 271-86 in I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman eds., Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: The Institute of Archaeology. Glock, A.E. 1975. Homo Faber: The Pot and the Potter at Ta‘anach. BASOR 219:9-28.

Gerber, Y. 2003. Remarkable Changes in Two Centuries of Nabatean Coarse Wares: New Analyses Show Systematic, Time-dependent Alteration of Chemical Composition. Pp. 133-144 in Pierro et al. eds., Ceramic in the Society. Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. Fribourg. Giauque, R.D., Asaro, F., Stross, F. and Hester, T.R. 1993. High Precision Non-Destructive X-Ray Fluorescence Method Applicable to Establishing the Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts. X-Ray Spectrometry 22:44-53. Gilboa, A. 1995. The Typology and Chronology of the Iron Age Pottery and Chronology of the Iron Age Assemblages. Pp. 1-50 in Stern E. et al. eds., Excavations at Dor – Final Report IB. Qedem Reports 1B. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Gilboa, A. 1996. Assyrian-type Pottery at Dor and the Status of the Town during the Assyrian Occupation Period. EI 25:116-135 (Hebrew). Gilboa, A. 1998. Iron I-IIA Pottery Evolution at Dor Regional Contexts and the Cypriot Connection. Pp. 413-425 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Gilboa, A. 2001. Southern Phoenicia during the Iron Age I-IIA in Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2003. An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. BASOR 332:7-80. Gilboa, A., Karasik, A., Sharon, I., and Smilansky, U. 2004. Towards Computerized TTypology and Classification of Ceramics, JAS 31/6: 681-694.T Gilboa, A., Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Goren, Y. In press. Philistine Bichrome Pottery—The View from the Northern Canaanite Coast: Notes on Provenience, Chronology, and Symbolic Properties. In A.M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji eds., I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times (Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gilead, Y. and Goren, Y. 1995. The Pottery Assemblages from Grar. Pp. 137-221 in I. Gilead ed., Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beer-Sheva Volumr VII: Ben Gurion University Press. Gilmore, G.R. 1991. Sources of Uncertainty in the Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery. Pp. 1-28 in M.J. Hughes, M.R. Cowell and D.R. Hoo eds., Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology. Occasional Paper 82. Gitin, S. 1989. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period. Pp. 2358 in S. Gitin, and W.G. Dever eds., Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in the Iron Age

280

REFERENCES Objects. Pp. 280-286 in I. Beit Arieh ed., Horvat Qitmit. An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Gunneweg, J. and Yellin, J. 1991. The Origin of the Tel Batash-Timna Ceramics of the 7th Century BC in the Light of Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. Pp. 91-103 in M.J. Hughes, M.R. Cowell and D.R. Hoo eds., Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology. Occasional Paper 82. Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I., and Yellin, J. 1983. The Provenience, Typology and Chronology of Eastern Terra Sigillata. Qedem 17. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I and Meshel, Z. 1985. The Origin of the Pottery from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. IEJ 35: 270-283. Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I., Dothan, T., and Gitin, S. 1986. On the Origin of Pottery from Tel MiqneEkron. BASOR 264:3-16. Gunneweg, J., Asaro, F., Michel, H. V. and Perlman, I. 1994. Interregional Contacts between Tell en-Nasbeh and Littoral Philistine Centers in Canaan During Early Iron Age I. Archaeometry 36/2: 227-239. Guy, P.L.O. and Engberg, R.M. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Haak, R.D. 1998. The Philistines in the Prophetic Texts. Pp. 37-52 in J. Magnes and S. Gitin eds., Hesed veEmet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Providence RI: Brown University. Haas, N. 1971. Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains Found in Area D. Pp. 212-214 in M. Dothan Ashdod II-III. Hachlili, R. 1971. Figurines and Kernoi. Pp. 125-135 in M. Dothan Ashdod II-III. Hagstrum, M. 1985. Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft Specialization: A Test Case in the American Southwest. JFA 12:65-75. Hamilton, R.W. 1935. Excavations at Tell Abu-Hawam. QDAP 4:1-69. Hammond, P.H. 1971. Ceramic Technology of SouthWest Asia, Syria-Palestine: Iron IIB, Hebron. Science and Archaeology 5:11-21. Hankey, V. 1966. Late Mycenaean Pottery at Beth-Shan. AJA 70:169-171. Hankey, V. 1968. Pottery Making at Beit Shebab, Lebanon. PEQ 100:27-32. Hankey, V. 1983. The Ceramic Tradition in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. RDAC:168-171. Harbottle, G. 1970. Neutron Activation Analysis of Potsherds from Knossos and Mycenae. Archaeometry 12/1:23-34. Harbottle, G. 1976. Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33-72. Harbottle, G. 1982. Provenience Studies Using Neutron Activation Analysis: The Role of Standardization. Pp. 67-77 in J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin eds., Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute.

Glock, A.E. 1982. Ceramic Ethno-Techniculture. Pp. 145-151 in SHAJ 1. Glock, A.E. 1987. Where to Draw the Line: Illustrating Ceramic Technology. Newsletter Department of Pottery Technology 5:93-110. Goldberg, P., Gould, B., Killebrew, A.K. and Yellin, J. 1986. Comparison of Neutron Activation and ThinSection Analysis on Late Bronze Age Ceramics from Deir el-Balah. Pp. 341-351 in J.S. Olin and M.J. Blackman eds., Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Goldwasser, O. 1982. The Lachish Hieratic Bowl Once Again. TA 9:137-138. Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera’ in Southern Canaan. TA 11:77-93. Gomez, B., Neff, H., Rautman, M.L., Vaughan, S.J. and Glascock, M.D. 2002. The Source Provenance of Bronze Age and Roman Pottery from Cyprus. Archaeometry 44/1:23-36. Gonen, R. 1984. Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. BASOR 253:61-73. Goren, Y. 1991. The Beginning of Pottery Production in Israel. Technology and Typology of Proto-Historic Ceramic Assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th – 4th Millennia B.C.). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Goren, Y. 1996a. The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective. BASOR 303:33-72. Goren, Y. 1996b. Petrographic Study of Archaeological Artifacts and its Application in the Archaeology of Israel. Qadminiot 29/2(112):107-114 (Hebrew). Goren, Y. and Halperin, N. 2004. Selected Petrographic Analyses. Pp. 2553-2586 in D. Ussishkin, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (5 volumes). Tel Aviv Monograph Series No. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv Monograph Series No. 23. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Gorzalczany, A. 2004. Petrographic Analysis of PersianPeriod Vessels from Horbat Rogem and Horbat HaRo’a. Pp. 31*-34* in R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands. Volume II. IAA Reports No. 20. Jerusalem: IAA. Grant, E. 1929. Beth Shemesh. Haverford PA: Bible and Kindred Studies. Grant, E. 1931-32. ‘Ain Shems Excavations I-II. Haverford PA: Bible and Kindred Studies. Grant, E.1934. Rumeileh, Ain Shems Excavations III, Haverford PA: Bible and Kindred Studies. Grant, E. and Wright, G.E. 1938. ‘Ain Shems Excavations IV-V. Haverford, PA. Guilday, J.E. 1971. The Skeletal Material from Area G. P. 215 in M. Dothan, Ashdod II-III. Gunneweg, J. and Mommsen, H. 1995. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Vessels and Cult 281

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Herzog, Z., Rapp, G.Jr. and Negbi, O. eds. 1989. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology Publications 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. Redefining the Centre: the Emergence of State in Judah. TA 31/2:209-244. Hess, J. and Perlman, I. 1974. Mössbauer Spectra of Iron in Ceramics and their Relation to Pottery Colours. Archaeometry 16:137-152. Hesse, B. 1986. Animal Use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze and Iron Ages. BASOR 264: 17-27. Hesse, B. 1990, Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production. Journal of Ethnobiology 10/2:195-225. Hestrin, R. and Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1983. Another Pottery Group from Abu Ruqeish. Israel Museum Journal 2:49-57. Hizmi, H. 2002. El-Khirbe–An Iron Age Fortress East of Jerusalem at the Edge of the Desert. Qadmoniot 124: 102-7 (Hebrew). Hizmi, H. 2004. The Excavation at el-Khirbe: An Iron Age Settlement and Byzantine Inn East of Jerusalem. Pp. 157-188 in H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot eds., Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria. Judea and Samaria Publications No. 4. Jerusalem: IAA. Hodder, I. 1981. Pottery Production and Use: A Theoretical Discussion. Pp. 215-220 in H. Howard and E. Thomas eds., Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. B.A.R. International Series 120. Oxford. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hodges, H. 1971. Technology in the Ancient World. Hammondsworth: Pelican Boks. Hodson, F.R. 1969. Searching for a Structure within Multivariate Archaeological Data. WA 1/1:90-105. Hoffner, H.A. 1992. The Last Days of Khattusha. Pp. 4652 in W.A Ward and M. Joukowsky eds., The Crisis Years- The 12th Century BC. Iwoa: Kendal/Hunt. Holladay, J.S. 1971. Khirbet el-Qôm (in notes and news). IEJ 21:175-177. Holladay, J.S. 1990. Red Slip, Burnish and the Solomonic Gateway to Gezer. BASOR 277/278:23-70. Holladay, J.S. 1993. The Use of Pottery and Other Diagnostic Criteria, from the Solomonic Era to the Divided Kingdom. Pp. 86-191 in A. Biran and J. Aviram eds., Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990. Jerusalem: IES. Holladay, J.S. 1995. The Kingdom of Israel and Judah; Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron Age IIA-B (ca. 1000-750 BCE). Pp. 368-398 in T.E. Levy

Harbottle, G. 1991. The Efficiencies and Error Rates of Euclidean and Mahalanobis Searches in Hypergeometries Ceramic Composition. Pp. 413-424 in E. Pernicka and G. Wagner eds., Archaeometry 90. Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Archaeometry, Heidelberg 1990. Basel: Birkhaeuser Verlag. Harris, E.C. 1979. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press. Hart, F.A. and Adams, S.J. 1983. The Chemical Analysis of Roman-British Pottery from the Holt Forest, Hampshire, by Means of Inductively-Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry. Archaeometry 25/2:179-185. Hart, F.A. Storey, J.M.V., Adams, S.J., Symonds, R.P. and Walsh, J.N. 1987. An Analytical Study, Using Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP), of Samian and Colour-Coated Wares from the Roman Town at Colchester Together with Related Continental Samian Wares. JAS 14:577-598. Hatcher, H., Tite, M.S., and Walsh, J.N. 1995. A Comparison of Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry and Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Analysis on Standard Reference Silicate Materials and Ceramics. Archaeometry 37:83-94. Heidke, J.M. and Miksa, E.J. 2000. Correspondence and Discriminant Analysis of Sand and Sand Temper Compositions, Tonto Basin, Arizona. Archaeometry 42/2:273-299. Heimann, R.B. 1982. Firing Technologies and Their Possible Assessment by Modern Analytical Methods. Pp. 89-96 in J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin eds., Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute. Hein, A., Mommsen, H., and Maran, J. 1999. Element Concentration Distributions and Most Discriminating Elements for Provenancing by Neutron Activation Analyses of Ceramics from Bronze Age Greece. JAS 26:1053-1058. Hein, A., Tsolakidou, A., Iliopoulos, I., Mommsen, H., Buxeda I Garrigós, J., Montana, G. and Kilikoglou, V. 2002a. Standardization of Elemental Analytical Techniques Applied to Provenance Studies of Archaeological Ceramics: An Inter-Laboratory Calibration Study. Analyst 127:542-553. Hein, A., Tsolakidou, A and Mommsen, H. 2002b. Mycenaean Pottery from the Argolid and Achaia—A Mineralogical Approach where Chemistry Leaves Unanswered Questions. Archaeometry 44/2:177-186. Heltzer, M. 1982. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit. Wiesbsden: Ludwig Reichart Verlag. Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archeology of Materials. An Investigation of Inorganic Materials. London: Routledge. Hennessy, J.B., and Millett, A. 1963. Spectrographic Analysis of the Foreign Pottery from the Royal Tombs of Abydos and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Palestine. Archaeometry 6:10-17. Herr, L.G. 1997. The Iron Age Period: Emerging Nations. BA 60/3:114-183.

282

REFERENCES Jones, R.E. 1986. Greek and Cypriote Pottery A Review of Scientific Studies. Fitch Laboratory Papers. Athens: British Schools. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London: Routledge. Kalsbeek, J. 1969. A Systematic Approach to the Study of the Iron Age Pottery. Pp.73-80 in Franken, H.J., Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla I. A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden: Brill. Kamp, K.A. and Yoffe, N. 1980. Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia during the Early Second Millennium B.C.: Archaeological Assessments and Ethoarchaeological Prospectives. BASOR 237:85-104. Karageorghis, V. 1970. Salamis II. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of Cyprus. Karageorghis, V. 2000. Cultural Innovations in Cyprus Relating to the Sea peoples. Pp. 255-280 in E.D. Oren ed. The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Karasik, A. 2003. Computer Applications in Classification and Typology of Pottery Vessels. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Keel, O. 1994. Philistine “Anchor” Seals. IEJ 44:21-35. Kelm, G.L. and Mazar, A. 1995. Timnah- A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley. Winona IN. Kelso, J.L. and Thorley, J.P. 1943. The Potters’ Technique at Tell Beit Mirsim, Particularly in Stratum A. In W.F. Albright, Tel Beit Mirsim III, AASOR 2122. Kempinski, A. 1987. Some Philistine Names from the Kingdom of Gaza. IEJ 37/1:20-24. Kempinski, A. 1989. Megiddo. A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Bonn: Kava. Kendall, M. 1980. Multivariate Analysis. London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd. Khalifeh, I.A. 1988. Sarepta II: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X. Beirut: Universite Libanaise. Kilikoglou, V., Maniatis, Y., and Grimanis, A.P. 1988. The Effect of Purification and Firing of Clays on Trace Element Provenance Studies. Archaeometry 30/1:37-46. Killebrew, A.E. 1982. The Pottery Workshop in Ancient Egyptian Reliefs and Paintings. Pp. 60-100 in S. Groll and H.E. Stein eds, Papers for Discussion I, 19811982. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Killebrew, A.E. 1986. Tel Miqne-Ekron: Report of the 1984 Excavations, Field INE/SE. Jerusalem: Albright Institute. Killebrew, A.E. 1989. The Potters’ Craft During the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in Eretz Israel. A Description of the Ancient Pottery Manufacturing Process and its Implications for Archaeological Research in Israel. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

ed., The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: Leicester University Press. Holthoer, R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery Vol. 5:1. Lund: Berlings. Homès-Fredericq, D. and Franken, H.J. eds. 1986. Pottery and Potters—Past and Present. 7000 Years of Ceramic Art in Jordan. Tubingen: Attempo Verlag. Horowitz, A. 1975. The Quaternary Stratigraphy and Paleogeography of Israel. Paléorient 3:47-86. Humbert, J.B. 1998. Gaza: Recent Excavations. Lecture in the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. Hurvitz, A. 2000. Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew, in A. Lemaire and M. Saebo eds., Congress Volume. Oslo 1998. Leiden: Brill. Hughes, M.J., ed. 1981. Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics. British Museum Occasional Paper 19. London: British Museum. Hughes, M.J. and Smith, R.J. 1986. Neutron Activation Analysis of a Representative of Middle Bronze to Iron Age Pottery from Gezer. Appendix D, pp. 265-275 in Dever, W. G., ed. Gezer IV. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Keter. Iacovou, M. 1998. Philistia and Cyprus in the Eleventh Century: From Similar Prehistory to a Diverse Protohistory. Pp. 332-344 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Ilan, D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University. Ilan, D. In preparation. The Iron Age Remains at Tel Nagila (tentative). Impey, O.R. and Pollard, M. 1985. A Multivariate Metrical Study of Ceramics Made by Three Potters. OJA 4:157-164. Israel, M. 1963. Survey and Study of the Kfar Menahem Region. Teva ve-Aretz 5/5:234-238 (Hebrew). Jarvis, I., and Jarvis, K.E. 1992. Plasma Spectrometry in the Earth Sciences: Techniques, Applications and Future Trends. Chemical Geology 95: 1-33. Jasmin, M. 1999. L’Etude de la Transition du Bronze Recent II au Fer I en Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Université Paris I – Sorbonne. Joffe, A.H. 1999. Ethnicity in the Iron I southern Levant: Marginal Notes. Akkadica 112:27-33. Johnson, A.W. and Earle, T.K. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State, 2nd edition. Stanford, CA. Johnston, R.H. 1974. The Biblical Potter. BA 37:86-106. Johnston, R.H. 1984. An Abandoned Pottery at Guellala on the Island of Djerba, Tunisia: A Hermeneutic Approach to Ethnoarchaeology. Pp. 81-94 in P.M. Rice ed., Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. Los Angeles: University of California.

283

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Knapp, A.B. 1989. Complexity and Collapse in the North Jordan Valley: Archaeometry and Society in the Middle-Late Bronze Age. IEJ 39/3-4:129-148. Knapp, A.B. and Cherry, J.F. 1994. Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange and Politico-economic Exchange. Monographs in World Prehistory No. 21. Madison WI: Prehistory Press. Knapp, A.B., Deurden, P., Wright, R.V.S. and Grave, P. 1988. Ceramic Production and Social Change: Archaeometric Analysis of Bronze Age Pottery from Jordan. JMA 1.2:57-113. Kochavi, M. 1993. Tel Zeror. Pp. 1524-1526 in NEAEHL. Kolska-Horowitz, L. 1993. Note 2: Bone Remains. P. 144 in M. Dothan and Y. Porath Ashdod V. Kramer, C. 1985. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 14:77-102. Kuleff, I. and Djingove, R. 1996. Provenance Study of Pottery: Choice of Elements to be Determined. Revue d’Archéométrie 20:57-67. Kuhn, S.L. 2004. Evolutionary Perspectives on Technology and Technological Change. WA 36/4:561-570. Lacovara, P. 1985. The Ethnoarchaeology of Pottery Production in an Upper Egyptian Village. Pp. 51-60 in W.D. Kingery ed., Ancient Technology to Modern Science Ceramics and Civilization vol. 1. Columbus Ohio: American Ceramic Society. Lamon R.S., and Shipton G.M. 1939. Megiddo I. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Leese, M.N. and Main, P.L. 1994. The Efficient Computation of Unbiased Mahalanobis Distances and their Interpretation in Archaeometry. Archaeometry 36/2:307-316. van der Leeuw, S.E. 1976. Studies in the Technology of Ancient Pottery. Amsterdam: Universitat van Amsterdam. van der Leeuw, S.E. 1977. Towards the Study of the Economics of Pottery Making. Pp. 68-76 in G. van der Leeuw, R.W. Brandt and W. Groenmanvan Waateringe eds., Ex. Horreo. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. van der Leeuw, S.E. 1981. Ceramic Exchange and Manufacture: A “Flow Structure” Approach. Pp. 361386 in H. Howards and E.L. Morris eds., Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. B.A.R. International Series No. 120. Oxford. van der Leeuw, S.E. 1984. Pottery Manufacture: Some Complications for the Study of Trade. Pp. 55-70 in P.M. Rice ed., Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. Institute of Archaeology Monograph No. 24. Los Angeles: University of California. van der Leew, S.E. 1999. Exchange and Trade in Ceramics: Some Notes from the Potter’s Point of View. Pp. 115-136 in J.P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G.J. van Wijngaarden eds., The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery. Amsterdam J.C. Gieben.

Killebrew, A.E. 1996. Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel Miqne-Ekron. Pp. 135-162 in J.D. Seger ed., Retrieving the Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake In: Eisenbrauns. Killebrew, A.E. 1998a. Ceramic Craft and Technology During the Late Bronze and Iron I Ages: The Relationship Between Pottery Technology, Style and Cultural Diversity. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Killebrew, A.E. 1998b. Ceramic Typology and Technology of Late Bronze II and Iron I Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Transition from Canaanite to Philistine Culture. Pp. 379-405 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Killebrew, A.E. 1999. Late Bronze and Iron I Cooking Pots in Canaan: A Typological, Technological and Functional Study. Pp. 83-126 in T. Kapitan ed., Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East. Essays in Memory of Arbert E. Glock. ASOR Books Volume 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Killebrew, A.E. 2000. Aegean-Style Early Philistine Pottery in Canaan During the Iron I Age: A Stylistic Analysis of Mycenaean IIIC:1b Pottery and Its Associated Wares. Pp. 233-253 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Kislev, M.E. and Hopf, M. 1985. Food remains from Tell Qasile. Pp. 140-147 in A. Mazar Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Philistines. Pp. 53-78 in D.J. Wiseman ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kitchen, K.A. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Philips. Kitchen, K.A. 1993. A ‘Fanbearer on the King’s Right Hand’ from Ashdod. Appendix 1, pp. 109-110 in M. Dothan and Y. Porath Ashdod V. Kletter, R. 1996. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. B.A.R. International Series 636. Oxford. Kletter, R. 2004. Low Chronology and United Monarchy. A Methodological Review. ZDPV 120/1:13-54. Kletter, R. and Gorzalczany, A. 2001. A Middle Bronze Age II Type of Pottery Kiln from the Coastal Plain of Israel. Levant 33:95-104. Kling, B. 1989. Mycenaean IIIC:1:1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus. SIMA 87. Göteborg: Paul Åströms. Kling, B. 2000. Mycenaean IIIC:1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus: Comments on the Current State of Research. Pp. 281-296 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum.

284

REFERENCES Mackenzie D. 1913. The Excavations at ‘Ain Shems. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 2:1-39. Maeir, A.M. 1997. The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period: Pottery and Settlement Pattern. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Maeir, A.M. 2001. The Philistine Culture in Transition: A Current Perspective based on the First Seasons of Excavation at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Pp. 111-129 in A.M. Maeir and E. Baruch eds., Settlement, Civilization and Culture. Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon. Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew). Maeir, A.M. 2003. Notes and News: Tell es-Safi/Gath. IEJ 57/2:237-246. Maeir, A.M. In press a. Philistia Transforming: Fresh Evidence from Tell es-Sâfi/Gath on the Transformation Trajectory of the Philistine Culture. In A. Killebrew, G. Lehmann, and M. Artzy eds., The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples. Leiden: Brill. Maeir, A.M. In press b. Canaanites and Philistines: Recent Excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel (19962001). In P. de Miroschedji, J.C. Margueron, and J.P. Thalmann eds., The Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, Paris, 2002. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Maeir, A.M. and Ehrlich, E.S. 2001. Excavating Philistine Gath. Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown? BAR 27/6:23-31. Magen, Y. and Eisenstadt, I. 2004. Ancient Burial Caves in Samaria. Pp. 1-76 in H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot eds. Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria. Judea and Samaria Publications No. 4. Jerusalem: IAA. Maggetti, M. 1982. Phase Analysis and Its Significance for Technology and Origin. Pp. 11-133 in J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin eds., Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute Magrill, P. and Middleton, A. 1997. A Canaanite potter’s Workshop at Lachish, Israel. Pp. 68-74 in I. Freestone and D. Gaimster eds., Pottery in the Making, World Ceramic Traditions. London: British Museum. Magrill, P. and Middleton, A. 2001. Did the Potter’s Wheel Go Out of Use in Late Bronze Age Palestine? Antiquity 75:137-144. Magrill, P. and Middleton, A. 2004. Late Bronze Age Pottery Technology: Cave 4034 Revisited. Pp. 25142549 in D. Ussishkin, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (5 volumes). Tel Aviv University Monograph Series No. 22. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Maher, E.F. 2005. Faunal Remains from Iron Age Ashdod – Area H. Pp. 283-290 in M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo Ashdod VI. Mahler-Slasky, Y. 2004. Philistine Material Culture as Reflected by the Archaeobotanical Remnants from Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath and Aphek. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan.

Lehmann, G. 2003. The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE. Pp. 117-162 in G. Vaughn and A.E. Killebrew eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Atlanta. Leicht, R.C. 1975. Ceramic Technology at Beer-Sheba during the Iron II Period. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Utah. Lemoine, C, Walker, S., and Picon, M. 1982. Archaeological, Geochemical and Statistical Methods in Ceramic Provenance Studies. Pp. 57-64 in J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin eds., Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute. Leonard, A. 1994. An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine. SIMA 114. Jonsered: Paul Åströms. Leonard, A., Hughes, M., Middleton, A. and Schofield, L. 1993. The Making of Aegean Stirrup Jars: Technique, Tradition, and Trade. ABSA 88:105-123. Leute, U. 1987. Archaeometry. An Introduction to Physical Methods in Archaeology and the History of Art. New York: VCH. Lev-Tov, J. 1999. The Social Implications of Subsistence Analysis of Faunal Remains from Tel Miqne-Ekron. The American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter January 1999:13-15. Levy, S., and Edelstein, G. 1972. Cinq années de fouilles a Tel ‘Amal. RB 79:325-45. Lines, J. 1954. Late Assyrian Pottery from Nimrud. Iraq 16:164-167. Livingstone Smith, A. 2000. Processing Clay for Pottery in Northern Cameroon: Social and Technical Requirements. Archaeometry 42:21-42. Lombard, J.P. 1987. Provenance of Sand Temper in Hohokam Ceramics, Arizona. Geoarchaeology 2/2:91-119. London, G.A. 1987. Cypriote Potters: Past and Present. RDAC:319-322. London, G.A. 1989a. A Comparison of Two Lifestyles of the Late Second Millennium BCE. BASOR 273:37-55. London, G.A. 1989b. Past and Present: The Village Potters of Cyprus. BA 52:219-229. London, G.A., Egoumenidou, F. and Karageorghis, V. 1989. Traditional Pottery in Cyprus. Mainz: von Zabern. Loud, G. 1939. Megiddo Ivories. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II, Seasons 1935-39. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer, 1902-5 and 1907-9 I-III. London. Macalister, R.A.S. 1914. The Philistines, Their History and Civilization. London: British Academy. Mace, A.E. 1964. Sample Size Determination. New York. Machinist, P. 2000. Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and Israelite History. Pp. 53-83 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum.

285

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Mazar, A. 1985b. The Emergence of the Philistine Material Culture. IEJ 35:95-107. Mazar, A. 1986. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Preliminary Report. IEJ 36:1-15. Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday. Mazar, A. 1997. Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant 29:157-167. Mazar, A. 1998. On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron Age I Period in Israel. Pp. 368-378 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Mazar, A. 1999. The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report. IEJ 49:1-42. Mazar, A. 2000. The Temples and Cult of the Philistines. Pp. 213-232 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Mazar, A. 2002. Megiddo in the Thirteenth-Eleventh Centuries BCE: A Review of Some Recent Studies. Pp. 264-282 in E.D. Oren and S. Ahituv eds., Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume. Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. Beer Sheva Vol. XV. BeerSheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press. Mazar, A. 2003. Remarks on Biblical Traditions and Archaeological Evidence Concerning Early Israel. Pp. 85-94 in W.G. Dever and S. Gitin eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns. Mazar, A. and Carmi, I. 2001. Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Strata at Tel Beth Shean and Tel Rehov. Radiocarbon 43/2-3:1333-1343. Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Mazow, L.B. 2005. Competing Material Culture: Philistine Settlement at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Early Iron Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona. McClellan, T.L. 1979. Chronology of the ‘Philistine’ Burials at Tell el-Far‘ah (South). JFA 6:57-73. McCown, C.C. 1947. Tell en-Nasbeh I. Bekeley—New Haven. McGovern, P.E. 1986. The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baq‘ah Valley Project, 1977-1981. University Museum Monographs No. 65. Philadelphia: University Museum. McGovern, P.E. 1989. Cross Cultural Craft Interaction: The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. Pp. 147-196 in P.E. McGovern ed., Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics. Westerville, OH: The American Ceramic Society, Inc. McGovern, P.E. 2000. The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”: A Neutron Activation Study of the Middle Bronze Pottery from The Eastern Mediterranean.

Maisler (Mazar), B. 1950-1951. The Excavations at Tell Qasile. Preliminary Report. IEJ 1:61-76, 125-40, 194218. Maisler (Mazar), B. 1986. The Early Biblical Period. Historical Studies. Jerusalem: IES. Majidzadeh, Y. 1975. The Development of the Pottery Kiln in Iran from Prehistoric to Historical Periods. Paléorient 3:207-219. Malamat, A. 1950. The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah. JNES 9:218-227. Mallory-Greenough, L.M. and Greenoough, J.D. 1998. New Data for Old Pots: Trace Element Characterization of Ancient Egyptian Pottery Using ICP-MS. JAS 25:85-97. Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M.S. 1978. Ceramic Technology in the Aegean World During the Bronze Age. Pp. 48392 in C. Doumas, and H.C. Puchelt eds., Thera and the Aegean World I: Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978. London: Thera and the Aegean World. Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M.S. 1981. Technological Examination of Neolithic-Bronze Age pottery from Central and Southeast Europe and from the Near East. JAS 8:59-76. Maniatis, Y., Simopoulos, A and Kostikas, A. 1982. The Investigation of Ancient Ceramics Trchnologies by Mössbauer Spectroscopy. Pp. 97-108 in J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin eds., Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute. Maspero, G. 1896. The Struggle of the Nations. New York: Appleton. Master, D.M. 2001. The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE: A Petrographic Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge MA. Master, D.M. 2003. Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E. BASOR 330:47-64. Matney, T., Roaf, M., MacGinnis, J. and McDonald, H. 2002. Archaeological Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2000 and 2001. Anatolica XXVIII:47-89. Matson, F.R. 1965. Ceramic Ecology: An Approach to the Study of Ancient Cultures in the Near East. Pp. 202-217 in F.R. Matson ed., Ceramics and Man. New York: Viking Fund Publications. Matson, F.R. 1974. The Archaeological Present: Near Eastern Potters at Work. AJA 78:345-347. Matthers, J., Liddy, D.J., Newton, G.W.A., Robinson, V.J. and Al-Tawel, H. 1983. Black on Red Ware in the Levant: A Neutron Activation Analysis. JAS 10: 369-82. Mayes, P. 1961. The Firing of a Pottery Kiln of a Romano-British Type at Boston, Lincs. Archaeometry 4:4-18. Mazar, A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile Part One: The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Mazar, A. 1985a. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Pottery,

286

REFERENCES B.A.R. International Series No. 888. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Melson, W.G. and van Beek, G.W. 1992. Geology and the Loessial Soils, Tell Jemmeh, Israel. Geoarchaeology 7:121-147. Mendelsohn, I. 1940. Guilds in Ancient Palestine. BASOR 80:17-21. Meshel, Z. Carmi, I. and Segal, D. 1994. P14PC Dating of an Israelite Biblical Site at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Horvat Teman). Radiocarbon 37/2:205-12. Middleton, A.P., Freestone, I.C. and Leese, M.N. 1985. Textural Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections: Evaluations of Grain Sampling Procedures. Archaeometry 27/1:64-74. Millett, A. et al. 1964. A Spectrographic Investigation of Jar Handles Bearing the “Royal” Stamp of Judah. Archaeometry 7:67-71. Mirti, P., Casoli, A., Barra, M. and Preacco, M.C. 1995. Fine Ware from Locri Epizephiri: A Provenance Study by Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy. Archaeometry 37:41-51. Mommsen, H. 1981. Filters to Sort Out Pottery Samples of the Same Provenience from a Data Bank of Neutron Activation Analysis. Archaeometry 23/2:209215. Mommsen, H. 2001. Provenance Determination of Pottery by trace Element Analysis: Problems, Solutions and Applications. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 247:657-772. Mommsen, H. 2004. Short Note: Provenancing of Pottery—The Need for an Integrated Approach. Archaeometry 46/2:267–271. Mommsen, H., Perlman, I., and Yellin, J. 1984. The Origin of L’MELEK Stamped Handles. IEJ 34/2:89113. Mommsen, H., Kreuser, A., and Weber, J. 1988a. A Method of Grouping Pottery by Chemical Composition. Archaeometry 30:47-57. Mommsen, H., Lewandowski, E. and Weber, J. 1988b. Neutron Activation Analysis of Mycenaean Pottery from the Argolid: The Search for Reference Groups. Pp. 165-175 in R.M. Farquhar, R.G.V. Hancock and L.A. Pavlish eds., Proceedings of the 26th International Archaeometry Symposium. Toronto: The Archaeometry Laboratory. Mommsen, H., Beier, T., Diehl, U. and Podzuweit, C. 1992. Provenance Determination of Mycenaean Sherds Found in Tell el Amarna by Neutron Activation Analysis. JAS 19:295-302. Mommsen, H., Hein, A., Ittameier, D., Maran, J. and Dakoronia, Ph. 2001. New Mycenaean Pottery Production Centers from Eastern Central Greece Obtained by Neutron Activation Analysis. Pp. 343354 in Y. Bassiakos, E. Aloupi and Y. Facorellis eds., Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity. Athens: Hellenic Society of Archaeometry. Mommsen, H., Beier, Th. and Hein, A. 2002. A Complete Chemical Grouping of the Berkeley Neutron Activation Analysis Data on Mycenaean Pottery. JAS 29:613-637.

Montana, G., Mommsen, H., Iliopoulos, I, Schwedt, A. and Denaro, M. 2003. The Petrography and Chemistry of Thin-Walled Ware from an HellenisticRoman Site at Segesta (Sicily). Archaeometry 45/3:375-389. Morgan, C. 1999. Some Thought on the Production and Consumption of Early Iron Age Pottery in the Aegean. Pp. 214-259 in J.P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G.J. van Wijngaarden eds., The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery,. Amsterdam: Gieben. Morrison, D.F. 1976. Multivariate Statistical Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Mountjoy, P.A. 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification. SIMA 73. Göteborg: Paul Åströms. Mountjoy, P.A. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf. Muhly, J.D. 1984. The Role of the Sea Peoples in Cyprus during the LC III Period. Pp. 39-55 in Karageorghis, V. and Muhly J.D. eds., Cyprus in the Close of the Late Bronze Age. Nicosia. Munro, R.N. 2004. Geomorphology and Soils of the alMoghraqa Area, Gaza. Pp. 75-84 in L. Steel et al. Gaza Research Project. Report on the 1999 and 2000 Seasons at al-Moghhraqa. Levant 36:37-88. Na’aman, N. 1997. The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. UF 29:599-625 Na’aman, N. 1998a. Two Notes on the History of Ashkelon and Ekron in the Late Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E. TA 25:219-227. Na’aman, N. 1998b. Shishak’s Campaign to Palestine as Reflected by the Epigraphic. Biblical and Archaeological Evidence. Zion 63:247-276 (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 2001. An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rahel? TA 28/2:260-280. Na’aman, N. 2003. Ekron Under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires. BASOR 332:81-91. Na’aman, N. 2004. The Boundary System and Political Status of Gaza under the Assyrian Empire. ZPDV 120/1:55-72. Na’aman, N. and Zadok, R. 1988. Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.). JCS 40/1:36-46. Nachmias, J. 1969. Source Rocks of the Saqiye Groups Sediments in the Coastal Plains of Israel—A Heavy Mineral Study. IJES 18:1-16. Nagel, G. 1938. La Céramique du Nouvel Empire a Deir el-Médineh I. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Naveh, J. 1958. Khirbet el-Muqanna-Ekron. IEJ 8: 87100. Naveh, J. 1985. Writing and Scripts in Seventh-Century Tell B.C.E. Philistia: The New Evidence from Jemmeh. IEJ 35:8-21. Naveh, J. 1998. Achish-Ikausu in the Light of the Ekron Dedication. BASOR 310:35-37. Neev, D. and Z. Ben-Avraham. 1977. The Levantine Countries: The Israeli Coastal Region. Pp. 355-377 in 287

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Oren, E.D. 1988. Ziklag–A Biblical City in the Southern Shephelah. Pp. 130-138 in E. Stern and D. Urman eds., Man and Environment in the Southern Shephelah. Tel Aviv: Masada (Hebrew). Oren, E.D. 1993a. Ruqeish. Pp. 1293-1294 in NEAEHL. Oren, E.D. 1993b. Northern Sinai. Pp. 1386-1396 in NEAEHL. Oren, E.D. 1993c. Tel Sera‘. Pp. 1329-1335 in NEAEHL. Oren, E.D. (ed.). 2000. The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Ornan, T. 1986. A Man and His Land: Highlights from the Moshe Dayan Collection. Jerusalem. Ortiz, S.M. 2000. The 11th/10th Century B.C.E. Transition in the Aijalon Valley Region: New Evidence from Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology. Cambridge: University Press. Papageorgiou, I., Baxter, M.J. and Cau, M.A. 2001. Model-based Cluster Analysis of Artifact Compositional Data. Archaeometry 43/4:571-88. Peackock, D.PS. 1981. Archaeology, Ethnology and Ceramic Production. Pp. 187-194 in H. Howards and E.L. Morris eds., Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. BAR International Series No. 120. Oxford. Peackock, D.P.S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach. London: Longman. Perlman, I. and Asaro, F. 1969. Pottery Analysis by Neutron Activation. Archaeometry 11:21-52 Perlman, I. and Asaro, F. 1982. Provenience Studies on Pottery of Strata 11 and 10. Pp. 70-90 in Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. Ashdod IV. Perlman, I., Asaro, F., and Friedman, D. 1971. Provenience Studies of Tel Ashdod Pottery Employing Neutron Activation Analysis. Pp. 215-219 in Dothan, M. 1971, Ashdod II-III. Petrie, W.M.F. 1928 . Gerar. London: BSAE. Petrie, W.M.F. 1931. Ancient Gaza I. London: BSAE. Petrie, W.M.F. 1937. Anthedon. Sinai. London: BSAE. Piccirillo, M. 1975. Tomba de Ferro I a Madaba (Madaba B – Moab). Liber Annuus 35:199-224, Pls. 49-67. Pillay, A.E. 2001. Analysis of Archaeological Artifacts: PIXE, XRF or ICP-MS. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 247/3:593-595. van der Plas, L. and Tobi, A.C. 1965. A Chart for Judging the Reliability of Point Counting Results. American Journal of Science 263:87-90. Pollard, A.M. 1986. Multivariate Methods of Data Analysis, 56-83 in R.E. Jones ed., Greek and Cypriote Pottery: a Review of Scientific Studies. BSA Occasional Papers 1. Athens: Fitch Laboratory. Ponting, M. and Segal, I. 1998. Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy Analyses of Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artifacts from the

A. E. M. Nairn and F. G. Stehli eds., The Ocean Basins and Margins, Volume 4a, The Eastern Mediterranean. New York: Plenum Press. Neff, H., Bishop, R.L., and Sayre, E.V. 1988. A Simulation Approach to the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. JAS 15:159-172. Neff, H. and Bove, F.J. 1999. Mapping Ceramic Compositional Variation and Prehistoric Interaction in the Pacific Coastal Guatemala. JAS 26:1037-51. Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., Bishop, R.L. and Blackman, M.J. 1996. An Assessment of the Acid-extraction Approach to Compositional Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics. American Antiquity 61:389404. Negbi, O. 1991. Where There Sea Peoples in the Central Jordan Valley at the Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age? TA 18:205-243. Nelson, H.H. 1943. The Naval Battle Pictured at Medinet Habu. JNES 2: 40-55. Nibbi, A. 1975 The Sea Peoples and Egypt. New Jersey: Noyes Press. Nicholson, P.T., 1993. The Firing of Pottery. Pp. 103-127 in D. Arnold and J. Bourriau eds., An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Nicholson, P.T. and Patterson, H.L. 1985. Pottery Making in Upper Egypt: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. WA 17/2:222-239. Nicklin, K. 1971. Stability and Innovation in Pottery Manufacture. WA 3/1:13-48. Niemeier, W.D. 1997. The Mycenaean Potters’ Quarter at Miletus. Pp. 347-352 in R. Laffiineur and P.P. Betancourt eds., TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmenship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegeum 16). Liège: Université de Liège. Niemeier, W.D. 1998. The Mycenaean in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples. Pp. 17-65 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Nir, D. 1989. The Geomorphology of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University (Hebrew). Noort, E. 1994. Die Seevölker in Palästina. Palaestina Antiqua 8. Kampen: Pharos. Oates, J. 1959 Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser. Iraq 21:130-146. O’Connor, D. 2000. The Sea Peoples and the Egyptian Sources. Pp. 85-102 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Olsen, F.L. 1973. The Kiln Book. Basset CA: Keramos Books. Oren, E.D. 1982. Ziklag–A Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev. BA 45:155-166. Oren, E.D. et al. 1986. A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of Egypt. Qadmoniot 19:83-91 (Hebrew). Oren, E.D. 1987. The ‘Ways of Horus’ in North Sinai. Pp. 69-120 A.R. Rainey ed. Egypt, Israel, Sinai 288

REFERENCES Rice, P.M. 1981. Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22:219-240. Rice, P.M. 1984. Some Reflections on Change in Pottery Producing Systems. Pp. 231-293 in S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard eds., The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University Press. Rice, P.M. and Saffer, M.E. 1982. Cluster Analysis of Mixed-level Data: Pottery Provenience as an Example. JAS 9/4:395-409. Roberts, J.P. 1963. Determination of the Firing Temperature of Ancient Ceramics by Measurement of Thermal Expansion. Archaeometry 6:21-25. Rosen, A.M. 1986. Quaternary Alluvial Stratigraphy of the Shephelah and its Paleoclimatic Implications. Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Report GSI 25/86. Jerusalem. Rye, O.S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology 4. Washington: Taraxacum. Sa‘idah, R. 1966. Fouilles de Khaldé. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 19:51-90. Salem, H.J. 1999. Implications of Cultural tradition: The Case of Palestinian Traditional Pottery. Pp. 66-82 in T. Kapitan ed., Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East. Essays in Memory of Arbert E. Glock. ASOR Books Volume 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sandars, N.K. 1978. The Sea Peoples. Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean 1250-1150 BC. London: Thames and Hudson. Sasson, V. 1997. The Inscription of Achish, Governor of Ekron, and Philistine Dialect. UF 29:627-639. Schaafsma, C.F. 1991. Truth Dwells in the Deeps: Lessons from Quantum Theory for Contemporary Archaeology. Pp. 60-70 in R.W. Preucel ed., Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Carbondale: CAI. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 2000. The Goddess of Ekron and the Religious-Cultural Background of the Philistines. IEJ 50:82-91. Schallin, A.L. 1997. The Late Bronze Age Potter’s Workshop at Mastos in the Berbati Valley. Pp. 73-88 in C. Gillis, C. Risberg and B. Sjöberg eds., Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Schiffer, M.B. 1975. Archaeology as Behavioral Science. American Anthropologist 77/4:836-848. Schiffer, M.B. and Skibo, J.M. 1987. Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622. Schniedewind, W.M. 1998. The Geo-Political History of Philistine Gath. BASOR 309:69-77. Schreiber, N. 2003. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Leiden: Brill.

Excavations at Masada, Israel. Archaeometry 40/1:109-122. Porat, N. 1989. Composition of Pottery – Application to the Study of the Interrelations Between Canaan and Egypt During the 3PrdP Millennium B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Porat, N., Yellin, J., Heller-Kallai, L., and Halicz, L. 1991. Correlation Between Petrography, NAA, and ICP Analyses: Application to Early Bronze Egyptian Pottery from Canaan. Geoarchaeology 6/2: 133-149. Potts, P.J. 1987. A Handbook of Silicate Rock Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hill. Pythian-Adams, W.J. 1921. The Excavation of Askalon, 1920-1921 (Askalon Reports). PEF Quarterly Statement 53:73-75, 163-169. Pythian-Adams, W.J. 1923. Report on the Stratification of Askalon. PEF Quarterly Statement 55:60-84. Pritchard, J.B. ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University press. [ANET] Pritchard, J.B. 1975. Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Philadelphia: University Museum. Raban, A. 1988. The Constructive Maritime Role of the Sea Peoples in the Levant. Pp. 261-294 in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski eds., Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Raban, A. 1991. The Philistines in the Western Jezreel Valley. BASOR 284:17-27. Rainey, A.F. 1975. The Identification of Philistine Gath. EI 12:63*-76*. Rands, L.R, and Bargielski Weimer, M.B. 1992. Integrative Approaches in the Compositional Characterization of Ceramic Pastes. Pp. 31-58 in H. Neff ed., Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Madison WI: Prehistory Press. Ravikovitch, S. 1970. Soil Map. Atlas of Israel. Tel Aviv: Survey of Israel. Redford, D.B. 2000. Egypt and Western Asia in the Late New Kingdom: An Overview. Pp. 1-20 in E.D. Ored ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Renfrew, C 1972. The Emergence of Civilization. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. Pp. 359 in J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky eds., Ancient Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Renfrew, C. 1977. Production and Exchange in Early State Societies: The Evidence of Pottery. Pp. 1-20 in D.P.S. Peacock ed., in Pottery and Early Commerce: Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics. London: Academic Press. Rhodes, D. 1968. Kilns: Design, Construction and Operation. Philadelphia: Chilton.

289

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegeum 16. Liège: Université de Liège. Shaw, J., van de Moortel, A. Day, P.M., and Kilikoglou, V. 2001. A LM IA Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production. Hesperia Supplement 30, Princeton. Shennan, S. 1988. Quantifing Archaeology. Edinburgh: University Press. Shepard, A.O. 1936. The Technology of Pecos Pottery. Pp. 389-587 in A.V. Kidder and A.O. Shepard eds., The Pottery of Pecos 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sherratt, E.S. 1994. Commerce, Iron and Ideology: Metallurgical Innovation th 12th- 11th Century Cyprus. Pp. 59-107 in V. Karageorghis ed., Proceedings of the International Symposium. Cyprus in the 11PthP Century B.C. Nicosia: Levantis Foundation. Sherratt, E.S. 1998 “Sea Peoples” and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. Pp. 292-313 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Sherratt, E.S. In press. The Ceramic Phenomenon of the ‘Sea Peoples’: An Overview. In M. Artzy, A.E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann eds., The Philistines and the Other Sea Peoples, Lieden: Brill. Sillar, B. and Tite, M.S. 2000. The Challenge of Technological Choices for Materials Science Approaches in Archaeology. Archaeometry 42/2:2-20. Singer, I. 1985. The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia. TA 12:109-122. Singer, I. 1988. The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan. Pp. 239-250 in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski eds., Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 BCE). Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Singer, I. 1988-1989. The Political Status of Megiddo VIIA. TA 15-16:101-112. Singer, I. 1992. Towards the Image of Dagon, the God of the Philistines. Syria 69:431-450. Singer, I. 1994. Egyptians, Canaanites and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel. Pp. 282-338 in I. Finkelstein and N. Na`aman, eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Jerusalem. Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba – A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. TA 26:3-74. Singer-Avitz, L. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. TA 29:110-214. Skoog, D.A. 1985. Principles of Instrumental Analysis (3rd ed). Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing. Slatkine, A. 1974. Comparative Petrographic Study of Ancient Pottery Sherds from Israel. Museum Ha’aretz Yearbook 15-16:101-114. Smith, M.F. Jr. 1985. Towards an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size to Shape and Use. Pp. 254-309 in B.A. Nelson ed.,

Schubert, P. 1986. Petrographic Modal Analysis—a Necessary Complement to Chemical Analysis of Ceramic Coarse Ware. Archaeometry 28:163-78. Sebba, M.1997. Contact Languages: Pidgins and Creoles. London: Macmillan. Shackley, M.L., 1975. Archaeological Sediments. A Survey of Analytical Methods. London: Butterworths. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1962. Ugaritica IV. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Schulman, A.R. 1993. A Ramesside Queen from Ashdod. Appendix 2, pp. 111-114 in M. Dothan and Y. Porath Ashdod V. Shahar, A. et al. 1995. The New Atlas of Israel. Tel Aviv: Israel Mapping Center. Shai, I. 2000. Philistia and the Judean Shephelah between the Campaign of Shishaq and the First Assyrian Campaigns to the Land of Israel: An Archaeological and Historical Overview. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan (Hebrew). Shai, I. In press. The Political Organization in Philistia during the Iron Age IIA. In A.M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. eds., I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times (Ps. 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Shai, I. Forthcoming. The Pottery of Area A, Stratum A3 (tentative title). In Tell es-Safi 1. Shai, I. and Maeir, A.M. 2003. Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. TA 30/1:108-123. Shamir, O. 1991. Loom-weights and Textile Production at Tel Miqne-Ekron. Archaeology Textiles Newsletter 13:4-5. Sharon, I. 1989. Statistical Methods for the Interpretation of Pottery Composition Analysis. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Sharon, I. 1995. Collation of Absolute Dates for the Persian-Roman Phases in Areas A and C. Pp. 235-249 in E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report Volume IA. Areas A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy. Qedem Reports 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Sharon, I. 2001. Philistine Bichrome Painted Pottery: Scholarly Ideology and Ceramic Typology. Pp. 555609 in S.R. Wolff ed., Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Sharon, I. and Gilboa, A. In Press. The SKL Town: Dor in the Early Iron Age. In M. Artzy, A.E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann eds., The Philistines and the Other Sea Peoples. Lieden: Brill. Shavit, A. 2000. Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Age. TA 27/2:189-230. Shaw, J., van de Moortel, A. Day, P.M., and Kilikoglou, V. 1997. A LM IA Pottery Kiln at Kommos, Crete. Pp. 323-331 in R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt eds., TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship

290

REFERENCES Stoltman, J.B., Burton, J.H. and Haas, J. 1992. Chemical and Petrographic Characterizations of Ceramic Pastes: Two Perspectives on a Single Data Set. Pp. 85-92 in H. Neff ed., Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Madison WI: Prehistory Press. Stone, B.J. 1995. The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture Change and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age. BASOR 298:7-32. Sudilovsky, J. 2004. Assyrians in Ashdod. Palace Uncovered Near Israel’s Coast. BAR 30/6:12. Swan, V.G. 1984. The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain. London. Sweeney, D. 2004. The Hieratic Inscriptions. Pp. 16011617 in D. Ussishkin, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (5 volumes). Tel Aviv University Monograph Series No. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Sweeney, D. and Yasur-Landau, A. 1999. Following the Path of the Sea Persons: The Women in the Medinet Habu Reliefs. TA 26/1:116-145. Tadmor, H. 1958. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur. JCS 12:22-40, 77-100. Tadmor, H. 1966. Philistia Under Assyrian Rule. BA 29:86-102. Tadmor, H. 1971. Fragments of an Assyrian Stele of Sargon II. Pp. 192-197 in M. Dothan Ashdod II-III. Tadmor, H. 1973. The Historical Inscriptions of AdadNirari III. Iraq 35:141-150. Talshir, Z. 1999. Textual and Literary Criticism of the Bible in Post-Modern Times: The Untimely Demise of Classical Biblical Philology. Henoch 21:235-52. Taylor, J. du Plat, and Tufnell, O. 1930. A Pottery Industry in Cyprus. Ancient Egypt 119-121. Taylor, R.J. and Robinson, V.J. 1996a. Neutron Activation Analysis of Roman African Red Slip Ware Kilns. Archaeometry 38/2:231-243. Taylor, R.J. and Robinson, V.J. 1996b. Provenance Studies of Roman African Red Slip Ware Using Neutron Activation Analysis. Archaeometry 38/2:245255. Tite, M.S. 1969. Determination of the Firing Temperature of Ancient Ceramics by Measurement of Thermal Expansion: A Reassessment. Archaeometry 11:131144. Tite, M.S. 1999. Pottery Production, Distribution and Consumption—The Contribution of the Physical Sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6/3:181-233. Triadan, D., Neff, H., and Glascock, M.D. 1997. An Evaluation of the Archaeological Relevance of WeakAcid Extraction ICP: White Mountain Redware as a Case Study. JAS 24:997-1002. Tsolakidou, A. and Kilikoglou, V. 2002. Comparative Analysis of Ancient Ceramics by Neutron Activation Analysis, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry, Inductively Coupled PlasmaMass Spectrometry and X-Ray Fluorescence. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 374:566-572. Tubb, J.N. 2000. Sea Peoples in the Jordan Valley. Pp. 181-196 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their

Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Sneh, A., Bartov, Y. and Rosensaft, M. 1998. Geological Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Snodgrass, A.M. 1980. Iron and Early Metallurgy in the Mediterranean. Pp. 335-374 in T.A. Wertime and J.D. Muhly eds., The Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven: Yale University Press. Spencer, A.J. 1997. Dynastic Egyptian Pottery. Pp. 62-67 in I. Freestone and D. Gaimster eds., Pottery in the Making, World Ceramic Traditions. London: British Museum. Stager, L.E. 1985. Merneptah, Israel and Sea Peoples: New Light on an Old relief. EI 18:56*-64*. Stager, L.E. 1991. When Canaanites and Philistines Ruled Ashkelon. BAR 17/2:24-37,40-43. Stager, L.E. 1993. Ashkelon. Pp. 103-112 in NEAEHL. Stager, L.E. 1995. The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185-1050 BCE). Pp. 332-348 in T.E. Levy ed., The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Stager L.E. 1996. Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. Kislev 604 BCE. EI 25:61*-71*. Stager, L.E. 2004. Ashkelon, Seaport of the Canaanites and the Philistines. Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology, London. Stech-Wheeler, T., Muhly, J.D., Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. and Maddin, R. 1981. Iron at Ta’anach and Early Iron Metallurgy in the Eastern Mediterranean. AJA 85:245-268. Stein, G.J. 1996. Producers, Patrons, and Prestige: Craft Specialists and Emergent Elites in Mesopotamia from 5500-3100B.C. Pp. 25-38 in B. Wailes ed., Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Chilide. Philadelphia: University Museum. Steindorff, G. 1939. The Statuette of an Egyptian Commissioner in Syria. JEA 25/1:30-37. Stern, E. 1970. Excavations at Tel Gil`am (Kh. Er-Rujm). ‘Atiqot 6:31-54 (Hebrew). Stern, E. 1973. Eretz-Israel at the End of the Period of the Monarchy. Qadmoniot 21:2-17 (Hebrew). Stern, E. 1993. Tel Zafit. Pp. 1522-1524 in NEAEHL. Stern, E. 1998. The Relations between the Sea Peoples and the Phoenicians in the 12th and 11th Centuries BCE. Pp. 345-352 in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: IES. Stern, E. 2000. The Settlement of the Sea Peoples in Northern Israel. Pp. 197-211 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University Museum. Stern, E., Lewinson-Gilboa, A., and Aviram, J. (eds.) 1993. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. [NEAEHL] Stieglitz, R.R. 1977. Inscribed Seals from Tell Ashdod: The Philistine Script. Kadmos 16:97. Stoltman, J.B. 1989. A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. American Antiquity 54:147-160. 291

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Waksman, S.Y. The Wandering Scientist, or the Art of Inter-Calibration. P. 271 in Abstract Book of 34th International Symposium on Archaeometry 2004, Zaragoza, Spain. Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza. Waldbaum, J.C. 1966. Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and their Aegean Prototypes. AJA 70:331-340. Waldbaum, J.C. 1978. From Bronze to Iron. SIMA No. 54. Goteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. Waldbaum, J.C. 1980. The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron and the Transition to the Iron Age. Pp. 69-98 in T.A. Wertime and J.D. Muhly eds., The Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven: Yale University Press. Waltz, C. 1985. Ethnographic Analogy and the Gender of Potters in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. RDAC:126131. Ward, W.A. and Joukowsky, M. eds. 1992. The Crisis Years- The 12th Century BC Iowa: Kendal/Hunt. Warren, P., and Hankey, V. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical. Webster, J. 2001. Creolizing the Roman Provinces. AJA 105: 209-225. Weigand, P.C., Harbottle, G. and Sayre, E.V. 1977. Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. Pp. 15-34 in T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson eds., Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Studies in Archaeology. New York: Academic. Welch, F.B. 1900. The Influence of the Aegean Civilization on Southern Palestine. PEF Quarterly Statement 1900:342-350. Welten, P. 1983. The Furnace Versus the Goat. The Pyrotechnologic Industries and Mediterranean Deforestation in Antiquity. JFA 10:445-452. Wente, E.F. and van Siclen, C.C. 1976 A Chronology of the New Kingdom. Pp. 217-261 in J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente eds., Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes. Chicago: University Press. Whitbread, I.K. 1986. The Characterization of Agrillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry 28:79-88. Whitbread, I.K. 1989. A Proposal for the Systematic Description of Thin Sections Towards the Study of ancient Ceramic Technology. Pp. 127-138 in Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Archaeometry. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Whitbread, I.K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae. A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4. Exeter: The British School at Athens. Whitbread, I.K., Jones, R. E. and Papadopoulos, J. K. 1997, The Early Iron Age Kiln at Torone, Greece: Geological Diversity and the Definition of Control Groups. Pp. 88-91 in Sinclair, A., Slater, E. and Gowlett, J. eds., Archaeological Science 1995: Proceedings of a Conference on the Application of Scientific Techniques to the Study of Archaeology. Oxbow Monograph 64. Oxford.

World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish III, The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. Tufnell, O. 1958. Lachish IV, The Bronze Age. London: Oxford University Press. Tzedakis, Y. and Martlew, H. eds. 1999. Minoan and Mycenaean Flavors of their Time. Athens: National Archaeological Museum. Ussishkin, D. 1985. Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. Pp. 213228 in Tubb, J.N. ed., Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell. London. Ussishkin, D. 1990. Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries BC. BASOR 277-278:71-91. Ussishkin, D. 2004. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (5 volumes). Tel Aviv University Monograph Series No. 22. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Uziel, J. 2003. The Tell es-Safi Archaeological Survey. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-GanR.R Uziel, J and Maeir, A.M. 2005. Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Surface Survey. TA 32/1:50-75. Vagnetti, L. 2000. Western Mediterranean Overview: Peninsular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the Time of the Sea peoples. Pp. 305-326 in E.D. Oren ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, University Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum. Vallianou, D. 1997. The Potters’ Quarter in LM III Gouves. Pp. 333-343 in R. Laffiineur and P.P. Betancourt eds., TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmenship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegeum 16. Liège: Université de Liège. Vaughan, S.J. 1999. Contributions of Petrography to the Study of Archaeological Ceramic and Man-Made Building Materials in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Pp. 117-125 in S. Pike and S. Gitin eds., The Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology. Wiener Laboratory Monograph 3. Wilts: Archetype. Vilders, M. 1988. A Technological Study of the pottery from Deir ‘Alla Phase M. Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology 6:79-88. Vossen, R. 1984. Towards Building Models of Traditional Trade in Ceramics: Case Studies from Spain and Morocco. Pp. 339-397 in S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard eds., The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Wachsmann, S. 1998. Sea Going Ships and Seamanship in Bronze Age Levant. London: Chatham. Wachsmann, S. 2000. To the Sea of the Philistines. Pp. 103-144 in E.D. Ored ed., The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment. University Monograph 108, 292

REFERENCES Wieder, M. and Adan-Bayewitz, D 1999. Pottery Manufacture in Early Roman Galilee: A Micromorphological Study. Catena 35:237-351. Wieder, M. and Gvirtzman, G. 1999. Micromorphological Indications on the Nature of the Late Quaternary Paleosols in the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel. Catena 35:219-237. Wightman, G.J. 1990. The Myth of Solomon. BASOR 277/278:5-22. Wijngaarden, G.J. van. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University. Wilson, A.L. 1978. Elemental Analysis of Pottery in the Study of its Provenance: A Review. JAS 5:219-36. Wilson, D.E. and Day, P.M. 1994. Ceramic Regionalism in Prepalatial Central Crete: The Mesara Imports at EMI to EMIIA Knossos. ABSA 89:1-87. Winther-Nielsen, M., Conradsen, K, Heydorn, K. and Mejdahl, V. 1981. Investigation of the Number of Elements Required for Provenance Studies of Ceramic Materials. Pp. 85-92 in M.J. Hughes ed., Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics,. British Museum Occasional Paper 19. London: British Museum. Wolff, S.R. and Shavit, A. In press. Tell Hamid. A Biblical Site in the Inner Coastal Plain of Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Series. IAA Reports Series. Jerusalem: IAA. Wood, B.G. 1990. The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine. The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 4. Worcester: Sheffield Academic Press. Wood, B. 1991. The Philistines Enter Canaan—Were They Egyptian Lackeys or Invading Conquerors? BAR 17/6:44-52, 89-90. Wright, G.E. 1939. Iron: The Date of its Introduction into Common Use in Palestine. AJA 43:458-463. Wright, G.E. 1966. Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story. BA 29:70-86. Wright, G.R.H. 1992. Obiter Dicta. London: Aquiline Press. Ya’alon, D.H. and Dan, J., 1974. Accumulation and Distribution of Loess-derived Deposits in the Semiarid and Desert Fringe Areas of Israel. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N.F. 20:91–105 Yadin, A. 2002. Samson’s Hîdâ. VT 52/3:407-426.T Yadin, Y. 1959. Solomon’s City Wall and Gate of Gezer. IEJ 8:8-18. Yadin, Y. 1968. And Dan, Why Did He Remain in Ships. AJBA 1:9-23. Yadin, Y. 1970. Megiddo of the Kings of Israel. BA 33:73-79. Yadin, Y. 1972. Hazor - Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970. Oxford: University Press. Yadin, Y. et al. 1960. Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes. Yadin, Y., et al. 1961. Hazor III-IV. An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation 1957-58 (Plates). Jerusalem: Magnes.

Yadin, Y. et al. 1961-1989. Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation 1957-58. Jerusalem: IES. Yannai, E. 2002. An Iron Age Burial Cave at Et-Taiyiba. ‘Atiqot 43:29*-55* (Hebrew). Yannai, E. 2004. Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S. Chapter 19, pp. 1032-1154 in Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (5 volumes). Tel Aviv University Monograph Series No. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Yasur-Landau, A. 1999. The Daughters of Philistia; Towards a Methodology of Gender and Migration in Archaeology. Pp. 67-77 in A. Faust and A.M. Maeir eds., Material Culture, Society and Ideology. New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Universiy (Hebrew). Yasur-Landau A. 2001. The Mother(s) of All Philistines? Aegean Enthroned Deities of the 12PthP-11PthP Century Philistia. Pp. 329-343 in R. Laffineur and R. Hägg eds., Potnia, Deities in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegeum 22). Liège: Université de Liège. Yasur-Landau, A. 2002. Social Aspects of Aegean Settlement in the Southern Levant in the end of the 2nd Millennium BCE. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Tel Aviv University. Yasur-Landau, A. 2003. How Did the Philistines Get to Canaan? Two: By Land. BAR 29/2:35-39,65-67. Yasur-Landau, A. 2005. Old Wine in New Vessel: Intercultural Contact, Innovation and Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine Foodways TA 32/2:168-191. Yellin. J. 1996. Chemical Characterization of the City of David Figurines and Inferences about Their Origin. Appendix D, Pp. 90-99 in D.T. Ariel and A. De Groot eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh Volume IV. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Yellin, J. and Cahill, J.M. 2004. Rosette-stamped Handles: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. IEJ 54/2:191-213. Yellin, J. and Gunneweg, J. 1985. Provenience of Pottery from Tell Qasile Strata VII, X, XI and XII. Chapter XX1, Pp. 111-118 in A. Mazar, Excavation at Tell Qasile Part Two. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Yellin, J. and Gunneweg, J. 1989. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of Iron I Collared Rim Jars and Pithoi from Tel Dan. Pp. 133-141 in S. Gitin and W.G. Dever eds., Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. AASOR 49. Yellin, J. and Perlman, I. 1987. Provenance of Iron Age Pottery from Tel Mevorakh. Pp. 86-94 in E. Stern Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976). Part One: From the Iron Age to the Roman Period. Qedem 9. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Yellin, J., Perlman, I., Asaro, F., Michel, H.V. and Mosier, D.F. 1978. Comparison of Neutron Activation Analysis from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the Hebrew University. Archaeometry 20/1:95-100. 293

DECORATED PHILISTINE POTTERY Yezerski, I. 2004. An Iron Age II Burial Cave at Ras alTawil. Pp. 209-230 in H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot eds. Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria. Judea and Samaria Publications No. 4. Jerusalem: IAA. Yon, M. 1985. Ateliers et traditions céramiques. Pp. 103114 in Chypre. La vie quotidienne de l’antiquité à nos jous. Actes du collèque Musée de l’Homme. Paris: CNRS. Yon, M. 1992. The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit. Pp. 111-122 in W.A Ward and M. Joukowsky eds., The Crisis Years- The 12th Century BC. Iowa: Kendal/Hunt. Young, S.M.M., Budd, P., Haggerty, R. and Pollard, A.M. 1997. Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry for the Analysis of Ancient Metals. Archaeometry 39/2:379-392. Zaccagnini, C. 1983. Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen. JNES 42:245-264. Zadok, R. 1978. Phoenicians, Philistines, and Moabites in Mesopotamia. BASOR 230:57-65. Zertal, A. 2001. The ‘Corridor-builders’ of Central Israel: Evidence for the Settlement of the ‘Northern Sea Peoples’? Pp. 215-232 in V. Karageorghis and C.E. Morris eds., Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C. Nicosia. Zimhoni, O. 1990. Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish Levels III and II. TA 17:3-52. Zimhoni, O. 1997a. Lachish Levels V and IV: Comments on the Material Culture of Judah in the Iron Age II in the Light of the Lachish Pottery Repertoire. Pp. 57178 in Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel (Tel Aviv Occasional Publications 2). Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Zimhoni, O. 1997b. The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ‘Eton and Its Relation to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages (Tel Aviv 12:63-90). Pp. 179-210 in Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel (Tel Aviv Occasional Publications 2). Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Zimhoni, O. 2004. The Pottery of Levels V and IV and its Archaeological and Chronological Implications. Pp. 1643-1788 in D. Ussishkin The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) (5 volumes). Tel Aviv University Monograph Series No. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Zorn, J.F. 1993. Tell en-Nasbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California. Zorn, J.F. 1998. The dating of the Early Iron Age Kiln from Tell al-Nasbah. Levant 30:199-202.

294