Late Bronze and Iron Age Chalices in Canaan and Ancient Israel 9781407301068, 9781407331461

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
List of Figures
List of Graphs
List of Tables
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PREFACE
CHAPTER 1 THE STUDY
CHAPTER 2 CHALICES AND CULT OBSERVATIONS
CHAPTER 3 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHALICE FORM
CHAPTER 4 THE ROUTE OF THE CHALICE
CHAPTER 5 STATISTICAL OBSERVATIONS
CHAPTER 6 MAP of ISRAEL and LOCATION SITE INDEX
CHAPTER 7 CHRONOLOGY of CHALICES
CHAPTER 8 TYPOLOGY OF CHALICES
APPENDIX - SELECTED SITES WITH CHALICES
Deir ‘Alla - Appendix A
Hazor - Appendix B
Lachish - Appendix C
Megiddo - Appendix D
Megiddo Tombs - Appendix E
Tell Qasile - Appendix F
Tel Rehov - Appendix G
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

BAR S1671 2007 GRUTZ

Late Bronze and Iron Age Chalices in Canaan and Ancient Israel

LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE CHALICES IN CANAAN AND ANCIENT ISRAEL

Robert Grutz

BAR International Series 1671 2007 B A R

Late Bronze and Iron Age Chalices in Canaan and Ancient Israel

Robert Grutz

BAR International Series 1671 2007

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1671 Late Bronze and Iron Age Chalices in Canaan and Ancient Israel © R Grutz and the Publisher 2007 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407301068 paperback ISBN 9781407331461 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301068 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2007. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents List of Figures List of Graphs List of Tables Acknowledgments Preface Chapter 1: The Study Chapter 2: Chalices and Cult Observations Chapter 3: Observations on the Chalice Form Chapter 4: The Route of the Chalice Chapter 5: Statistical Observations Chapter 6: Map of Israel and Location Index Chapter 7: Chronology of Chalices 7.1 Chalices Reported in Strata that Pre-date the Late Bronze Age 7.2 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata 7.3 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze/Iron Age I Transition Strata 7.4 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IA Strata 7.5 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata 7.6 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata 7.7 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata 7.8 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata 7.9 Chalices Reported Without a Specific Chronology Chronology of Chalices: Tables Chronology of Chalices: Illustrations Chapter 8: Typology of Chalices 8.1 Type 1XX: Chalices with an Inverted Rim 8.2.1 Type 21X: Chalices with an Everted Plain Rim 8.2.2 Type 220, 221, 222, 223: Chalices with and Everted Splayed Rim 8.2.3 Type 23X: Chalices with an Everted Ledge Rim 8.3 Type 3XX: Chalices with a Vertical Rim Typology of Chalices: Tables Typology of Chalices: Illustrations Appendix A: Deir Alla Appendix B: Hazor Appendix C: Lachish Appendix D: Megiddo Appendix E: Megiddo Tombs Appendix F: Tell Qasile Appendix G: Tel Rehov

ii ii iii iv vi 1 3 7 11 19 25 31 31 31 36 37 38 41 44 46 48 49 59 103 103 105 109 114 116 118 129 183 189 195 201 209 215 221

Bibliography

229

i

List of Figures Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 6.1 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 7.6 Figure 7.7 Figure 7.8 Figure 7.9 Figure 8.1.1 Figure 8.1.2 Figure 8.1.3 Figure 8.2.1.1 Figure 8.2.1.2 Figure 8.2.1.3 Figure 8.2.2.1 Figure 8.2.2.2 Figure 8.2.2.3 Figure 8.2.3.1 Figure 8.2.3.2 Figure 8.2.3.3 Figure 8.3

Base-line Suggestion for the Recognition and Classification of a Vesssel as a Chalice……………. 10 The Route of the Chalice – Deir Alla………………………………………………………………...13 The Route of the Chalice – Hazor……………………………………………………………………14 The Route of the Chalice……………………………………………………………………………..15 The Route of the Chalice – Pella……………………………………………………………………..16 The Route of the Chalice – Taanach………………………………………………………………….17 Geographic Areas…………………………………………………………………………………….26 Chalices Reported in Strata that Pre-date the Late Bronze Age…………………………………….. 60 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata………………………………………………………..62 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze/Iron Age I Transition Strata…………………………………….. 68 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IA Strata……………………………………………………………..72 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata……………………………………………………………..74 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata…………………………………………………………….82 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata…………………………………………………………….92 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata…………………………………………………………….96 Chalices Reported Without a Specific Chronology………………………………………………….100 Type 111 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...130 Type 113 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...132 Type 112 and 133 Chalices………………………………………………………………………….134 Type 211 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...136 Type 212 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...140 Type 213 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...144 Type 221 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...148 Type 222 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...156 Type 223 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...164 Type 231 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...168 Type 232 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...172 Type 233 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...174 Type 312 and 313 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………..178

List of Graphs Graph 5.1A Graph 5.1B Graph 5.1C Graph 5.2A Graph 5.2B Graph 5.2C Graph 5.3A Graph 5.3B Graph 5.3C Graph 5.4A Graph 5.4B Graph 5.4C

Chalices by Rim Type……………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Rim Finish…………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Bowl Finish………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Rim Type and Chronology…………………………………………………………………………...22 Chronology of Rim Types……………………………………………………………………………22 Type Trend by Chronology…………………………………………………………………………..22 Number of Chalices by Location……………………………………………………………………..23 Chalice Types by Location…………………………………………………………………………...23 Location of Chalice Types……………………………………………………………………………23 Number of Chalices – Location and Chronology – South……………………………………………24 Number of Chalices – Location and Chronology – North and Jordan Valley………………………..24 Location and Chronology of Chalices………………………………………………………………..24

ii

List of Tables Table 4.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9 Table 8.1.1 Table 8.1.2 Table 8.1.3 Table 8.2.1.0 Table 8.2.1.1 Table 8.2.1.2 Table 8.2.1.3 Table 8.2.2.0 Table 8.2.2.1 Table 8.2.2.2 Table 8.2.2.3 Table 8.2.3.0 Table 8.2.3.1 Table 8.2.3.2 Table 8.2.3.3 Table 8.3

The Route of the Chalice – Hazor……………………………………………………………………12 Location Site Index - Alphabetical………………………………………...…………………………27 Location Site Index - Location Number Order………………………………………………….……29 Chalices Reported in Strata that Pre-date the Late Bronze Age…………………………………….. 49 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata………………………………………………………..49 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze/Iron Age I Transition Strata……………………………………...50 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IA Strata……………………………………………………………..51 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata……………………………………………………………..51 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata………………………………………………………….…53 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata…………………………………………………………….56 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata…………………………………………………………….57 Chalices Reported Without a Specific Chronology…………………………………………………..58 Type 111 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...118 Type 113 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...118 Type 110, 112, 131 and 133 Chalices…… ………………………………………………………..119 Type 210 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...119 Type 211 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...119 Type 212 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...120 Type 213 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...121 Type 220 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...121 Type 221 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...122 Type 222 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...123 Type 223 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...125 Tyoe 230 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...126 Type 231 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...126 Type 232 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...127 Type 233 Chalices…………………………………………………………………………………...127 Type 312 and 313 Chalices………………………………………………………… ……………..128

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to all those who provided critical assistance and positive encouragement during the time I was gathering information for this study, as well as the encouragement to pursue the publication of the study. As is always the case, there are far too many people to mention individually. I would, however, particularly like to thank Professor Israel Finkelstein, Professor Amihai Mazar, Dr. Norma Franklin, and Dr. Nava Panitz-Cohen. All have encouraged me with word and action, and waited patiently for this study to come to fruition. Special appreciation is due to Dr. Nava Panitz-Cohen for her help and guidance with the Tel Rehov material. While Professors Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem support my efforts to publish this study, they have no responsibility for the opinions, comments and conclusions that are in this study. I would also like to thank those scholars, universities, museums, societies, professional institutions, archaeologists, and publishers who, almost without reservation, gave their permission to use copyright information from their resources. This study could not have gone ahead without those resources. The following list acknowledges the sources. Unfortunately, because the chalice profiles and drawings are distributed throughout multiple pages in this study, specific and direct cross references of the drawings and the source is not practical. All reasonable attempts were made to contact the owner of record of any resource used in this study. Academic Press Fribourg: Tell Keisan. Pl. 32:6. Reprinted with the permission of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Taanach I. Figures 3:16, 23:11, 27:2, 53:5, 89:4, 89:5; Tell en-Nasbeh. Plate 69:1572-1574, 1576, 1578, 1580-1581, 1584. CBRL (The Council for British Research in the Levant). London, England: Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem. 1961-1967. Figure 31:9. L’Ecole Biblique et Archaeologique Francaise de Jerusalem - Direction de la Revue Biblique: Tel ‘Amal (Nir David). Figures 16:2-3, 16:5. Eisenbruns: Timnah. Page 51, Figure 4:13; Page 103, Figure 5:12 Haverford College: Beth Shemesh. Figures on pages 211; Fig. 152d; 215, 260; Ain Shems Excavations I/II. Ain Shems II. Plates XXXV:15, 21-22, 28; XXXVI:4, 11, 17, 21, 29-31, 35-36, 38; Ain Shems Excavations III. Figures 2:13, 5.4-100, 6.3-54, 86; Ain Shems Excavations IV. Plate LXI:45. Courtesy of Hebrew Union College. Jerusalem, Israel: Biblical Dan. Illustrations 87:1, 98:5, 11104:1-2; Gezer II, Plate 29:14. Israel Antiquities Authority: Numerous Figures. Institute of Archaeology - Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Numerous Figures. Institute of Archaeology - Tel Aviv University: Numerous Figures. Israel Exploration Society : Numerous Figures. Oriental Institute Publications: Megiddo and Megiddo Tombs Peeters Publisher- Leuven. Deir Alla. Figures 4-6:10-11, 4-9:23-25, 4-14:9-11, 5-3:10, 5-5:3, 5-5:5-6, 5-9:8-9, 5-13:78. Palestine Exploration Fund: Excavations in Palestine during the years 1898-1900. Page 104. Plate 53:1j; Excavations at Jericho. Figure 256:21. Department of Archaeology - University of Sydney. Pella in Jordan 2. Plate 47:6, 47:7. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology – Publications: Iron Age at Beth Shean. Levels VI-IV. Figures 19:21, 34:12, 50:8; Late Bronze Age Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shean. Study of Levels VII and VIII. Figure 27:12.

iv

Wellcome Trust. London, England: Lachish III. Iron Age. Text. Plates 83:154-164, 103:662-663. Every reasonable effort was made to obtain permission to use copyright material. If any copyright holder was overlooked recognition will be included in future reprints. In instances where a request went unanswered, the lack of response was considered an assent. ADPF - Editions Recherche sur Les Civilisations. ADPF – ERC: Tell el-Farah (N) Jacqueline Balensi: Abu-Hawam Heirs of H. J. Franken: Franken, H.J. 1969. Excavations at Deir Alla I. A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of Early Iron Age Pottery. Figures 48:53, 63:28, 69:28. Harrassowitz Verlag: Masos National Gallery of Australia: Pella Librairie Orientaliste - Paul Geuthner Rothschild Expedition to Ay: Ay Libraries in London and Houston provided access to their vast resources and were havens for research. British Library Fondren Library, Rice University Institute of Archaeology, UCL Palestine Exploration Fund Library The final and overriding acknowledgment is reserved for the most important person in my life. My wife Jane has endured my chalice hunting, repeated visits to the museum to see that chalice, ‘one more time,’ unannounced work cycles that started at 4:30 in the morning, and ‘can you write down or draw that information for me.’ Ultimately Jane had to suffer the task of editing this study, and not just once. In addition Jane wrote some of the entries and discussed many of them several times with me. A better partner I could not hope for. Robert Grutz May 2007

v

PREFACE The impetus for this study was a suggestion by Dr. Nava Panitz-Cohen, my area supervisor at Tel Rehov. During a breakfast interlude at the Hebrew University’s Tel Rehov excavations in 2001, I asked Nava about the relationship between figurines, artifacts and pottery found in or near known cult structures. Nava replied that such a relationship would be an interesting project to research, especially as the Rehov team had excavated a number of chalices (often associated with cult functions) in various contexts. Of course cult structures in themselves are a fascinating subject. But it was the chalice pottery form that enticed me and so began the quest for chalices of Canaan and Israel/Judah in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age. Little did I guess that over the course of the Tel Rehov 2003 season, the square that I was excavating would produce no less than five chalices. Enthusiastic as always, Nava proclaimed that in uncovering these chalices I had the base on which to build my study of chalices and pursue the publication of my study. The following pages are the result of this work.

vi

CHAPTER 1 THE STUDY This study arranges in chronological order approximately 450 chalices found in more than 50 excavations in Late Bronze and Iron Age strata. The study also proposes a typology for these chalices. The typology is based primarily on the shape of the rim of the chalice bowl, with the shape of the chalice bowl serving as a secondary consideration. Rim fragments are assigned to the appropriate chalice type if the rim sherd or fragment was designated as part of a chalice in the excavation report. Had a complete vessel profile been available in place of the sherd or fragment, it is possible that a different typology might have been assigned. Although many complete chalice pedestals were reported, they are not included in this study as only the rim and bowl shape serve to determine type. Pedestals do perform a function, however, in that they can be grouped with complete and restored chalices, as well as with complete chalice profiles, to provide a reasonably accurate count of the number of chalices found at any one site. It should be noted that the total number of chalices reported is prejudiced by the scale and focus of the excavation.

any significant variations. All chalices illustrated in this study are arranged in type order. The criteria used in this analysis expanded exponentially as the accumulation of chalice data amassed. It was therefore deemed practical to condense as many variables as possible to present a succinct study on chronology and type for more than 450 chalices. The development of a typology for the rim and bowl is in each case based on several criteria. Rim The rim is defined as inverted, everted or vertical. All three forms of the rim may be further defined as a plain or a ledge rim. An everted rim may also be splayed. In all cases the determination of the rim form is based almost entirely on the drawn profile (especially the inside face of the profile) and the reproduction of the profile in the excavation report. In some cases it is all but impossible to tell from the drawing if the rim is vertical, very slightly everted, or inverted. In these situations the rim is normally classified as everted. The same problem occurs when attempting to define a rim as plain, folded, splayed or ledge. The drawn profile does not always make it clear whether a rim has been folded or if the folded appearance of the rim is the result of a stylistic flourish applied by the potter. For ledge rims the observed horizontal plain of the rim is the determining factor.

The published material on chalices varies in quality. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the chalice profiles are accurately drawn in the excavation reports and in other source material. In many instances, however, the published material does not make it possible to determine if the vessel is complete, restored or only a profile based on sherds and fragments. The chalices are arranged in chronological order in Chapter 7, followed by a suggested typology in Chapter 8. The chronology and corresponding dates for the chalices are taken from the reports written by the excavators. A representative number of chalices from each category of chronology and typology are illustrated and examples of interest are discussed on an individual basis.

Bowl The bowl may be rounded, carinated, or straight-sided. As with the rim, the description of the chalice bowl is based on the shape as seen in the drawn profile. A carinated bowl may be further characterized as a broadbased bowl (i.e., the base of the bowl is almost as wide as the inner diameter of the rim of the bowl), a straight-sided bowl or a rounded bowl.

Except for extreme cases, no attempt has been made to adjust the traditional chronology and dating of the original excavators to the chronology proposals currently being debated, i.e., neither a ‘high’ nor a ‘low’ chronology is followed or suggested. This study follows the chronology and dating used in the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Stern 1993a: Vol.4:1529).

Pedestal The pedestal may be plain, ridged, or in a few cases, fenestrated. Preference The rim, bowl, and pedestal of a chalice often incorporate more than one feature. A rim may be both folded and ledge, or a bowl may be both carinated and rounded. In order to assign a chalice type, it is necessary to establish an order of preference among competing criteria. The order of preference used in this study is as follows:

The attempt to generate a typology for the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age chalices was the initial thrust of this study. However, a related objective of generating a chronology for these chalices was also important. As a result the organization and format were changed several times during the development and writing stages. In the end chronology prevailed as the first consideration. A second analysis by type is included with comments on

Rim: A rim that is finished in an upright fashion but wavering between an inverted, vertical or everted rim is classified as everted. A ledge rim takes preference over a

1

folded rim. As noted above, a folded rim is particularly difficult to ascertain from the drawn profile. If the rim appears folded, however, it is then classified as everted or inverted accordingly.

Chalice: For purposes of this study, the chalice is defined as a stemmed vessel, i.e., a pedestal and a bowl. In most cases the bowl is ca. 22 cm or less in diameter and the pedestal is at least 7 cm high. The foot of the vessel is no larger in diameter than the rim of the bowl.

Bowl: A carinated chalice bowl takes preference over a rounded or straight-sided bowl, and a rounded bowl takes preference over a straight-sided bowl. A carinated bowl may have a splayed wall above the carination as well as a splayed rim above the splayed wall. A straight-sided bowl may rise at either an oblique or vertical angle.

Miniature chalice vessels are also included in this study and their status as such is noted, with appropriate dimensions given. Although sometimes designated as a chalice, the goblet and footed bowl differ in proportion from the chalice form as defined above. To illustrate these differences a few representative examples of the goblet and footedbowl forms have been included. The footed bowl can best be described as a vessel with a pedestal less than 5 cm high and a shallow bowl more than 23 cm in diameter. The goblet, in contrast, has a relatively small deep bowl, a long thin pedestal and in profile resembles a modern wineglass. Alabaster, basalt and calcite vessels described as chalices are also excluded.

Complete Vessel: A vessel is shown full profile if it is illustrated or described as such in the excavation report or other source material. Fragment: The term fragment is used to describe any piece of pottery that includes a significant portion of the rim and bowl, the bowl and pedestal, the pedestal and foot, or a combination of coterminous pieces.

2

CHAPTER 2 CHALICES AND CULT OBSERVATIONS There are many instances where a cult function has been assigned to a chalice based solely on an associated structure, artifact, or collection of bones. However, this system is problematic and in some instances may be based on circular reasoning. There are also attempts to broaden the definition of what a ‘cult’ structure is. For example, a structure may be assigned a cult function if it is located on an elevated surface, especially if it is accompanied by cult figurines and standing stones. Cult functions have been associated with the appearance of a ‘horned’ altar, a unique vessel with an unknown function such as cups-and-saucers, perforated vessels, tall cylindrical stands, and pottery box-type houses. They have also been associated with a large deposit of burnt bones. In some instances these items are blended with a contemporary reading of the biblical texts. A corner in a domestic or industrial building, an open air ‘high place,’ a piazza, a storage room, even pits have been interpreted as cult-related. It appears that cult activities may take place in an open space, a domestic building, an industrial building, a public building, a temple, a shrine and/or a cave or tomb. The participant(s) may be an individual, a group, a family unit, or a highly segregated hierarchy of cult officials.

The finds from Amal Stratum IV included an artifact that the excavators described as a fenestrated offering stand and bowl. The bowl was decorated with four large clawlike pendants. In the 10th century BCE Stratum III, a stone cult stand and a decorated chalice on a high pedestal with lotus petals at the top were described as cult objects (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363). The differentiation between Stratum IV and III is difficult, and the chalices associated with Stratum III could well be Stratum IV, and vice versa. It is not clear what provided the impetus to classify this material, including five additional chalices, as cult related (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:1-3, 5; Edelstein and Feig 1993:1448). Although a cult structure was identified at Arad, no chalices, apart from a vessel described as an incense burner, were found inside the structure. The cult structure was identified by its architecture: steps to an upper room (holy of holies?), a large altar built of mud brick and stones, benches against the walls, a stela painted in red and two small square stone incense altars. Burnt organic material was found on top of the stone incense altars (Aharoni, M. 1993:83) and a red-slipped incense burner was found in two pieces in a chamber next to the altar. One part was a pedestal with lotus petals decorating the top. The other part was a small deep bowl decorated with small petal-like pendants on both the rim and base of the bowl. If the Arad pedestal is compared to chalice pedestals from Amal (Edelstein and Feig 1993:1449), Rehov (unpublished), Safi (Shai and Maeir 2003:111, Fig. 1:5; Maeir: Safi: Internet site, Study No. 2), and a Safi chalice formerly on exhibit in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, there is a resemblance. Therefore, even though the Arad pieces are classified as an incense burner by the excavator, the similarity of the Arad material to material from other sites would suggest that the Arad pieces make up a type of chalice, albeit one that may have been used for burning something. Both the bowl and the pedestal showed burn marks, but it is always difficult to assign the cause of the marks when the fragment or vessel is recovered from a burnt destruction layer. The two chalice pieces are from Stratum X, a stratum that suffered severe damage from a conflagration (Herzog 2002:59). Y. Aharoni assigned Stratum X to the ninth century BCE (Aharoni, M. and Aharoni, Y. 1976:73; Aharoni cited in Herzog 2002:14). The location of the chalice pieces proximate to an altar suggests a more reliable reason to associate a cult function with the chalice. Ostraca found at Arad with references to priestly families provide additional support for a cult function. The two chalice pieces found at Arad were formerly on exhibit in the Israel Museum Jerusalem.

In some cases, the association between cult functions and material finds appears to be correct. In others, the association is tenuous at best. There are instances however where enough direct and reasonable evidence exists to place a chalice, a cult stand and architecture together in a probable cult function. The most reliable evidence for a cult function occurs when texts are found in context with the architecture, artifacts and pottery, such as at Kuntillet Ajrud. Some of the sites thought to have a cultic association are listed below in alphabetic order with comments regarding the chalices found, if any, in these circumstances. Selected Sites with a Structure, Feature or Vessel Assigned a Cult Function Excavators at abu-Hawam identified two temples dated from the early 14th to the end of the 12th century BCE. The first was Temple 50 of Stratum V, a one-room rectangular structure with a circular fireplace and walls supported by four buttresses on the two long sides. A subsequent temple in Stratum IV, Temple 30, was built over the earlier Temple 50. Also rectangular, this later 11th/10th century BCE temple was built to the same width as the previous structure but with the long sides of the rectangle lengthened. Balensi assigns a chalice to Temple 50 (Balensi 1980: Vol. I: 346; Vol. II: Pl. 8:7). This chalice has a deep rounded bowl, a plain everted rim, a short pedestal with a minimal ridge, and a foot with two steps. Hamilton reported a chalice from Stratum III (Hamilton 1935:23, Fig. 88). The chalice, however, was found in an area unrelated to the temple.

Batash reported a cult corner in Stratum II Area ‘E,’ Unit 914. The make-up of the cult corner is a raised brick platform in a corner of the piazza, Locus 910a. Two similar chalices, one larger than the other, were reported 3

from this seventh century BCE cult corner (Timnah II: Pl. 56:1-2). Aside from the raised platform, no evidence of a cult function was presented.

chalice at this time and in this place. Although chalices with both inverted and everted rims were found none of the chalices had a ridge on the pedestal. In the cella, only the fragment of a bowl and pedestal of a possible chalice were found (Deir Alla: Fig. 3-7:8). The absence of chalices in the cella led Franken to comment “if the chalices were used in offering ceremonies then their presence in the storerooms suggest that they were filled from the storerooms,” (Deir Alla: 164).

Over time five different temples functioned from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age I at Beth Shean. Two structures from Strata IX and VIII were proposed as temples based on the interpretation of their architecture and assumed activities, as well as the parallels to Egyptian and Canaanite cult sites. Courts, ascending steps, altars and standing stones were the criteria for designating the arrangement of stones and walls as a cult structure. The Stratum IX temple as well as some of the later temples included a number of foundation deposits. The Late Bronze Age temple of Stratum IX, although a temple with somewhat amorphous architecture, was part of a large sacred area surrounding a central courtyard. The Stratum IX temple finds included the ‘Mekal Stela,’ a stela depicting a cult scene and a seated deity, probably Canaanite. The Stratum VII temple incorporates the architecture of a formal sanctuary complete with a ‘holy of holies,’ benches and a podium. The Stratum Lower VI temple was a rebuild of the Stratum VII temple in the 12th century BCE. The identification of these structures as temples is based on the architecture, viz., central hall with benches, steps leading to a platform, and storerooms adjacent to the holy of holies. In Stratum Upper VI (or V), twin temples (House of Ashtoreth, and House of Dagon) from the 11th century BCE were constructed. A stela of Anat was found in one of these temples. None of the chalices included in this study were found in any of these temples, although chalices and chalice pedestals were reported in loci in the environs of the Stratum Lower V temple.

In the excavations at Tell el-Farah (North) a Late Bronze Age sanctuary was identified above a Middle Bronze Age IIC gate shrine. Subsequent analysis of the excavations reassigned this sanctuary to the Iron Age and reinterpreted it as part of a four-room pillared house (Joffe 1997:304). There was a proliferation of temples and sanctuaries at Hazor. The most notable of these were the Late Bronze Age Stelae temple of Area C, Strata IA/B, Locus 6136, and the Orthostat temple of Area H, Hall 2113, Stratum 1A. Several other cult structures were identified in Areas C, F, L, and the gateways in Areas P and K. For the most part, the vessels associated with the Late Bronze Age temples had the proportions of a footed bowl, i.e., a vessel with a short or almost non-existent pedestal, and a bowl that varies from shallow and wide to deep and wide. These footed bowls were normally rounded with a plain everted rim. The vessel that best displays these characteristics is included in this study, Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXX:4. Another vessel that could be an offering stand is also included, Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1. Jerusalem reported no chalices from any excavations of Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I or Iron Age IIA strata.

At BeerSheba the walls of the Stratum II storehouse incorporated stones from a previous cult structure. Some of the stones conformed to the shape of the ‘horn’ of a ‘horned altar.’ For this reason the stones were reconstructed into such an altar. Unfortunately the location of this altar in its Iron Age II context is not certain (Mazar 1990:495-496; 528 n. 28), thereby preventing the association of any chalice with the altar.

The excavations at Kuntillet Ajrud (Horvat Teman) in the Sinai uncovered a structure that included a wayside shrine. The cult association is based on the architecture (benches with possible offerings) and on inscriptions on artifacts found in this structure. A rim fragment was identified as part of a chalice (Ayalon 1995:180, Fig. 22:1).

Based on publications through 2004, no chalices were identified with the ninth-eighth century BCE Dan High Place. Among the finds, however, were decorated tall stands (incense burners) (Biran 1994a:159-209). The identification of the ‘High Place’ as a probable cult place is based on a stone platform with steps, and some artifacts described as ‘shovels.’ On the lower mound, five standing stones were found to the right of the outside gate. One of the vessels found with the standing stones was a double-spouted oil lamp on a pedestal. However, no chalices were found with the standing stones in the cult corner.

The chalices from the Lachish Stratum V tenth century BCE shrine offer one example of chalices found in a direct cult context, as defined by Y. Aharoni in Lachish V. A famous relief of Sennacherib now in the British Museum depicts victorious Assyrians carrying off cult stands from Lachish. Although the vessels in the relief are strikingly different from those found in the Stratum V shrine, the vessels in the relief may indicate the significance of these vessels, as well as help explain their appearance at sites far from their origin. (For an alternate view of the cult structure identified by Y. Aharoni and its stratigraphy see Ussishkin 2004:105-109.) A Late Bronze Age temple was found in the remnants of the Middle Bronze Age fosse. The temple had three succeeding structural phases with each phase producing a larger temple. Benches, steps, altars and pottery were used to identify the structures as temples. Although numerous cups-and-saucers, lamps, and footed bowls were found in

The environs of the Deir Alla sanctuary yielded a number of chalices. The excavator suggested that nomads used the sanctuary during the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition. The chalices from the sanctuary environs provide important information on the morphology of the 4

the environs of the fosse temple, no chalices of the type included in this study were found. A Late Bronze Age temple also was identified on the summit.

Several favissae were located to the north of the structure. Two intact chalices were recovered from Favissa 128 on the hillock.

A Masos Stratum 2 building with a possible public function was identified as a cult structure. Four chalices, almost alike, were reported from House 314, Area H, in this designated cult building (Masos II: Pls. 149:1-2; 151:5-6).

The Tell Qasile temple complex consisted of a series of three succeeding temples in one location, Buildings 319, 200, and 131 in Strata XII, XI, and X. Cult stands with bowls were identified in the associated miniature shrine, Building 300, Strata XI-X. Three chalices were reported from Shrine 300 (Qasile II: Fig. 32:4-6), and two from Temple 131 (Qasile II: Fig. 40:8-9). The construction of the temples coincides with the settlement of Tell Qasile in the Iron Age I.

The University of Chicago excavators at Megiddo identified a mud brick platform in an Early Bronze Age building of Stratum XIX as “quite evidently a shrine” (Megiddo II: 61). They compared the building and shrine to a sanctuary found at Ein Gedi. There is no indication in the excavation reports that this shrine continued into Stratum XVIII. The most impressive cult area originated at the end of the Early Bronze Age. A round altar, Locus 4017, was erected on the highest point of the area in Stratum XVII. This altar reached its full height in Stratum XVI and continued into Stratum XIV. In Stratum XV three temples were built in the same cult area as the altar, Temples 4040, 5192, and 5269. These temples were called ‘megarons’ and compared to those of Mycenaean origin. In the later Strata XIII, XII, and XI assumed cult functions were attributed to the area above the Early Bronze Age round altar, Locus 4017, and Temple 4040. A new cult structure, Temple 2048, was identified in Area BB of the Late Bronze Age Strata VIII and VII. This massive temple was built above the earlier cult structures of Temple 4040 and Locus 4017. Temple 2048 had two towers at the entrance. Artifacts associated with this fortress-like sanctuary included horned altars and offering stands with tall pedestals. One offering stand had a bowl with protruding pendants attached just below the rim. There was evidence for the continued use of Temple 2048 in Stratum VIB. A household shrine was suggested to explain the remains of a platform in Room 3103 of Stratum VIIB; however, there are no indications that this shrine continued in use in Stratum VIIA. The corner room, Locus 2081, of public building Locus 2072 of the 11th century BCE included an extensive collection of ‘ritual’ vessels. Limestone altars, chalices and cult stands were identified in this locus (Megiddo II: Fig, 90:8-9).

The first season of the ongoing excavations at Tel Rehov revealed an open cult place consisting of a mud brick platform, fieldstones and large river pebbles. The platform was accompanied by standing stones and a large flat limestone slab. Fragments of a pottery cult stand or altar were found in the debris adjacent to the platform (Mazar 1999:25-26). In the Iron Age II strata contiguous with this platform five chalices were found (Rehov Registration Nos. 16257/3, 16324/1, 16333/1, 16335/1, 26293/19). Each of the chalices has a ridge on the pedestal and an everted rim. However, none of the more than 50 additional chalices and chalice pedestals have been identified with any cult structure. Excavations in a trench east of the city of Samaria revealed numerous sherds and figurines from the eighth century BCE. Sukenik suggested that this location, E207, was an Israelite shrine on a hillside, i.e., a cult high place (Crowfoot, J. W. et al. 1957:137-38). Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to differentiate this deep trench from a dump. Samaria plays a prominent role in the Biblical narrative of Ahab and Jezebel. To date, however, no proliferation of cult artifacts has been found at Samaria. A chalice from Taanach Cistern 69 in SW 2-8 of Period IIB has been associated with a proposed cult structure in the adjacent SW 2-7 (Taanach I: Fig.53:5). There is a heavy carbon deposit in the bowl of this chalice. The cultic structure was reconstructed as a four-space Iron Age house. Cistern 69 is located at the right side of the entrance hall of this house (Frick 2000:52, Fig. 4). This cistern contained not only the chalice, but also fragments of two elaborate stands. The rationale for a cult center at Taanach is based on the pottery cult stands found near and in the Taanach cistern and their similarities to the context and pottery assemblages found at other suggested cult sites. Social considerations at Taanach at the time were also taken into account. Rast suggests that the cult artifacts were stored in domestic circumstances, perhaps by priests, for use in public ceremonies (Rast 1994:361). Sellin discovered a cult stand in pieces proximate to a large flat stone and rectangular basin (Basin 75). This location is near Silo 16 in SW 1-7.

In reference to the remains of a large building at Mevorakh the excavator states: “Its form, interior installations and especially its finds leave no doubt – a sanctuary” (Stern 1993b:1031-1032). The cult status of this building was enhanced when a bronze snake was found in this large public building with benches. Two chalices were found in the environs of the sanctuary area (Mevorakh: Fig.1:22-23). At Michal a cult function was proposed for a Stratum XIII structure on the eastern hillock. The presumption of a cult association was based on the plan of the structure. The plan included a central platform, the platform itself, unusual use of ornamental buttresses, orientation of the corners of the structure, and the pottery repertoire found in and around the structure (Moshkovitz 1989:70).

Other Late Iron Age Suggested Cult Areas At Horvat Qitmit, a late seventh/early sixth century BCE Edomite shrine, a chalice decorated with hanging 5

pomegranates was reported. This reconstructed ‘pomegranate’ chalice may represent a cult-associated footed bowl (Beit-Arieh 1995:Artifact No. 186 cited in Beck 2002:195, Fig. 16:1a). The pedestal as illustrated is minimal, and the wide splay of the stand is not typical of the chalice form. The bowl wall may be straight-sided as this form would accommodate the ‘pomegranate’ attachments.

regardless of how minimal the definition of the ridge. There is, however, an almost equal distribution of inverted and everted-rim chalices. A characteristic common to those chalices that are illustrated is a rim with an outer edge that is slightly elongated, pointed and turned downward. The quantity of chalices from this tomb indicates that the chalice was an important component of the burial process at this time and place.

A wide array of cult vessels from the Edomite shrine at ‘En Hazeva was discovered during the excavations. The site is ca. 25 km south of Horvat Qitmit. Most of the vessels are described as incense burners. However, a bowl with pomegranates suspended from crenulations at the base is described as a ‘pomegranate’ chalice. The bowl appears to have a minimal pedestal and no splayed foot. The bowl fits into and on top of a cylindrical tall pedestal. Other vessels include goblets and a few ‘chalices’ with shallow bowls and short pedestals. One of the chalice pedestals is fenestrated.

The tombs and cemetery at Tell el Farah (South) revealed more than 20 chalices. These chalices are the most highly decorated chalices included in this study. The decorations vary from simple horizontal lines to complicated geometric designs to lotus blossom patterns. Yet highly decorated as they are, this group of chalices is quite homogenous in form. The inclusion of these imaginatively decorated chalices in a burial context suggests that they were an integral part of the burial process. Gezer reported 18 chalices from tombs, most with rounded bowls. Of these, three chalices were found accompanied by another vessel or vessels. In two instances the arrangement of the vessels, i.e., stacked one in the other, suggested an intentional placement for some unknown purpose.

The Chalice as a Cult Vessel All of the sites discussed above were assigned a cult function and cult stands, lamps and chalices were found at several of these sites. Of the many sites where chalices were found, however, only Arad, Beth Shean, Deir Alla, Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo and Tell Qasile appear to have a secure basis for assuming a cult function. It is true of course that many of the chalices in this study were found in domestic contexts, and these chalices may have been associated with a domestic cult function.

At Lachish, the Tufnell excavation report included 25 chalices. Thirteen chalices were illustrated and of these most were from tombs or caves. Although the bowl forms vary, all the chalices have an everted rim. A total of 25 chalices were found in 12 different tombs at Megiddo. Most were illustrated in the Megiddo Tombs publication. The chalices show both inverted and everted rims. The tombs were used from the Middle Bronze Age through the Early Iron Age.

Based on these examples it appears that the evidence at this time is simply insufficient to either support or disprove any association between the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age chalice and cultic practices at that time. Chalices in Tombs

Nine of the sixteen chalices from Nasbeh are from tombs. After observing that six of the nine Nasbeh-type chalices were found on the mound Wampler (Nasbeh II:95, 238) wrote:

Chalices were found in a large number of tombs and caves. Whether or not these chalices were cult-related is uncertain. Only those caves and tombs with more than five Late Bronze Age or Iron Age chalices are included below.

“The chalice, then, was not a vessel made even chiefly for funerary offerings but was in somewhat common use,” adding that “If, therefore, the chalice was used in religious rites, it would seem to have served at least chiefly in the home or in private ceremonies, of which we know nothing.”

A total of 119 chalices were reported from five levels of Tomb 1 of the western cemetery at Dothan. Eighteen of the chalices were illustrated. The tomb levels are from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age I. Few of the illustrated chalices have a ridge on the pedestal,

6

CHAPTER 3 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHALICE FORM Over time, different scholars have used the word ‘chalice’ to refer to vessels with widely different forms. Two examples of this varied use are as follows.

The vessels illustrated in Fig. 3.1 provide a good example of the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age chalice form and could be used as a base-line model for the recognition and classification of a chalice from this period. Of course there are many other stemmed vessels from this period that do not conform to the traditional chalice model.

The first example is from the Knossos Third Palace Period of the 15th century BCE. A detail from the reconstructed ‘Camp Stool’ fresco shows men drinking from a vessel that is described as a ‘chalice.’ This vessel, however, would be better characterized as a two-handled kylix, (Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999:166, Fig.105). In a second example three ‘chalices,’ one in obsidian and two in marble, were reported from the palace of Zakros in east Crete, Second Palace Period of the 15th century BCE, (Higgins 1989:158-59, Figs. 194-96; Archaeology Museum Heraklion). Each of these vessels is in the shape of a cone beaker. An additional example comes from a Heraklion Museum exhibit of finds from the palace at Zakros (Kato Zakro east Crete, Second Palace Period 1700-1450 BCE). This example is a stone ‘chalice’ with a cone vase set on a short pedestal. Like the preceding examples, this vessel does not conform to the chalice types that provide the focus of this study.

To get a better idea of what a chalice is, and what it isn’t, examples of various types of stemmed vessels are listed below. One example comes from Amal. This vessel is decorated with lotus-leaf petals at the top of its tall pedestal and is described as a cult stand by P. Beck (Beck 2002:210-212, 211:Fig.16). The entry in the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, however, describes the same vessel as a chalice (Edelstein and Feig 1993:1447-1450). This study classifies this vessel as a chalice. A highly decorated vessel with a straight-sided bowl comes from an Early Bronze Age context at Beth Shean. Although designated a ‘chalice’ this vessel has a very short pedestal, giving it a form more reminiscent of a vase than a chalice, at least as defined in this study (FitzGerald 1935, Pl. 8:6, cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:70, Fig. 11:4, 287).

Before large-scale excavations began the ‘definition’ of a chalice was not a problem, since the chalice form that is the subject of this study was not found in significant quantities. But as more and more stemmed vessels were found, and as the differences between these vessels became increasingly apparent, a more definitive classification system became necessary.

At Dan, an installation consisting of five weathered standing stones was discovered to the right of the entrance to the lower outer gate. Pottery found with the installation included a vessel with a bowl shaped like an oil lamp. The bowl had two closely spaced spouts and the pedestal was tall. Biran describes this unusual vessel as an incense cup (Biran 1994b:11, 13, Fig 1-10). Certainly the vessel is unlike any of the chalices in this study.

Ruth Amiran recognized this and in her authoritative work, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, offered more precise definitions for the two principal variants of the chalice form: the goblet and the footed bowl. Examples of these forms, as well as of the chalice form, can be seen in Amiran’s book in Plates 28, 40 and 68.

Tell Dothan reported 119 chalices in the five levels of Tomb 1 of the Western Cemetery (Area K) (Cooley and Pratico 1994:82 Table 1). The tomb is dated primarily to the end of the Late Bronze Age, but was still in use in Iron Age I. The three photographs accompanying the article show vessels with the type of short pedestal typical of the footed-bowl form (Cooley and Pratico 1994:81, Fig.5-7/a-c). However, a recent interim report of the Dothan Publication Project illustrates 18 chalices of the type included in this study (Dothan Project: Internet site). If most of the vessels conform to this profile this cache represents a significant find of chalices in one location over an extended period of time and will be included in future work.

Yet in the minds of most people, a chalice is really a goblet. In large part this is because our mental image of a chalice is biased by the chalice used in religious ceremonies. To resolve the ‘definition’ problem, it may be a good idea to explain what a chalice is (at lest as the term is used in this study) and what it isn’t. The chalice used in today’s religious practices is not the chalice that provides the focus of this study. Rather, the term ‘chalice,’ as applied here, refers to a vessel that comes into use in ancient Canaan at the end of the Bronze Age and increases in popularity through the Iron Age IIA, only to disappear almost entirely at the end of the Iron Age IIB.

A chalice with a large rounded broad-based bowl and a tall pedestal with fenestrations was found at Tell elFarah (North) and is now on exhibit at the Louvre Museum. This Early Bronze Age vessel is decorated with a rope pattern on the outer bowl and is an example of

This vessel is relatively large and heavy with a bowl that is wider then that of a goblet. The pedestal of this vessel is relatively sturdy but far longer than that found on a footed bowl with its very short pedestal.

7

‘gray burnish ware’ (called Esdraelon ware). Although classified as a chalice it would be an extremely early example of the chalice form (deVaux 1949, RB 56, Fig 2:4, cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:52, Pl. 9:13). Rather, the elaborate decoration suggests that this vessel is probably an offering stand. A similar vessel from Beit Aula was dated to the 11th century BCE and described as a cult stand (Amiran and Perrot 1972: Pl. 1, cited by Beck 2002:216, Fig 27). The carinated bowl has a vertical wall and the fenestrated pedestal is decorated with ‘faces.’ A similar vessel, or possibly the same one, is on display at the Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum at the University of Haifa.

Three Late Bronze Age vessels, one from Lachish (Lachish II Pl. 47:223) and two from Megiddo (Megiddo II. Pls. 62:6, 72:13), are described as chalices. The Lachish example has a short pedestal and a globular bowl with two handles. The form is that of a footed bowl and the chalice as defined here does not have handles. The Megiddo examples are straight-sided goblets and although some goblets are found in this study, they are included only for purposes of illustration. All three vessels are highly decorated. Two shallow bowls with wide rims and fragmentary thick short pedestals were reported from a Neolithic context at Munhata (Perrot 1968:416-439, Fig. 845, cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:33, Pl. 6:7-8). The bowl of the larger example has a depth of ca. 4 cm and a rim diameter of ca. 24 cm, while the extant part of the pedestal measures ca. 12 cm at the top. According to the definitions used in this study, both vessels would be classified as footed bowls.

Vessels and fragments of vessels from the Chalcolithic shrine at Gilat were thought to belong to ‘fenestrated pedestal chalices.’ One vessel was complete. The diameter of the rim is ca. 43 cm and the overall height of the vessel is 17 cm. The pedestal is very stout. These proportions indicate that the vessel would be better described as a footed bowl. A more interesting find from Gilat was a pottery figurine of a woman holding a churn on her head. Under her left arm the woman holds a vessel that looks very much like a small short pedestal ‘chalice’ with a shallow bowl.

Seven rim sherds from Taanach may be from chalices. Of the seven, four are everted plain rims (two possibly folded), one is an everted rim (possibly folded) with a pointed flat edge, and two others are near-vertical rims (again possibly folded). Two of the sherds (Taanach I Figs.3:16, 23:11) resemble rims on chalices from Pella and Tell es-Sa’iyideh.

Several pottery cult vessels were reported from a Chalcolithic context at Teleilat Ghassul. This assemblage included a vessel with a deeply-carinated straight-sided bowl and a cone-shaped pedestal. The diameter of the rim is almost the same as the height of this vessel, ca. 17 cm, placing it in the category of offering stand or footed bowl (Mallon, Koeppel and Neuville 1934, 1940, cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:38, Fig.7:7). Basalt bowls atop fenestrated stands are also found in Chalcolithic settlements where they were almost certainly used for domestic or industrial applications. The Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum in Haifa has on display a basalt bowl on a stand.

As these examples suggest, a standard definition for the term ‘chalice’ would clarify what a chalice is and what it isn’t. The Possible Use of the Chalice The catalogue for the Eretz Israel Museum Tel Aviv exhibition At that time the Canaanites were in the land describes a vessel (Ziffer 1990:35*) as “The delicate chalice with its high narrow foot and egg-shell thin walls...” The accompanying illustrations show Middle Bronze Age IIB ‘beakers’ (Ziffer 1990:Fig. 12*) and carinated narrow-based bowls resting on squat pedestals (Ziffer 1990:Fig. 45). Although the implication may be that these examples are drinking vessels, there is scant pictorial evidence that this was the case. Indeed until the advent of the kylix, most scenes depicted the use of a bowl or cone-shaped vessel as a vehicle for drinking.

A reconstructed vessel from Horvat Qitmit consists of a wide splayed pedestal and a bowl decorated with pomegranates (Beck 2002:194-195, Fig.16). The vessel was described as a cult chalice, apparently on the basis of parallels with material from Kubaba in North Syria and the famous ‘gold bowl’ found at Ras Shamra (Beck 2002:194). Although it is possible that the vessel is a cult-offering stand, the absence of a meaningful pedestal suggests that this vessel is a footed bowl with possible cult associations.

An exceptional and informative exhibition at the Israel Museum in the second half of 1999 titled Drink and Be Merry: Wine and Beer in Ancient Times, presented no chalice of the type in this study as a vessel to drink from, either as an artifact or in the illustrations that were included in the exhibit catalogue.

A collection of ‘Negebite’ pottery incense burners was reported from the middle fortress at Kadesh-Barnea (Cohen 1983: 6-7, Photo 1). Although the collection consists mostly of pedestal fragments, some examples show a portion of the lower bowl with its upper pedestal. Most of the fragments are decorated with a series of protrusions around the upper neck of the pedestal. From what can be seen these small fragments appear to be typical of the chalice form. Had complete profiles been available, they might well have been included in this study.

The Megiddo ivory from the palace of Stratum VIIA shows a scene of individuals drinking from bowls. Again no chalice of the type in this study is present. In fact, most depictions of ancient drinking vessels show a bowl or cone-shaped beaker, not a chalice. One reason may be that a Late Bronze/Iron Age chalice is both large and heavy and the shape of the rim (inverted, vertical or 8

everted) would make the vessel difficult to drink from without spilling. Of course, a straw might have been used, as is seen in some Sumerian and Egyptian drinking scenes. But it is more likely that the chalice was intended for an entirely different use.

Many images from Egyptian tombs and funerary stelae of the Bronze Age show vessels with a tall slim flared pedestal and a bowl that is usually cone-shaped or flat. The vessels appear to hold offerings. None of the illustrations show that they are used for drinking, or depict smoke rising from the bowl, as would be the case if the vessel were a lamp. Excellent examples of these tall stands or offering tables are on exhibit in the Louvre Museum Paris, (Mastaba d’Akhethehep, Saqqara, ca. 2400 BCE, #0575).

It appears G. M. Crowfoot (1957:177) believed this was the case when she wrote: “ ‘Chalices’ is a good general term for cup-like forms with stems that give a good hand-hold, but they were most probably used as censers or braziers.” It should be noted, however, that Crowfoot’s remarks were accompanied by drawings of several goblets (Crowfoot 1957:176, Fig. 25:1-5, 7, 9).

Another theory is that the chalice was used as an incense burner. Certainly it could be compared to the modern day incense burner still used on the Arabian peninsula. However, significant alterations in the shape of the vessel would be required since the modern-day incense burner is square and has raised corners, not unlike the limestone altars found in ancient Israel. An incense burner would have been highly useful in the ancient world. Depending on the material burned it could be used to ward off insects, mask unpleasant odors, or even provide a social distinction from other members of the community.

Even before Crowfoot, Schumacher came up with a possible use for the chalice when he described a chalicelike vessel from his excavations at Megiddo as a ‘Fruchtschale,’ fruit bowl. And more than one scholar believes that the chalice was used either as a serving bowl or eating bowl. Other scholars believe it was used as a lamp. It is true that burn marks have been found in many chalice bowls. But more often than not, these burn marks appear randomly both inside and outside of the bowl, suggesting that they are the result of a conflagration or destruction. Had the chalice been used as a lamp, it would be expected that the burn marks would have been found inside the bowl coterminous with the rim. Also, the placement of the wick and the large quantity of oil that would be needed make it seem doubtful that the chalice was a form of lamp.

These theories could be scientifically tested. If a residue of olive oil were found inside the chalice bowl, it would lend credence to the idea that the chalice was used as a lamp. Similarly, if any form of incense from an organic source were found inside the bowl, the chalice may have served as an incense burner. Until comprehensive and controlled scientific evidence is available, however, it is impossible to know what the chalice was used for. Nor at this time is it possible to explain why the chalice appeared in such great numbers at the end of the Late Bronze Age and continued through the Iron Age IIA, only to disappear almost entirely at the end of the Iron Age IIB.

On the other hand, it is possible the chalice was used as a lamp stand. Or, it might have served as the base of a torch, making it easier to transport a burning lamp from place to place.

9

10

CHAPTER 4 THE ROUTE OF THE CHALICE A distinctive form of chalice appears in the late 13th and early 12th centuries BCE at sites as far north as Hazor, as far west as Abu Hawam and Tell Qasile, and as far east as the Trans-Jordanian sites of Deir Alla, Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, and Pella.

Proceeding west across the Jordan River to Tel Rehov and Beth Shean, we find additional chalices with this type of inverted rim dated to the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 12th centuries BCE. Three chalices conforming to this distinctive form are from Tel Rehov. All were found in an early Iron Age I tomb and all have the exterior portion of the rim decorated in red (Tsori 1975:17, Figs. 5:10-12). The chalice from Beth Shean is from a Stratum VII room associated with the 13th century BCE Egyptian Garrison (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 27:12).

The form of this chalice is easily recognized because the rim points outward and turns obliquely down. In most of the examples the rim is inverted and in many examples (and perhaps all the examples) the rim appears to be folded.

Diverting our journey north to Hazor, we find three examples conforming to this distinctive form. A chalice fragment with an exaggerated rim was found sandwiched between a fill on bedrock and a stone collapse of a lower city cave (Hazor I, Pl. CXLIII:31). The context of the find suggests a secure Late Bronze Age date. Another chalice has a dramatic flared pedestal without a ridge and is from a room of a Stratum 1 building assigned to the Late Bronze Age (Hazor II: Pl. CXLI:20). The third chalice has the exterior rim decorated in red and was reported from a Stratum III locus north of Citadel Wall 17 (Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32). Although this locus is dated to the Iron Age IIC, Yadin reported that the citadel rests on a fill that contained “a great quantity of sherds” (Hazor I:49-50). He went on to note, however, that (a) “the black-on-red painted fragment apparently belongs to a decorated (cult) chalice” (Hazor I:52), and that (b) this is part of a group of material “whose relation to Citadel III is almost certain” (Hazor I:51). If his classification of the painted fragment as black-on-red pottery is correct, it would discount a Late Bronze Age date for the fragment.

There is no certainty as to exactly when this type of chalice first appeared in the Late Bronze Age II, but it is worth noting that both Deir Alla and Tell Qasile serve as important reference points for dating. Examples of this chalice form found at Deir Alla can be dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age by the appearance of the Tausert artifact as well as by Carbon-14 dates from the sanctuary. A similar chalice found at Tell Qasile can be dated to the beginning of the Iron Age I based on a new settlement founded at Tell Qasile at that time. Why these chalices appeared at these locations at this time and any possible ‘migration’ of this type of chalice among these sites can only be a matter of conjecture. For purposes of discussion, however, let us propose a hypothetical journey from mid-Transjordan across the Jordan River and through the Beth Shean and Jezreel Valleys to the west, the so-called ‘Conquest’ and ‘Peaceful Infiltration’ models, Fig. 4.1. This analysis should not be interpreted as an endorsement of either of these models. We begin at Deir Alla.

Returning to Beth Shean we continue west to Taanach where we come across two more rims conforming to the distinctive type. Both of these rims were found in strata attributed to the Iron Age. The rim illustrated in Taanach I: Fig. 3:16 (the drainpipe structure) is dated to Period IA, while the rim in Taanach I: Fig. 23:11 (a fill layer) is dated to Period IIA.

The three vessels found at Deir Alla conform well to the chalice type described above (Deir Alla: Figs. 4-6:10, 414:10, 5-3:10). They were found in rooms E4 and E7 within the sanctuary environs and provide good examples of what may be a folded rim that points obliquely downward. The Deir Alla vessels are not identical, however. One has an inverted rim (Deir Alla: Fig. 46:10), the second has an everted rim (Deir Alla: Fig. 414:10), while the third has a vertical or slightly inverted rim when viewed from the interior face (Deir Alla: Fig. 53:10). All these chalices are dated to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition period.

This chalice form is also found on the Megiddo mound where two examples were reported from Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I Strata VIIb and VII (Megiddo II: Pls. 67:5, 72:12). Two rims found in the Megiddo Tombs also conform to our distinctive form. Both are from Tomb 63 (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30, 60:36). The same rim form is repeated in a chalice from Afula Stratum IIIA (Dothan, M. 1954:41, Fig. 14:26).

The same inverted rim form is found on the chalice from Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, just north of Deir Alla. This chalice, on view at the British Museum, came from a grave and is also dated to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition period.

From Megiddo we continue west until we arrive at AbuHawam where we find a late Bronze Age Stratum V2 chalice with a similar inverted rim (Balensi 1980: Vol. II: Fig. 20:6). Further south at Tell Qasile, the Iron Age I Stratum XII finds include an inverted rim that also fits our chalice profile (Qasile II: Fig. 14:11). There is no

At Pella, a little north of Tell es-Sa’iyideh, two chalices with similar inverted rims were reported. One example is from Phase II (Pella in Jordan 2: Fig. 47:7) and the other is from Phase III (Pella in Jordan 1: Fig. 120:12). 11

suggestion that this chalice form cascaded from Megiddo to these sites, but the appearance of this form of chalice in the same relative chronology would seem to be more than coincidental.

and Jezreel Valleys and then west to Megiddo with an offshoot to the Jordan Valley, Fig. 4.2. Although we may be following the suggested movement of peoples from east to west, the so-called ‘Conquest’ or ‘Peaceful Infiltration’ model in the route illustrated, Figs. 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and Table 4.1, an equally viable route may be from Hazor.

The above route began at Deir Alla and concluded at Tell Qasile in the west and at Hazor in the north. It is possible, however, that this type of chalice form first appeared at Hazor and its influence spread south to the Beth Shean

Table 4.1 The Route of the Chalice - Hazor Figure

Location

Chronology

Stratum

Reference

4.3:1 4.3:2 4.3:3 4.3:4 4.3:5 4.3:6 4.4:1 4.4:2 4.4:3 4.4:4 4.4:5 4.4:6 4.4:7 4.4:8 4.5:1 4.5:2 4.5:3 4.5:4 4.5:5 4.5:6 4.5:7 4.5:8 4.5:9

Deir Alla Deir Alla Deir Alla Tell es Sa’idiyeh Pella Pella Beth Shean Tel Rehov Tel Rehov Tel Rehov Taanach Hazor Hazor Hazor Taanach Taanach Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Afula Tell Abu Hawam Tell Qasile

LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB III LB II IAI LB IAI IAI IAI IAIA IAIIC LB II LB II IAIA IAIIA LB LB/IAI LB II LB II IAIB LB IAIB

E2 E4 E7 Grave 46 Ph II Ph III VII Tomb Tomb Tomb IA III Cave 1b IA IIA VIIB VII T. 63A T. 63B IIIA V2 XII

Deir Alla: Fig. 4-6:10 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-3:10

12

British Museum Exhibit

Pella in Jordan 2: Fig. 47:7 Pella in Jordan 1: Fig. 120:12

James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 27:12 Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:10 Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:11 Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:12 Taanach I: Fig. 3:16 Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32 Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31 Hazor II: Pl. CXLI:20 Taanach I: Fig. 3:16 Taanach I: Fig. 23;11 Megiddo II: Pl. 67:5 Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:36 Dothan, M. 1954:63, Fig. 14:26 Balensi 1980:Vol. II: Pl. 20:6 Qasile II: Fig. 14:11

13

14

15

16

17

18

CHAPTER 5 STATISTICAL OBSERVATIONS The accompanying graphs illustrate the distribution of chalices by type, chronology and location. The data used to prepare these graphs is drawn from the more than 450 chalices included in this study.

Chalices with an everted rim dominate the chalice repertoire in the Iron Age II. In sharp contrast only three chalices with inverted rims were reported throughout the Iron Age II, Graph 5.2C.

Chalices by Type

Chalices with an inverted rim (Type 1XX) appear in near equal percentages before and during the Iron Age. However, while the inverted-rim chalice is found in both Late Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition strata, this type of chalice is almost exclusively limited to the Iron Age IB in the Iron Age. By the Iron Age IIA chalices with an inverted rim have all but disappeared, Graph 5.2A.

The number of chalices with an inverted, everted, and vertical rim is presented in Graph 5.1A. Chalices with an inverted rim (Type 1XX - Types 111, 112, 113, 131, 133) represent 11% (51 examples) of the chalices in this study, those with an everted rim (Type 2XX - Types 211, 212, 213, 221, 22, 223, 231, 232, 233) account for 86% (403 examples) and those with a vertical rim (Type 31X) make up 3% (12 examples).

Chalices with a vertical rim (Type 3XX) are found almost exclusively in an Iron Age context. Unlike chalices with an inverted rim, these chalices appear in limited but almost equal number throughout the Iron Age IB to IAIIC, Graph 5.2A-B.

An analysis of the chalice rim as plain (Type X1X), splayed (Type X2X) or ledge (Type X3X) shows that most of the rims are splayed (48%). Plain rims represent 37% of the examples in this study and ledge rims account for 15%, Graph 5.1B.

An analysis of the data suggests that prior to the Iron Age 27% of all chalice rims were inverted and 73% were everted. In the Iron Age IA 15 of the 16 rim types from this period were everted with only one inverted-rim chalice reported. In the Iron Age IB the inverted-rim form declines to 19% and the first vertical-rim chalices appear. At the same time the number of chalices with an everted rim mushrooms to 79% of the total. Chalices with an inverted rim decline markedly in the Iron Age IIA (≤ 1%). Fully 98% of all chalices from this period have an everted rim, Graph 5.2B.

There appears to be no overwhelming preference for any one form of the chalice bowl. The rounded bowl (Type XX1) represents 42% of the examples, while the carinated bowl (Type XX2) represents 32%, and the straight-sided bowl (Type XX3) accounts for 26%, Graph 5.1C. Chronology of Chalice Types Although the chalices that form the focus of this study date from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age II, a few examples from before the Late Bronze Age are included in the statistical category pre Iron Age IA (Pre IAIA).

Another view of the same data indicates a decline in the number of chalices with an inverted rim (Type 1XX) from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age IIC, and an increase in the number of chalices with an everted rim (Type 2XX) from the Iron Age IA through the Iron Age IIA, Graph 5.2C.

Graphs 5.2A-C illustrate the distribution of the inverted (Type 1XX), everted (Type 2XX), and vertical (Type 3XX) rim types by chronological period from Pre-IAIA through Iron Age II. The type distribution is shown by percentage in two graphs and by trend in another.

Location of the Chalice Rim Types Sites in the Shephelah and the Jezreel Valley reported the largest number of chalices, a combined total of 262 examples. The Negev sites reported 63 examples. The sites reporting the smallest number of chalices were those in Philistia (14) and the Southern Hills (9), Graph 5.3A. It should be pointed out, however, that the reporting of vessels of all types, including chalices, may have been influenced by the basic objective of the early excavators who (1) selected sites based on biblical connections, and (2) hoped to find and excavate only those levels that were thought to be connected to Biblical events.

The most dynamic statistical distribution can be seen in the growing dominance of chalices with an everted rim (Type 2XX), Graph 5.2B. Although this rim form appears before the Iron Age (16%), it shrinks to near insignificance in the Iron Age IA (4%). The trend reverses in the Iron Age IB when examples with an everted rim account for 23% of the chalices in this type. The highest percentage of chalices with an everted rim occurs in the Iron Age IIA when this rim type represents 41%. The number declines to 11% in the Iron Age IIB and to only 5% in the Iron Age IIC, Graph 5.2B.

As shown in Graph 5.3B chalices with an inverted rim (Type 1XX) occur more frequently in northern sites and were found in minimal numbers in both Philistia and the Central Hills. 19

Furthermore, in Canaan the percentage of inverted-rim chalices (Type 1XX) increases the further north the site is, with the highest percentage of these chalices found at locations north of Central Hills sites. The distribution of chalice types in the Jordan Valley is represented almost solely by Deir Alla. Chalices with an everted rim (Type 2XX), as well as those with a vertical rim (Type 3XX) are almost exclusive to the southern sites. Of course these statistics are biased by the absolute number of examples in any one location, Graph 5.3C.

sites in the Negev and Shephelah, reported ca. 20 chalices each. Interestingly, excavations in the Central Hills reported no chalices prior to the Iron Age IB, Graph 5.4A-B.

An analysis of the rims found in the various excavations indicates that the highest number of inverted-rim chalices occurred at sites in the Jezreel Valley (19) and the Jordan Valley (10), with the Central Hills sites reporting only one example. In contrast an overwhelming percentage of the examples found at sites in the Central Hills (29), the Shephelah (118) and the Negev (59) were chalices with everted rims. An equally high proportion of everted-rim examples were from the Jezreel Valley (115).

Chalices from an Iron Age IIB context are strongly represented at sites in the Shephelah with 25 examples (52% of all chalices from Iron Age IIB strata), Graph 5.4B.

In contrast, chalices from Iron Age IIA contexts are well represented in sites in the Negev (28), the Shephelah (48), and the Jezreel Valley (59). Chalices from these locations represent 83% of all examples reported in Iron Age IIA contexts, Graph 5.4B.

Chalices dated to all periods from the Late Bronze Age II to the end of the Iron Age II are represented at all sites, except for those in the Central Hills, Philistia and the Jezreel Valley. No chalices are reported from the Iron Age IIC sites in the Central Hills or the Jezreel Valley. This anomaly may be the result of the Iron Age IIC levels at the Central Hills and Jezreel Valley sites being eroded or destroyed by activities that occurred after 732 BCE, Graph 5.4C.

Location and Chronology of Chalice Rim Types The Shephelah, Jezreel Valley, Galilee and Jordan Valley reported the greatest number of chalices from strata that predate the Iron Age, Graph 5.4A-B.

A further analysis of the distribution of chalices by location, type, and chronology is planned for a future monograph.

The Jezreel Valley accounts for the greatest number of chalices from the Iron Age I. North Coast sites, as well as

20

Statistical Observations

Graph 5.1 GRAPH 5.1A

CHALICES BY RIM TYPE 31X Vertical 23X Everted 22X Everted 21X Everted 13X Inverted 11X Inverted

0

50

100

150

200

250

GRAPH 5.1B RIM FINISH X3X Ledge

X2X Splayed X1X Plain

0

50

100

150

200

250

GRAPH 5.1C BOWL FINISH XX3 Straight

XX2 Carinated XX1 Round

0

50

100

21

150

200

250

Statistical Observations

22

Graph 5.2

Statistical Observations

Graph 5.3

GRAPH 5.3A N umb e r o f Cha lic e s b y Lo c a tio n 9 Jordan Valley 8 Galilee 7 Jezreel Valley 6 N. Coast 5 Central Hills

Series1

4 Philistia 3 Shephelah 2 S. Hills 1 Negev 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

GRAPH 5.3B Cha lic e T y p e b y Lo c a tio n

140 120 100 80 60

TYPE 1XX

40

TYPE 2XX TYPE 3XX

20

Va lle y

G al ile e

Jo rd an

Ph ilis tia C en tra lH ills N .C oa Je st zr ee lV al le y

H ills Sh ep he la h

S.

N eg ev

0

GRAPH 5.3C Lo c a tio n o f Cha lic e T y p e s Jordan Valley Galilee Jezreel Valley N. Coast TYPE 1XX

Central Hills

TYPE 2XX

Philistia

TYPE 3XX

Shephelah S. Hills Negev 0%

20%

40%

60%

23

80%

100%

Statistical Observations

Graph 5.4 GRAPH 5.4A

Number of Chalices Location and Chronology - South 60 50 40

1 Negev 2 S. Hills

30

3 Shephelah

20

4 Philistia

10 0 Pre IAIA

IAIA

IAIB

IAIIA

IAIIB

IAIIC

GRAPH 5.4B Number of Chalices Location and Charonology - North and Jordan Valley 70 60 50

5 Central Hills

40

6 N. Coast

30

7 Jezreel Valley 8 Galilee

20

9 Jordan Valley

10 0 Pre IAIA

IAIA

IAIB

IAIIA

IAIIB

IAIIC

GRAPH 5.4C Location and Chronology of Chalices 9 Jordan Valley 8 Galilee 7 Jezreel Valley

Pre IAIA

6 N. Coast

IAIA

5 Central Hills

IAIB

4 Philistia

IAIIA

3 Shephelah

IAIIB

2 S. Hills

IAIIC

1 Negev 0%

20%

40%

60%

24

80%

100%

CHAPTER 6 MAP of ISRAEL and LOCATION SITE INDEX crosses west to Jerusalem, continues on to Gezer and ends at Yavneh-Yam on the Mediterranean Sea. Table 6.1 lists the sites in alphabetical order with the area number, location number and site number. The same sites are arranged by location number, area number and site number in Table 6.2. These tables are intended for a statistical analysis and as an index of sites.

Location of Chalice Sites The sites in this study were assigned to the nine geographical areas shown on the map, Fig. 6.1. In addition, for statistical analysis sites in the north and south of Israel are separated by an imaginary line across Israel. This line starts at the northern tip of the Dead Sea,

25

26

Table 6.1 Location Site Index - Alphabetical Site Abu-Hawam Afula Amal Aphek Arad Ashdod Ay Azekah Batash BeerSheba Beit Mirsim Beth Shean Beth Shemesh Beth Zur Dan Deir Alla Dor Esdar Eton Farah (N) Farah (S) Galilee Gezer Halif Hatzevah Hazor Ira Izbet Sartah Jemmeh Jericho Jerusalem Jezreel Jokneam Judeidah Judur Kedesh Keisan Khirbet Dawarra Khirbet Marjameh Kinneret Kuntillet Ajrud Lachish Masos Megiddo Megiddo Tombs Menorah Mevorakh Michal Miqne-Ekron Nasbeh Pella Qashish Qasile Qiri Rehov Safi Samaria

Area 1-North Coast 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Northern Coast 2-Negev 2-Philistia 1-Central Hills 2-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Negev 2-Shephelah 1-Jezreel 2-Shephelah 2-Southern Hills 1-Galilee 3-Jordan Valley 1-Northern Coast 2-Negev 2-Southern Hills 1-Central Hills 2-Negev 1-Galilee 1-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Negev 1-Galilee 2-Negev 1-Central Hills 2-Negev 1-Jordan Valley 1-Southern Hills 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 2-Shephelah 2-Southern Hills 1-Jezreel 1-Northern Coast 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Galilee 2-Negev 2-Shephelah 2-Negev 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 2-Philistia 1-Central Hills 3-Jordan Valley 1-Jezreel 1-Northern Coast 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 2-Philistia 1-Central Hills

27

Location Number 6 7 7 6 1 4 5 3 3 1 3 7 3 2 8 9 6 1 2 5 1 8 3 3 1 8 1 5 1 9 2 7 7 3 2 7 6 5 5 8 1 3 1 7 7 7 6 6 4 5 9 7 6 7 7 4 5

Site Number 005 007 009 010 109 110 105 190 012 209 013 014 015 225 018 405 019 505 021 022 023 025 026 810 811 027 028 029 030 033 1005 035 038 1010 039 1110 1115 1117 1310 040 1120 043 045 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 1710 060 065 067 1910 069

Sayideh Sippor Taanach Zahiriyye Zeror

3-Jordan Valley 2-Philistia 1-Jezreel 2-Southern Hills 2-Northern Coast

28

9 4 7 2 6

070 072 085 091 2610

Table 6.2 Location Site Index – Location Number Order Location Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8

Site

Area

el-Farah (S) Ira Jemmeh Masos Arad Beer-Sheba Esdar Hatzevah Kuntillet Ajrud Eton Judur Zahiriyye Beth Zur Jerusalem Batash Beit Mirsim Beth Shemesh Gezer Lachish Azekah Halif Judeidah Miqne-Ekron Sippor Ashdod Safi el-Farah (N) Izbet Sartah Nasbeh Samaria Ay Khirbet Dawarra Khirbet Marjameh Abu-Hawam Aphek Dor Mevorakh Michal Tell Qasile Keisan Zeror Afula Amal Beth Shean Jezreel Jokneam Megiddo Megiddo Tombs Menorah Qiri Tel Rehov Taanach Kedesh Qashish Dan Galilee

2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Negev 2-Southern Hills 2-Southern Hills 2-Southern Hills 2-Southern Hills 1-Southern Hills 2-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 1-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Shephelah 2-Philistia 2-Philistia 2-Philistia 2-Philistia 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Central Hills 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Northern Coast 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Jezreel 1-Galilee 1-Galilee

29

Site Number 023 028 030 045 109 209 505 811 1120 021 039 091 225 1005 012 013 015 026 043 190 810 1010 055 072 110 1910 022 029 056 069 105 1117 1310 005 010 019 053 054 060 1115 2610 007 009 014 035 038 050 051 052 065 067 085 1110 1710 018 025

8 8 9 9 9 9

Hazor Kinneret Jericho Pella es-Sa’iyideh Deir Alla

1-Galilee 1-Galilee 1-Jordan Valley 3-Jordan Valley 3-Jordan Valley 3-Jordan Valley

30

027 040 033 057 070 405

CHAPTER 7 CHRONOLOGY of CHALICES This chapter arranges the chalices according to the chronology assigned to the stratum where they were found. The chapter is divided into nine sections beginning with chalices dated to before the Late Bronze Age and concluding with those chalices for which no definitive chronology was available. The intermediate sections discuss chalices from the Late Bronze Age, the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition, the Iron Age IA, the Iron Age IB, the Iron Age IIA, the Iron Age IIB, and the Iron Age IIC. Of the more than 450 chalices included in this study, some 125 examples are illustrated in this chapter.

bowl is straight-sided, and the rim is plain and slightly inverted. The pedestal is short and solid above the foot. The remains of the foot are small in comparison to the bowl. A red band decorates the rim exterior and a red cross and red concentric circle above the cross decorate the bowl interior. The Louvre Museum has on exhibit, current as of March 2007, a similar vessel, but without any apparent decoration. The example in the Louvre is from the Early Bronze Age sanctuary on the acropolis. Hazor An update on the ongoing excavations (Ben-Tor 1999:272) reported that a favissa was located in a building that may have functioned as a temple. Vessels from the favissa included two chalices (Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2). One chalice has a shallow bowl with an everted rim and a tall slim pedestal with a minimal ridge (chalice on right in Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig 2), Fig. 7.1:2. The other chalice (chalice on left in Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig 2) appears to have a slightly deformed bowl with a wide everted rim and a short pedestal without a ridge. The chalices are dated to the time of the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age. The appearance of the chalice with the tall slim ridged pedestal (chalice on right, Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2) at this early date is unusual. The vessel illustrated on the left in Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 vaguely resembles a vessel from Megiddo (Megiddo II: Pl. 47:15).

7.1 Chalices Reported in Strata that Pre-date the Late Bronze Age This section includes a limited selection of vessels that the excavators classified as chalices. All of these examples are from strata dated to before the Late Bronze Age, Table 7.1. With the exception of an example from Hazor, these vessels do not conform to the definition of a chalice as used in this study. Because of space limitations, and because they are not the primary focus of this study, a number of similar vessels are not included here. Among these are several vessels that appeared in R. Amiran’s book, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Although classified as chalices, according to the criteria of this study these vessels would fall into the categories of goblets (Amiran 1969: Pl. 28:10-11), footed bowls (Amiran 1969: Pl. 28:14-15), or offering stands.

Megiddo

Of particular interest is a possible offering stand from Ajjul (Amiran 1969: Pl. 28:16). This vessel has a tall pedestal, a shallow bowl and a wide-diameter rim. The vessel closely resembles a type of offering stand often seen in ancient Egyptian art.

Two vessels were reported in Middle Bronze Age strata XII-X (Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14-15). These examples were found in the environs of Temple 2048. Each vessel has a plain everted rim, a rounded shallow bowl with a wide rim diameter and a pedestal without a ridge. One example has a hole in the top of the pedestal just below the bowl (Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14), Fig. 7.1:3.

Two stemmed vessels from Megiddo are also of interest. Each vessel is perforated with holes in either the pedestal or the bowl tang. One possible explanation for the holes may be that the ‘vessel’ was inserted into a stand that had corresponding holes at or near the top of the stand. Once the vessel was in place, a rod was passed through the holes to secure the vessel to the stand. Unfortunately this reasoning does not explain why there is a fully-formed foot on the vessel illustrated in Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14.

Another Megiddo vessel is from Strata X-IX (Megiddo II: Pl. 47:18), Fig. 7.1:4. These strata coincide with the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age. This vessel is also from the Temple 2048 environs. However, unlike the other two examples, the bowl of this example is deep and has a straight-sided wall. The rim is illustrated as slightly thickened with a rounded top and there is a gutter below the inside of the rim. The pedestal, or possibly the tang of the bowl, has two holes just below the bowl.

The following examples from Ay, Hazor and Megiddo provide a good representation of the stemmed vessels uncovered in pre-Late Bronze Age strata.

7.2 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata The number of chalices reported in Late Bronze Age contexts is limited to the examples published in excavation reports. Compared to Iron Age examples, this number is relatively small: 56 Late Bronze Age examples

Ay The vessel from Tomb C is quite colorful (AY: Pl. LXVII:17.363), Fig. 7.1:1. It is small, 7.5 cm high, the

31

as opposed to more than 350 Iron Age examples. One reason for the small number of Late Bronze Age chalice examples may be the methodology used to select sites for excavation. Many of the sites were chosen because of their association with the Bible and in a large number of cases the excavations did not extend below the Biblical period. It is entirely possible that many more Late Bronze Age chalices remain undisturbed in sites or strata that have yet to be excavated. It is also possible that still other Late Bronze Age chalices remain in university storage awaiting publication. Necessarily, however, the statistics and conclusions below are based only on those chalices available for study.

For example, of the 40 everted-rim vessels reported, 16 are from tombs and could have been deposited at any time, and nine are from excavations that took place in the first part of the 20th century CE. These contexts are not entirely reliable. Of the remaining 15 everted-rim chalices, 12 might be better described as offering stands or footed bowls. For example, a vessel from Megiddo and a similar vessel from Hazor have tall slim pedestals and bowl walls that are straight-sided with perforation marks (Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16; Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1). They resemble offering stands. A vessel from Beth Shean also has characteristics that would classify it as an offering stand (James and McGovern 1993:Vol. II: Fig. 20:3). Vessels with a bowl diameter that is disproportionately wide in comparison to the height of the pedestal, such as the vessels from Batash (Kelm and Mazar 1995:51, Fig. 4:13), Beth Shean (James and McGovern 1993: Vol. II: Figs. 27:12; 31:3), Hazor (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21; Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXX:4), and Mevorakh (Mevorakh: Fig. 1:22) more closely resemble a footed bowl than a chalice. Indeed, these vessels might represent the transitional form between the earlier bowl-on-apedestal and the chalice form that is prevalent in the Iron Age. Three vessels from Hazor have no pedestal (Hazor III-IV: Pls. CCLXXIII:1, 3; CLXI:6).

More than half of the Late Bronze Age chalices that were reported came from three sites. Two are important sites in the north, Hazor and Megiddo; the third site is located mid-country at Gezer. Notable is the absence of Lachish, a city of great importance in the Late Bronze Age. It is worth mentioning that most of the Megiddo and Gezer chalices are from tombs. Hazor excavations reported numerous Late Bronze Age chalices in non-tomb contexts, a finding that may suggest Hazor (where chalices were also found in a pre-Late Bronze Age context) as a possible point of origin of the chalice form. In contrast, the number of tombs with chalices at Megiddo suggests that Megiddo may have been a regional cemetery for the dead. The Gezer tombs may have served the same function as Megiddo but in the South.

The three remaining everted-rim Late Bronze Age chalice fragments/sherds come from contexts that cast doubt on a secure Late Bronze Age date, viz, Hazor (Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21), Tell Abu-Hawam (Balensi 1980: Pl. 20:6), and Mevorakh (Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23). The Hazor fragment was found in a purpose-built tunnel belonging to the final stages of the Late Bronze Age lower city. The Tell AbuHawam chalice, an example from Hamilton’s excavations, is from a level designated by Balensi as ‘under V2,’ a level near bedrock. The Mevorakh example is a bowl sherd with a possible folded rim. Mevorakh is described as a Late Bronze Age (15th–13th century BCE) wayside sanctuary, a context that could preclude the chalice’s deposit in the Late Bronze Age.

The 56 chalices dated to the Late Bronze Age represent ca. 12% of the chalices included in this study, Table 7.2. Of the 56 examples, 15 (27%) have an inverted rim, and 40 (71%) have an everted rim. An example from Hazor has no rim (Hazor III-IV, Pl. CCLXXIII:20). The chalice bowl is rounded in 38 (64%) of the examples, and straight-sided in all but five of the remaining examples. Forty-two chalices (75%) were reported in northern sites with two chalices reported in Jordan (Pella). Twelve chalices were reported in southern sites. In many inverted-rim Late Bronze Age chalices, the rim appears to be folded. A folded rim is difficult to assess from the line drawings since the folded appearance may simply represent a particular illustrator’s drawing technique. It is possible that a more detailed visual and technological analysis of the vessel would suggest a different interpretation of the rim stance.

In summary, of the 40 everted-rim chalices in Late Bronze Age strata, 25 are from tombs, caves, and excavations carried out in the formative days of archaeological excavation. If we exclude these vessels, we are left with 15 examples of everted-rim chalices dated to the Late Bronze Age. A review of these indicates that six have notably wide-diameter rims and short pedestals (a profile common to footed bowls); three may be parts of offering stands, and three are too incomplete to offer meaningful diagnostics. The remaining three have less-than-secure contexts. In short, caution needs to be used when classifying these vessels as chalices or when attributing their appearance to the Late Bronze Age.

Most of the chalices with an everted rim are plain, although there may be a few examples with a ledge rim. The statistics cited above would seem to show that the everted-rim chalice is the dominant form during the Late Bronze Age. When the evidence is examined more closely, however, it appears that almost half of the everted-rim chalices were found in contexts that can be interpreted in more than one way. Twelve other examples do not conform to the chalice morphology at least as defined in this study.

Tell Abu Hawam The chalice illustrated is from Hamilton’s excavations and was included in Balensi’s dissertation (Balensi 1980:

32

Volume II: Pl. 20:6, Balensi 1985:110, Fig. 14:7), Fig. 7.2.2:1. The chalice bowl is rounded with red decoration on the exterior lip of the rim. The rim extends outward at a pronounced angle. Balensi dates this vessel to “sous V2,” a Late Bronze Age stratum (Balensi 1980: Volume I:346). She notes that this was the “only one (chalice) of its kind in Hamilton’s collection” (Balensi and Herrera 1985:111, n. 7). She also points out that the decoration is in the “same style as Egyptian bowls of the same form” (Balensi 1980: Volume I:346). Several fragments found by Anati do not appear to be representative of the chalice form (Anati 1959:97-98, Fig. 18:17-18). Chalices similar to Hamilton’s Tell Abu-Hawam chalice are Beth Shean (James and McGovern 1993: Vol. II: Fig. 27:12), Hazor (Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31), Megiddo (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12 - not Late Bronze Age), Megiddo (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30; 60:36), Mevorakh (Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23, not Late Bronze Age), and two rim sherds from Iron Age strata at Taanach.

The third chalice also has the characteristics of a footed bowl, i.e., a wide shallow bowl, a short but wide pedestal, and a broad splayed foot for added stability (James and McGovern 1993: Vol. II: Fig. 31:3). This chalice is decorated in white slip with red horizontal bands on the interior of the bowl and the exterior of the pedestal. All of these chalices were found in rooms of the Strata VIII-VII Late Bronze Age Egyptian garrison buildings. Beth Shemesh Four vessels from the excavations of Grant in the first third of the 20th century CE are possible Late Bronze Age chalices. All four were illustrated in AS II Plate XXXV. The four chalices show different features. The chalice illustrated in AS II: Pl. XXXV:15 has a broad-based bowl that is carinated and rounded. The everted rim is flared. The pedestal is tall and cone-shaped with no ridge. The foot is splayed. The chalices in AS II: Pl. XXXV:23-24 have deep round bowls and plain rims; however, the rim of the chalice in AS II: Pl. XXXV:23 appears to be almost vertical, perhaps as the result of the inner cut of the rim. The pedestal/foot of the chalice in AS II: Pl. XXXV:23 is short and solid. The chalice illustrated in AS II: Pl. XXXV:26 is not complete. The chalice bowl is carinated at the base and has a flaring bowl wall and an everted rim. None of the four chalices has a ridge on the pedestal.

Batash (Timnah) An early publication of the Batash (Timnah) excavations illustrates a chalice found in Stratum VIII, a ‘patrician’ house (Kelm and Mazar 1995:51, Fig. 4:13), Fig. 7.2.2:2. This late 15th century BCE stratum was destroyed by a conflagration. The diameter of this plain everted-rim chalice is ca. 21 cms, twice as wide as the diameter of the foot, and one and one-half times as wide as the chalice is tall. The bowl is shallow and the pedestal is stepped at the junction with the foot. This vessel might be better described as a footed bowl.

The chalice in AS II: Pl. XXXV:15 and the almost complete chalice in AS II: Pl. XXXV:26 show well defined broad-based bowls and sweeping everted rims, features that are well known in Iron Age chalices. The complete chalice in AS II: Pl. XXXV:15 has a trumpetshaped pedestal, but lacks the characteristic Iron Age ridge. These are early examples of this form and have parallels in the Late Bronze Age chalice bowls found in Gezer Tombs 58, 59 and 85. Unfortunately the uncertainty of the Beth Shemesh stratigraphy suggests that the Late Bronze Age may not be the only possible date for this material. Stratum IV was the last Late Bronze Age stratum at Beth Shemesh; however, the destruction date of this stratum is not clear.

The location of this example in a ‘patrician’ house suggests a multi-purpose function for the vessel. The overall profile is similar to other vessels that were described as Late Bronze Age chalices. The Batash vessel is well formed and the stepped foot is similar to a vessel from Tell Abu-Hawam (Balensi 1980: Volume II: Pl. 8:7). The Tell Abu-Hawam parallel is from a stratum that bridges the Late Bronze/ Iron Age I transition. Beth Shean

Tell el-Farah (South) James and McGovern reported three chalices in their 1993 publication. The red-slipped bowl of one chalice is shallow and rounded (James and McGovern 1993: Vol. II: Fig. 20:3). It has a plain rim rounded on the top with thickened inward and outward edges. The extant part of the pedestal has no ridge.

Petrie dated three chalices to the Late Bronze Age and a fourth similar chalice to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition period. The techniques and methods available to Petrie in the late 1920s do not assure a secure chronology for these chalices. Subsequent studies by McClellan dated the same four chalices to the Iron Age I. Three of the chalices, viz., CPP: Fig. 17E, 17E2 (both included here) and Fig. 17E4 (a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition chalice) have rounded, almost straightsided bowls and splayed everted rims. The chalice CPP: Fig. 17E4 is discussed in the section on chalices reported in strata that bridge the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I. The other Late Bronze Age chalice, illustrated in CPP: Fig. 17N7, is not complete but the remains of the lower rim suggest that it is splayed and everted above the carinated straight-sided bowl. The pedestal of this chalice has no

A second chalice bowl is also shallow and the rim, which may have been formed by folding, is finished in an almost vertical position (James and McGovern 1993: Vol. II: Fig. 27:12). The exterior upper edge of the rim extends out at a sharp angle, similar to the chalice from Tell AbuHawam above. The pedestal remnant appears to be shorter and wider than that seen in most chalices. These features suggest that this may be a footed bowl.

33

ridge. The context for this chalice is uncertain. Two of the chalices are from cemeteries (CPP: Fig. 17E, 17E2).

although one of these chalice bowls (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21) is deeper than the other two. The bowl of Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24 is straight-sided but carinated, and the incomplete chalice has a straight-sided bowl (Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21). None of the complete chalices has a ridge on the pedestal.

Gezer Macalister reported seven chalices from tombs in excavations carried out at the beginning of the 20th century CE. All but one chalice have an everted rim. Six chalices have rounded bowls, and one has a straight-sided bowl. Only one chalice has a ridge on the pedestal (CPP: Fig. 17S2) and only one is decorated (CPP: Fig. 17B2). Three of the chalices were found combined with other pottery forms. One chalice was found with another chalice resting on its side in the bowl (CPP: Fig. 17B7), Fig. 7.2.3:1. Another chalice was found with a unique tubular pilgrim flask placed on top of the chalice bowl with a broken juglet placed in the center of the pilgrim flask (CPP: Fig. 17C7), Fig. 7.2.3:4. The third chalice was found with a lamp in a bowl; the bowl in turn was placed in the chalice bowl (CPP: Fig. 17S2), Fig. 7.2.3:2. These unusual arrangements of vessels in a tomb setting suggest an intentional placement of the vessels; however, the meaning of such a ritual is not explained. Alternatively, the arrangements may represent a simple stacking of grave goods to make room for the next interment. The chalice illustrated in CPP: Fig. 17B4 has a large diameter rim, relatively short pedestal and notably splayed foot, all indications of a footed bowl.

The rim of the chalice illustrated in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21 is plain and everted while the rim of chalice Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21 appears to be folded and extended outward at an oblique angle. The chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXLI:20 shows a similar treatment although in this example the rim is slightly inverted. The chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24 has an inverted ledge rim, while the rim of the chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23 appears to be a plain inverted rim. However, as the chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23 appears to be warped the rim of this chalice might also be interpreted as ledge. The chalice in Hazor II: Pl.CXVIII:21 is also slightly warped; the deep rounded bowl with its everted rim sits on a pedestal/foot that has no ridge. Two chalices illustrated in Hazor II are each decorated with short stripes on the rim, and a distinctive double cross inside the bowl (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23-24), Fig. 7.2.1:1; 7.2.1:8. These chalices are from the stratum of the Area C shrine. The locus for these chalices is only proximate to the shrine although a fragment of a chalice bowl with its rim was found in a room of the shrine (Hazor II: Pl. CXXIV:8). This fragment has a rounded bowl and a rim with a thickened edge that is pinched slightly inward. The interior of the bowl is decorated.

Hazor Although Hazor was the largest city in northern Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, excavation reports illustrate only 12 chalices dated to this period.

Six examples of chalices were illustrated in the Hazor IIIIV report. Four of the chalices are from Stratum 1 in the lower city, one chalice is from Stratum 2 in the lower city, and one chalice is from Strata XIV-XIII in the upper city. The Strata XIV-XIII location is from a lower surface between the inner two chambers of the Stratum X Iron Age gate. Three of the chalices have rounded bowls (Hazor III-IV: Pls. CCLXXIII:1, 3; CCLXXX:4), and three have straight-sided bowls (Hazor III-IV: Pls. CCLXXIII:20, CLXI:6, and CCLXIV:1). The rims of four of the chalices are plain and everted. The rim of the chalice in Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1 is everted and flat.

The first excavation report illustrates a chalice bowl that is rounded, and appears to have a folded rim that is everted and extended obliquely outward (Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31), Fig. 7.2.2:3. Although this chalice form has no precise parallel at Hazor, a chalice bowl from Beth Shean is a reasonable parallel (James and McGovern 1993: Vol. II: Fig. 27:12), as are chalices from Deir ‘Alla (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10) and Mevorakh, (Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23). The Beth Shean parallel is from the Egyptian garrison, and the Mevorakh parallel is from the area proximate to the high place open sanctuary. The appearance of this form at Beth Shean, Hazor with its multiple temples, as well as the sanctuary environs at Deir ‘Alla and Mevorakh, may be more than coincidental. The Hazor chalice fragment is from the east part of a Late Bronze Age cave. The example is unusual in that the rim has an exaggerated outer edge similar to the one reported above from Tell Abu-Hawam.

The excavation report describes one chalice as perforated (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1), Fig. 7.2.3:5. However, no clear perforation marks are shown in the illustration. This chalice is from the Stratum 2 courtyard temple area and is illustrated with a tall thin pedestal. One chalice fragment is elaborately decorated on the exterior (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:20), Fig. 7.2.3:6. This fragment is described by the excavators as ‘orange ware’ as is the chalice illustrated in Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:3. The chalices illustrated in Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:1, 3, and 20 are from either a room of the temple or from the favissa in front of the Stratum 1b temple. The chalice illustrated in Hazor III-IV: Pl.

The Hazor II report illustrated four complete chalices and the bowl of a fifth chalice. Other Plates in Hazor II illustrated goblets, footed bowls and chalice fragments. These five Late Bronze Age II examples are from rooms in the lower city, open areas, and a purpose-built tunnel in Stratum 1. Three of the complete chalices have rounded bowls (Hazor II: Pls. CXVIII:21, 23; CXLI:20)

34

CCLXXX:4 is from the holy of holies of the Stratum 1a temple.

ridge on the pedestal. This chalice was found in a room next to the Late Bronze Age gate.

The chalice illustrated in Hazor III-IV: Pl.CLXI:6 is a crude version of the chalice in Hazor III-IV: Pl.CCLXXIII:3. The bowls of both of these chalices resemble the goblet form.

Megiddo Tombs The Megiddo tombs excavations reported 15 chalices from a Late Bronze Age context. They are from seven different tombs and can be distributed between two general types based on three individual forms. One of each form is illustrated (Megiddo Tombs: Pls. 60:30; 31:7; 34:11; 16:10), Figs. 7.2.1:3; 7.2.1:6; 7.2.2:4; 7.2.2:6. None of the chalices has a ridge on the pedestal. Seven of the chalices have inverted rims. Of these, two are decorated on the exterior of the outer rim. Thirteen of the chalices may have had the rims formed by folding the edge into either an inverted or everted finish.

Jemmeh The site of Jemmeh was excavated by Petrie. Two chalices are dated to the Late Bronze Age; however, the stratigraphy assigned to the excavations is problematic, with one of the chalices found in a dump in the tomb area. Both chalices have everted rims. The bowl of one chalice, CPP: Fig. 17N from the dump/tombs, is sharply carinated. In contrast, the bowl of the chalice illustrated in CPP: Fig. 17B8 is broad-based and carinated with a rounded chalice bowl wall. Neither chalice has a ridge on the pedestal, nor is either decorated.

One example consists only of a chalice bowl (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24), Fig. 7.2.2:5. This example is decorated on the interior of the bowl with concentric circles in a wheel-and-spoke pattern. It is from Tomb 26, a deep cave that was robbed in antiquity.

Judur The chalice from Judur was found in a burial cave that was in use during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE (Ben Arieh 1981:119, Fig. 3:3), Fig. 7.2.3:3. The chalice has a rounded bowl and a ledge rim that appears to have been formed by folding. There is a slight gutter inside under the folded rim. The pedestal has ridges and the foot appears to have been formed by a fold.

The tombs in which these chalices were found were disturbed and in some cases the contents were in a confused order. The Tomb 73 chalice example consists of only a rim sherd (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:7). The flat rim is decorated with stripes on the top. Tomb 73 is a tomb that the excavators describe as ‘much disturbed,’ and with a period of use in both the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. The excavators noted that the presence of Iron Age vessels in this tomb indicated a later domestic occupation.

Lachish The only complete Late Bronze Age chalice from Lachish is included in the recently published Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30:3), Fig. 7.2.1:2. The locus for this chalice is within a deep pit cut into a wall. The wall is beneath the main complex of the Level VI temple. The chalice has a slightly inverted rim and a rounded bowl. There is no ridge on the pedestal. The exterior of the chalice is decorated with colored bands, and the interior of the bowl is decorated in red from the midpoint down.

Mevorakh The bowl of the chalice from Stratum X illustrated in Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23 is slightly rounded. The rim appears to be folded and everted with a down-turned oblique edge. This chalice was found next to a wall in the sanctuary area. The bowl of the other chalice illustrated in Mevorakh: Fig. 1:22 has a plain slightly everted rim. The short narrow flared pedestal without a ridge often characterizes a footed bowl. This chalice was found in the Late Bronze Age sanctuary area, but outside the main sanctuary itself.

Megiddo

In reference to five rim/bowl fragments and a goblet collectively described as chalices, the excavators pointed out that ‘chalices of Stratum X seem to be more frequently decorated with red-and-black designs.’ The chalices from Mevorakh are not decorated.

The Oriental Institute of Chicago reported seven chalices from the upper mound that date from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition. Two of these chalices are from the Late Bronze Age Stratum IX and VIIb respectively. The two chalices differ from one another. One chalice has a plain everted rim, straightsided shallow chalice bowl and a tall slim pedestal (Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16), Fig. 7.2.2:7. The illustration in Megiddo II shows a series of perforations on the lower portion of the bowl. A similar chalice, but without perforations appears at Hazor. The other Megiddo chalice has an inverted rim and a shallow bowl (Megiddo II: Pl. 67:5), Fig. 7.2.1:5. The pedestal of this chalice is also slim and tall and, like the previous chalice, there is no

Pella Two Late Bronze Age chalices were reported in Pella in Jordan 2. Both examples are from Phase II, the East Cut, IIIN, an area that the excavators noted has a complex stratigraphy. Each chalice differs from the other, but one chalice (Pella in Jordan 2: Pl. 47:7), Fig. 7.2.1:4, is similar to a Pella chalice reported in a later Iron Age I stratum (Pella in Jordan 1: Pl. 120:12). The chalice in Pl.

35

47:7 has a rounded bowl and a folded rim with an inverted finish. The rim has a concave upper edge that turns obliquely downward. The interior of the chalice bowl and the exterior of the rim and upper pedestal are decorated. The pedestal just below the chalice bowl has a pronounced bulge. The other chalice has a straight-sided bowl and a rim that is slightly inverted (Pella in Jordan 2: Pl. 47:6), Figs. 7.2.1:7. The exterior rim of the chalice is decorated.

Strata III–IV. The material from the early excavations at Beth Shemesh is best treated as illustrative. Dan Two chalices from Dan were found in the thin destruction layer above Stratum VIIB (Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1-2). These chalices have straight-sided shallow bowls and plain everted rims that appear to be folded. The chalice illustrated with a complete profile does not have a ridge (Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1), Fig. 7.3.2:2.

7.3 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze/Iron Age I Transition Strata

Deir ‘Alla The 32 examples in this group are from strata that the excavators date to the Late Bronze/Iron Age I transition, Table 7.3. In some cases the stratum was divided into two phases with one phase on either side of the traditional Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I division. Two chalices from Megiddo (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:11-12), a chalice from Beth Shemesh (AS II: Pl. XXXV:22), a chalice from Tell esSa’iyedeh, and several chalices from Deir Alla represent a morphology that is found in Late Bronze Age chalices, i.e., an inverted rim. As previously mentioned the chalice from Tell Abu-Hawam is similar to a chalice from Batash (Kelm & Mazar 1995: Fig. 4:13). Each of the two chalices from Dan appears to have a folded rim, although the rim is everted. Only two of the seven chalices illustrated with a pedestal are ridged. Two other chalices from Megiddo have perforations in the base of the bowl (Megiddo II: Pls. 67:3 and 79:10). It is not clear if the perforations were part of the original manufacture or the result of a secondary use of the bowl.

The 16 chalices from the sanctuary environs may be extremely important in showing the transition from the inverted to the everted-rim chalice in the Jordan Valley. The chalices were reported from the E rooms adjacent to the sanctuary/cella. Sixteen is a significant number of chalices. A bottle was found in the burnt debris of the cella with the cartouche of Queen Tausert, a queen of Egypt during the Late Bronze/Iron Age I transition time. This artifact of Tausert was used together with Carbon-14 dating from the sanctuary roof beams to date the sanctuary. The Carbon-14 sample yielded a date of 1180 BCE ±60. After an earthquake destroyed the sanctuary the site suffered from erosion and pits that were dug down through the debris that covered the buildings. In other words, the stratigraphy was highly disturbed (Deir Alla:9). The chalices from the sanctuary environs are of two general classifications, those with a plain everted rim (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7), Fig. 7.3.2:1, and those that appear to have a folded rim that may be either inverted (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:23), Fig. 7.3.1:3, or cut (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:3), Fig. 7.3.2:4. None of the chalices has a ridge on the pedestal.

It is possible that the chalices from the Deir Alla sanctuary environs (included in this chapter) could also be classified as Late Bronze Age chalices. That would be the case if these chalices were produced in the 13th century BCE and remained at Deir Alla following the destruction of the sanctuary in the early 12th century BCE. Tell Abu Hawam

One chalice is noteworthy. In addition to a bowl decorated with brown concentric circles in the interior, this chalice has a pedestal with a series of ridges (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10), Fig. 7.3.2:3.

This example from the Temple 50 environs of Stratum V has a deep rounded bowl (Balensi 1980: Vol. II: Fig. 8:7), Fig. 7.3.1:5. The rim is plain and everted. The pedestal is short and the foot has two steps. In profile this vessel appears to be a footed bowl rather than a chalice. Although Balensi assigns this vessel to Temple 50, she describes the relative chronology as “indetermines,” (undetermined) (Balensi 1980: Vol. I:346). She wrote elsewhere in regard to this find: “V close to sand,” (Balensi 1980: Vol. III:143).

Three other chalices also have unusual pedestal features. The first chalice has fenestrations in the pedestal and decorative stripes painted in red on the rim (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11), Fig. 7.3.1:1. The pedestals of the two other chalices are solid for most of the length (Deir Alla: Figs. 4-9:24; 5-5:6), Fig. 7.3.1:4; 7.3.1:6. This suggests that these two chalices may have been made by a technique that used one mass of clay, as opposed to the more usual method of attaching a ready-made bowl to a ready-made pedestal.

Beth Shemesh

The forms fall into two general types. If Deir Alla were a sanctuary used by nomads, it is possible that this diversity of types, however limited, may be the result of ‘pilgrim’ visits to the sanctuary. The vessels brought by the pilgrims would account for one type and the corpus of vessels on hand at the sanctuary or in the inventory of the sanctuary attendants would account for the other type.

Two examples from this period were found at Beth Shemesh. One is a rim sherd with a body fragment (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:1); the second is a chalice with a short pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXV:22). The examples are from

36

This pedestal is similar to the pedestal of the chalice from Deir Alla mentioned above (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10).

Tell el-Farah (South) This chalice from the transition period is similar to the two Late Bronze Age chalices from Tell el-Farah (South) discussed in section 7.2. All three examples have a rounded, almost straight-sided bowl, and a splayed everted rim. However, this chalice is decorated on the exterior of the bowl and pedestal with horizontal stripes and has a ridge at the base of the pedestal (CPP: Fig. 17E4), Fig. 7.3.2:5. The chalice is from Tomb 542.

7.4 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IA Strata Among the criteria used to assign chalices to an Iron Age IA chronology were the designation of the vessel as an ‘early Iron Age’ chalice by the excavators and comments by the excavators that suggest an Iron Age IA chronology.

Gezer

Altogether 16 chalices were dated to the Iron Age IA, accounting for approximately three percent of the chalices in this study, Table 7.4. Of these 16 examples only one has an inverted rim (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19). Chalices with rounded bowls are equal in number to those with straight-sided bowls; two additional bowls are carinated. Fourteen chalices were reported in northern sites, and only two were reported in southern sites. Chalices from tombs and cemeteries account for ten of the examples. None of the chalices are decorated. Seven of the twelve chalices illustrated with a pedestal have a ridge on the pedestal. Sixty percent of the chalices attributed to Iron Age IA are from tombs.

Excavators reported three chalices from the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition. These chalices have everted rims and rounded or carinated chalice bowls. In two instances the rims are decorated with red slip (Gezer IV: Figs. 24:9 and 31:10). None of the Gezer examples is a complete chalice. The chalice illustrated in Gezer IV: Fig. 31:13 can best be described as having a bell-shaped bowl. The chalices are from loci in Room 5 of Granary 24000. The granary was destroyed in the early 12th century BCE, but was rebuilt and subsequently abandoned in the mid 12th century BCE (Dever 1993:504). Jezreel

These Iron Age IA chalices may be indicators of the progression from the inverted-rim chalice to the evertedrim chalice accompanied by a ridge on the pedestal.

This rim sherd is decorated on the interior of the bowl with a horizontal line just below the rim (Zimhoni 1997:Fig. 2.2:7). The sherd is from a fill. There are insufficient physical remains to definitely describe this sherd as part of a chalice rim.

It is notable that so few chalices were reported in Iron Age IA strata. Fourteen examples are from contexts that can be interpreted in more than one way. Several examples are represented by sherds and fragments.

Megiddo Afula Two chalices were reported from Strata VIIb-VIa. These strata are assigned to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition. The two chalices are remarkably similar, even down to the perforations at the base of each chalice bowl (Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10; 67:3), Figs 7.3.1:7; 7.3.2:6. The chalice in Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3 is decorated on the exterior of the bowl with colorful horizontal stripes and bands.

The two examples from Afula are rim sherds (Dothan, M. 1954:46, Fig. 18:15-16). The rims are everted and the extant sherds suggest shallow bowls with a straight side. These sherds are from Stratum IIIB, a stratum that included a pottery kiln. Megiddo The two Megiddo chalices are attributed to Stratum VIIa (Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11-12). The absence of a ridge on the pedestal is the only feature that these chalices have in common. One chalice has a carinated bowl and may have a folded everted rim (Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11), Fig. 7.4:3. The pedestal is stout and almost as tall as the chalice bowl is deep. The second chalice has a tall cone-shaped pedestal and a rim that appears to be folded and finished in a near-vertical position (Megiddo II: Pl. 70:12), Fig. 7.4:2. The upper exterior edge of the rim features a concave ‘pinch.’ These chalices are from Area CC on the south side of the tel.

An additional three chalices were reported from Stratum VII with no distinction made between Strata VIIb and VIIa (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:11-13). The three chalices are from the Temple 2048 environs and all appear to show a folded rim. None of the chalices has a ridge on the pedestal. One of the three is decorated on the exterior of the rim with zigzags (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12), Fig. 7.3.1:2. The chalice illustrated in Megiddo II: Pl. 72:13 has the exterior rim painted red. Tell es-Sa’iyedeh A chalice found in a grave at Tell es-Sa’iyedeh is on exhibit in the British Museum. The museum dates the grave to 1250-1150 BCE. The bowl has an inverted rim that is concave on the upper edge. The pedestal has ridges that may have been formed in the fabrication process.

Megiddo Tombs Eight chalices were reported from the Megiddo tombs excavations. Four chalices have rounded chalice bowls

37

(Megiddo Tombs Pls. 8:3, 8:14, 62:10, 74:25); one is illustrated (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10), Fig. 7.4:5. An additional four have straight-sided or almost straightsided bowls (Megiddo Tombs Pls. 68:19-20, 71:17, 73:5). Again, only one is illustrated (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 71:17), Fig. 7.4:4.

Qiri is noteworthy in that it is decorated with an undefined line pattern on the top of the rim and on the exterior of the bowl (Qiri: Fig. 28:9).

One of the eight chalices has an inverted rim (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19), Fig. 7.4:1. The seven other chalices have everted rims that are either plain or splayed including one example with an almost horizontal splay (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:20), Fig. 7.4:7. Although each of the chalices has a pedestal, only four have a ridge on the pedestal.

The chalices illustrated with a pedestal are almost evenly divided between those with a ridge on the pedestal (in some cases this ridge is very faint) and those without a ridge. Three inverted rim chalices appear to have a trace of a ridge on the pedestal and 41 other chalices exhibit some form of ridge. The greatest number of chalices was found at Tell Qasile (18 examples), Masos (17 examples), Beth Shemesh (14 examples), Nasbeh (nine examples), and Megiddo (eight examples). Each of these examples is discussed below.

Qashish

Afula

The two chalice rim fragments from this site are from Phase 5 (IV). One rim fragment is folded and has a vertical stance when viewed from the inside face of the rim (Ben-Tor et. al. 1981:149 Fig. 7:5). The other rim fragment is everted and splayed horizontally above a straight-sided bowl (Ben-Tor et. al. 1981:149 Fig. 7:4).

This chalice sherd is from Stratum IIIA, a stratum that was destroyed in the second half of the 11th century BCE (Dothan, M. 1954:41-46, Fig. 14:26). The distinction between Phases A and B of Stratum III was based on meager architecture. The phases are on either side of the Iron Age I/II divide. Philistine pottery and evidence of a conflagration were found in several squares of Stratum IIIA.

Zahiriyye These chalices are from a tomb in the Hebron area. This tomb has a secure context in that it was discovered with the blocking stone in place. Both chalices show everted rims and ridged pedestals; the bowls are round. The chalice bowl illustrated is rounded with a carination near the base (Baramki 1935:109-10, Fig. LXI:1), Fig. 7.4:6.

Ay The two chalices from Ay were found in Iron Age I occupation levels. The chalices were reported from excavations that took place in the 1930s. Although both chalice bowls are carinated, one bowl is slightly more straight-sided than the other. The rims of both chalices are everted and the rim of chalice AY: Pl. LXXIV:1045 is splayed. Additional vessels described as chalices from Level D are included in Plate LXXIV of the AY report. One bowl fragment has a series of raised mounds that encircle the exterior of the bowl at its mid-point (AY: Pl. LXXIV:1055). The bowl is 42 centimeters wide. The raised-mound feature is also found on a sherd from the ongoing Tel Rehov excavations (Rehov Registration No. 54074/3), and in the exaggerated pendant style on two chalice fragments from Megiddo (Megiddo II: Pl. 33:15, 17).

7.5 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata It is during the Iron Age IB that the everted-rim chalice begins to appear in large numbers. Excavators reported 112 chalices in Iron Age IB strata, a figure that represents ca. 25% of the chalices in this study, Table 7.5. Of these 112 examples, 89 have an everted rim, 21 have an inverted rim, and two have a vertical rim. The evertedrim chalice may be either plain or splayed, and the splay is often dramatic. Most of the chalice bowls are carinated, (ca. 45%). Straight-sided bowls represent ca. 24% of the examples, including examples where, although the bowl appears to be rounded, the prevalent feature is the straight-sided bowl wall.

Batash The chalice from Stratum V has a slightly rounded bowl and an everted splayed rim (Kelm and Mazar 1995: Fig. 5:12). Stratum V has been described as a Philistine-period stratum of long duration (Mazar 1993:153).

Sixty-eight chalices were reported in northern sites, 40 were found in southern sites and four examples are from Jordan. Thirteen chalices were reported from tombs and cemeteries. Twenty-two chalices have a red decoration applied to some part of the vessel. Of these, one chalice bowl shows an elaborate checkerboard pattern, another has horizontal bands, while yet another has an ‘X’ on the interior of the chalice bowl. In contrast, the appearance of fully red-slipped chalices during this period is minimal. Only six examples are reported in Iron Age IB strata and three of these are from Masos. A red-slipped chalice from

Beer-Sheba A chalice fragment was reported from Stratum VIII. The fragment is red-slipped both on the exterior of the bowl and on the interior of the rim. The rounded bowl and everted splayed rim give this vessel a ‘bell’ shape. This example (Beer-Sheba II: Fig. 20:5) is similar to another chalice found in Iron Age IIA Stratum V (Beer-Sheba I: Pl. 54:7).

38

Beit Mirsim

and, of these, one is illustrated (AS II: Pl.XXXVI:11), Fig. 7.5.3.2. Stratum III ended in a violent destruction, but the debris layer was shallow (Bunimovitz 1993:250).

The two chalice rim sherds from Beit Mirsim are from Silo 6 of Strata B1-B2. One sherd has a zigzag decoration on the flat surface of the inverted rim (Greenberg 1987:68, Fig. 7:3). The rim of the other sherd is everted and undecorated (Greenberg 1987:68, Fig. 7:7). The stratigraphy for the silos is uncertain.

Beth Zur The two chalices from this site are from unclear stratigraphic contexts (Sellers 1993: Fig. 13:1-2). Iron Age I pottery was reported immediately below the surface debris (Sellers 1993:7). The assignment of the chalices to Strata III-II is not certain since modern terracing disturbed the loci.

Beth Shean Three chalices from Beth Shean were reported in three different publications and each of the chalices differs from the other.

Dan

One Beth Shean chalice appeared in Duncan’s Collection of Dated Palestinian Pottery, Corpus, which he based on Rowe’s excavations of 1925-1928. The interior of the bowl of this chalice is decorated with an ‘X’ (CPP: Fig. 17B6). The bowl is wide and shallow and the rim is plain and appears to be vertical. There is a thick join between the chalice bowl and the pedestal. Rowe attributed this chalice to ‘Late Ramesis.’

Two of the three chalices from Dan have rounded chalice bowls and thickened rims that appear to be almost vertical (Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:4-5). The chalice with a ridge on the pedestal is illustrated (Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:5), Fig. 7.5.4:6. The third chalice has a straight-sided bowl and a plain rim (Biran 1994a: Fig. 112:2). All three chalices are from Stratum V, a stratum that was destroyed by a violent conflagration (Biran 1993:327).

James also reported an Iron Age I chalice in her publication. This chalice is from Stratum VI and reflects the typical morphology of Iron Age chalices, i.e., it has a carinated broad-based chalice bowl, an everted splayed rim, and a ridge on the pedestal (James 1966: Fig 50:8), Fig. 7.5.3:1. James reported two similar chalices in Stratum V of the Iron Age II excavations.

Deir Alla Three chalices from Iron Age IB strata were recovered at this site. The chalice from Phase B-2 is probably better characterized as a footed bowl (Deir Alla I: Pl. 48:53). The pedestal is almost non-existent, and both the bowl and foot are generously splayed. The two other chalices from Deir Alla differ from most of the Deir Alla examples previously discussed in that each of these chalices has a well-defined everted rim and a ridge on the pedestal. The chalice from Phase G-3 (Deir Alla I: Pl. 63:28), Fig. 7.5.2:1, has a simple straight-sided bowl similar to earlier Deir Alla chalices. The other chalice from Phase J-5 has a carinated bowl and a tall-ridged pedestal (Deir Alla I: Pl. 69:28).

The most recent chalice to be reported comes from the excavations carried out by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This chalice is unusual in that a bird-like figurine adorns the everted horizontal rim (Mazar 1993:213, Fig 10), Fig. 7.5.4:3. The vessel was found along with a fenestrated stand in a burnt destruction layer. The destruction layer was on a floor that may belong to either Stratum S-2 or S-3A.

Esdar Beth Shemesh This chalice is from Stratum III, a stratum exposed to the elements since antiquity (Kochavi 1993:423). The profile is that of a classic Iron Age chalice, except for the absence of a ridge on the pedestal (Kochavi 1969: 14-48, Fig. 12:7 cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:173, Pl. 25:2).

Grant identified a large number of chalices, chalice fragments and chalice sherds in his 1928-1933 excavations. Eleven examples from his Iron Age IB excavations are included here. One additional rim sherd from recent excavations is also included (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001:137, Fig. 9:2). The Grant chalices were attributed to Stratum III, while the chalice sherd from the recent excavations is characterized as ‘pottery typical of the Iron Age I’ (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001:136). One chalice from the Grant excavations has an inverted rim and is decorated with a cross in the interior of the bowl (AS III: Fig. 2:13), Fig. 7.5.1:1. The remaining chalices have everted rims. The chalice bowls are distributed between rounded and carinated forms. Two chalices have a ridge on the pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:11; AS II: Pl. XXXVI:21); one is illustrated (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:21), Fig 7.5.3:3. Two other chalice pedestals are depicted as solid (AS II: Pl.XXXVI:11, 18)

Tell el-Farah (South) The Tell el-Farah (South) chalice is from level XT372 (CPP: Fig. 17D2), Fig. 7.5.4:4. The vessel is illustrated with a prominent angled carination at the base of the bowl and a straight side above the carination. The ledge rim is everted. The pedestal has a ridge just above the splayed foot. Galilee This chalice is from a survey in the Upper Galilee. The chalice bowl is rounded and the rim appears to be folded

39

with a near-vertical interior finish. The pedestal is slim and shows no indication of a ridge on the extant portion (Aharoni, Y. 1956:63, Fig. 5:1).

unusual in that it looks as if it would retain the same shape whether turned right side up or upside down. Megiddo

Gezer Eight chalices were identified from Stratum VI, six from the Chicago excavations and two from the current Tel Aviv University excavations. [The chronology debate over Stratum VI is not considered here.] Two chalices from the Chicago excavations (Megiddo II: Pl. 87:5; 87:9) and one from the Tel Aviv University excavations (Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.53:3), Fig. 7.5.3:5, have a ridge on the pedestal. Four of the chalices have rounded bowls, one has a broad-based bowl and three have straight-sided bowls. Two of the examples with straight-sided bowls are illustrated (Megiddo II: Pls. 74:17; 87:6), Figs. 7.5.2:2; 7.5.3.7. One example has an everted horizontal rim (Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.59:4).

Two of the three chalices from Gezer have carinated bowls with flared sidewalls and everted decorated rims (Gezer II: Pl. 29:14; Gezer IV: Pl. 35:20). One of the two has a pedestal, and this example is illustrated (Gezer II: Pl. 29:14), Fig. 7.5.1:6. The third chalice also has a carinated bowl and an everted splayed rim that is decorated on the interior edge; however, the sidewall of the bowl is not flared (Gezer IV: Pl. 38:11). The chalices were found in three different loci: below a trench with fill, just below surface debris on the slope of the tel, and on a beaten surface. Jokneam

Menorah The Jokneam chalice is from Stratum XVII (ZarzekiPeleg 1997:266, Fig. 4:7). This is a stratum destroyed by a conflagration (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:260, Table 1). The chalice is red-slipped and the extant portion of the pedestal and foot appear to be out of proportion to the chalice bowl as depicted.

These chalices are from a site in the Beth Shean Valley located just northeast of Tel Menorah. They are assigned to Stratum II, a stratum covered by a debris layer that was contaminated by modern activity. One chalice is warped, but appears to have a rounded bowl and an everted splayed rim (Gal 1979:143, Fig 3:5). There is a ridge on the pedestal of this example. The other chalice has a tall pedestal, an undefined ridge, and red decoration on the exterior of the rim and foot (Gal 1979:143, Fig. 3:6), Fig. 7.5.2:3. The pedestal and foot of this chalice appear to be unrelated to the bowl. In both examples, a significant part of the pedestal appears to be solid.

Keisan Each of the three examples from Keisan differs from the other. A Level 9c chalice, missing its lower pedestal and foot, has a deep straight-sided bowl and an everted rim (Keisan: Pl. 73:6). A chalice fragment is also from Level 9c but here the straight-sided chalice bowl is shallow and the rim is inverted and possibly folded (Keisan: Pl. 80:2). The third chalice is a sherd from Levels 10-11. It has a rounded bowl and possibly an inverted folded rim (Keisan: Pl. 81:21). Level 10 finds included locally-made Mycenaean and Cypriot-type ware.

Miqne The chalice bowl reported in Bierling 1998: Fig. 8:16, is from a fill layer in field XNW. The bowl is rounded with a splayed everted rim.

Kinneret

Nasbeh

The chalice from Kinneret has a deep rounded bowl and an inverted plain rim. The pedestal is mostly solid and the foot is cone-like (Fritz 1999:92, Fig. 8:3). The chalice is from a residential quarter in Stratum 2=V.

Nine examples are included, all from tombs. Sharply carinated bowls are characteristic of five of the chalices; one example is shown (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1574), Fig. 7.5.1.8. One chalice is decorated on the bowl exterior with a checkerboard pattern. The pedestal is slim and tall, and the bowl is straight-sided (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1581), Fig. 7.5.4.7. Another example has a fishbowl appearance (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1584), Fig. 7.5.2.4. A gently carinated bowl, everted rim, and ridged pedestal characterize another chalice (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1580), Fig. 7.5.3.6.

Masos All 17 chalices are from Stratum II and all but four share the same signature form: a chalice bowl with a prominent carination as shown in Masos II: Pl. 154:9, Fig. 7.5.3:4. Sweeping bowl walls and exaggerated everted splayed rims are dominant characteristics in most of these vessels (Masos II: Pl. 136:21), Fig. 7.5.1:7. Four of the examples are from House 314 in the ‘cult area’ of Area H, and two examples are from House 480, a possible public building. Three of the chalices are red-slipped on both the interior and the exterior. One chalice differs from the others in that it has a shallow carinated bowl and an everted ledge rim (Masos II: Pl. 154:8), Fig. 7.5.4:5. This chalice is

Pella The chalice fragment from Pella has a rounded bowl and a folded inverted rim (Pella in Jordan1: Pl. 120:12). The upper part of the rim is extended outward at a sharp angle. This chalice is from Phase III. The rim shape is similar to another chalice from Pella that appears in Phase II of the Late Bronze Age (Pella in Jordan2: Pl. 47:7).

40

Tell Qasile

Sippor

Eighteen Iron Age IB chalices were reported at this site. Of these, three chalices and one rim sherd have an inverted rim (Qasile II: Figs. 14:6, 11; 27:19; 32:6), but only one of these has a ridge on the pedestal (Qasile II: Fig. 27:19), Fig. 7.5.1:3. This example is decorated with a red band on the exterior of the rim and on the lower extremity of the foot.

The chalices reported at Sippor are from Strata I and II. One chalice appears to have an everted rim above the carinated straight-sided bowl wall (Biran and Negbi 1966: Fig 5:7). The other chalice is highly decorated with multi-colored horizontal bands on the exterior of the bowl, the lower pedestal and the foot (Biran and Negbi 1966: Fig. 6:8). This chalice, from Stratum II, has an inverted rim and a rounded bowl. Neither chalice has a ridge on the pedestal.

Two other chalices from Stratum X have rounded bowls, decorated ledge rims, and no ridge on the pedestal (Qasile II: Figs. 40:8; 47:9). One of these chalices is illustrated (Qasile II: Fig. 40:8), Fig. 7.5.4:1.

Taanach The three chalices from Taanach Period 1A were described as ‘miscellaneous finds’ (Taanach I: Fig. 89:35). All three have inverted rims and straight-sided bowls that are marginally rounded. One example is illustrated (Taanach I: Fig. 89:4), Fig. 7.5.1:4. Only one chalice has a ridge on the pedestal (Taanach I: Fig. 89:5).

An incomplete chalice is illustrated in Qasile I. It appears to have a shallow bowl with an everted rim that may be folded. It also has a double ridge on the pedestal. The primary reason this chalice is noteworthy, however, is that it appears a bird figurine was once attached to the rim (Qasile I: Fig. 33), Fig.7.5.3:8.

Zeror Qiri The chalice from Zeror is from Tomb 1. The pedestal is slim, tall, mostly solid, and has a pronounced step where the pedestal joins the foot. The shallow bowl is wide and the rim is everted and plain (Ohata 1967: Pl. X:12).

Two complete chalices and three chalice fragments were reported from Stratum VIII, a stratum that included a public structure and a cult-related structure. The two complete chalices are included here (Qiri: Figs. 28:9; 29:3). One may be related to the cult building in Area A2, and the other to a public building in the same area but north of the suggested cult building. The ‘cultbuilding’ chalice is red-slipped and highly decorated on the top of the splayed rim and on the exterior of the bowl. There is a subtle ridge at the base of the pedestal (Qiri: Fig 28:9), Fig. 7.5.2:5. The ‘public building’ chalice is plain in comparison. It has a rounded bowl with a plain everted rim and two pronounced ridges on the pedestal (Qiri: Fig. 29:3), Fig. 7.5.1:5. The ridges on the pedestal of this chalice are similar to those on the example from Tell Qasile (Qasile I: Fig. 33).

7.6 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata

Tel Rehov

The distribution of these chalices was fairly widespread. Ninety-two chalices were reported in northern sites, and 68 chalices were reported in southern sites. It is interesting to note that roughly half of the Iron Age IIA chalices were reported from three sites: Beth Shemesh (28 examples), Tell el-Farah (South) (22 examples), and Tel Rehov (38 examples). Thirty-two chalices were reported from tombs; all but one are from Tell el-Farah (South) and Gezer.

The everted-rim chalice continues as the dominant form throughout the Iron Age IIA. Of the 161 examples reported in the Iron Age IIA contexts, Table 7.6, only one has an inverted rim, three have a rim that appears to be vertical, and the remaining 157, by far and away the majority, have an everted rim. Altogether the Iron Age IIA chalices account for 34 percent of the chalices in this study and they represent the greatest number of chalices from any one archaeological period.

Three chalices from an earlier excavation were found in tombs attributed to the early Iron Age. All three chalices have inverted rims that may have been formed by folding. Each is decorated with red slip on the exterior edge of the rim. The chalice illustrated with a pedestal shows a subtle ridge just above the missing chalice foot (Tsori 1975:17, Fig 5:12), Fig. 7.5.1:2.

As was true in the Iron Age IB, the shape of the bowl varies. Rounded chalice bowls represent 44% of the examples while carinated and straight-sided bowls account for 28%. The straight-sided bowls include those examples where the bowl appears rounded but the prevalent feature is an almost straight-sided bowl wall.

One chalice from the ongoing excavations was reported in Area ‘D’ Locus 2875, a locus where a complete jar was found at the center of an installation. The vessel has a broad-based bowl, an everted rim, and a ridge on the pedestal (Rehov Registration 28875/1 or 28835/1), Fig. 7.5.4:2. This example differs significantly from the three chalices found in the Iron Age I tombs at Tel Rehov.

Eighty-six of the 115 chalices with a pedestal have some form of a ridge on the pedestal.

41

More than 40 chalices are decorated or show red slip applied to some part of the vessel. The examples from Tell el-Farah (South) are highly decorated. However, any interpretation of the presence or absence of red slip is questionable. Pottery expert and scholar Ora Zimhoni stated the problem clearly:

The material is from strata assigned to the Iron Age I, Stratum X, 10-9. Arad The sherd from Arad may not be from a chalice (Aharoni, M. 1981:183, Fig. 1:19). M. Aharoni was undecided on the type of vessel that the sherd came from (Aharoni, M. 1981:181-204). The sherd from Stratum XII has a ledge rim and a carinated bowl.

“However, without a thorough reexamination of all the Iron Age pottery so far excavated, it is impossible to ascertain what the terms slip and burnish actually represent in the archaeological idiom, and therefore difficult to ascribe a chronological significance to the first appearance of slip in the Iron Age.” (Zimhoni 1997:207)

Ashdod Four chalices from this site were reported in Stratum X, Levels M 11 and M 10. Two of the chalices (Ashdod IV:117, Fig. 8:7, 10) are unusual in that they have a distinct bulge between the base of the chalice bowl and the top of the pedestal as illustrated (Ashdod IV:117, Fig. 8:7), Fig. 7.6.3:8. The pedestal of the same chalice has a solid core just below the chalice bowl. The solid core is incorporated into the bulge. This unusual feature also appears on a chalice from Pella dated to the Late Bronze Age (Pella in Jordan2: Pl. 47:7). The recent publication of the excavations in Areas H and K included three chalices from Area H (Ashdod VI: Fig. 3.83:7-9). The chalices from Area H are similar to those from Area M.

Amal Six chalices were reported in Stratum III. Three of these chalices (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:1-2; Edelstein and Feig 1993:1450) are similar not only to one another, but also to a red-slipped chalice found in the recent excavations at Tel Rehov (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1). Only one of these examples is illustrated (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:2), Fig. 7.6.3:1. All of these chalices have shallow carinated bowls, splayed slightly horizontal rims, and tall pedestals. One of the three chalices has a petal-like ridge on the pedestal, (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:1).

Batash Two chalice sherds were reported in Stratum IVB (Timnah II: Pls. 2:22; 85:7). One sherd is red-slipped with a ledge rim.

Two other chalices have everted splayed rims (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:3; 16:5). The chalice in Fig. 16:3 has a straight-sided bowl while the chalice in Fig 16:5 has a rounded bowl. Each of these chalices has a ridge on the pedestal. Perhaps the most noteworthy chalice reported at Amal is the one illustrated in NEAEHL (Edelstein and Feig 1993:1449), Fig. 7.6.4:1. This chalice has a sharply carinated straight-sided bowl, an everted splayed rim and no ridge on the pedestal. The notable feature of this chalice is the band of downward facing petals near the top of the pedestal. A similar pedestal was found in the current excavations at Tel Rehov. The Amal chalice is decorated with a geometric pattern on the exterior of the bowl.

BeerSheba The almost complete chalice from Stratum VI (Aharoni 1974:41, Fig. 3:8) has a carinated bowl and an everted splayed rim. The extant portion of the pedestal shows no ridge. Two additional chalice sherds from Stratum V have rounded bowls with everted rims. The sherds are decorated with either a paint drizzle (BeerSheba I: Fig. 54:7) or a zigzag decoration on the interior edge of the rim (BeerSheba I: Fig. 54:6). Beth Shean

Aphek The two chalices from Stratum V (James 1966: Figs. 19:21, 22:22) are similar to one another as well as to a chalice reported in the earlier Stratum VI (James 1966: Fig. 50:8). All three have carinated broad-based chalice bowls, everted splayed rims and a ridge on the pedestal. One chalice is assigned to Stratum ‘Lower V’ (James 1966: Figs. 22:22). Although Stratum Lower V is the last stratum assigned to the Iron Age IB, the complex stratigraphy and the early excavation methods used suggest that an Iron Age IIA date would be more appropriate. This is also the case for the chalice assigned to no particular phase of Stratum V (James 1966: Fig. 19:21), Fig. 7.6.3:2.

Several publications indicate that as many as ten chalices were found at Aphek (Kochavi 1976:52; Kochavi 1977:12; Beck and Kochavi 1993:70); none of the publications, however, illustrate the chalices. The chalices are from Stratum A-8, a stratum consisting of four-room houses and silos. The Stratum A-8 houses were violently destroyed and the excavator noted that the chalices show traces of soot. In addition to the chalices, a figurine of a woman with a tambourine was found in the Stratum A-8 destruction. Pottery vessels were used to date the destruction of Stratum A-8 to the end of the tenth century BCE. A recent article by Y. Gadot includes illustrations of chalice fragments from the Aphek excavations (Gadot 2006:28, Fig. 5:9-10, 29, Table 2).

42

from a different tomb, appear to be decorated with a lotus-pattern on the bowl exterior; one example is illustrated (CPP: Fig. 17K7), Fig. 7.6.5:3. This pattern may reflect the earlier Egyptian influence in this part of Canaan. Seven chalices are decorated with a geometric pattern; two patterned-chalices are illustrated (CPP: Fig. 17H4,8), Fig. 7.6.5:1-2. Although both examples have straight-sided bowl walls and everted horizontal rims, the depth of the bowls varies. A more complicated geometric pattern is seen on another chalice (CPP: Fig. 17L2), Fig. 7.6.5:4, while the chalice illustrated in CPP: Figure 17P2, Fig. 7.6.2:3, features pointed crenellations at the bottom of the rim and bowl, as well as a fishhook style rim. This unusual chalice appears to have no parallel at Tell elFarah (South) or elsewhere. The diversity of chalice forms from Tell el-Farah (South) is further represented by an example with an everted plain rim and rounded chalice bowl (CPP: Fig. 17Q2), Fig. 7.6.1:2.

Beth Shemesh The 28 examples from this site are all attributed to Stratum II, or ‘city debris,’ and in some cases specifically to Stratum IIA. However, given the comprehensive nature of this stratum there is a distinct possibility that some of the chalices may post-date Iron Age IIA. Twelve of the chalices have a ledge rim and 11 of the chalices with a pedestal have a ridge. The chalice without a ridged pedestal has a tall cone-like pedestal and may be an offering stand (AS II: Pl.XXXVI:36), Fig. 7.6.4:4. Grant reported a tall slim pedestal with a decorated foot from the city debris (Grant 1929:215, 260), Fig. 7.6.1:5. This vessel also has the characteristics of an offering stand. One chalice with an angular carinated bowl (AS III: Fig. 6.3-86) has a ledge rim with a gutter under the inner rim. Yet another chalice has a bulge at the top of the pedestal and just below the bowl (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31), Fig. 7.6.2:1. This feature is also seen in two of the four chalices from Ashdod (above). One chalice is quite warped. The bowl of this chalice has an everted horizontal rim; the pedestal is solid (AS III: 5.4-100), Fig. 7.6.4:6. The chalice illustrated in AS II: Pl. XXXVI:29, Fig. 7.6.3:3 has a marked similarity to the chalice from Azekah Stratum B (Bliss 1902: Fig. 45:17z).

Gezer One example from Gezer is a sherd from a fill layer of Stratum IXa. Both the interior and the exterior of the rim are decorated (Gezer III: Pl. 6:14). The remaining 11 chalices from the Iron Age IIA are from tombs, primarily Tomb 96. Three of these chalices (CPP: Figs. 17C3, 17S3, 17S9) have tall pedestals; one is illustrated (CPP: Fig. 17S3), Fig. 7.6.2:4. The decorated chalice illustrated in CPP: Fig. 17T4 is reminiscent of goblet-style vessels found at other sites in the Iron Age IIB. One chalice is sharply carinated below the rim. If rounded rather than carinated, this bowl would resemble a fishbowl in shape (CPP: Fig. 17S8), Fig. 7.6.3:4.

Dan Three chalices were reported from Stratum IV at Dan. The two chalices illustrated in Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:1-2 were from dwellings in Stratum IV, a stratum that shows the first appearance of Phoenician bichrome jugs and flasks (Biran 1994a:143). The example illustrated in this study shows a vertical rim above a rounded bowl (Biran 1994a, Fig 104:2), Fig. 7.6.5:6. The example shown in the photograph in Eretz Israel 20 (Biran 1989:122, Fig. 4, top row left) has a straight-sided bowl with an everted rim, and a pedestal without a ridge above the flaring foot. Except for the height of the pedestal, this vessel resembles the chalice illustrated in Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:1. The chalice illustrated in Eretz Israel 20 is associated with the Stratum IV metal-industry area. Several illustrations of chalice bowl fragments from the Stratum IV metal-industry rooms and furnace area are also illustrated in Eretz Israel 20.

Izbet Sartah Three everted-rim sherds and one chalice with a complete profile were reported (Finkelstein 1986: Figs. 15:6-7; 21:19; 24:5). Jemmeh The chalices from Jemmeh were found in Levels GN 185 and GB 187. The lower level chalice has a ledge rim and a carinated bowl (CPP: Fig. 17C8). The upper level chalice has an ornate ‘box-shaped’ bowl much like that of a goblet (CPP: Fig. 17P8), Fig. 7.6.5:7.

Tell el-Farah (North)

Khirbet ed-Dawwara

The four chalices from Stratum VIIb at this site were found with pottery that is attributed to domestic environs (Farah I: Fig. 60:6-8, 10). Although all of the chalices have everted rims, only three have rounded chalice bowls. One chalice bowl appears to have a long tang. Alternatively the long tang may be a significant portion of the pedestal core (Farah I: Fig. 60:7), Fig. 7.6.2:2.

The bowl of this chalice is shaped like a fishbowl with an everted splayed rim (Finkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9), Fig. 7.6.3:9, and is not too different from examples at Beth Shemesh. The pedestal has a minimal ridge. The chalice is from a single-stratum site that was probably abandoned in the tenth century BCE.

Tell el Farah (South) Lachish Of the 22 chalices reported at this site all but two are from tombs and almost half of the chalices are highly decorated. The chalices illustrated in CPP: 17K6-7, each

Six chalice examples from Lachish represent one of the few instances where a chalice is associated directly with a

43

cult function (Lachish V: Pl. 42:14-15, 17-18, 20-21) (for an alternative view on the cult attribution see Ussishkin 2004:105-109). All of the chalices have everted rims and either rounded or carinated bowls, but only one has a ridge on the pedestal (Lachish V: Pl. 42:21). Two chalices have tall trumpet-shaped pedestals and one chalice has a tall tubular-shaped pedestal similar to that of chalices found at other sites (Lachish V: Pl. 42:20), Fig. 7.6.3:5.

Tell Qasile Two chalices from Tell Qasile were reported in Stratum IX. One chalice has a carinated bowl, an everted rim, and a pedestal without a ridge (Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:c), Fig. 7.6.2:7. This chalice is similar to another chalice reported by Maisler and attributed to a later stratum (Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:e). The chalice in Qasile II: 1985, Fig. 52:15 has a deep carinated bowl, an everted rim and a stout ridged pedestal.

Megiddo Seven vessels from Megiddo Stratum V incorporate characteristics typical of Iron Age II chalices. In all but one example (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17) the rims are everted and the pedestals are ridged. Two chalices from the ‘cult’ corner, Locus 2081, are red-slipped (Megiddo II: Pl. 90:89); one is illustrated (Megiddo II: Pl. 90:8), Fig. 7.6.2:6. A chalice reported by the Schumacher expedition was attributed as ‘aus der Palastwohnung.’ Two chalices are highly decorated (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 and 33:17). Each of these chalices features concentric multi-colored circles on the interior of the bowl and pendant-like drops on the exterior of the bowl. The chalice bowls are shallow. The rim of one chalice is gracefully splayed (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15), Fig. 7.6.2:5; the other chalice has an inverted rim (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17), Fig. 7.6.1:1. Unfortunately, the chalice fragment illustrated in Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 is a sherd from a surface Stratum V find. There were no Iron Age IIA chalices reported from the Megiddo tombs.

Qiri

Michal

As a general rule the chalices have either an everted splayed rim or an everted ledge rim. The form of the chalice bowl may be rounded, carinated or straight-sided. Several variations of the Tel Rehov chalice form are illustrated (Rehov Registration Nos. 44244/1, 44207, 24845, 16324/1), Figs. 7.6.2:8, 7.6.4:3, 7.6.4:5, 7.6.4:7.

Each of the three rim fragments from Qiri differs from the others. The rim of fragment Qiri: Fig. 10:9 is plain, the rim of fragment Qiri: Fig. 10:10 is pinched and possibly folded or formed to resemble a folded rim, and the rim of fragment Qiri: Fig. 10:11 is everted and splayed. Tel Rehov Through the 2005 excavations, 38 chalices attributed to the Iron Age IIA had been restored. All of the chalices have an everted rim and all but one have a ridge on the pedestal (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1), Fig. 7.6.3:7. In a few instances the ridge is minimal. The chalice registered as No. 44209/1 is entirely red-slipped and burnished with a tall slim pedestal.

The two chalices from this site are associated with Building 300, a structure deemed to have a cult function. Each of the chalices has a tall pedestal without a ridge. The chalice illustrated has an elaborate splayed rim that is arched and everted (Michal: Fig. 7.5:6), Fig. 7.6.1:3. This style is found at other sites. Both chalices are from Strata XIV-XIII on the eastern hillock.

The large number of chalices found at Tel Rehov within a narrow chronology provides a base line for chalice types in the Beth Shean Valley in the early Iron Age II.

Nasbeh Taanach Four of the five chalices reported at Nasbeh differ significantly from their predecessors in the Iron Age IB (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576-77, 1583, 1585-85). Two chalices (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576-77) have bowls that could be described as cone-like and one of these is illustrated (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576), Fig. 7.6.4:2. The other three examples are fragments and show no unusual characteristics.

Two chalices were reported from this site. The chalice illustrated in Taanach I: Fig. 53:5 has a broad-based round chalice bowl, a cyma-shaped rim, and a ridged pedestal. This chalice is from Cistern 69. The second chalice has a bowl with a narrow base and a sweeping everted splayed rim. There is no ridge on the slim pedestal (Taanach I: Fig. 27:2), Fig. 7.6.1:4.

Pella

7.7 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata

A 1997 report of the excavations includes a photograph of 20 complete or restored chalices from Tomb 89 in Area II, an Iron Age I-II tomb (Bourke 1997:112, Fig. 19). The chalices in the photograph appear to be similar. The rims are everted and splayed, the bowls are rounded with little if any carination, the pedestals are smooth and in each case the foot incorporates a step.

As a general rule, chalices from Iron Age IIB strata are typical of the Iron Age model, i.e., they have an everted rim, a rounded, carinated or straight-sided bowl, and a ridged pedestal. There is, however, a decline in the number of chalices reported in Iron Age IIB strata. Only 48 examples were reported, or ten percent of the chalices discussed in this study, Table 7.7.

44

A breakdown of the Iron Age IIB chalices is as follows. Of the 48 examples reported, only one has an inverted rim, two have a rim that appears to be vertical, and the remaining 44 have an everted rim. The profiles of the chalice bowls are distributed between rounded (20), carinated (17), and straight-sided (9). The nine straightsided bowls include examples where the bowl appears rounded but the prevalent feature is an almost straightsided bowl wall. More chalices were reported in southern sites (35) then in northern sites (13). Nine chalices were reported from tombs.

and the wall of the bowl is straight. The pedestal has a subtle ridge. Tell el-Farah (North) The chalice reported in Stratum VIId is a fragment of a rim with part of the body. This fragment has a carinated bowl and an everted splayed rim (Farah I: Pl. 60:9). Halif This tomb chalice has a ledge rim and a rounded bowl (Biran and Gophna 1970:157: Fig. 4:8), Fig. 7.7.2:4. The pedestal is ridged. The tomb was found sealed by a blocking stone suggesting that the tomb remained undisturbed until the arrival of the excavators.

Eighteen chalices are decorated, many with simple red slip on part of the rim. One difference between the Iron Age IIB chalices and the Iron Age IB and Iron Age IIA chalices is that only 13 of the 31 chalices with a pedestal have some form of ridge on the pedestal. The greatest number of Iron Age IIB chalices were reported from the excavations at Batash (10) and Lachish (13). They are discussed below.

Hazor This 8th century BCE decorated fragment is similar in shape to the bowl of a goblet (Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22). The exterior of the bowl is decorated with black-andwhite horizontal stripes. A similar horizontally decorated fragment was found in Area H of Stratum 2, a Late Bronze Age stratum.

Tell Abu-Hawam Hamilton reported a red-buff chalice with a widediameter rim and a pedestal with a ridge just above the foot (Hamilton 1935:23, Fig. 88). This vessel closely resembles a chalice that appeared at a California auction in 2001. The find spot for the Hamilton chalice was at the possible limits of the outside wall. The chalice at auction is of unknown provenance, although the catalogue comments refer to Amiran 1969: Pl. 68:11, and Hamilton 1935:23, Fig. 88.

Ira One chalice was reported from Tomb 15 at Ira. The exterior of the bowl is decorated with a broad horizontal band and the rim is everted and splayed. There is no ridge on the pedestal (Ira: Fig. 4.33:9), Fig. 7.7.1:5.

Azekah

Jemmeh

The chalice illustrated in the Bliss 1902 publication shows a rounded carinated bowl with a near-vertical rim. This example has no foot, but there is an exaggerated ridge on the pedestal (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 45:17z), Fig.7.7.2:5.

Petrie reported three chalices from Level 189. Apart from an everted rim, each of the three chalices differs from the other. The exterior of the bowl of one is decorated with a complex basket-weave pattern (CPP: Fig. 17L8); the other two are undecorated (CPP: Fig. 17C4, 17P). It is generally agreed that Petrie’s stratigraphy is unreliable.

Batash Jerusalem Ten rim sherds and fragments from chalices were reported. This group includes five sherds that are redslipped. All the sherds have everted rims with three of the rims extended horizontally. One rim is decorated with splashes of red on the horizontal surface (Timnah II: Pl. 101:2).

Two red-slipped chalices from Stratum 14 were found in situ. One of these chalices has a dramatic splayed rim (Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 right), Fig.7.7.1:2, and the other has a well defined arched bowl with a plain splayed rim (Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 left). The two examples are designated as chalices from a cult corner.

Beth Shean Jokneam This chalice, reported by James, has a straight-sided bowl and an everted rim (James 1966: Fig. 34:12), Fig. 7.7.1:1. The pedestal has an almost solid core.

The chalice rim sherd reported in Stratum 11 is from a drain incorporated into the fortification system. The sherd is cyma shaped (Ben-Tor et al. 1983:52, Fig. 12:8).

Eton Kedesh A chalice from Stratum I was reported at ‘Eton (Zimhoni 1997:191, Fig. 4.4:15). The rim of the chalice is missing

This chalice is from a cist tomb damaged by a modern development project. The rim is everted in an almost

45

horizontal plain. The chalice bowl is rounded and the pedestal has a ridge (Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979:Pl. 3:5).

bowls supported by pedestals that have no ridge (SS III: Fig. 25:8; Fisher 1924: Fig. 161:22).

Keisan

7.8 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata

The chalice from Stratum 6 of Keisan has a rounded bowl and a plain everted rim. The extant portion of the pedestal has no ridge (Keisan: Pl. 49:6).

Only 25 chalices were recovered in Iron Age IIC contexts Table 7.8, a significantly lower number than the ca. 150 chalices reported in the Iron Age IIA and the ca. 60 chalices reported in the Iron Age IIB. The paucity of chalices dating to Iron Age IIC may reflect the changes that took place in Israel following the Assyrian and Babylonian incursions. However, equal attention should be given to the absence of secure stratigraphy at many sites due to the reuse of this last Iron Age layer.

Khirbet Marjameh A limited educational excavation was the source of this chalice fragment. The fragment is decorated with multiple bands on the exterior and has a carination at the base of the straight-sided bowl wall (Mazar 1995:102, Fig. 18:25), Fig. 7.7.1:3. This fragment may be from a goblet rather than a chalice. The general form of this vessel is repeated in similar vessels at Hazor from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age IIB.

The 25 chalices dated to the Iron Age IIC represent five percent of the chalices in this study. Of the 25 examples, one has an inverted rim, four have vertical rims, while the remaining 20 chalices have everted rims. There is an almost equal distribution of chalice bowls between the carinated and the staight-sided form. Nine chalices were reported in northern sites and 16 were reported in southern sites. More than one third of the chalices from this period were reported from the excavations at Batash. Five chalices are from Jericho. Tombs and cemeteries yielded few of the Iron Age IIC examples. Several of the chalices are decorated, some with elaborate patterns on the exterior of the bowl, i.e., Batash (Timnah II: Pl. 65:1, 65:2), Miqne (Gitin 1993:253, Fig 5a), and Jemmeh (CPP: Fig. 17L7). Of the 15 chalices illustrated with a pedestal, only the chalices reported by Sellin from Jericho and the chalice from ej-Judeideh show a ridge on the pedestal. The lack of a ridge on Iron IIC chalices denotes a change from the ridged pedestal typical of the Iron Age IIA and IIB periods.

Lachish The Lachish III report indicated that the expedition found 25 chalices. This represented less than one percent of the vessels examined and classified. Twelve chalices from the Iron Age IIB were reported in the same publication, and an additional chalice is on exhibit in the British Museum. [It is possible that the British Museum chalice is one of the chalices in the Lachish III publication.] Only one chalice has an inverted rim, and this example is unusual in that the bowl is illustrated without a base, giving it the appearance of a funnel (Lachish III: Pl. 83:163). Most of the Lachish chalices are from tombs and caves. The pedestal of one chalice is in the shape of a tripod set on a solid foot suggesting that the pedestal is an imitation of a brass tripod stand (Lachish III: Pl. 83:155), Fig. 7.7.1:6. Three other examples from Lachish are illustrated (Lachish III: Pl. 83:164, 83:158, 83:160), Figs. 7.7.1:4, 7.7.2:1-2. Only two of the twelve chalices have a well-defined ridge on the pedestal.

Batash The nine chalices from Batash Stratum II provide a good representation of the chalice form found at the end of Iron Age II. Chalices with a plain vertical rim, a vertical bowl wall, and a tall pedestal without a ridge may represent the final form of the chalice. These features are shown in two examples (Timnah II: Pls. 65:2, 95:1), Fig. 7.8.2:2, 3. The carinated bowl with an everted splayed rim is still represented (Timnah II: Pl. 56:1), Fig. 7.8.1:3. However, in contrast to the ‘classic’ Iron Age chalice with a medium-length pedestal and a ridge, five of the Batash chalices feature an unusually tall pedestal without a ridge (Timnah II: Pls. 56:1,2, 65:1,2, and 95:1). Two of these examples are elaborately decorated with horizontal and diagonal bands on both the bowl and the pedestal (Timnah II: Pl. 65:1-2), Figs. 7.8.1:4, 7.8.2:2. None of the nine chalices has an inverted rim, although two of the body and rim fragments have ledge rims (Timnah II: Pls. 32:13, and 65:3).

Safi Four chalices from Temporary Stratum 4 were reported from the current excavations. Another chalice from Safi was formerly on exhibit in the Israel Museum Jerusalem. Two examples from the current excavations are notable for their unusually tall slim pedestals and their elaborate decoration. In addition to designs in red, each of these vessels is distinguished by a row of petals near the top of the pedestal. One is illustrated (Shai and Maeir 2003:111, Fig. 1:5), Fig. 7.7.2:3. Another chalice with a tall slim pedestal, but without the petal adornment, has a shallow bowl with straight sides. The pedestal has no ridge (Safi Excavations Internet Site; Study No. 3), Fig. 7.7.2:6. Samaria

Hatzevah Two chalice fragments from Samaria may be from footed bowls. The fragments are illustrated as wide-rim shallow

The published material from Hatzevah concentrates on the Edomite shrine of the seventh-sixth centuries BCE.

46

The cult shrine was located outside the Late Iron Age fortress.

Jerusalem The Kenyon excavations at Jerusalem reported a chalice from a cave (Eshel and Prag 1995:153, Fig. 31:9). The chalice is goblet-like and resembles a vessel from Jericho (Tushingham 1965: Fig, 256:21).

The cult objects were found in a pit next to the shrine. Several different types of cult vessels were uncovered. One type, which appears to have functioned as an incense burner, combines a wide shallow platter bowl with a short trumpet-shaped pedestal; the pedestal has cutout windows. A second type closely resembles a contemporary eggcup, i.e., a small goblet-shaped bowl set on a short wide trumpet-shaped foot. A third type features a flat shallow bowl set on a wide rounded pedestal with cutout windows. The fourth type is considerably taller than the other three types and is distinguished by a disproportionately large pedestal marked by a series of prominent ridges. The chalice bowl of this type is small and in a number of cases the lower sidewall of the bowl features a teardrop or crenellation motif. Some of the vessels feature a horizontal rim with a scallop edge. The vessels have no true parallel. There are, however, some parallels for the Hatzevah teardrop bowls in the chalice bowls from Tell el-Farah (South) (CPP: Fig. 17 P2) and Megiddo (Megiddo II: Pl. 33:15).

ej-Judeideh Bliss reported this chalice in his 1898-1900 excavations. The chalice has a rounded bowl, an everted rim and a ridge on the pedestal (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 53:1j cited by Gibson 1944:229, Fig. 20:2). The discovery of more than 25 handles with lamelekh seals in the same loci provides a late eighth century BCE date that may apply to this chalice. Keisan The chalice from this site has a sharply-carinated chalice bowl and a thickened rim that is hammerhead-shaped (Keisan: Pl. 32:6), Fig. 7.8.1:2. The vessel lacks a complete pedestal and foot, but the bowl and the rim are quite similar to that of the chalice from Hazor (Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32).

Hazor The rim of this chalice sherd from Stratum III appears to be both folded and inverted, an uncommon feature for chalices fabricated at the end of the Iron Age II (Hazor I; Pl. LXXVII:32), Fig. 7.8.1:1. The exterior of the rim and bowl are decorated. The decorations are similar to those found on pottery described as ‘black on red.’

A small fragment of the lower part of a bowl and its upper pedestal was identified in Stratum 5. There is a bulge at the top of the pedestal. The fragment is decorated on the exterior with black and red (Keisan: Pl. 42:3).

Jemmeh The two chalices from Jemmeh are from levels DH 193 and DR 195, the latest levels excavated (CPP: Fig. 17L7, 17P4), Figs. 7.8.1:6, 7.8.2:4. The chalice illustrated in CPP: Fig. 17L7 is highly decorated with an elaborate geometric pattern on the exterior of the bowl. The second chalice is red burnished, with a straight-sided bowl and an almost vertical everted rim. This chalice is unusual in that it is decorated with uneven serrations at the base of the chalice bowl.

The bowl sherd from this site shows an arched wall above an apparent carination. The rim is plain and everted (Ayalon 1995:180, Fig. 22:1). According to the excavator, “The pottery of ‘Ajrud comprises a complete assemblage from a site which was almost entirely excavated.” “Since Kuntillet ‘Ajrud was settled for only a short time, the ceramic assemblage is homogeneous” (Ayalon 1995:198). Although the chronology of the site can be dated within a certain period, the context of the sherd is not fixed, as the corner rooms may have been favissae (Ayalon 1995:199).

Jericho

Miqne

The Sellin and Watzinger excavations reported four chalices from the Judahite Period. Each of these chalices has a ridge on the pedestal. The pedestal of one of the chalices is notably tall and slim (Sellin and Watzinger 1913: Blatt 36 A, 47a), Fig. 7.8.2:1. The overall profile of this chalice, minus the ledge rim, is found in other Iron Age IIC chalices.

The chalice from Miqne is similar to two of the chalices reported at Batash (Timnah II: Pl. 65:2 and 95:1). The bowl and the pedestal are decorated on the exterior with horizontal and diagonal bands. The bowl is carinated at a sharp vertical angle and the rim is plain, vertical and slightly everted. This chalice is from an olive-oil factory building (Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a), Fig 7.8.2:5. A similar chalice was found in a room in a house in the elite zone of the seventh century BCE strata. An Internet photograph shows the chalice from the olive-oil building along with two other vessels with carinated straight-sided bowls. A chalice/offering stand pedestal with petals was found in the Miqne excavations (Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5:b), Fig. 7.8.2:6. A similar pedestal with petals was

Kuntillet Ajrud

A chalice was reported from the tomb excavations carried out by Kenyon’s team (Tushingham 1965: Fig, 256:21). This vessel is similar to a goblet in form and, in fact, closely resembles the modern ecclesiastical chalice.

47

identified in the current Tel Rehov excavations. The Miqne excavators noted that of nine chalices: three have a painted triangle decoration and six have a petal decoration in relief. They also pointed out that these chalices were part of a cult assemblage of the seventh century BCE (Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 1993:1058). There is no ridge on the pedestals of the chalices illustrated.

Based on their features, it seems reasonable to assign an Iron Age I date to all the examples, except for the chalice with a ridge on the pedestal (AS II, Pl. XXXVI:35) and the pedestal with petals (AS II, Pl. XXXVI:30). Dor The bowl fragment from Dor was found in the coastal area of the excavation (Stern, et al. 1996: Fig. 9.19:2). The fragment is too small to date.

Tell Qasile The bowl of this chalice has a ‘fishbowl’ shape (Maisler 1951:203. Fig 12:e), Fig. 7.8.1:5. The rim is everted and decorated on the interior with intermittent stripes. There is no ridge on the pedestal. Subsequent analysis of the stratigraphy collapsed Stratum VII into Stratum VIII, making an Iron Age IIC chronology inappropriate for this chalice. The example is included here for comparison with Iron Age IIC chalices, but is rightfully assigned to the Iron Age IIA analysis.

Tell el-Farah (South) The example from Tell el-Farah (South) has a carinated bowl with a flaring wall and a plain everted rim. The general shape of the chalice suggests that it may be a goblet (CPP: Fig. 17D), Fig. 7.9:4. Similar goblets are found in the Iron Age II. Lachish

7.9 Chalices Reported Without a Specific Chronology Except for the lack of a ridge on the pedestal, this chalice is a typical example of an everted splayed-rim Iron Age chalice. The chalice bowl is broad-based and the foot is extended horizontally (Lachish III: Pl. 103:663), Fig. 7.9:5.

Only 16 of the more than 450 chalices in this study had no chronology readily indicated, Table 7.9. Of these, ten are from early excavations. Two are from the Schumacher excavations at Megiddo and eight are from Grant’s excavations at Beth Shemesh.

Megiddo Altogether undated chalices represent three percent of the chalices in this study. Fourteen of these undated examples have an everted rim and one example has a near-vertical rim. The majority of the rims are splayed; one example has a ledge rim. All bowl forms are represented. Six chalices were reported in northern sites and the remaining ten were from southern sites. Of the seven chalices shown with a ridge, three have a pedestal. The pedestals of five chalices from Beth Shemesh are distinctive.

Two undated chalices from this site are from the Schumacher excavations carried out at the beginning of the 20th century CE. One example has an everted rim, a bowl wall that rises at a 30° angle, and a ridge on the pedestal (TM I: Abb. 246e). The second Schumacher chalice has an everted splayed rim, a wide bowl, and a stout unridged pedestal (TM II: Abb. 76). Except for its pedestal, this Schumacher chalice is similar to two chalices from the current Tel Aviv University excavations (Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.53:3; 13.59:4). Both of the Tel Aviv University chalices are from a stratum equated with Stratum VIA of the Oriental Institute excavations (Megiddo IV: 191).

Beth Shemesh Five of the eight chalices from this site are distinguished by highly unusual pedestals. In one example, the pedestal core is composed of six vertical strands of pottery (AS II: Pl. XXXV:21), Fig 7.9:1. In another, the unusually tall pedestal is in the shape of a ‘tower-like’ tripod that appears to be set into the foot (rather than molded to the foot). Its appearance suggests that it may be an offering stand composed of three pieces: a bowl, a pedestal, and a ring foot (AS II: Pl. XXXV:28), Fig. 7.9:2. A smaller but similar tripod vessel was reported from Lachish (Lachish III: Pl. 83:155). The pedestal of a third chalice has a ridge just below the bowl and a second ridge midway down the pedestal. The foot of this chalice joins the pedestal at an obtuse angle (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:35). A fourth example appears to have a solid pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:38) while the fifth example is represented only by its pedestal. This pedestal, however, is decorated with a series of down-turned petals midway down the pedestal, similar to the petals found on chalices from Tel Rehov and Safi (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:30) Fig. 7.9:3.

Nasbeh Both examples from Nasbeh are fragments that are too small to date (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1578-79). Tell Qasile The Tell Qasile example appeared in the publication, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Mazar 1980:163, cited by Dothan, T. 1982:62, Fig. 9), and is similar to a chalice illustrated in the preliminary excavation report (Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:3). As illustrated in the Dothan publication, however, the Tell Qasile chalice appears to have a slightly taller pedestal and an amorphous ridge on the lower pedestal. These characteristics suggest a late Iron Age I date.

48

Chronology of Chalices Tables

Location Ay Hazor Hazor Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo

Table 7.1 Chalices Reported in Strata That Pre-Date the Late Bronze Age Type Stratum Reference AY: Pl. LXVII: 17:363* 113 Tomb C Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 left chalice 211 Favissa Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 right chalice* 211 Favissa Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14* 211 XII-X Megiddo II: Pl. 47:15 211 XII-X Megiddo II: Pl. 47:18* 213 X-IX

* Illustrated in Figure 7.1 Table 7.2 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata Location Type Stratum Reference Abu-Hawam 211 Sous V2 Balensi 1980:Vol. II:Pl. 20:6* Batash 211 VIII Kelm and Mazar 1995:51, Fig. 4:13* Beth Shean 211 VII James and McGovern 1993:Vol. II: Fig. 20:3 Beth Shean 211 VII James and McGovern 1993:Vol. II: Fig. 27:12 Beth Shean 211 VIII James and McGovern 1993:Vol. II: Fig. 31:3 AS II: Pl. XXXV:15 Beth Shemesh 222 IV AS II: Pl. XXXV:23 Beth Shemesh 211 Tomb AS II: Pl. XXXV:24 Beth Shemesh 211 Sub III AS II: Pl. XXXV:26 Beth Shemesh 222 IV CPP: Fig. 17E Farah (S) 221 Cem. 100 CPP: Fig. 17E2 Farah (S) 221 Cem. 600 CPP: Fig. 17N7 Farah (S) 222 BJ 389 CPP: Fig. 17B2 Gezer 221 T. 59 CPP: Fig. 17B4 Gezer 211 T. 30 CPP: Fig. 17B5 Gezer 111 T. 58 CPP: Fig. 17B7 * Gezer 221 T. 58 CPP: Fig. 17C2 Gezer 221 T. 85 CPP: Fig. 17C7 * Gezer 233 T. 58 CPP: Fig. 17S2 * Gezer 231 T. 58 Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31* Hazor 211 Cave Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21 Hazor 211 1b-1a Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23* Hazor 111 1b-1a Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24* Hazor 133 1b-1a Hazor II: Pl. CLXI:20 Hazor 111 1-b Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21 Hazor 213 1-b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CLXI:6 Hazor 213 XIV-XIII Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1* Hazor 233 2 Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:1 Hazor 211 1b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:3 Hazor 211 1b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:20* Hazor 003 1b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXX:4 Hazor 211 1a CPP: Fig. 17B8 Jemmeh (?) 222 CPP: Fig. 17N Jemmeh 222 WJ 184 Ben-Arieh 1981:119, Fig. 3:3* Judur 231 Cave Ussishkin 2004:Vol. III:Fig. 20.20:3* Lachish 111 P-1 Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16* Megiddo 213 IX * Illustrated in Figures 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3

49

Location Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Mevorakh Mevorakh Pella Pella

Type 111 211 211 113 113 113 211 211 211 211 111 111 111 211 230 113 211 211 113 111

Table 7.2 continued Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata Stratum Reference Megiddo II: Pl. 67:5* VIIB Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:9 T. 989A1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:10 * T. 989A1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 19:17 T. 989C1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 30:4 T. 911A1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 31:7* T. 911C Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:11* T. 912B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:12 T. 912B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 35:28 T. 912D Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24* T. 26B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 59:13 T. 40 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30* T. 63A Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:36 T. 63B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:6 T. 73 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:7 T.73 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 99:8 T.989C1 Mevorakh: Fig. 1:22 X Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23 X Pella in Jordan2 : Pl. 47:6* Phase II Pella in Jordan2 : Pl. 47:7* Phase II

* Illustrated in Figures 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3 Table 7.3 Chalices Reported in Lare Bronze Age-Iron Age I Transition Strata Location Type Stratum Reference Abu-Hawam 211 V Balensi 1980:Vol. II: Pl. 8:7* AS II: Pl. XXXV:22 Beth Shemesh 111 III-IV AS II: Pl. XXXVI:1 Beth Shemesh 221 III-IV Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1* Dan 213 VII Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:2 Dan 213 VII Deir Alla: Fig. 4-6:10 Deir Alla 111 E2 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-6:11 Deir Alla 113 E2 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:23* Deir Alla 113 E3 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:24* Deir Alla 113 E3 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:25 Deir Alla 213 E3 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:9 Deir Alla 211 E4 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10* Deir Alla 213 E4 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11* Deir Alla 111 E4 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-3:10 Deir Alla 213 E7 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:3* Deir Alla 213 E8 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:5 Deir Alla 213 E8 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:6* Deir Alla 213 E8 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-9:8 Deir Alla 211 E9 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-9:9 Deir Alla 213 E9 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7* Deir Alla 212 E10 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:8 Deir Alla 113 E10 CPP: Fig. 17E4 * Farah (S) 221 T. 542 Gezer IV: Pl. 24:9 Gezer 222 6b/a = XIII Gezer IV: Pl. 31:10 Gezer 220 6a = XIII Gezer IV: Pl. 31:13 Gezer 221 6a = XIII Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 2.2:7 Jezreel 210 Fill Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3* Megiddo 223 VIIb-VIa * Illustrated in Figures 7.3.1, 7.3.2

50

Location Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Es-Sa’iyedeh

Table 7.3 continued Chalices Reported in Lare Bronze Age-Iron Age I Transition Strata Type Stratum Reference Megiddo II: Pl. 72:11 111 VII Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12* 111 VII Megiddo II: Pl. 72:13 211 VII Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10* 211 VIIb/VIa British Museum, Room 57, Case 8 111 Grave 46

* Illustrated in Figures 7.3.1, 7.3.2

Location Chronology Afula 213 Afula 213 Megiddo 212 Megiddo 211 Megiddo 211 Megiddo 211 Megiddo 221 Megiddo 113 Megiddo 223 Megiddo 213 Megiddo 223 Megiddo 221 Qashish 223 Qashish 211 Zahiriyye 222 Zahiriyye 221 * Illustrated in Figure 7.4

Location Afula Ay Ay Batash BeerSheba Beit Mirsim Beit Mirsim Beth Shean Beth Shean Beth Shean Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh

Type 131 222 212 221 221 131 222 233 211 222 222 231 212 212 222 222 221 111 211 222 212 221

Table 7.4 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IA Strata Stratum Reference IIIB Dothan, M. 1954:46, Fig. 18:15 IIIB Dothan, M. 1954:46, Fig. 18:16 Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11* VIIA Megiddo II: Pl. 70:12* VIIA Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 8:3 T. 1101A Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 8:14 T. 1101B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10* T. 63E Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19* T. 39 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:20* T. 39 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 71:17* T. 221B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 73:5 T. 1090A Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 74:25 T. 76A Ben-Tor, Portugali, Avissar 1981:149, Fig. 7:4 Ph 5 (IV) Ben-Tor, Portugali, Avissar 1981:149, Fig. 7:5 Ph 5 (IV) Baramki 1935:109-10, Pl. LXI:1* Tomb Baramki 1935:109-10, Pl. LXII:3 Tomb

Table 7.5 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata Stratum Reference Dothan, M. 1954:63, Fig. 14:26 IIIA AY: Pl. LXXIV:1045 Level D AY: Pl. LXXVI:1638 Level Z Kelm and Mazar 1995:103, Fig. 5:12 V Beer-sheba II: Fig. 20:5 VIII Greenberg 1987:68: Fig. 7:3 B1-B2 (Silo 6) B1-B2 (Silo 6) Greenberg 1987:68: Fig. 7:7 S2/S3A Mazar 1993:213: Fig. 10* Early Iron CPP: Fig. 17B6 James 1966: Fig. 50:8* VI AS II: Pl. XXXVI:11* III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:17 III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:18 III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:19 III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:21* III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:23 III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:25 III AS III: Fig. 2:13* III AS IV: Pl. LIX:22 III AS IV: Pl. LIX:26 III AS IV: Pl. LXI:45 III Bumimovitz 2001:137, Fig. 9:2 Revetment

* Illustrated in Figures 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.4 51

Location

Type

Table 7.5 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata Stratum Reference

Beth Zur 222 III-II Beth Zur 222 III-II Dan 111 V Dan 311 V Dan 113 V Deir Alla 213 Phase B-2 Deir Alla 213 Phase G-3 Deir Alla 222 Phase J-5 Esdar 222 III Farah (S) 233 XT 372 Galilee 111 Survey Gezer 212 XII (10) Gezer 212 XII (5c/b) Gezer 222 XII (5c) Jokneam 221 XVII Keisan 223 9c Keisan 113 9c Keisan 110 10-11 Kinneret 111 2=V Masos 222 II (III ?) Masos 221 II Masos 212 II Masos 212 II Masos 212 II Masos 223 II Masos 222 II Masos 212 II Masos 212 II 222 II Masos 222 II Masos 222 II Masos 222 II Masos 233 II Masos 222 II Masos 221 II Masos 222 II Masos 213 VI Megiddo 231 VI Megiddo 223 VI Megiddo 213 VI Megiddo 211 VI Megiddo 221 VI Megiddo 222 VI Megiddo 231 VI Megiddo 221 II Menorah 213 II Menorah 221 VI (VB) (fill) Miqne 212 T. 32 Nasbeh 212 T. 32 Nasbeh 222 T. 32 Nasbeh 212 T. 32 Nasbeh 212 T. 32 Nasbeh 222 T. 54 Nasbeh 313 T. 32 Nasbeh 212 T. 54 Nasbeh 221 T. 32 Nasbeh * Illustrated in Figures 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.4

Sellers 1993: Fig. 13:1 Sellers 1993: Fig. 13:2 Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:4 Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:5* Biran 1994a: Fig. 112:2 Deir Alla I: Fig. 48:53 Deir Alla I: Fig. 63:28* Deir Alla I: Fig. 69:28 Kochavi 1969: Fig. 12:7, cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:173 CPP: Fig. 17 D2 * Aharoni, Y. 1956:63, Fig. 5:1 Gezer II:Pl. 29:14* Gezer IV:Pl. 35:20 Gezer IV: Pl. 38:11 Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:266, Fig. 4:7 Keisan: Pl. 73:6 Keisan: Pl. 80:2 Keisan: Pl. 81:21 Fritz 1999:107, Fig. 8:3 Masos II: Pl. 131:2 Masos II: Pl. 136:4 Masos II: Pl. 136:19 Masos II: Pl. 136:20 Masos II: Pl. 136:21* Masos II: Pl. 137:5 Masos II: Pl. 137:6 Masos II: Pl. 137:7 Masos II: Pl. 139:15 Masos II: Pl. 149:1 Masos II: Pl. 149:2 Masos II: Pl. 151:5 Masos II: Pl. 151:6 Masos II: Pl. 154:8* Masos II: Pl. 154:9* Masos II: Pl. 157:15 Masos II: Pl. 162:13 Megiddo II: Pl. 74:17* Megiddo II: Pl. 87:5 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:6* Megiddo II: Pl. 87:7 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:8 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:9 Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.53:3* Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.59:4 Gal 1979:143, Fig. 3:5 Gal 1979:143, Fig. 3:6* Bierling 1998: Fig. 8:16 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1571 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1572 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1573 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1574* Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1575 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1580* Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1581* Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1582 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1584*

52

Location

Type

Table 7.5 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata Stratum Reference

Pella 111 Phase III Tell Qasile 203 XI Tell Qasile 113 XII Tell Qasile 110 XII Tell Qasile 223 XI Tell Qasile 213 XI Tell Qasile 112 XI Tell Qasile 222 XI-X Tell Qasile 222 XI-X Tell Qasile 111 XI-X Tell Qasile 231 X Tell Qasile 232 X Tell Qasile 221 X Tell Qasile 231 X Tell Qasile 222 X Tell Qasile 223 X Tell Qasile 222 X Tell Qasile 222 X Tell Qasile 222 X Qiri 210 VIIIa Qiri 211 VIIIc Qiri 211 VIIIc 222 Qiri VIII 211 Qiri VIII-IX 113 Rehov Tomb 113 Rehov Tomb 113 Rehov Tomb 221 Rehov D4 222 Sippor I 111 Sippor II 113 Taanach IA 113 Taanach IA 113 Taanach IA 213 Zeror Tomb 1 * Illustrated in Figures 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.4

Location Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Amal Aphek Arad Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Ashdod Batash Batash

Type 222 222 223 221 223 222 000 232 222 223 222 222 230 220

1

Pella in Jordan : Pl. 120:12 Qasile I: Fig. 33* Qasile II: Fig. 14:6 Qasile II: Fig. 14:11 Qasile II: Fig. 24:18 Qasile II: Fig. 26:9 Qasile II: Fig. 27:19* Qasile II: Fig. 32:4 Qasile II: Fig. 32:5 Qasile II: Fig. 32:6 Qasile II: Fig. 40:8* Qasile II: Fig. 40:9 Qasile II: Fig. 43:22 Qasile II: Fig. 47:9 Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:1 Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:2 Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:3 Maisler 1951: Pl. 28:4 Maisler 1951: Pl. 28:5 Qiri: Fig. 15:3 Qiri: Fig. 15:4 Qiri: Fig. 15:5 Qiri: Pl. 28:9* Qiri: Pl. 29:3* Tsori 1975:17, Fig 5:10 Tsori 1975:17, Fig 5:11 Tsori 1975:17, Fig 5:12* Rehov Registration No. 28875/1* or (28835/1) Biran 1966:160-73, Fig. 5:7 Biran 1966:160-73, Fig. 6:8 Taanach I: Fig. 89:3 Taanach I: Fig. 89:4* Taanach I: Fig. 89:5 Ohata 1967: Pl. X:12

Table 7.6 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata Stratum Reference III Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:1 III Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:2* III Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:3 III Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:5 III Edelstein and Feig 1993:1449* III Edelstein and Feig 1993:1450 A-8 Kochavi 1993:70 XII Aharoni, M. 1981:183, Fig. 1:19 X (M-11) Dothan, M. 1982:111, Fig. 5:1 X (M-11) Dothan, M. 1982:111, Fig. 5:2 X (M-10) Dothan, M. 1982:117, Fig. 8:7* X (M-10) Dothan, M. 1982:117, Fig. 8:10 Timnah II: Pl. 2:22 IVB Timnah II: Pl. 85:7 IVB

* Illustrated in Figures 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 7.6.5

53

Table 7.6 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata Location Type Stratum Reference BeerSheba BeerSheba I : Fig. 54:6 220 V BeerSheba I : Fig. 54:7 BeerSheba 221 V Aharoni, Y. 1974:41, Fig. 3:8 BeerSheba 222 VI James 1966: Fig. 19:21* Beth Shean 222 Lower V James 1966: Fig. 22:22 Beth Shean 222 Lower V AS II: Pl. XXXVI:3 Beth Shemesh 231 II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:4 Beth Shemesh 232 II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:29* Beth Shemesh 222 II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31* Beth Shemesh 221 II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:32 Beth Shemesh 222 II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:33 Beth Shemesh 222 II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:36* Beth Shemesh 231 II AS III: 5.4-100* Beth Shemesh 232 IIA AS III: 6.3-54 Beth Shemesh 231 IIA AS III: 6.3-57 Beth Shemesh 222 II AS III: 6.3-58 Beth Shemesh 222 II AS III: 6.3-86 Beth Shemesh 233 II AS IV: Pl. LXII:48 Beth Shemesh 231 IIA AS IV: Pl. LXII:49 Beth Shemesh 221 IIA AS IV: Pl. LXII:50 Beth Shemesh 233 IIA AS IV: Pl. LXII:53 Beth Shemesh 232 IIA AS IV: Pl. LXIV:33 II Beth Shemesh 231 AS IV: Pl. LXIV:34 II Beth Shemesh 222 AS IV: Pl. LXIV:35 II Beth Shemesh 232 AS IV: Pl. LXIV:38 II Beth Shemesh 222 AS IV: Pl. LXVII:3 Cistern 25 Beth Shemesh 222 Grant 1929:209, Fig. 9 II Beth Shemesh 221 Grant 1929:209, Fig. 10 II Beth Shemesh 222 Grant 1929:211, 152d City debris Beth Shemesh 221 Grant 1929:211, 143d City debris Beth Shemesh 231 Grant 1929:211, 150d City debris Beth Shemesh 221 Grant 1929:211, rm 39 City debris Beth Shemesh 221 Grant 1929:215 260* City debris Beth Shemesh 213 Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:1 IV Dan 223 Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:2* IV Dan 311 Biran 1989:122, Fig 4 top left IV Dan 223 Farah I: Pl. 60:6 VIIb 221 Farah (N) Farah I: Pl. 60:7* VIIb 221 Farah (N) Farah I: Pl. 60:8 VIIb 223 Farah (N) Farah I: Pl. 60:10 VIIb 221 Farah (N) CPP: Fig. 17F2 T. 240 223 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17F4 T. 104 222 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17H2 T. 240 223 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17H3 T. 202 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17H4 * T. 229 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17H5 T. 201 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17H8 * T. 240 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17K2 T. 201 223 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17K3 T. 202 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17K6 T. 213 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17K7 * T. 229 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17L2 * T. 228 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17L4 T. 238 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17L5 T. 201 221 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17N2 T. 229 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17N3 T. 229 233 Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17N5 BA 387 221 Farah (S) * Illustrated in Figures 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 7.6.5

54

Location

TYpe

Table 7.6 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata Stratum Reference

CPP: Fig. 17P2 * Farah (S) 221 T. 240 CPP: Fig. 17P6 Farah (S) 313 T. 202 CPP: Fig. 17Q2 * Farah (S) 211 T. 213 CPP: Fig. 17Q4 Farah (S) 233 T. 201 CPP: Fig. 41.17G3 Farah (S) 222 TY 376 Gezer III, Pl. 6:14 Gezer 220 IXa CPP: Fig. 17C3 Gezer 221 T. 138 CPP: Fig. 17T4 Gezer 212 T. 142 CPP: Fig. 17S3 * Gezer 221 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S4 Gezer 231 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S5 Gezer 231 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S6 Gezer 221 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S7 Gezer 231 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S8 * Gezer 222 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S9 Gezer 221 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S10 Gezer 231 T. 96 CPP: Fig. 17S11 Gezer 231 T. 96 Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:6 Izbet Sartah 221 II Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:7 Izbet Sartah 221 II I Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 21:19 Izbet Sartah 220 I Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 24:5 Izbet Sartah 220 CPP: Fig. 17C8 GN 185 Jemmeh 232 CPP: Fig. 17P8 * GB 187 Jemmeh 313 Kh. edFinkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9* Area A Dawwara 222 Lachish V: Pl. 42:14 V Lachish 231 Lachish V: Pl. 42:15 V Lachish 221 Lachish V: Pl. 42:17 V Lachish 222 Lachish V: Pl. 42:18 V Lachish 221 Lachish V: Pl. 42:20 * V Lachish 222 Lachish V: Pl. 42:21 V Lachish 222 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 * V 222 Megiddo Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17 * V 111 Megiddo Megiddo I: Pl. 33:18 V 213 Megiddo Megiddo I: Pl. 33:20 V 221 Megiddo Megiddo II: Pl. 90:8 * VA 222 Megiddo Megiddo II: Pl. 90:9 VA 222 Megiddo TM I: Abb.154 Palast 223 Megiddo Michal: Fig. 7.5:5 XIV-XIII 222 Michal Michal: Fig. 7.5:6* XIV-XIII 212 Michal Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576* II 223 Nasbeh Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1577 233 Nasbeh Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1583 Bin 384 231 Nasbeh Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1585 222 Nasbeh Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1586 222 Nasbeh Bourke 1997:112, Fig. 19 Tomb 89 210 Pella Qasile II: Fig. 52:15 IX 222 Tell Qasile Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:c * IX 222 Tell Qasile Qiri: Fig. 10:9 VIIc 211 Qiri Qiri: Fig. 10:10 VIIc 213 Qiri Qiri: Fig. 10:11 VIIc 221 Qiri Rehov Registration No. 16257/3 IV 223 Rehov Rehov Registration No. 16324/1* IV 233 Rehov Rehov Registration No. 16333/1 IV 221 Rehov Rehov Registration No. 16335 IV 221 Rehov Rehov Registration No. 16723 (?) IV 221 Rehov Rehov Registration No. 24336/3 V 223 Rehov * Illustrated in Figures 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 7.6.5 55

Location

Type

Table 7.6 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata Stratum Reference

Rehov 233 V Rehov Registration No. 24619/2 Rehov 231 VI-V Rehov Registration No. 24845* Rehov 231 V Rehov Registration No. 24899 Rehov 221 IV Rehov Registration No. 26293/19 Rehov 231 V Rehov Registration No. 26630/3 Rehov 231 IV Rehov Registration No. 44051/1 Rehov 223 V Rehov Registration No. 44149/1 Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44164 Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44187/10 Rehov 223 V Rehov Registration No. 44204 Rehov 223 V Rehov Registration No. 44205 Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44206 Rehov 223 V Rehov Registration No. 44207 * Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44209/1 * Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44210/1 Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44244/1 * Rehov 231 V Rehov Registration No. 44310/2 Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44496/1 Rehov 221 V Rehov Registration No. 44496/5 Rehov 231 IV Rehov Registration No. 44596/1 Rehov 223 V Rehov Registration No. 46521/5 Rehov 221 IV Rehov Registration No. 54435/8 Rehov 223 V Rehov Registration No. 54464 Rehov 221 IV Rehov Registration No. 54594/6 221 IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 54715/1 221 IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64278/64279 221 IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64340 221 IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64342 221 IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64357 223 IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64684 221 V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64745 233 V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64746 Taanach I: Fig. 27:2 * 212 IIA Taanach Taanach I: Fig. 53:5 221 IIB Taanach * Illustrated in Figures 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 7.6.5 Table 7.7 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata Location Type Stratum Reference Abu-Hawam Hamilton 1935:23, Fig. 88 221 III Abu-Hawam Malter Auction Gallery 221 III Azekah Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 45:17z * 312 B Timnah II: Pl. 14:13 Batash 222 III Timnah II: Pl. 22:8 Batash 222 III Timnah II: Pl. 82:15 Batash 221 IV Timnah II: Pl. 84:9 Batash 221 IV Timnah II: Pl. 84:10 221 IV Batash Timnah II: Pl. 84:11 230 IV Batash Timnah II: Pl. 91:13 222 III Batash Timnah II: Pl. 91:19 221 III Batash Timnah II: Pl. 93:14 233 III Batash Timnah II: Pl. 101:2 233 IV-III Batash James 1966: Fig. 34:12 * 211 IV Beth Shean Zimhoni 1997:191, Fig. 4.4:15 003 I Eton Farah I: Pl. 60:9 222 VIId1 Farah (N) * Illustrated in Figure 7.7.1, 7.7.2 56

Table 7.7 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata Location Type Stratum Reference Halif 231 Tomb (Pit) Biran and Gophna 1970:157, Fig. 4:8 * Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22 Hazor 212 Va Ira: Fig. 4.33:9 * Ira 221 T. 15 CPP: Fig. 17C4 Jemmeh 221 Ee 189 CPP: Fig. 17L8 Jemmeh 231 FL 189 CPP: Fig. 17P* Jemmeh 213 EJ 189 Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 right * Jerusalem 222 14 Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 left Jerusalem 211 14 Ben Tor, et al. 1983:52, Fig. 12:8 Jokneam 222 11 Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979:1-25, Pl. 3:5 Kedesh 231 Itomb Keisan: Pl. 49:6 211 6 Keisan Mazar 1995:102, Fig. 18:25 * 212 Kh. Marjameh Lachish III: Pl. 83:154 221 T. 6006 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:155 * 221 6024 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:156 222 Cave 6020 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:157 222 III Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:158 * 222 T. 224 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:159 222 T. 224 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:160 * 222 116 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:161 211 116 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:162 222 T. 224 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:163 111 III-II Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:164 * 213 T. 223 Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 102:662 231 IV-III Lachish British Museum 222 IV-III Lachish Safi Internet Site, Study No. 1 222 Temp. 4 Safi Safi Internet Site, Study No. 2 223 Temp. 4 Safi Safi Internet Site, Study No. 3 * 313 Temp. 4 Safi Shai and Maeir 2003:111, Fig. 1:5 * 223 Temp. 4 Safi Israel Museum 223 Safi SS III: Fig 25:8 211 Period VI Samaria Fisher 1924: Fig. 161:22 211 Israelite Samaria * Illustrated in Figures 7.7.1, 7.7.2 Table 7.8 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata Location Type Stratum Reference Batash Tinmah II: Pl. 32:13 231 II Tinmah II: Pl. 56:1* Batash 222 II Tinmah II: Pl. 56:2 Batash 222 II Tinmah II: Pl. 58:18 Batash 222 II Tinmah II: Pl. 60:3 Batash 222 II Tinmah II: Pl. 65:1* Batash 222 II Tinmah II: Pl. 65:2* Batash 313 II Tinmah II: Pl. 65:3 Batash 232 II Tinmah II: Pl. 95:1* Batash 313 II Cohen 1995, Israel Museum. Catalogue No. 370. Hatzevah 000 Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32* 113 III Hazor CPP: Fig. 17L7 * 231 DH 193 Jemmeh CPP: Fig. 17P4 * 313 DR 195 Jemmeh Sellin 1913: 36.A.47a* 233 Judische Jericho Sellin 1913: 36.A.47b 223 Judische Jericho Sellin 1913: 36.A.47c 223 Judische Jericho Sellin 1913: 36.A.47d 221 Judische Jericho Tushingham 1965: Fig. 256:21 212 T. WH 1 Jericho * Illustrated in Figure 7.8.1, 7.8.2

57

Table 7.8 continued Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata Location Type Stratum Reference Jerusalem Eshel and Prag 1995:153, Fig. 31:9 212 Cave 1 ej-Judeideh Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 53:1j cited by Gibson 1994 221 Keisan: Pl. 32:6* Keisan 212 4 Ayalon 1995:189, Fig. 22:1 Kuntillet Ajrud 210 Single layer Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a* Miqne 313 1C-B Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5b* Miqne 000 1C-B Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:e* ^ Tell Qasile 221 VII VIII * Illustrated in Figures 7.8.1 and 7.8.2 ^ Presented here for information only. Chalice included in Iron Age IIA.

Location Type Beth Shemesh 222 Beth Shemesh 222 Beth Shemesh 221 Beth Shemesh 221 Beth Shemesh 222 Beth Shemesh 000 Beth Shemesh 222 Beth Shemesh 232 Dor 210 Tel Farah (S) 212 222 Lachish 223 Megiddo 222 Megiddo 213 Nasbeh 313 Nasbeh 222 Tell Qasile * Illustrated in Figure 7.9

Table 7.9 Chalices Reported Without a Specific Chronology Stratum Reference AS II: Pl. XXXV:21* AS II: Pl. XXXV:28* AS II: Pl. XXXVI:5 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:7 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:28 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:30* AS II: Pl. XXXVI:35 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:38 Stern, E. et.al. 1996: Fig. 9.19:2 CPP: Fig. 17D* Lachish III: Pl. 103:663* TM I: Abb. 246e TM II: Abb. 76 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1578 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1579 Dothan, T. 1981:62, Fig. 9

58

CHALICE ILLUSTRATIONS BY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS

59

Figure 7.1 Chalices Reported in Strata That Pre-Date the Late Bronze Age No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. Ay Decorated on interior and exterior 2. Hazor Schematic line drawing 3. Megiddo One hole at the top of the pedestal 4. Megiddo Two holes in tang of bowl Illustrated in Type order

60

AY: Pl. LXVII, 17:363 Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 right chalice Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14 Megiddo II: Pl. 47:18

61

Figure 7.2.1 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4.

Hazor Lachish Megiddo Pella

Decorated on interior Decorated with stripes on the exterior T 63A. Decorated on exterior of rim Highly decorated interior and exterior, bulge at top of pedestal Tall trumpet-shaped pedestal T. 911C

Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23 Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30:3 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30 Pella in Jordan2 : Pl. 47:7

5. Megiddo 6. Megiddo 7. Pella 8. Hazor Decorated on interior Illustrated in Type order

62

Megiddo II: Pl. 67:5 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 31:7 Pella in Jordan2 : Pl. 47:6 Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24

63

Figure 7.2.2 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

4.

Megiddo

Decorated rim interior, rim extends obliquely Footed bowl characteristics Possible folded rim, rim extends obliquely T. 912B

Balensi 1980:Vol. II: Pl. 20:6

2. 3.

AbuHawam Batash Hazor

5. 6. 7.

Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo

T. 26B, decorated bowl interior T. 989A1 Tall slim pedestal. Punctures in bowl exterior Illustrated in Type order

64

Kelm and Mazar 1995:51: Fig. 4:13 Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31

Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:11 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:10 Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16

65

Figure 7.2.3 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age Strata No.

Location

1. 2. 3.

Gezer Gezer Judur

Comments

Reference

Combination of two chalices Combination of chalice, bowl, lamp Possible folded rim, rim extends obliquely 4. Gezer Combination of chalice, flask, broken juglet 5. Hazor Tall slim pedestal 6. Hazor Highly decorated bowl and pedestal fragment Illustrated in Type order

66

CPP: Fig. 17B7 CPP: Fig. 17S2 Ben-Arieh 1981:119, Fig. 3:3

CPP: Fig. 17C7 Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1 Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:20

Figure 7.3.1 67

Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I Transition Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Deir Alla

Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11

2. 3. 4.

Megiddo Deir Alla Deir Alla

Decorated rim interior, fenestrated pedestal Decorated rim exterior

5.

AbuHawam Deir Alla Megiddo

6. 7.

Pedestal partially solid

Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:23 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:24 Balensi 1980:Vol. II: Pl. 8:7

Tall, slim pedestal, partially solid Holes at base of bowl

Illustrated in Type order

68

Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:6 Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10

69

Figure 7.3.2 Chalices Reported in Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I Transition Strata No.

Location

1. 2. 3.

Deir Alla Dan Deir Alla

4.

Deir Alla

5.

Farah (S)

6.

Megiddo

Comments

Reference

Decorated bowl interior, multi-ridge pedestal

Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7 Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:3

Decorated with horizontal stripes on exterior Decorated on bowl interior, holes at base of bowl

Illustrated in Type order

70

CPP: Fig. 17E4 Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3

71

Figure 7.4 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IA Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19 Megiddo II: Pl. 70:12 Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 71:17 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10

1. Megiddo T. 39 2. Megiddo 3. Megiddo 4. Megiddo T. 221B 5. Megiddo T. 63E 6. Zahiriyye Tomb, Schematic line drawing 7. Megiddo T. 39 Illustrated in Type order

Baramki 1935:109-10, Pl. LXI:1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:20

72

73

Figure 7.5.1 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Beth Shemesh Rehov Tell Qasile Taanach Qiri Gezer Masos Nasbeh

Decorated with cross on bowl interior

AS III: Fig. 2:13

Decorated on rim exterior

Tsori 1975:17: Fig. 5:12 Qasile II: Fig. 27:19 Taanach I: Fig. 89:4 Qiri: Fig. 29:3 Gezer II: Pl. 29:14 Masos II: Pl. 136:21 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1574

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Tall pedestal Flared bowl wall Flared bowl wall

Illustrated in Type order

74

75

Figure 7.5.2 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata No.

Location

1. 2. 3.

Deir Alla Megiddo Menorah

Comments

Reference

Deir Alla: Fig. 63:28 Megiddo II: Pl. 74:17

Tall ridged pedestal Warped bowl, slim pedestal Tall slim pedestal, partially solid pedestal 4. Nasbeh Fish-bowl appearance 5. Qiri Decorated rim interior and bowl exterior Illustrated in Type order

Gal 1979:143, Fig. 3:6

Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1584 Qiri: Fig. 28:9

76

77

Figure 7.5.3 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata No.

Location

1. 2.

Beth Shean Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Masos Megiddo Nasbeh Megiddo Tell Qasile

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Comments

Reference

Solid ridged pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:11

James 1966: Fig. 50:8

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:21 Red slip, stout pedestal Tall pedestal Possible figurine remnant on rim

Illustrated in Type order

78

Masos II: Pl. 154:9 Megiddo IV:: Fig. 13.53:3 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1580 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:6 Qasile I: Fig. 33

79

Figure 7.5.4 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IB Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. Tell Qasile Decorated on top of flat rim 2. Rehov 3. Beth Shean Figurine on rim 4. Farah (S) 5. Masos Red slip, short pedestal, stout foot 6. Dan 7. Nasbeh Decorated on bowl exterior Illustrated in Type order

80

Qasile II: Fig. 40:8 Rehov Registration No. 28875/1/ - 28835/1 Mazar 1993:213: Fig. 10 CPP: Fig. 17D2 Masos II: Pl. 154:8 Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:5 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1581

Figure 7.6.1 81

Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Megiddo

Decorated bowl interior and exterior, pendants on bowl

Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17

2. 3.

Farah (S) Michal

4. 5.

Taanach Beth Shemesh

Tall pedestal, exaggerated splayed rim Arched sweeping bowl wall and rim Decorated foot, tall slim pedestal

Illustrated in Type order

82

CPP: Fig. 17Q2 Michal: Fig. 7.5:6 Taanach I: Fig. 27:2 Grant 1929:215: 260

83

Figure 7.6.2 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Ridge between bowl and pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31

2. 3.

Beth Shemesh Farah (N) Farah (S)

Farah I: Pl. 60:7 CPP: Fig. 17P2

4. 5.

Gezer Megiddo

6. 7. 8.

Megiddo Tell Qasile Rehov

Bowl tang or pedestal core attached Decorated exterior, hook rim, scallop edges Tall stout pedestal Decorated interior, pendants on exterior of bowl Red-slip

Illustrated in Type order

84

CPP: Fig. 17S3 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 Megiddo II: Pl. 90:8 Maisler 1951:203, Fig 12c Rehov Registration No. 44244/1

Figure 7.6.3 85

Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3.

Amal Decorated on rim interior Beth Shean Wide bowl base Beth Shemesh 4. Gezer Sharp angular features 5. Lachish Tall pedestal 6. deleted deleted 7. Rehov Red-slip, burnished, tall pedestal 8. Ashdod Ridge between bowl and pedestal 9. Kh. edDawwara Illustrated in Type order

86

Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:2 James 1966: Fig. 19:21 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:29

CPP: Fig. 17S8 Lachish V: Pl. 42:20 deleted Rehov Registration No. 44209/1 Dothan, M. 1982:117, Fig. 8:7 Finkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9

87

Figure 7.6.4 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4.

Amal Schematic line drawing Nasbeh Rehov Beth Tall trumpet pedestal Shemesh 5. Rehov 6. Beth Multiple ridges on solid pedestal Shemesh 7. Rehov Illustrated in Type order

88

Edelstein and Feig 1993:1449

Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576 Rehov Registration No. 44207 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:36 Rehov Registration No. 24845 AS III: Fig. 5.4-100 Rehov Registration No. 16324

Figure 7.6.5 89

Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIA Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3.

Farah (S) Farah (S) Farah (S)

CPP: Fig. 17H4 CPP: Fig. 17H8 CPP: Fig. 17K7

4.

Farah (S)

Decorated exterior, deep bowl Decorated exterior, shallow bowl Decorated on exterior with lotus pattern Decorated on exterior with geometric pattern deleted

5. deleted 6. Dan 7. Jemmeh Ornate fabrication Illustrated in Type order

90

CPP: Fig. 17L2 deleted Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:2 CPP: Fig. 17P8

91

Figure 7.7.1 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3.

Beth Shean Jerusalem Kh. Marjameh Lachish Ira Lachish

Partially solid pedestal Red-slip Highly decorated exterior

James 1966: Fig. 34:12 Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 right Mazar 1995:102, Fig. 18:25

Tomb 223, stout pedestal Decorated on exterior Tri-pod pedestal

Lachish III: Pl. 83:164 Ira: Fig. 4.33:9 Lachish III: Pl. 83:155

4. 5. 6.

Illustrated in Type order

92

Figure 7.7.2 93

Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIB Strata No.

Location

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Lachish Lachish Safi Halif Azekah Safi

Comments

Reference

Lachish III: Pl. 83:158 Lachish III: Pl. 83:160 Decorated exterior, petals on pedestal

Tall pedestal

Illustrated in Type order

94

Shai and Maeir 2003:111, Fig. 1:5 Biran 1970:157, Fig. 4:8 Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 45:17Z Safi Internet Site, Study No. 3

95

Figure 7.8.1 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Hazor Keisan Batash Batash Tell Qasile Jemmeh

Sherd, decorated rim exterior

Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32 Keisan: Pl. 32:6 Timnah II: Pl. 56:1 Timnah II: Pl. 65:1

Decorated exterior Reclassified to Iron Age IIA Decorated exterior

Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:e CPP: Fig. 17L7

Illustrated in Type order

96

97

Figure 7.8.2 Chalices Reported in Iron Age IIC Strata No.

Location

1. 2.

Jericho Batash

Comments

Reference

Decorated exterior, medallions on pedestal

3. Batash 4. Jemmeh Scallops at the bottom of the bowl 5. Miqne Decorated exterior 6. Miqne Petals on pedestal Illustrated in Type order

98

Sellin 1913: 36.A.47a Timnah II: Pl. 65:2

Timnah II: Pl. 95:1 CPP: Fig. 17P4 Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5b

99

Figure 7.9 Chalices Reported Without a Specific Chronology No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Farah (S) Lachish

Pedestal of six strands

AS II: Pl. XXXV:21

Tall tri-pod pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXV:28

Pedestal with petals

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:30

Goblet-like

CPP: Fig. 17D Lachish III: Pl. 103:663

2. 3. 4. 5.

100

101

102

CHAPTER 8 TYPOLOGY OF CHALICES Thirty-one chalices are illustrated with a pedestal. Of these only three have a ridge. A chalice from Pella has a distinctive bulge at the top of the pedestal, just below the chalice bowl (Pella in Jordan2: Pl. 47:7).

In this chapter the chalices are arranged according to type, beginning with chalices with an inverted rim (Type 1XX), moving on to chalices with an everted rim (Type 2XX), and concluding with chalices with a vertical rim (Type 3XX).

Six chalices are from the Deir Alla sanctuary, a site destroyed by an earthquake. Among the finds in this stratum was an object bearing the cartouche of Tausert. Assuming that this find is from a secure context, the pottery assemblage associated with this artifact provides a fair representation of pottery from this Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition period.

As most of the more than 450 chalices in this study have an everted rim, the everted-rim section is further divided into sections focusing on everted-rim chalices with plain rims, everted-rim chalices with splayed rims, and evertedrim chalices with ledge rims. Altogether more than 150 examples of the various chalice types are illustrated in this chapter, including some examples that were illustrated in Chapter 7. These examples are included here to illustrate the key elements that differentiate one chalice type from another.

Chalices with an inverted rim are divided into types based first on the rim finish, and second on the dominant shape of the chalice bowl. There are six subtypes within the Type 1XX series. Type Type Type Type

8.1 TYPE 1XX: CHALICES WITH AN INVERTED RIM Of the more than 450 chalices included in this study, 51 chalices (ca. 11% of the total) have an inverted rim. In most instances the rim is plain although there are examples with a ledge rim. It is almost impossible to assess from the illustrations whether or not the rims are folded.

Type Type

110 Inverted Plain Rim Sherd 111 Inverted Plain Rim with Rounded Bowl 112 Inverted Plain Rim with Carinated Bowl 113 Inverted Plain Rim with Straight-sided Bowl 131 Inverted Ledge Rim with Rounded Bowl 133 Inverted Ledge Rim with Straight-sided Bowl

8.1.1 Type 110 (Table 8.1.3) The bowls of the inverted-rim chalices are almost equally distributed between rounded and straight-sided examples. A chalice bowl is classified as straight-sided if the bowl wall extends in a relatively straight line on both the interior and the exterior surfaces for most of the profile. Except for one example, well-defined carinated bowls are notably absent (Qasile II: Fig. 27:19).

The two Type 110 examples are sherds with a plain inverted rim and require no comment. Mazar qualifies the Tell Qasile example as “probably part of a chalice or bowl of unusual type” (Qasile II:49). 8.1.2 Type 111 (Table 8.1.1) Chalices with an inverted plain rim and a rounded chalice bowl represent the most basic form of this type. In some instances, the rim may turn in at a minimal angle, giving it the appearance of a vertical rim. Five of the examples were reported in sites in the southern half of Canaan. They were found in strata dated from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II. The Late Bronze Age example is from Lachish (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30:3). Fifteen of the chalices are decorated. None of the chalices has a ridge on the pedestal.

Thirty-five Type 1XX chalices are from the north of Canaan. Ten other examples are from sites east of the Jordan River. Slightly more than 50% of the inverted-rim chalices are from strata that pre-date the Iron Age. A further 43% are from Iron Age I strata. Three inverted-rim chalices are reported from strata as late as Iron Age II. All three Iron Age II chalices are from important sites in Canaan: Hazor, Megiddo, and Lachish. These examples may well be ‘heirlooms.’

One Type 111 example from Beth Shemesh is elaborately decorated with a well-defined cross in the interior of the rounded chalice bowl. This chalice has a short pedestal without a ridge (AS III: Fig 2:13), Fig. 8.1.1:2. A second chalice from Beth Shemesh with a short stout pedestal is also illustrated in this study (AS II: Pl. XXXV:22), Fig. 8.1.1:1.

Nineteen chalices are decorated with multiple designs or with a painted rim. Among the most notable of the decorated examples are: Ay (AY: Pl. LXVII, 17:363), Beth Shemesh (AS III: Fig. 2:13), Hazor (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23, CXVIII:24), Lachish (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.20:3), Megiddo (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17; Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12), Megiddo Tombs (Megiddo Tombs: Pl.60:30, 36), Pella (Pella in Jordan2: Pl. 47:7), and Sippor (Biran and Negbi 1966:171, Fig. 6:8).

The Dan inverted-rim chalice is missing the bottom part of the pedestal/foot (Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:4). The shape 103

of the rim of this chalice is similar to that of another example from Stratum V (Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:5), except that the rim of the latter chalice is everted.

fragments are absent, the excavation report depicts the pedestal of this chalice with a ridge. This fragment measures 7 x 4 cm and may be from either a chalice or an offering bowl. The sherd is dated to the tenth century BCE. Unfortunately the sherd is a surface find assigned to Stratum V.

One Deir Alla Type 111 chalice is highly distinctive. In addition to the fenestrations in the pedestal it features vertical red ‘hash’ marks on the rim exterior. This is a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition chalice from the sanctuary environs (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11), Fig. 8.1.1:3.

The three chalices from the Megiddo Tombs are noteworthy. Two of the tomb examples are similar to a Megiddo mound chalice (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12). Of these two chalices (Megiddo Tombs Pl. 60:30, 60:36), only one is illustrated in this study (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30), (Fig.8.1.1:7). Like the Megiddo mound chalice these examples have the exterior of the rim decorated with stripes. Both chalices are from Tomb 63, although from different locations within the tomb. Tomb 63 had several pits in the floor and although the chronology is uncertain, a Late Bronze Age date was assigned to the chalices. The similar chalice from the mound is from Stratum VII.

A chalice from Hazor is illustrated with a distorted inverted rim (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23). This example is decorated with a distinctive double-cross inside the chalice bowl, as well as ‘hash’ marks on the interior of the rim and the exterior of the foot. The Hazor chalice is from a locus enclosed by three walls, with the remaining eastern side, a frontage, opening to a street. Benches were found on the north and south walls and a pillar was found east of the enclosed area. This pillar probably supported a roof. In the view of the excavators, this architectural configuration suggests a commercial structure.

An inverted-rim chalice from Pella is decorated with concentric circles on the interior of the bowl and horizontal bands around the pedestal fragment. The interior rim features stripes that extend over the outer edge of the rim, and there is a bulge between the pedestal and the chalice bowl (Pella in Jordan2: Fig. 47:7). This Phase II chalice is dated to the Late Bronze Age settlement. A second Pella chalice from the Iron Age I was published in the first excavation report, Pella in Jordan1. This example has a decorated exterior rim (Pella in Jordan1: Fig. 120:12), Fig. 8.1.1:8, and is similar to a chalice at Tell Abu-Hawam dated by Balensi to the Late Bronze Age (Balensi 1980: Vol. 2: Pl. 20:6).

Although the rim of the chalice from Kinneret appears incomplete, enough remains intact to see that the rim is plain and slightly inverted (Fritz 1999:107, Fig. 8:3), Fig. 8.1.1:4. The foot of the chalice is an exaggerated trumpet. The chalice was found in an eleventh/tenth century BCE building in the residential quarter. The quarter was bordered by two retaining walls, The only complete chalice included in the renewed Lachish excavation report is from Area P, Level P-1 (?) Locus 5280. The interior of the chalice is decorated in red from midway down the bowl to the base of the bowl. The exterior of the vessel features a series of red and reddishblack bands on both the bowl and the pedestal. The pedestal has no ridge, and the rounded bowl has a plain inverted rim (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30:3; 20.32:12), Fig. 8.1.1:5. The find spot is a deep pit cut into Wall 347. This Late Bronze Age locus is beneath the main complex of the Level VI temple. The Lachish III excavation report shows a chalice with the bottom of the bowl open (Lachish III: Pl. 83:163). If this depiction shows the original vessel rather than a vessel in secondary use, then the vessel might have been designated as a funnel.

The exterior of the late Iron Age I chalice from Sippor is decorated with red-and-black horizontal stripes. The pedestal of this chalice does not have a ridge. The chalice was found with Philistine bichrome pottery on the floor of a domestic structure (Biran and Negbi 1966:171, Fig. 6:8), Fig. 8.1.1:9. 8.1.3 Type 112 (Table 8.1.3) Carinated bowls are rarely found in chalices with an inverted rim. Indeed, the very subtle carination of the bowl of this Tell Qasile chalice makes it the sole example of the type. This chalice is from Stratum XI. It has a red band on the rim and foot as well as a ridge on the lower pedestal/upper foot (Qasile II: Fig. 27:19), Fig. 8.1.3:1.

The Type 111 examples from the Megiddo mound do not appear in any one chronological period. One chalice may have had a tall pedestal (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12), Fig. 8.1.1:6. It is decorated with a zigzag pattern on the outside of the rim and was found in the area of Temple 2048. Two other examples from the mound are also notable for their tall pedestals (Megiddo II: Pl. 67:5, 72:11).

8.1.4 Type 113 (Table 8.1.2) Chalices with a plain rim and a straight-sided chalice bowl represent the second most common form of inverted-rim chalice. The distinction between a rounded chalice bowl and straight-sided chalice bowl is often subtle. With the exception of the examples from Deir Alla and Pella, all but one of the examples in this type are from sites in northern Canaan. Most of the chalices date to the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I. Only two of the 21 chalices have a ridge on the pedestal. Five chalices

A highly decorated bowl sherd found at Megiddo is illustrated with decorative loop-shaped petals just under the rim and with horizontal bands on both the exterior and the interior of the shallow bowl (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17). There are concentric circles on the bowl interior. Both the exterior and the interior of the bowl are decorated in three colors. Although the pedestal/foot 104

have some form of decoration although in a few instances the decoration is limited to the rim.

rim was found in Silo 6, one of the largest and deepest in Strata B1-2. The excavators dated the silo to 1225-1025 BCE (Greenberg 1987:64-65). Stratum B2 had a high proportion of grain pits containing pottery from the Sea Peoples.

The Type 113 chalice from tomb C at Ay has a highly decorated bowl interior. The short stub of the pedestal conveys a sense of instability for this vessel (AY: Pl. LXVII:17:363), Fig. 8.1.2:1.

8.1.6 Type 133 (Table 8.1.3) This chalice from Hazor is the sole example of a Type 133 chalice (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24), Fig. 8.1.3:2. It is similar to the Type 111 Hazor chalice (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23) in all but two respects: the Type 133 Hazor example has a well defined horizontal rim that has been drawn inward above the carination of the bowl as well as a straight-sided bowl wall both below and above the sharp carination. Like the Type 111 Hazor chalice, this example is decorated with ‘hash’ marks on both the foot and the rim. The interior of the bowl is decorated with a large cross formed by two lines on each axis. This Late Bronze Age chalice was found in the same location as the Type 111 Hazor chalice (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23).

A chalice from Room 7082 of the Dan metal-industry settlement features a cone-shaped bowl and a short unridged pedestal (Biran 1994a: Fig. 112:2). Each of the chalices from Deir Alla has a slightly different degree of rim inversion. None of the chalices has a ridge on the pedestal, and all are from the E rooms of the sanctuary environs. The cella structure is dated to the time of the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I. As this date is based on the Tausert artefact, these chalices are an important example of the chalice form at this time. The chalice illustrated in Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:24 has a solid core through most of the pedestal. One example from Deir Alla is illustrated in this study (Deir Alla: Fig 4-9:23), Fig. 8.1.2:2.

8.2.1 TYPE 21X: CHALICES WITH AN EVERTED PLAIN RIM

The chalice sherd from Hazor may be an enigma in that it is not a form typical of the last part of the Iron Age II (Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32). This fragment from the area of the Stratum III citadel is decorated with black-on-red horizontal bands on the exterior of the bowl and red slip on the exterior of the rim.

The Type 21X designation is applied to all chalices with an everted plain rim. Chalices of this type represent 24% (109 examples) of the chalices in this study. Almost half (48%) of the Type 21X chalice bowls are rounded. Another 26% are carinated, and the remaining 26% are straight-sided. In five additional examples, the chalice sherd is too small to provide any bowl diagnostics. The carinated bowls could be further designated as either rounded or straight-sided, but that variation is not included in this analysis. Both rounded and carinated bowls may be either gently splayed, or may flare outward in an exaggerated manner. One example from Megiddo has holes at the bottom of the bowl (Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10). Whether or not the holes were part of the original fabrication is not clear.

Of the five chalices from the Megiddo Tombs, none are noteworthy, and only one example is included (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19), Fig. 8.1.2:3. The three vessels from Tel Rehov were found in early Iron Age tombs. In all three examples the exterior of the rim is decorated with red; one example is illustrated in this study (Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:12), Fig. 8.1.2:4. Three Iron Age I chalices were reported from the miscellaneous finds at Taanach. None show a high degree of workmanship and only one example is illustrated (Taanach I: Fig. 89:5), Fig. 8.1.2:5. This example is the only Type 113 chalice with a ridge on the pedestal.

Of the chalices in this type approximately 70% are from sites in the north of Canaan and ten percent are from Jordan. The Type 21X chalices are more numerous (57%) in strata that appear after the Late Bronze Age than in or before the Late Bronze Age. Most examples occur in the Iron Age I (35%). Twelve of the 13 examples from Deir Alla were found in the sanctuary environs. The sanctuary dates to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition period.

8.1.5 Type 131 (Table 8.1.3) Chalices with ledge or horizontal rims that turn inward at the interior edge represent a limited type. One chalice of this type was found in a northern site and a second example was found in a southern Canaan site. Both examples are from Iron Age IB strata and both examples have rounded bowls.

Five chalices are reported in strata that predate the Late Bronze Age. Two of these chalices were found at Hazor in 1999 (Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2); the remaining three examples are from Megiddo Strata XII-IX (Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14-15, 18).

A chalice bowl sherd from Afula is finished with an almost horizontal rim (the rim could also be folded) (Dothan, M. 1954:41-46, Fig. 14:26).

Four Type 21X chalices were reported from Iron Age IIC strata, each from a different site. A Jericho tomb chalice is goblet-like in appearance, and perhaps should be

A zigzag pattern decorates the top of the rim sherd of a Beit Mirsim chalice (Greenberg 1987:68, Fig. 7:3). This 105

designated as such (Tushingham 1965: Fig. 256:21). A rim sherd from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud is slipped, but the sherd is too small to elicit any further comment (Ayalon 1995:180, Fig. 22:1). An example from a Jerusalem cave is also goblet-like (Eshel and Prag 1995: Fig. 31:9). The Keisan chalice has a sharply carinated bowl and a straight-sided wall, and again is goblet-like in appearance (Keisan: Pl.32: 6).

bowls are rounded and the pedestals are slim with a ridge just above the foot. 8.2.1.1 Type 211 (Table 8.2.1.1) Forty-nine chalices fall into the Type 211 category, accounting for 45% of all everted-rim chalices. A Late Bronze Age example from Tell Abu-Hawam consists only of the bowl with its rim (Balensi 1980: Pl. 20:6). Enough remains, however, to compare this fragment to a Late Bronze Age example from Hazor (Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31) in that both examples have rims that extend outward at an oblique angle. The Tell AbuHawam example differs from the Hazor example only in that it is decorated on the rim exterior. A second chalice from Tell Abu-Hawam has a large deep bowl and a plain everted rim (Balensi 1980: Pl. 8:7), Fig. 8.2.1.1a:1. The stepped foot resembles the foot of a chalice from Batash.

Sixteen of the Type 21X chalices are decorated. Two chalices from Gezer have red-slipped rims (Gezer II: Pls. 29:14; 35:20) while a Gezer chalice from the early excavations is decorated on the exterior of the bowl with horizontal stripes (CPP: Fig. 17T4). One of the examples from Hazor is goblet-like in form and is decorated with horizontal stripes on the exterior of the bowl (Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22). The bowl of another Hazor chalice is redslipped on both the interior and the exterior (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:3) as is a sherd from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Ayalon 1995:180, Fig. 22:1). In contrast a Jezreel sherd has a single horizontal stripe on the interior (Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 2.2:7). Chalices from Khirbet Marjameh (Mazar 1995:102, Fig. 18:25) and Nasbeh (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1571) each feature horizontal bands on the exterior of the bowl although in the Nasbeh example the bands continue down the exterior of the pedestal. A Megiddo tomb chalice is decorated on the interior of the bowl with a wheel-and-spoke pattern (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24), while a chalice from Beth Shean features an X-like pattern on the interior of the bowl (CPP: Fig. 17B6). A series of circular lines decorates the interior bowl of a chalice from Deir Alla (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10).

Although the chalice from Batash (Kelm and Mazar 1995: Fig. 4:13), Fig. 8.2.1.1a:2 appears similar to the chalice from Tell Abu-Hawam (Balensi 1980: Pl. 8:7), the Batash chalice is dated to the Late Bronze Age while the Abu-Hawam chalice is dated to the Late Bronze/Iron Age I transition period. An almost complete chalice from Beth Shean consists of the lower bowl, pedestal, and foot and shows decorative bands on the exterior of the bowl and the pedestal (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 31:3). The proportions of this example suggest a large-diameter bowl with a stout pedestal. The Late Bronze Age chalice illustrated in James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 27:12 appears similar to the example from Tell Abu-Hawam (Balensi 1980: Pl. 20:6) except that the Beth Shean example has a broad shallow bowl and appears to have a stout pedestal. Another Beth Shean chalice illustrated in James 1966: Fig. 34:12 shows a significant part of the pedestal with a solid core, Fig. 8.2.1.1a:3. The remaining two examples from Beth Shean have broad shallow bowls, plain everted rims and possible tall pedestals (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 20:3 and CPP: Fig. 17B6).

Seventy Type 21X chalices have a pedestal. Of these 30% have a ridge. Many of the chalices reported in Iron Age I and Iron Age IIA/B strata have tall pedestals. One example from the Late Bronze Age Stratum IX at Megiddo is distinguished both by its tall pedestal as well as by a series of perforations at the base of the chalice bowl (Megiddo II, Pl. 55:16). A chalice from Batash has a stepped foot (Kelm & Mazar 1995: Fig. 4:13), as does a chalice from Tell Abu-Hawam (Balensi 1980: Pl. 8:7). Chalices with an everted plain rim are sub-divided into four types based on the dominant shape of the chalice bowl. Type Type Type Type

One of the three chalices from Beth Shemesh differs from the other two in that it has a short solid pedestal that ends in a solid splayed foot (AS II: Pl. XXXV:23).

210 Everted Plain Rim Sherd 211 Everted Plain Rim with Rounded Bowl 212 Everted Plain Rim with Carinated Bowl 213 Everted Plain Rim with Straight-sided Bowl

The two chalices from Deir Alla features shallow bowls (Deir Alla: Figs. 4-14:9, 5-9:8). Unlike the other chalice from Tomb 213, this chalice from the same Tell el-Farah (South) tomb is not decorated (CPP: Fig. 17Q2).

8.2.1.0 Type 210 (Table 8.2.1.0) Four of the five Type 210 examples are sherds or fragments of the chalice rim and bowl. The fifth example consists of a photograph of 20 complete or restored chalices from Pella Tomb 89 in Area II, an Iron Age I/II tomb (Bourke 1997:112, Fig. 19). The rims of these Pella chalices are everted and many are splayed. Most of the

The chalice from Gezer is from early excavations. It has a wide-diameter bowl giving it the appearance of a large fruit stand (CPP: Fig. 17B4). Two chalices were reported from the recent Hazor excavations, and a further five are from the earlier Hazor excavations by Yadin. The chalices from the ongoing 106

Ben-Tor excavations appear to be early examples of the chalice form that is prevalent in the Iron Age. The director of the ongoing excavations dates them from the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. All of the chalices from the Yadin excavations are dated to the Late Bronze Age and all but one have a deep chalice bowl (Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31), Fig. 8.2.1.1a:4. This exception has a broad shallow bowl with parallels in examples reported at Tell Abu-Hawam (Balensi 1980: Pl. 20:6) and Beth Shean (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 27:12). Like the Deir Alla Type 213 example (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-3:10), this chalice appears to have a folded rim.

CXLIII:31). The rim of this example may be folded (Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23), Fig. 8.2.1.1b:5. The sherd from Qashish is undistinguished (Ben-Tor et al. 1981:149, Fig. 7:5). Only one of the examples from Qiri is a complete chalice. This vessel has the characteristics of most Iron Age chalices, i.e., a plain everted rim that is slightly splayed, a moderately deep rounded bowl, and a tall slim pedestal with a ridge (Qiri: Fig. 29:3), Fig. 8.2.1.1b:6. Samaria reported two Type 211 chalices. One example consists only of a pedestal with a suggested reconstruction of the chalice bowl (Fisher 1924: Fig. 161:22). The other vessel fragment may be the remnant of an offering stand. It appears to be parallel to vessels at Beth Shean (CPP: Fig. 17B6; James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 20:3).

The Jerusalem chalice has a flared bowl seen in examples at other sites. This red-slipped chalice has a tall slim pedestal with a ridge (Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 left), Fig. 8.2.1.1a:5. An Iron Age IIB chalice from Keisan is unremarkable (Keisan: Pl. 49:6).

8.2.1.2 Type 212 (Table 8.2.1.2)

The example from Lachish has a small bowl and a tall slim pedestal (Lachish III: Pl. 83:161).

Twenty-seven everted-rim chalices with carinated bowls are included in the Type 212 category.

Six Type 211 chalices are from the Megiddo mound. One chalice is distinguished by holes at the bottom of the bowl (Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10). Two other chalices predate the Late Bronze Age and have bowls with large diameters, ca. 32 cm (Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14-15), while two additional examples have characteristics indicative of Iron Age chalices (Megiddo II: Pls. 70:12, 87:8). The sixth example comes from Stratum VII and has a cut rim and a tall slim pedestal (Megiddo II: Pl. 72:13), Fig. 8.2.1.1b:1. One example, mentioned above, has a plain rim, a rounded chalice bowl, and no ridge on the pedestal (Megiddo II: Pl. 87:8), Fig. 8.2.1.1b:2.

The chalice bowl from Ay has no unusual feature (AY: Pl. LXXVI:1638). Each of the three examples from Beth Shemesh differs from the other. One example is a rim/bowl sherd (AS II: XXXVI:19), a second is a chalice with a solid pedestal without a ridge (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:18), and the third is a chalice bowl with a widely flared bowl wall (AS IV: Pl. LXI:45). This latter bowl style appears in other Iron Age I chalices (AS IV: Pl. LXI:45), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:1. The Deir Alla chalice from the sanctuary environs has a minimally carinated bowl and a plain unridged pedestal (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:2.

Nine Type 211 chalices were reported from the Megiddo Tombs. Two examples date to the Iron Age I while seven examples date to the Late Bronze Age. The interior of the chalice bowl from Tomb 26B is decorated with a series of concentric circles connected by ‘spokes’ (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24). Although the pedestal and foot are not extant, the excavators chose to illustrate this example with a flared trumpet-shaped pedestal/foot. The chalice illustrated in this study is typical of the chalice form that appears in the Iron Age I, i.e., it has a plain rim, a shallow bowl, and a slender well-proportioned pedestal without a ridge (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:11), Fig. 8.2.1.1b:4. One Late Bronze Age chalice shows a ridge on the exterior of the bowl just below the plain everted rim. However, there is no ridge on the pedestal of this chalice (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:9), Fig. 8.2.1.1b:3. None of the Megiddo Tomb chalices have a ridge on the pedestal.

The example from Farah (South) is missing most of the pedestal/foot. The wall of the bowl is splayed and the vessel is goblet-like in appearance (CPP: Fig. 17D), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:3. The bowl of this goblet-like chalice is reminiscent of the splayed chalice bowls from Masos. One the three chalices from Gezer has a bowl that is almost straight-sided above the carination (CPP: Fig. 17T4), while the bowls of the other two examples are widely flared above the carination (Gezer II: Pl. 29:14 and Gezer IV: Pl. 35:20). The example illustrated in this study is carinated at the base of the bowl. The wall of the bowl then flares out to end in a plain rim. The interior and the exterior edge of the rim are decorated in red (Gezer II: Pl. 29:14), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:5. Unfortunately this chalice is warped and lacks a foot. A better example of the same bowl/rim form can be seen in a chalice fragment (Gezer IV: Pl. 35:20). As in the example illustrated, this chalice bowl is carinated near the bottom and flares out to end in a plain rim. Again the exterior of the rim is decorated in red. Parallels to this chalice form can be seen at Beth

The Late Bronze Age examples from Mevorakh may have been associated with the suggested sanctuary. The rim of the chalice illustrated in this study is similar to rims of chalices reported at Beth Shean (James and McGovern 1993, Fig. 27:12) and Hazor (Hazor I: Pl.

107

Shemesh and Masos. The third Gezer example is gobletlike and decorated on the exterior with horizontal bands on the rim, bowl and extant pedestal (CPP: Fig. 17T4), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:4.

A wide flaring rim is the distinguishing attribute of the Taanach chalice (Taanach I: Fig. 27:2), Fig. 8.2.1.2b:5. The pedestal is tall and slim and has no ridge. 8.2.1.3 Type 213 (Table 8.2.1.3)

The example from Hazor is similar to one of the above Gezer chalices (CPP: Fig. 17T4). Both the Hazor and the Gezer examples are from the Iron Age II. The Hazor chalice is minimally decorated on the exterior (Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:6.

Of the 29 chalices in this type, nine are from Deir Alla, and six are from Megiddo. None of the examples from Afula are complete; all are rim sherds (Dothan, M. 1954:41-46, Fig. 18:15-16).

A chalice from Jericho resembles the chalices from Hazor and Gezer described above. However the Jericho chalice lacks decoration on the exterior and is shown with a well defined pedestal and foot (Tushingham 1965: Fig. 256:21), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:7.

A chalice from Beth Shemesh has the overall appearance of an offering stand. The pedestal is tall and slim with an ornately decorated stepped foot (Grant 1929:215, Fig. 260). The vessel was found in city debris in an Iron Age II context.

The chalice from Jerusalem falls into the Type 212 category. It closely resembles the goblet-style chalices found at Jericho, Hazor, and Gezer. This chalice has a tall slender pedestal, but lacks a foot (Eshel and Prag 1995: Fig. 31:9), Fig. 8.2.1.2a:8.

The two chalices from Dan are dated to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition. The examples have plain coneshaped bowls atop stocky pedestals without a ridge. The plain rims are either cut or slightly indented. The example illustrated shows the indented feature (Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1), Fig. 8.2.1.3a:1.

The chalice from Keisan has no unusual features (Keisan: Pl. 32:6).

Seven of the nine chalices from Deir Alla are from the sanctuary environs. One chalice is decorated on the interior of the bowl and has a stepped pedestal that appears to have been built from clay coils (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10), Fig. 8.2.1.3a:2. Another example shows the type of chalice that preceded the advent of chalices with a ridge on the pedestal (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:3), Fig. 8.2.1.3a:4. A third example has a tall slim pedestal and a rim that could be folded (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-3:10), Fig. 8.2.1.3a:3, while a fourth example has a slim pedestal with a solid core (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:6).

A goblet-like fragment from Khirbet Marjameh is highly decorated on the bowl exterior. It is a goblet-style vessel from an area northwest of Jericho (Mazar 1995:102, Fig. 18:25). The five chalices from Masos represent two distinct but possible variations of the same form. The flared chalice bowl (Masos II: Pl. 136:19-21) may have been the forerunner of the carinated broad-based chalice bowl that flares out before ending in a plain everted rim (Masos II: Pls. 137:7, 139:15). The chalice illustrated in this study is an example of the flared chalice bowl (Masos II: Pl. 136:21), Fig. 8.2.1.2b:1.

One of the two chalice bowls from Hazor is notable for its rough appearance. This cone-shaped bowl has an uneven profile that may be a result of the fabrication process (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CLXI:6), Fig. 8.2.1.3a:4.

Apart from the rim, the Megiddo chalice from the mound resembles a chalice from the Deir Alla sanctuary environs (Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7). The Megiddo chalice bowl is slightly carinated with a rim that is slightly pinched (Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11), Fig. 8.2.1.2b:2.

The deep straight-sided bowl of a chalice from Jemmeh sits on a wide splayed pedestal (CPP: Fig. 17P), Fig. 8.2.1.3a:5. This chalice appears to have been made for a specific function, but the function is unknown.

The chalice from Michal may have been associated with Cult Structure 300. This example has a tall trumpetshaped pedestal without a ridge (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:6), Fig. 8.2.1.2b:3. The flaring rim appears to be an exaggerated form of the Iron Age I flaring rims found at Masos.

The Lachish chalice appears to be a variation of the Jemmeh chalice mentioned above. The chalice bowl is not as deep as the Jemmeh example, but both examples sit on stout pedestals, and both are dated to the Iron Age IIB (Lachish III: Pl. 83:164), Fig. 8.2.1.3b:1.

All five chalices from Nasbeh feature a ridge on the pedestal, although in some instances the ridge is minimal. One example is decorated with horizontal stripes on the exterior of the bowl and on the pedestal (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1571). The chalice bowls are broad and deep and appear to have a large capacity. Only one of these chalices is illustrated in this study (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1572), Fig. 8.2.1.2b:4.

Two of the five chalices from the Megiddo ‘Chicago’ excavations on the mound may be offering stands (Megiddo II: Pls. 47:18 and 55:16). Two other chalices are illustrated here and represent the two forms in this type. One chalice has a ridge at the base of the pedestal (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:18), Fig. 8.2.1.3b:2, while the other has no ridge on the pedestal (Megiddo II: Pl. 87:7) Fig. 8.2.1.3b:3.

108

The Megiddo Tombs example resembles the chalice from the mound (Megiddo II: Pl. 33:18). The only difference is that the tomb chalice has no ridge on the pedestal (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 71:17), Fig. 8.2.1.3b:4.

Most of the Type 221 chalices were found in Iron Age contexts with 70% reported in Iron Age II strata. Only three highly decorated chalices were reported, all from Tell el-Farah (South) (CPP: Figs. 17E4, 17L5, P2). In total, 17 chalices show some degree of decoration or red slip. Stray paint marks were found on several of these chalices.

The chalice from a site near Tel Menorah has an unusual shape that may have become distorted over time. The rim of the chalice is decorated, part of the pedestal is solid, and the foot has some decoration. The chalice bowl appears to be out of proportion to the lower pedestal/foot (Gal 1979:138-45: Fig. 3:6), Fig. 8.2.1.3b:5.

Of the 61 chalices illustrated with a pedestal, a ridge appears on 46 examples. A chalice from Lachish features a tripod pedestal (Lachish III: Pl. 83:155).

A chalice bowl from Nasbeh is similar to a chalice bowl reported at Hazor (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CLXI:6). The excavation report reconstructed the chalice illustration from a rim/body fragment (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1578), Fig. 8.2.1.3b:6.

The two chalices from Tell Abu-Hawam are remarkably similar. One chalice was illustrated in an auction catalogue and the other is a chalice excavated by Hamilton. The Hamilton example is illustrated (Hamilton 1935:28, Fig. 88), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:1. This chalice has a wide-diameter rim and a shallow bowl.

The Tell Qasile example consists only of a bowl fragment (Qasile II: Fig. 26:9).

Aside from its deep bowl, the Amal chalice is undistinguished. It is however typical of this chalice type (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:5), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:2.

The chalice sherd from Qiri has no unusual feature (Qiri: Fig. 10:10). A chalice from Zeror is from a tomb dated to the Iron Age II. The chalice bowl appears to be shallow and the pedestal is slim with a solid portion. The foot of the chalice has the shape of a chalice bowl turned upside down (Ohata 1967: Pl. X:12).

Four of the five examples from Batash are rim/bowl fragments with three of the fragments red-slipped on all or part of the interior and exterior bowl. The complete chalice has a deep bowl (Kelm and Mazar 1995:103, Fig. 5:12), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:3.

8.2.2 TYPES 220, 221, 222, 223: CHALICES WITH AN EVERTED SPLAYED RIM

The BeerSheba examples are also rim/bowl fragments. One fragment is red-slipped (BeerSheba II:Fig. 20:5) and the other is decorated with splashes of red on the exterior of the bowl (BeerSheba I: Fig. 54:7).

Chalices with an everted splayed rim are assigned to one of three types, depending on the shape of the bowl. Type 221 is reserved for examples with a rounded bowl, Type 222 includes all those chalices with a carinated bowl, and Type 223 is assigned to all examples with a straight-sided bowl.

Six of the 11 examples from Beth Shemesh are sherds or fragments, none of which has a unique feature. Of the five complete chalices, three have a deep bulbous chalice bowl (AS II: XXXVI:7; AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31; Grant 1929:209, 9), and one of these has a ridge at the point where the chalice bowl joins the pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:4. Each of the remaining two chalices has a bowl that narrows at the base and a ridge on the pedestal (Grant 1929:211: 150d and 152d). One of these is illustrated (Grant 1929:211:152d), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:5.

8.2.2.0 Type 220 (Table 8.2.2.0) Type 220 is a special type reserved for everted-rim examples consisting of a bowl fragment that is insufficient to be classified as rounded, straight-sided, or carinated. Only six rim fragments are assigned to Type 220, and of these only three rims are decorated, either with red slip or a zigzag pattern. No sherds of this type are illustrated.

All three chalices from Tell el-Farah (North) are illustrated. One of the two complete chalices has a deeply rounded chalice bowl and a relatively thick pedestal (Farah I: Pl. 60:6), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:6. Another chalice bowl retains a long tang or a significant portion of the upper pedestal attached to the bowl (Farah I: Pl. 60:7), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:7. The third example has a shallow bowl and a stout pedestal without a ridge (Farah I: Pl. 60:10), Fig. 8.2.2.1a:8. All three chalices are from the same Iron Age IIA stratum.

8.2.2.1 Type 221 (Table 8.2.2.1) Type 221 includes 84 chalices with an everted splayed rim and a rounded chalice bowl; the bowl may be either deep or shallow. This type of chalice is better represented in northern sites (60%) than in southern sites (40%). The northern site reporting the highest number was Rehov (21), while the southern site reporting the highest number was Beth Shemesh (11).

Three of the six chalices from Tell el-Farah (South) are highly decorated. One complete chalice is decorated with ‘tiger’ stripes on both the bowl and the pedestal, with 109

complementary stripes on the rim (CPP: Fig. 17E4), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:1. This example is similar in fabrication to two rim/bowl fragments (CPP: Fig. 17E and 17E2). Another chalice is decorated with an intricate pattern of triangles on the exterior of the bowl as well as vertical and horizontal stripes on the pedestal. It has a deep bowl and is of a heavy sturdy fabrication (CPP: Fig. 17L5), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:2. This example was reported from Tomb 201. Perhaps the most highly decorated example of all has both the rim and the base of the bowl finished in a sawtooth pattern (CPP: Fig. 17P2), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:3.

and-black lines on the top of the rim (Lachish V: Pl. 42:18). The other example from the Stratum V cult structure, illustrated here, has a cone-shaped pedestal (Lachish V: Pl. 42:15), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:3, as does another Type 221 chalice from a tomb (Lachish III: Pl. 83:154), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:4. The fourth Lachish chalice is highly unusual in that the pedestal is in the shape of a tripod (Lachish III: Pl. 83:155), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:5. This example is from Lachish Cave 6024, a cave described as a dwelling and workshop that was used over an extended period of time.

One of the eight chalices from Gezer is decorated on the interior of the rim and the surface just below the rim (CPP: Fig. 17B2). Another is a good example of a plain chalice; it has a globular bowl and a tall thick ridged pedestal (CPP: Fig. 17S3), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:5. Also illustrated is an unusual tomb find from Gezer: two chalices, with one resting on its side in the bowl of the other (CPP: Fig. 17B7), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:4.

Neither of the two examples from Masos has a unique feature (Masos II: Pls. 136:4; 157:15). Two Type 221 chalices were reported from the Megiddo mound (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:20; Megiddo II: Pl. 87:9). Both chalices are typical of the Iron Age; one is illustrated (Megiddo II: Pl. 87:9), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:6. The two Megiddo Tomb chalices show no unusual features (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10; 74:25). Only one is illustrated (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:7.

The bowl of the Iron Age II chalice from a Tel Ira tomb is decorated with a wide band on the exterior. The stout pedestal is unridged. This chalice is a good example of an Iron Age chalice from the BeerSheba valley (Ira: Fig. 4.33:9), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:6.

The Menorah chalice appears to be warped. The pedestal is slim and partially solid and the base has an amorphous ridge (Gal 1979:143, Fig. 3:5).

The examples from Izbet Sartah are represented by a reconstructed chalice profile (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:6), and a rim/bowl fragment (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:7). The profile shows no unique feature, but is illustrated here as a representative example from the central part of Caanan (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:6), Fig. 8.2.2.1b:7.

The Miqne example is a rim/bowl fragment (Bierling 1996: Fig. 8:16). The bowl of the Nasbeh chalice is unusual in that it is shaped like a fishbowl. The pedestal is tall and slim (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1584), Fig. 8.2.2.1d:1.

The Jemmeh chalice shows no unusual feature CPP: Fig. 17C4).

Each of the Tell Qasile chalices is from a different stratum. The Stratum X chalice is decorated on the rim and has a slim partially-solid pedestal (the foot is missing) (Qasile II: Fig. 43:22), Fig. 8.2.2.1d:2. Another chalice was originally assigned to Stratum VII and dated to the eighth century B.C.E. Subsequent analysis cancelled this stratum and assigned the architecture to Strata IX-VIII. Like the Nasbeh example, this chalice is shaped like a fishbowl. However, unlike the Nasbeh example, the Tell Qasile example is decorated on the interior rim and the slim pedestal rests on a splayed foot (Maisler 1951:203: Fig. 12:e), Fig. 8.2.2.1d:3.

The 1907-1909 excavations of Sellin in Jericho reported one Type 221 chalice. This chalice, however, has no unusual feature (Sellin 1913: Abb. 36.A.47d). The chalice from Jokneam is unusual in that the chalice bowl appears small and shallow when compared to the large ridged pedestal/foot that was drawn with it. As reproduced in the analysis of A. Zarzeki-Peleg, the chalice is slipped on the bowl interior and exterior (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:266, Fig. 4:7), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:1.

A sherd represents the only Type 221 example from Qiri (Qiri: Fig. 10:11).

Bliss reported a chalice from Tell ej-Judeideh in his 1899-1900 excavations. If the dating, as reconciled with the stamped jar handles, is relatively correct, this is a good example of the chalice form in the area northeast of Lachish in the eighth century B.C.E. The globular chalice bowl and the trumpet-shaped ridged pedestal are typical of chalices from the Iron Age II (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 53:1j cited by Gibson 1994:229, Fig. 20:2), Fig. 8.2.2.1c:2.

Twenty-one Type 221 chalices were reported from the ongoing excavations at Tel Rehov. Three variations of this type are illustrated (Rehov Registration No. 16335, Fig. 8.2.2.1d:5; Rehov Registration No. 44164, Fig. 8.2.2.1d:6; Rehov Registration No. 44244/1, Fig. 8.2.2.1d:7). All but one of the Type 221 chalices have a ridge on the pedestal, although in some instances the ridge is minimal. The exception is a red-slipped burnished vessel with a tall pedestal (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1).

Of the four Type 221 examples from Lachish, two are from the Stratum V cult structure. One rim/bowl fragment from the cult structure is decorated with short uneven red110

Taanach reported a chalice from Cistern 69 of Period IIB. The chalice is light red in color and has a ridge on the pedestal (Taanach I: Fig. 53:5), Fig. 8.2.2.1d:8. This chalice is a good example of the Iron Age IIA chalice form.

All told, there are 68 chalices illustrated with a pedestal of which 33 (49%) include a ridge. As noted earlier, the lack of a ridge may indicate a Late Bronze Age date. However, the Type 222 chalices reported in Iron Age IIC contexts also lack a ridge, suggesting that at some time during the late Iron Age II the ridged pedestal fell out of favor.

The chalice from Zahiriyye is from a tomb and has no unusual feature (Baramki 1935:109-110, Pl. LXII:3).

The three chalices from Amal differ from one another in at least one feature. One example has been decorated with red slip on the interior of the bowl, the lower exterior bowl, the ridged pedestal and foot, and also the lower inside part of the foot (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:1). The fact that the decoration was included on the interior surface of the foot of the vessel suggests that it may have been used in some function that required the chalice to be elevated, allowing this part of the vessel to be exposed to the viewer. The edge of the interior rim of a second chalice is decorated, and the tall pedestal lacks a foot (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:2), Fig. 8.2.2.2a:1. The chalice illustrated in NEAEHL has a tall slim pedestal (Edelstein and Feig 1993:1450) and resembles a Tell Qasile chalice (Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:1), as well as a red-slipped chalice from the current excavations at Tel Rehov (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1).

8.2.2.2 Type 222 (Table 8.2.2.2) More chalices fell into the Type 222 category (22%) than any other type category in this study. Altogether 97 examples were reported, each distinguished by an everted splayed rim and a carinated chalice bowl. In some examples the carinated bowl incorporates portions of what appears to be a straight-sided or a rounded bowl wall. It is hoped that in a future study it will be possible to undertake a closer analysis of these subtle variations. In contrast to the Type 221 chalice, the Type 222 chalice appears in greater number in the south of Canaan (66%) than in the north of Canaan (34%). Approximately 53% of the chalices come from five sites with the greatest number from Beth Shemesh (19 examples). Most Type 222 chalices are found in Iron Age II strata (ca. 55%), with a significant number appearing in Iron Age IB strata (ca. 33%).

Two of three examples from Ashdod lack a significant portion of the pedestal and foot. However, one of these chalices (Dothan, M. and Porath 1982:117, Fig. 8:10) has a ridge below the bowl that may have served as the join between the bowl and the pedestal. This ridge arrangement also appears on the tall trumpet-shaped pedestal of the complete chalice from Ashdod (Dothan, M. and Porath 1982:117, Fig. 8:7), Fig. 8.2.2.2a:2.

Only five chalices are reported from Late Bronze Age strata. Of these, two chalices are from Jemmeh (CPP: Figs. 17B8 and 17N), one chalice is from Farah (South) (CPP: Fig. 17N7), and two are from Beth Shemesh (AS II: Pl. XXXV:15, 26). All five of these chalices are from stratigraphic assignments that are not secure. The chalice from Jemmeh (CPP: Fig 17N) would mark a very early appearance for this type of chalice and the assignment of a Late Bronze Age date may be the result of the uncertain stratigraphy. The chalice from Farah (South) (CPP: Fig. 17N7) differs from one of the Jemmeh chalices (CPP: Fig. 17B8) in that the Tell el-Farah (South) pedestal is slim. The chalices from Beth Shemesh may also be considered early examples of the type of chalice found in Iron Age strata. It is tempting to see the footed bowl as a precursor to the chalices from Jemmeh (CPP: Fig. 17B8) and Beth Shemesh (AS II: Pl. XXXV:15). None of the Late Bronze Age chalices has a ridge on the pedestal.

The example from Ay consists only of a rim/bowl fragment (AY: Pl. LXXIV:1045). The eight chalices from Batash are mostly from strata dated to the Iron Age IIC. Five of the examples are rim/bowl fragments of which one is red-slipped on the interior and the exterior (Timnah II: Pl. 60:3). Of the three complete chalices in this type, two are plain and undecorated; the one with a larger bowl and pedestal is illustrated (Timnah II: Pl. 56:1), Fig. 8.2.2.2a:3. The third chalice is decorated with horizontal stripes on both the exterior of the chalice bowl and the pedestal. This example has a relatively small bowl and a tall straight pedestal without a ridge (Timnah II: Pl. 65:1), Fig. 8.2.2.2a:4. It resembles the Lachish chalice of this type (Lachish V: Pl. 42:20). All three complete chalices lack a ridge on the pedestal, a feature that may be characteristic of chalices from the Iron Age IIC.

Five Type 222 chalices were reported from Iron Age IIC contexts. Three of the chalices have tall pedestals and all five were found at Batash. The Type 222 chalices are decorated in a variety of ways. One elaborate example from Batash is painted with a series of oblique and horizontal bands on the exterior of the chalice bowl as well as with horizontal bands on the pedestal. The pedestal is tall and the proportions of the vessel are reminiscent of an offering stand (Timnah II: Pl. 65:1). Several other Type 222 examples are decorated with red slip.

The chalice from BeerSheba lacks a foot, and has no unusual feature (Aharoni, Y. 1974:41, Fig. 3:8). The sole Beit Mirsim example is a rim/bowl fragment (Greenberg 1987:68, Fig. 7:7).

111

The three chalices from Beth Shean are identical as shown in their drawn profiles. However, only one was assigned to the Iron Age I (James 1966: Fig. 50:8), while the other two were assigned to the Iron Age II. One example is illustrated (James 1966: Fig. 19:21), Fig. 8.2.2.2a:5.

is fishbowl-like in appearance (CPP: Fig. 17S8), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:5. Neither of the two chalices from Jemmeh is from a secure context. Like the chalice from Gezer Tomb 96 the example from the Jemmeh tomb or dump area is sharply angled at the point of carination and is fishbowl-like in appearance (CPP: Fig. 17N), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:6.

Nineteen Type 222 examples were reported from Beth Shemesh. Nine examples are large fragments, and two have an unusual feature. The pedestal of one chalice has a core made up of six independent strands of pottery (AS II: Pl. XXXV:21), Fig. 8.2.2.2.b:1, while the pedestal of another chalice has a solid core with two prominent ridges along the length of the pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:11), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:2. Of the ten examples represented by a complete profile, only two chalices are illustrated here. The first has a tall exaggerated trumpetshaped pedestal without a ridge, and a shallow chalice bowl (AS II: Pl. XXXV:15), Fig. 8.2.2.2a:6. This chalice was given a Late Bronze Age designation, suggesting that it may have been a pottery replica of an offering stand. Also reminiscent of an offering stand is a chalice with a tall tripod pedestal made of lengths of pottery apparently seated in the foot (AS II: Pl. XXXV:28). The overall appearance is very like a brazier. The second chalice illustrated is typical of another Iron Age chalice form in that it has a ridge that seems to act as the join seam between the chalice bowl and the ridged pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:35), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:3.

The Iron Age II example from Jerusalem is typical of the Iron Age chalice form. The chalice is red-slipped and has a slim ridged pedestal (Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 chalice on right), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:7. The rim sherd from Jokneam elicits no comment (BenTor et al. 1983:52, Fig. 12:8). The bowl of one chalice from Kh. Ed-Dawwara repeats the pattern of a fishbowl-like appearance except for its softer carination (Finkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:8. This example lacks a foot. Eleven Type 222 chalices were reported from Lachish. Three were from the Stratum V cult area, including one example with a tall trumpet-shaped pedestal without a ridge (Lachish V: Pl. 42:20), Fig. 8.2.2.2c:1. Seven other chalices were from the Wellcome Marston Expedition of 1903. These were found in caves, tombs, or a quarry. One example from Cave 6020 (Lachish III: Pl. 83:156), Fig. 8.2.2.2.c:2 has the same angular fishbowl appearance of Type 222 chalices from other sites. In contrast a chalice from Tomb 224 has a slim pedestal supporting a shallow broad-based bowl (Lachish III: Pl. 83:162), Fig. 8.2.2.2c:3. A chalice on exhibit in the British Museum may be one of the chalices illustrated in the Lachish III excavation report.

Neither of the two chalices from the Iron Age IB Stratum III at Beth Zur have an unusual feature (Sellers 1993: Fig. 13:1-2). The Deir Alla chalice from Phase J-5 is truly representative of the Iron Age. The rim is everted and splayed, the chalice bowl is broad, and the pedestal is slim with a well-defined ridge (Deir Alla I: Fig. 69:28).

Eight chalices from the Iron Age IB Masos Stratum II are included in this type. Five examples are chalice bowls with their rims, two of which were found with part of the tang or upper pedestal still attached (Masos II: Pl. 149:12). One of the complete chalices is typical of the Iron Age chalice form (Masos II: Pl. 137:6), Fig. 8.2.2.2c:4. Another chalice is decorated with red slip on the entire exterior surface as well as the interior of the bowl. This example has a stout pedestal with a minimal ridge just above the foot (Masos II: Pl. 154:9), Fig. 8.2.2.2c:5

The chalice reported at Esdar is plain and warrants no comment (Kochavi 1969:14-48, Fig. 12:7, cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982:173, Fig. 25:2). The example from Tel el-Farah (North) is a rim/bowl fragment (Farah I: Pl. 60:9). The three Type 222 chalices from Tell el-Farah (South) appear plain when compared to other Tell el-Farah (South) chalices from the tombs. Two of these examples are from the mound and one is from Tomb 104. The chalice from the tomb has a deep carinated bowl and a pedestal without a ridge (CPP: Fig. 17F4), Fig. 8.2.2.2b:4. One example from the mound is decorated with irregular lines across the bowl, pedestal and foot (CPP: Fig. 17N7). This Late Bronze Age chalice is not complete and is from a general context.

Five Type 222 chalices were reported from the Megiddo mound. Of these perhaps the most unusual example is a Stratum V surface find (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15). This rim/bowl fragment is highly decorated not only with concentric circles on the bowl interior and horizontal bands and stripes on the exterior, but also with a series of pendants that hang down around the exterior of the bowl. Typical of the broad-based chalice bowl of the Iron Age is a handsome red-slipped example (Megiddo II: Pl. 90:8). A companion red-slipped chalice without its foot was found in the same context, but atop an offering stand (Megiddo II: Pl. 90:9). A chalice from the earlier German excavations at Megiddo (TM II: Abb. 76) is similar to this

As is the case at Tell el-Farah (South) two of the three examples from Gezer are from the mound and one is from a tomb. The interior of the rim is decorated on both chalices from the mound. The bowl of the chalice from Tomb 96 is sharply angled at the point of carination and 112

chalice, as is a chalice from the ongoing excavations at Megiddo (Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.53:3).

characteristic common to the Iron Age chalice form. Eighty-one percent of the chalices are either complete or restored.

The Michal example is from a pit north of Structure 300 (cult ?). The pedestal has no ridge (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:5), Fig. 8.2.2.2c:6.

Perhaps the most interesting examples in this type are four chalices featuring a distinctive drooping-petal motif on the pedestal.

Two of the four chalices from Nasbeh are rim/bowl fragments (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1585-1586). A third example is tall and reminiscent of an elongated goblet (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1580). The fourth chalice illustrated is decorated on the exterior bowl and pedestal with horizontal stripes. The ridge on the lower pedestal is subtle (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1573), Fig. 8.2.2.2c:7.

One of the two Iron Age IIA chalices from Amal is just such an example. Illustrated in NEAEHL, this chalice is distinguished by petals encircling the top of the tall slim pedestal (Edelstein and Feig 1993:1449). The exterior of the chalice bowl is decorated with diagonal stripes. This unusual chalice is quite similar to two chalices from the current Safi excavations (Safi Internet, Study No. 2; Shai and Maeir 2003:111, Fig. 1:5), and Fig. 8.2.2.3b:5 in this section, as well as to an unprovenanced chalice from Safi formerly on exhibit at the Israel Museum Jerusalem. The other chalice from Amal is more typical of the Iron Age form. It has a cone-shaped chalice bowl and an undecorated ridged pedestal (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:3), Fig. 8.2.2.3a:1.

Nine complete chalices from Tell Qasile, primarily from Iron Age IB, are included in this type. The chalice shown in a photograph (Maisler 1951: Pl. 28:5) has similarities to a chalice from Amal (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:2), another chalice at Tel Qasile (Maisler 1951: Fig. 6:1), and an example from Tel Rehov (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1). One chalice is illustrated (Qasile II: Fig. 32:4), Fig. 8.2.2.2d:1. Five of the nine examples were reported from the Maisler excavations, including one with a tall slim pedestal that appears almost solid (Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:1).

Apart from a taller pedestal and an extended splayed rim, the chalice from Ashdod (Dothan. M. and Porath 1982:111, Fig 5:2) resembles the Amal chalice illustrated in this study (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:3).

A complete chalice from Qiri is red-slipped and decorated. It has a carinated bowl that is wide at the base and a tall ridged pedestal (Qiri: Fig. 28:9), Fig. 8.2.2.2d:2.

Each of the two chalices from Dan has a cone-shaped chalice bowl and a short rounded pedestal without a ridge. Only one is illustrated (Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:1), Fig. 8.2.2.3a:2.

A chalice shown on the Safi excavations internet site, designated here as Safi Internet Site, Study No. 1, is typical of chalices of the Iron Age.

Apart from the stout pedestal a chalice from Tell elFarah (North) is unremarkable (Farah I: Pl. 60:8). Two of the three chalices from the Tel el-Farah (South) Tombs are notable only for their angular appearance. The third chalice is quite different. This chalice was found in Tomb 201 and is highly decorated with a geometric basket-weave pattern on the bowl exterior (CPP: Fig. 17K2), Fig. 8.2.2.3a:3. Similar decorations were found on other chalices of different types.

The Sippor chalice has an incomplete rim, no ridge on the pedestal and a shallow chalice bowl (Biran and Negbi 1966:160-73, Fig. 5:7). The example from Zahiriyye has no unusual feature (Baramki 1935:109-119, Pl. LXI:1). 8.2.2.3 Type 223 (Table 8.2.2.3)

The chalices from Jericho were found in the 1907-1909 excavations of Sellin and Watzinger. One of the two chalices included in their excavation report has a taller pedestal than the other example in this type (Sellin 1913: 36.A.47b), Fig. 8.2.2.3a:4.

Only 35 chalices incorporate the everted splayed rim and straight-sided bowl that distinguish the Type 223 chalice. Many of the Type 223 bowls are carinated, either just below the rim or near the base. In either case, the term straight-sided refers to the chalice profile between the point where the bowl joins the pedestal and the point where the carination begins. If no carination is present, the straight side terminates where the rim begins to splay. As noted in Chapter 1 ‘straight-sided’ is a relative term and includes many examples where the bowl profile is reasonably straight as opposed to obviously rounded.

The chalice from Keisan lacks most of the pedestal and all of the foot (Keisan: Pl. 73:6). The Masos chalice has a ‘soft’ cone-shaped bowl and an unridged pedestal (Masos II: Pl. 137:5), Fig. 8.2.2.3a:5. Two of the four Megiddo chalices were reported in the early excavations of Schumacher. Another example consists only of a bowl decorated with multiple horizontal stripes and a series of holes in its base. This example lacks the pedestal/foot (Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3).

Most Type 223 chalices were found at northern sites (69%) and except for one (Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3); they date to Iron Age I/II strata. Two chalices from Jericho may date to the end of the Iron Age. Eighteen of the 27 chalices illustrated with a pedestal have a ridge, a 113

The two chalices from the Megiddo Tombs are good examples of the variations within Type 223. One example has a prominent ridge and a soft straight-sided chalice bowl (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:20), Fig. 8.2.2.3b:1. The other chalice has a deeper bowl and a stout unridged pedestal (Megiddo II: Pl. 73:5)

six examples. The 28 chalices from the north include nine from Rehov, and seven from Gezer. Most of the chalices (79%) date to the Iron Age II. Only five Type 23X examples were reported in Late Bronze Age strata. These were from Gezer Tomb 58 (CPP: Fig.17C7, 17S2), Judur (Ben-Arieh 1981:115-28, Fig.3:3), Hazor (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1), and Megiddo (Megiddo Tombs: Pl.65:7).

Except for the more subdued ridge, the Nasbeh chalice is similar to the example from Megiddo Tomb 39 (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576), Fig. 8.2.2.3b:2.

The Gezer Tomb 58 chalices fit the Type 23X profile well, although it should be noted that Tomb 58 was disturbed. The Late Bronze Age chalice example from Hazor is unusual not only because of its tall slim pedestal, but because it was the only chalice from that season’s excavations that could be restored (Hazor IIIIV: Pl. CCLXIV:1). This chalice, described as ‘perforated,’ was found in Locus 2162, Sq. B9, a courtyard west of the front room of the temple in Stratum 2. The Late Bronze Age example from Megiddo Tomb 73 consists only of a small rim fragment with stripes painted on the top (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:7). Megiddo Tomb 73 was damaged by Iron Age construction and used as an Iron Age domestic dump.

The sole example from Qashish is a rim sherd (Ben-Tor et al. 1981:137-64, Fig. 7:4). The two chalices from Tell Qasile represent similar forms, although one lacks the foot (Qasile II: Fig. 24:18), while the other example shows a well-defined ridge on the pedestal (Maisler 1951:133, Fig 6:2). All nine chalices from Rehov are good examples of the typical Iron Age II chalice. One is illustrated (Rehov Registration No. 16257/3), Fig. 8.2.2.3b:4. The distinctive drooping-petal motif is found on the tall slim pedestals of all three chalices from Safi. The chalices are further distinguished by bowls decorated with a diamond pattern executed in thin stripes. Other than serving as a decorative motif, the purpose of the petals is uncertain. However, a reference to a bronze brazier from Phoenicia at the Walters Gallery, Baltimore, Maryland, U,S,A,, (#54.2296), suggests that the brazier was meant for incense or burnt offerings. The Walters’ brazier dates to the eighth/seventh century B.C.E. and is quite similar to the pottery vessels with petals from Caanan. Also similar is an offering stand with petals carried off by the Assyrians, at least as pictured in the Lachish relief on display in the British Museum, London, U.K. One of the three Safi chalices is illustrated (Shai 2003:111, Fig. 1:5), Fig. 8.2.2.3b:5.

The Iron Age IIC is represented by four Type 23X examples. The chalice from Jericho was found in the early German excavations of Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 36.A,47a. Early excavations also yielded a chalice from Jemmeh that was found at level DH193 (CPP: Fig. 17L7). Two Iron Age IIC chalices were reported at Batash (Timnah II: Pl. 32:13; 65:3). Several of the 17 Type 23X decorated chalices are from the south. Chalices with elaborate geometric designs were reported from Jemmeh (CPP: Figs. 17L7, 17L8), and Tell el-Farah (South) (CPP: Figs. 17H4, 17H8, 17K3, 17L2, 17L4), while two other chalices from Tell el-Farah (South) feature a lotus blossom pattern (CPP: Figs. 17K6, 17K7). Three chalices are decorated with either stripes (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:7), a series of blots (Timnah II: Pl.101:2), or intermittent hash marks on the top of the rim (Qasile II: Fig. 40:8). Three other chalices are red-slipped on both the interior and the exterior (Timnah II: Pls. 2:22; 93:14; Masos II: Pl. 154:8).

8.2.3 TYPE 23X: CHALICES WITH AN EVERTED LEDGE RIM Altogether there are 70 chalices with an everted ledge rim. A rim is considered to fit the ledge profile if the top edge of the rim lies at a 177° to 183° angle across the top of the bowl at the rim line. Rims with a slightly extended horizontal surface are included in this type. Also included are the chalices from the early excavations at Gezer, although these examples are problematic because the drawn profile does not include a cross-section of the vessel. The unusually large examples from Tell el-Farah (South) are interpreted as Type 23X chalices as well.

Of the 51 chalices illustrated with a pedestal, 40 (78%) have a ridge. Although 93% of the chalices are dated to Iron Age strata, only 81% of them have a ridge. The sole example from the Late Bronze Age Tomb 58 at Gezer also has a ridge on the pedestal. This Gezer chalice is part of a combined oil lamp, bowl, and chalice grouping. Overall it appears that chalices with a horizontal everted rim are common to the Iron Age II period, with a great number of these chalices reported at Beth Shemesh, Tell el-Farah (South) and Tel Rehov. The Iron Age chronology would seem to be substantiated by the occurrence of a ridge on more than half of the examples in this type. The chalices from Jemmeh and Tell el-Farah (South) are unusual, however, in that they are more highly decorated than other Type 23X examples.

Chalices with rounded bowls account for 48% of the Type 23X chalices while those with straight-sided bowls represent another 39%. Only 13% of these chalices have carinated bowls. Forty-two examples of these chalices (60%) are from sites in the south of Canaan: Beth Shemesh reported 14 examples, Tell el-Farah (South) 13 examples, and Batash 114

Type 230 Type 231 Type 232 Type 233

Everted Ledge Rim Sherd Everted Ledge Rim with Rounded Bowl Everted Ledge Rim with Carinated Bowl Everted Ledge Rim with Straight-sided Bowl

and Beit-Arieh 1979:1-25, Fig. 3:5). The pedestal has a well-defined ridge. One example from Lachish consists of a gently-rounded bowl with a sharp cone-shaped pedestal; the pedestal has no ridge (Lachish V: Pl.42:14), Fig.8.2.3.1b:2. The other example is a goblet with a deep bowl and a ridged pedestal (Lachish III: Pl. 103:662). It is similar to a vessel from Tell el-Farah (South) (CPP: Fig. 17N5).

8.2.3.0 Type 230 (Table 8.2.3.0) Although the three Type 230 examples consist only of sherds; they do boast some features. The two Batash rim fragments are red-slipped on both the interior and the exterior (Timnah II: Pls. 2:22; 84:11), while the sherd from Megiddo Tomb 73 has the surface of the rim decorated with stripes. 8.2.3.1 Type 231 (Table 8.2.3.1)

The Megiddo chalice bowl was reported from the ongoing excavations (Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.59:4), Fig. 8.2.3.1b:3. The bowl is shallow but wide. The complete chalice from Stratum VI is typical of the Iron Age chalice form (Megiddo II: Pl. 87:5).

Of the 32 examples in this type, 13 are from Beth Shemesh and Gezer.

The bowl of the Nasbeh chalice is deep but otherwise shows no unusual features (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1583).

The rim/bowl fragment from Batash is undistinguished (Timnah II: Pl. 32:13).

The two chalices from Tell Qasile are similar in that both have deep bowls and pedestals without a ridge. The ledge rim of one example is decorated with occasional stripes Qasile II: Fig. 40:8), Fig.8.2.3.1b:4.

Beth Shemesh reported seven Type 231 examples, making it one of the two largest single collections in Type 231. All of these chalices are from the 1928-1933 Grant excavations and all but one are dated to Iron II strata. One example has a tall cone-shaped pedestal (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:36), Fig. 8.2.3.1a:2, while another has a pedestal with a series of ridges and a solid core (AS III: Fig. 6.3-54, Fig. 8.2.3.1a:3. A Beth Shemesh chalice typical of the Type 231 chalice found at several sites is illustrated (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:17), Fig. 8.2.3.1a:1.

All six Rehov chalices have a ridge on the pedestal, but the bowls in two examples (Rehov Registration Nos. 26630/3; 24845) are deeper than those of the others. The remaining four chalices have shallow bowls; in three instances the ledge rim is very pronounced (Rehov Registration Nos. 44051/1, 44310/2, 44596/1). The chalice illustrated here has a short pedestal and a ledge rim that extends slightly outward (Rehov Registration No. 24845), Fig. 8.2.3.1b:5. An additional illustration shows a Rehov chalice with a pronounced ledge rim (Rehov Registration No. 44051/1), Fig. 8.2.3.1b:6.

One of the six chalices from Gezer was included in an unusual arrangement of vessels found in the Late Bronze Age Tomb 58. The arrangement consisted of an oil lamp resting in a bowl that in turn rested in the chalice (CPP: Fig. 17S2), Fig. 8.2.3.1a:4. An unusually large chalice from Iron Age II Tomb 96 has a series of ridges on the pedestal (CPP: Fig. 17S4), Fig. 8.2.3.1a:5.

8.2.3.2 Type 232 (Table 8.2.3.2) Of the nine chalices in this type, all but one (Qasile II: Fig. 40:9) are from the Iron Age II. Six examples lack a complete chalice profile and none are decorated. Two chalices from Beth Shemesh feature unusual pedestals (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:4; AS III: Fig. 5.4-100).

The Halif chalice is also from a tomb. The chalice has a shallow bowl and a pedestal with a minimal ridge on the lower pedestal (Biran and Gophna 1970:151-68, Fig. 4:8).

The excavator concluded that the sherd from Arad might be from either a chalice or a bowl. Unfortunately, the rim morphology provides no clue (Aharoni, M. 1981:181204, Fig. 1:19).

The decorations on the two chalices from Jemmeh closely resemble the decorations on the chalices from Tell el Farah (South). Both feature decorative basketweave and saw-tooth patterns on the bowl exteriors; the chalice with the basket-weave pattern is illustrated here (CPP: Fig. 17L8), Fig. 8.2.3.1a:6. Petrie dated the strata where the chalices were found from the ninth to the seventh century BCE.

The function of the rim/bowl fragment from Batash is also questionable (Timnah II: Pl. 65:3). Although all five chalices from Beth Shemesh have well defined ledge rims, three are unusual. Perhaps the most striking of these is a chalice with a near-hourglass profile. The bowl and pedestal are almost exactly the same shape, although the pedestal is slightly narrower in diameter. The pedestal is solid where it joins the bowl and there is a slight ‘ripple’ or ridge circumscribing the join. Both the rim and base are notably thick and flat (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:4), Fig. 8.2.3.2:1. Another chalice is sharply

The chalice from the Judur burial cave has a tall pedestal with ridges and a foot that appears to have a gutter. The flat everted rim is exaggerated and may be folded (BenArieh 1981:115-28, Fig. 3:3), Fig. 8.2.3.1b:1. Like several others in this type, the chalice from Kedesh is from a tomb, and the provenance is not certain (Stern 115

carinated near the base and the extant pedestal is solid (AS II: Pl. XXXVI:38), Fig. 8.2.3.2:2. A third example is similar but warped. It has a solid pedestal with multiple ridges (AS III: Fig. 5.4-100). A better example of this chalice is illustrated in AS III: Fig. 6.3-54. Both of these chalices are from Stratum IIa.

One of the Gezer chalices was found in an unusual arrangement of vessels reported from the Late Bronze Age Tomb 58. In this grouping a pilgrim flask in the shape of a ring lay flat on top of the chalice bowl, with a broken red-ware juglet inserted into the ring of the flask. It is uncertain if the juglet was broken and then inserted, if a previously-broken juglet was used, or if the flask was originally intact but the remnants of the flask were not found (CPP: Fig. 17C7), Fig. 8.2.3.3b:1. The rim of the chalice is decorated in red and there is a red dot in the center of the bowl. The excavators noted that tubular flasks are rare in Canaan.

The Jemmeh chalice bowl has no unusual features (CPP: Fig. 17C8). The chalice bowl from Tell Qasile has an unusually wide diameter (ca. 38 cm), which is unusual for chalices in the Iron Age (Qasile II: Fig. 40:9).

The chalice from Hazor has a shallow bowl and a tall slim pedestal. The physical proportions of this example suggest either that it had a small foot or that it was an insert for an offering stand (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1), Fig. 8.2.3.3b:2.

8.2.3.3 Type 233 (Table 8.2.3.3) Sixty-five percent of the Type 233 chalices are from the Iron Age IIA, and 50% are from Tell el-Farah (South). The 26 chalices that make up this type portray an unusual diversity of features. Two examples are from the Late Bronze Age: Gezer (CPP: Fig. 17C7) and Hazor (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1).

The early excavations at Jericho by Sellin and Watzinger reported at least four chalices from the ‘Judahite’ period. The example illustrated here has a deeply carinated bowl and an exceptionally wide rim giving the bowl the appearance of a flat hat turned upside-down. The pedestal is tall and unusually slim with a minimal ridge near its base (Sellin 1913: Abb. 36.A.47a), Fig. 8.2.3.3b:3 (profile outline).

One of the two Batash rim fragments included in this type is red-slipped on both the interior and the exterior (Timnah II: Pl. 93:14), while the other has the top of the rim painted with what appear to be petals (Timnah II: Pl. 101:2).

Like the example from Beth Shemesh this 11th century BCE chalice from Masos has a near-hourglass profile, though the pedestal is slightly narrower in diameter then the bowl (Masos II: Pl. 154:8), Fig. 8.2.3.3b:4. In this case, the diameter of the foot is 15 cm, or ca. 6 cm less than the 21 cm diameter of the rim. The height of the chalice is 15 cm. The chalice is red-slipped and was found in Stratum II.

One of the most unusual chalices in this type comes from an Iron Age IB context at Beth Shean. This 12th century BCE Stratum S-3 example may have come from a cult corner and bears a bird figurine on its rim. It should be pointed out, however, that the remains of this vessel are insufficient to establish without a doubt that this is a chalice (Mazar 1993:213, Fig. 10), Fig. 8.2.3.3a:1. The pedestal is drawn with a notably wide girth. The chalice bowl was found in a burnt destruction layer along with a fenestrated stand.

The example from Nasbeh is a plain cone-shaped chalice with no unusual features (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1577).

The two chalices from Beth Shemesh were found in Iron Age II strata during the 1928-1933 Grant excavations. The example illustrated here has a wide deeply-carinated bowl and a tall slim pedestal with a ridge near the base (AS III: Fig. 6.3-86), Fig. 8.2.3.3a:2. The other example is a bowl/rim fragment with no reportable feature.

Three chalices from Rehov are assigned to this type, but only one is illustrated here (Rehov Registration No. 24619/2), Fig. 8.2.3.3b:5. This example has a well formed pedestal with a ridge and a deep straight-sided bowl with a mild carination just below the rim. 8.3 TYPE 3XX: CHALICES WITH A VERTICAL RIM

Many of the 13 chalices from Tell el Farah (South) are distinguished by geometric or lotus flower designs on the exteriors of the bowls. All but one are from tombs in the 200 series and dated, according to McClellan, to the tenth century BCE or later. A good example of a sharplycarinated undecorated chalice is illustrated (CPP: Fig. 17D2), Fig. 8.2.3.3a:3. The geometric patterns that decorate the exterior of a chalice with a shallow bowl (CPP: Fig. 17H8), Fig. 8.2.3.3a:4, and the exterior of another chalice with a deep bowl (CPP: Fig. 17L2), Fig. 8.2.3.3a:6 are typical of the Tell el-Farah (South) examples. It is tempting to see an Egyptian influence in the chalice decorated with lotus-like designs (CPP: Fig. 17K7), Fig. 8.2.3.3a:5.

Only 12 vessels fall into the category of chalices with a vertical rim, a type of rim that is normally easy to distinguish. Basically, the term applies to a chalice where the rim and the wall of the bowl form one vertical line. The rim of the Type 3XX chalice is normally plain. Most of the Type 3XX chalice bowls are straight-sided, as this would be the natural extension of a vertical rim. However, there are some variations among the Type 3XX bowls, i.e., one example has a carinated bowl and two examples have rounded bowls.

116

The chalices in this type are found in both northern and southern sites and in all periods of the Iron Age II.

8.3.2 Type 312 (Table 8.3) The chalice profile from Azekah appears in the 1902 report of Bliss and Macalister and depicts a plain chalice with a ridge on the pedestal (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Fig. 45:17z), Fig. 8.3:1. Information on this chalice is limited due to the archaeological methods used at the time of the excavations. The chalice may be an eighth century BCE example.

Of the four Type 3XX chalices reported in Iron Age IIC strata, all have straight-sided chalice bowls and some decoration. The decoration on the chalice from Batash is particularly elaborate (Timnah II: Pl.65:2). In addition to diagonal stripes on the chalice bowl and horizontal bands on the pedestal, this chalice features a series of raised medallions near the top of the pedestal. The other Iron Age IIC chalices are from Jemmeh (CPP: Fig. 17P4) and Miqne (Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a). Unfortunately the excavations at Jemmeh were carried out early in the 20th century CE and do not provide sufficient information for a detailed commentary.

8.3.3 Type 313 (Table 8.3) The chalice from Batash provides an excellent representation of an Iron Age IIC chalice (Timnah II: Pl. 65:2), Fig. 8.3:2. The exterior of the chalice bowl and pedestal are decorated, and the pedestal features a line of raised medallions at the upper end. The pedestal has no ridge. Another Batash chalice is similar in form but lacks the colored decorations and raised medallions (Timnah II: Pl. 95:1), Fig. 8.3:3.

Three of the Type 3XX chalices are decorated. This group includes one chalice each from Batash, Jemmeh and Miqne. Jemmeh chalice CPP: Fig. 17P8 features both a horizontal band and vertical stripes on the bowl exterior. Those from Batash and Miqne also are highly decorated on the exterior of the chalice.

The angled straight-sided bowl from Tel el-Farah (South) is relatively plain (CPP: Fig. 17P6).

Three of the nine chalices illustrated with a pedestal have a ridge, although these ridges vary considerably in style. The Iron Age I chalice from Dan has a ridge at the base of the pedestal (Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:5), while the chalices from Azekah (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Fig. 45:17z) and Jemmeh (CPP: Fig. 17P4) feature unusual protruding ridges just below the chalice bowl.

In profile the bowls of the two chalices from Jemmeh have a ‘squared-off’ appearance. The chalice with a decorated bowl is dated to the end of the Iron Age II (CPP: Fig. 17P8), Fig. 8.3:5, while the other chalice, almost miniature in size, is dated to the beginning of the Iron Age II (CPP: Fig. 17P4), Fig. 8.3:4. The bowl of this chalice is decorated with a ‘skirt’ that ends in a scalloped edge.

Five of the Type 3XX chalice pedestals are notably tall: Batash (Timnah II: Pls. 65:2; 95:1), Miqne (Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a), Nasbeh (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1581), and Safi (Safi: Internet Site, Study #3).

The example from Miqne is highly decorated (Gitin 1993:253, Fig 5a), Fig. 8.3:6. The lozenges on the pedestal may simulate fenestrations.

The Type 3XX chalices fall into three categories, depending on the shape of the bowl.

One of the two chalices from Nasbeh has a tall slim pedestal and a bowl that is decorated with a checkerboard pattern on the exterior (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1581). The other example is a bowl/rim fragment (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1579)

Type 311 Plain Rim with Rounded Chalice Bowl Type 312 Plain Rim with Carinated Chalice Bowl Type 313 Plain Rim with Straight-sided Chalice Bowl

The relatively tall pedestal of the example from Safi supports a disproportionately small chalice bowl. This vessel is from Area A temporary Stratum 4 and is dated to the late ninth or early eighth century BCE (Safi: Internet Site, Study No. 3; Maeir 2003:243, Fig. 4), Fig. 8.3:7.

8.3.1 Type 311 (Table 8.3) The chalices from Dan are from strata that are described as domestic and industrial. One chalice appears to be carinated just below the vertical rim (Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:2).

117

Typology of Chalices Tables

Location Chronology Beth Shemesh Trans. Beth Shemesh IAIB Dan IAIB Deir Alla Trans. Deir Alla Trans. Galilee IAI Gezer LB Hazor LB Hazor LB Kinneret IAIB Lachish IAIIB Lachish LB Megiddo IAIIA Megiddo LB Megiddo Trans. Megiddo Trans. Megiddo LB Megiddo LB Megiddo LB Pella IAIB Pella LB Tell Qasile IAIB es-Sa’iyideh Trans. Sippor IAIB * Illustrated in Figure 8.1.1

Location Chronology Ay EB Dan IAIB Deir Alla Trans. Deir Alla Trans. Deir Alla Trans. Deir Alla Trans. Hazor IAIIC Keisan IAIB Megiddo LB Megiddo LB Megiddo LB Megiddo IAIA Megiddo LB Pella LB Tell Qasile IAIB Rehov IAIB Rehov IAIB Rehov IAIB Taanach IAIB Taanach IAIB IAIB Taanach * Illustrated in Figure 8.1.2

Stratum III-IV III V E2 (room) E4 (room) Survey Tomb 58 1b 1b 2=V II-III P-1 (?) V VIIb VII VII T. 40 T. 63A T. 63B Phase III Phase II XI-X Tomb 46 II

Table 8.1.1 Type 111 Chalices Reference AS II: Pl. XXXV:22* AS III: Fig. 2:13* Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:4 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-6:10 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11* Aharoni 1956:63, Fig. 5:1 CPP: Fig. 17B5 Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23 Hazor II: Pl. CXLI:20 Fritz 1999:107, Fig. 8:3* Lachish III: Pl. 83:163 Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30:3* Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17 Megiddo I: Pl. 67:5 Megiddo II: Pl. 72:11 Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12* Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 59:13 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30* Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:36 Pella in Jordan1: Fig. 120:12* Pella in Jordan2: Fig. 47:7 Qasile II: Fig. 32:6 British Museum Exhibit Biran and Negbi 1966:171, Fig. 6:8*

Table 8.1.2 Type 113 Chalices Stratum Reference AY: Pl. LXVII:17.363* Tomb C Biran 1994a: Fig. 112:2 V Deir Alla: Fig. 4-6:11 E2 (room) Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:23* E3 (room) Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:24 E3 (room) Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:8 E10 (room) Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32 III Keisan: Pl. 80:2 9c Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 19:17 T. 989 C1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 30:4 T. 911 A1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 31:7 T. 911 C Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19* T. 39 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 99:8 T. 989 Pella in Jordan 2: Fig. 47:6 Phase II Qasile II: Fig. 14:6 XII Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:10 Tomb Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:11 Tomb Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:12* Tomb Taanach I: Fig. 89:3 Period 1A Taanach I: Fig. 89:4 Period 1A Taanach I: Fig. 89:5* Period 1A

118

Chronology

Table 8.1.3 Type 110, 112, 131 and 133 Chalices Stratum Reference

Location TYPE 110 Keisan Tell Qasile

IAIB IAIB

TYPE 112 Tell Qasile

IAIB

TYPE 131 Afula Beit Mirsim

IAIB IAIB

IIIA B1-B2

Dothan, M. 1954:41-46, Fig. 14:26 Greenberg 1987:68, Fig. 7:3

TYPE 133 Hazor

LB

1b

Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24*

10-11

Keisan: Pl. 81:21 Qasile II: Fig. 14:11 Qasile II: Fig. 27:19*

* Illustrated in Figure 8.1.3

Location Dor Jezreel Kuntillet Ajrud Pella Qiri

Chronology Trans. IAIIC IAIIA IAIB

Table 8.2.1.0 Type 210 Chalices Stratum Reference Stern 1996: Fig. 9.19:2 Fill Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 2.2:7 Single layer Ayalon 1995:180, Fig. 22:1 Tomb 89 Bourke 1997:112, Fig. 19 Qiri: Fig. 15:3 VIIIa/b

Table 8.2.1.1 Type 211 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference abu-Hawam Trans. V Balensi 1980: Pl. 8:7* abu-Hawam LB V2 Balensi 1980: Pl. 20:6 Batash LB VIII Kelm & Mazar 1995: Fig. 4:13* Beth Shean IAIIB IV James 1966: Fig. 34:12* Beth Shean LB VII James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 20:3 Beth Shean LB VII James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 27:12 Beth Shean LB VIII James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 31:3 CPP: Fig. 17B6 Beth Shean IAIB AS II: Pl. XXXV:23 Beth Shemesh LB Tomb AS II: Pl. XXXV:24 Beth Shemesh LB Sub III AS IV: Pl. LIX:22 Beth Shemesh IAIB III Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:9 Deir Alla Trans. E4 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-9:8 Deir Alla Trans. E9 CPP: Fig. 17Q2 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 213 CPP: Fig. 17B4 Gezer LB T. 30 Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 left Hazor MB-LB Favissa Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 right Hazor MB-LB Favissa Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31* Hazor LB Cave Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21 Hazor LB 1b-1a Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:1 Hazor LB 1b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:3 Hazor LB 1b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXX:4 Hazor LB 1a Shiloh 1984, Fig. 21:2 left* Jerusalem IAIIB 14 Keisan: Pl. 49:6 Keisan IAIIB 6 Lachish III: Pl. 83:161 Lachish IAIIB Cave 1002 * Illustrated in Figures 8.2.1.1a and 8.2.1.1b

119

Table 8.2.1.1 continued Type 211 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Megiddo Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14 MB XII-X Megiddo II: Pl. 47:15 Megiddo MB X Megiddo II: Pl. 70:12 Megiddo IAIA VIIa Megiddo II: Pl. 72:13* Megiddo Trans. VII Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10 Megiddo Trans VIIb-VIa Megiddo II: Pl. 87:8* Megiddo IAIB VI Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 8:3 Megiddo IAIA T. 1101 A Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 8:14 Megiddo IAIA T. 1101 B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:9* Megiddo LB T. 989 A1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:10 Megiddo LB T. 989 A1 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:11* Megiddo LB T. 912 B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:12 Megiddo LB T. 912 B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 35:28 Megiddo LB T. 912 D Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24 Megiddo LB T. 26 B Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:6 Megiddo LB T. 73 Mevorakh: Fig. 1:22 Mevorakh LB X Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23* Mevorakh LB X Ben-Tor et al. 1981:149, Fig. 7:5 Qashish IAIA IV – Phase 5 Qiri: Fig. 10:9 Qiri IAIIA VIIc Qiri: Fig. 15:4 Qiri IAIB VIIIc Qiri: Fig. 15:5 Qiri IAIB VIIIc Qiri: Fig. 29:3* Qiri IAIB VIII Crowfoot 1957: Fig. 25:8 Samaria IAIIB Period VI Fisher 1924: Fig. 161:22 Samaria IAIIB Israelite * Illustrated in Figures 8.2.1.1a and 8.2.1.1b Table 8.2.1.2 Type 212 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Ay AY: Pl. LXXVI:1638 IAIB Level Z AS II: Pl. XXXVI:18 Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:19 Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS IV: Pl. LXI:45* Beth Shemesh IAIB III Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7* Deir Alla Trans. E 10 CPP: Fig. 17D* Farah (S) CPP: Fig. 17T4 * Gezer IAII T. 142 Gezer II: Pl. 29:14* Gezer IAIB 10 = XII Gezer IV: Pl. 35:20 Gezer IAIA Local 5c-5b Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22* Hazor IAIIB Va-Vb Tushingham 1965: Fig. 256:21* Jericho IAIIC T. WH 1 Eshel and Prag 1995: Fig. 31:9* Jerusalem IAIIC Cave I Keisan: Pl. 32:6 Keisan IAIIC 4 Mazar 1995:102, Fig. 18:25 Kh. Marjameh IAIIB Masos II: Pl. 136:19 Masos IAIA II Masos II: Pl. 136:20 Masos IAIA II Masos II: Pl. 136:21* Masos IAIA II Masos II: Pl. 137:7 Masos IAIA II Masos II: Pl. 139:15 Masos IAIA I/II Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11* Megiddo IAIA VIIa Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:6* Michal IAIIA XIV-XIII Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1571 Nasbeh IAIB T. 32 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1572* Nasbeh IAIB T. 32 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1574 Nasbeh IAIB T. 32 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1575 Nasbeh IAIB T. 32 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1582 Nasbeh IAIB T. 54 Taanach I: Fig. 27:2* Taanach IAIIA Period IIA * Illustrated in Figures 8.2.1.2a, 8.2.1.2b, 8.2.1.2c

120

Table 8.2.1.3 Type 213 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Afula IAIA IIIB Dothan, M. 1954:41-46, Fig. 18:15 Afula IAIA IIIB Dothan, M. 1954:41-46, Fig. 18:16 Beth Shemesh IAIIA City debris Grant 1929:215, Fig. 260 Dan Trans. VII Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1* Dan Trans. VII Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:2 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:25 Deir Alla Trans. E3 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10* Deir Alla Trans. E4 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-3:10* Deir Alla Trans. E7 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:3* Deir Alla Trans. E8 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5;5 Deir Alla Trans. E8 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:6 Deir Alla Trans. E8 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-9:9 Deir Alla Trans. E9 Deir Alla: Fig. 48:53 Deir Alla IAIB Phase B-2 Deir Alla I: Fig. 63:28 Deir Alla IAIB Phase G-3 Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21 Hazor LB 1b Hazor III-IV: Pl. CLXI:6* Hazor LB XIV-XIII CPP: Fig. 17P* Jemmeh IAIIB EJ 189 Lachish III: Pl. 83:164* Lachish IAIIB T. 223 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:18* Megiddo IAIIA V Megiddo II: Pl. 47:18 Megiddo MB X-IX Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16 Megiddo LB IX Megiddo II: Pl. 74:17 Megiddo IAIB VIb Megiddo II, Pl. 87:7* Megiddo IAIB VI Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 71:17* Megiddo IAIA T. 221B Gal 1979:138-45, Fig. 3:6* Menorah IAIB II Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1578* Nasbeh Qasile II: Fig. 26:9 Tel Qasile IAIB XI Qiri: Fig. 10:10 Qiri IAIIA VIIc Ohata 1967: Pl. X:12 Zeror IAIB Tomb I * Illustrated in Figure 8.2.1.3a and 8.2.1.3b

Location Batash BeerSheba Gezer Gezer Izbet Sartah Izbet Sartah

Chronology IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA Trans. IAIIA IAIIA

Stratum IVB V IXa 6a I I

Table 8.2.2.0 Type 220 Chalices Reference Timnah II: Pl. 85:7 BeerSheba I: Fig. 54:6 Gezer III: Pl. 6:14 Gezer IV: Pl. 31:10 Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 21:19 Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 24:5

121

Table 8.2.2.1 Type 221 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Abu-Hawam Hamilton 1935:23: Fig. 88* IAIIB III Abu-Hawam Malter Auctions IAIIB III Amal Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:5* IAIIA III Batash Kelm and Mazar 1995:103, Fig. 5:12* IAIB V Timnah II: Pl. 82:15 Batash IAIIB IV Timnah II: Pl. 84:9 Batash IAIIB IV Timnah II: Pl. 84:10 Batash IAIIB IV Timnah II: Pl. 91:19 Batash IAIIB III BeerSheba II: Fig. 20:5 BeerSheba IAIB VIII BeerSheba I: Fig. 54:7 BeerSheba IAIIA V AS II: Pl. XXXVI:1 Beth Shemesh Trans. III-IV AS II: Pl. XXXVI:5 Beth Shemesh AS II: Pl. XXXVI:7 Beth Shemesh AS II: Pl. XXXVI:25 Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31* Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS IV: Pl. LXII:49 Beth Shemesh IAIIA IIA Grant 1929:209, Fig. 9 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II Grant 1929:211, 150d Beth Shemesh IAIIA City debris Grant 1929:211, 152d* Beth Shemesh IAIIA City debris Grant 1929:211, rm 39 Beth Shemesh IAIIA City debris Bunimovitz 2001:137, Fig. 9:2 Beth Shemesh IAIB Revetment Farah I: Pl. 60:6* Farah (N) IAIIA VIIb Farah I: Pl. 60:7* Farah (N) IAIIA VIIb Farah I: Pl. 60:10* Farah (N) IAIIA VIIb CPP: Fig. 17E Farah (S) LB Cem 100 CPP: Fig. 17E2 Cem 600 Farah (S) LB CPP: Fig. 17E4 * T. 542 Farah (S) Trans. CPP: Fig. 17L5 * T. 201 Farah (S) IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17N5 BA 387 Farah (S) IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17P2 * T. 240 Farah (S) IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17B2 T. 59 Gezer LB CPP: Fig. 17B7 * T. 58 Gezer LB CPP: Fig. 17C2 T. 85 Gezer LB Gezer IV: Pl. 31:13 6a = XIII Gezer Trans. CPP: Fig. 17C3 T. 138 Gezer IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17S3 * T. 96 Gezer IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17S6 T. 96 Gezer IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17S9 T. 96 Gezer IAIIA Ira: Fig. 4.33:9* T. 15 Ira IAIIB Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:6* II Izbet Sartah IAIIA Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:7 II Izbet Sartah IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17C4 Ee 189 Jemmeh IAIIB Sellin 1913: Abb. 36.A.47d Judische Jericho IAIIC Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:266, Fig. 4:7* XVII Jokneam IAIB Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 53:1j* cited by Gibson Judeideh IAIIC 1994 V Lachish IAIIA Lachish V: Pl. 42:15* V Lachish IAIIA Lachish V: Pl. 42:18 T. 6006 Lachish IAIIB Lachish III: Pl. 83:154* 6024 Lachish IAIIB Lachish III: Pl. 83:155* II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 136:4 II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 157:15 V IAIIA Megiddo Megiddo I: Pl. 33:20 VI IAIB Megiddo Megiddo II: Pl. 87:9* T. 63 E IAIA Megiddo Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10* T. 76 A IAIA Megiddo Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 74:25 * Illustrated in Figures 8.2.2.1a, 8.2.2.1b and 8.2.2.1c

122

Table 8.2.2.1 continued Type 221 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Menorah II Gal 1979:143, Fig 3:5 IAIB Miqne VI (VB) (fill) Bierling 1996: Fig. 8:16 IAIB Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1584* Nasbeh T. 32 IAIB Qasile II: Fig. 43:22* Tell Qasile X IAIB Maisler 1951:203, Fig 12:e* Tell Qasile VII VIII IAIIC IIA Qiri: Fig. 10:11 IAIIA VIIc Qiri Rehov Registration No. 16333/1 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 16335* IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 16723 (No. ?) IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 26293/19 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 28875 (or 28835/1) IAIIA D4 Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44164* IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44187/10 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44206 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44209/1 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44210/1 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44244/1* IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44496/1 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44496/5 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 54435/8 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 54594/6 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 54715/1 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64278/64279 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64340 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64342 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64357 IAIIA IV Rehov Rehov Registration No. 64745 IAIIA V Rehov Taanach I: Fig. 53:5* IAIIA Period IIB Taanach Baramki 1935:109-110, Pl. LXII:3 IAIA IAIA Zahiriyye * Illustrated in Figures 8.2.2.1c and 8.2.2.1d

Location Chronology Stratum Amal IIAIIA III Amal IAIIA III Amal IAIIA III Ashdod IAIIA M11=X Ashdod IAIIA M10=X Ashdod IAIIA M10=X Ay IAIB Level D Batash IAIIB III Batash IAIIB III Batash IAIIC II Batash IAIIC II Batash IAIIC II Batash IAIIC II Batash IAIIC II Batash IAIIB III BeerSheba IAIIA VI Beit Mirsim IAIB B1-B2 * Illustrated in Figs. 8.2.2.2a and 8.2.2.2b

Table 8.2.2.2 Type 222 Chalices Reference Levy and Edelstein 1972:325-67, Fig. 16:1 Levy and Edelstein 1972:325-67, Fig. 16:2* Edelstein and Feig 1993:1450 Dothan, M. and Porath 1982:111, Fig. 5:1 Dothan, M. and Porath 1982:117, Fig. 8:7* Dothan, M. and Porath 1982:117, Fig. 8:10 Marquet-Krause 1949: Pl. LXXIV:1045 Timnah II: Pl. 14:13 Timnah II: Pl. 22:8 Timnah II: Pl. 56:1* Timnah II: Pl. 56:2 Timnah II: Pl. 58:18 Timnah II: Pl. 60:3 Timnah II: Pl. 65:1* Timnah II: Pl. 91:13 Aharoni, Y. 1974:41, Fig. 3:8 Greenberg 1987:68, Fig. 7:7

123

Table 8.2.2.2 continued Type 222 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Beth Shean James 1966: Fig. 19:21* IAIIA V Beth Shean James 1966: Fig. 22:22 IAIIA Lower V Beth Shean James 1966: Fig. 50:8 IAIB VI AS II: Pl. XXXV:15* Beth Shemesh LB IV AS II: Pl. XXXV:21* Beth Shemesh AS II: Pl. XXXV:26 Beth Shemesh LB IV AS II: Pl. XXXV:28 Beth Shemesh AS II: Pl. XXXVI:11* Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:21 Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:23 Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:28 Beth Shemesh AS II: Pl. XXXVI:29 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:32 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:33 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:35* Beth Shemesh AS III: 6.3-57 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS III: 6.3-58 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS IV: Pl. LIX:26 Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS IV: Pl. LXIV:34 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS IV: Pl. LXIV:38 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS IV: Pl. LXVII:3 Beth Shemesh IAIIA Cistern Grant 1929:209, Fig. 10 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II III Sellers 1993: Fig. 13:1 Beth Zur IAIB III Sellers 1993: Fig. 13:2 Beth Zur IAIB Deir Alla I: Fig. 69:28 Phase J-5 Deir Alla IAIB Kochavi 1969:14-48, Fig. 12:7 cited by Aharoni, Y. 1982 III Esdar IAIB Farah I: Pl. 60:9 VIId1 Farah (N) IAIIB CPP: Fig. 17F4 * T. 104 Farah (S) IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17N7 BJ 389 Farah (S) LB CPP: Fig. 41.17G3 TY 376 Farah (S) IAIIA Gezer IV: Pl. 24:9 6b/a Gezer Trans. Gezer IV: Pl. 38:11 5c Gezer IAIB CPP: Fig. 17S8 * T. 96 Gezer IAIIA CPP: Fig. 17B8 Jemmeh LB CPP: Fig. 17N* WJ 184 Jemmeh LB Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 right 14 IAIIB Jerusalem Ben-Tor et al. 1983:52, Fig. 12:8 11 IAIIB Jokneam Finkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9* Area A IAIIA Kh. Dawwara Lachish V: Pl. 42:17 V IAIIA Lachish Lachish V: Pl. 42:20* V IAIIA Lachish Lachish V: Pl. 42:21 V IAIIIAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:156* Cave 6020 IAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:157 T. 227 IAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:158 T. 224 IAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:159 T. 224 IAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:160 1002 IAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 83:162* T. 224 IAIIB Lachish Lachish III: Pl. 103:663 Quarry IAII Lachish British Museum Exhibit II IAIIB Lachish Masos II: Pl. 131:2 II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 137:6* II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 149:1 II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 149:2 II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 151:5 II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 151:6 II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 154:9* II IAIB Masos Masos II: Pl. 162:13 II IAIB Masos * Illustrated in Figs. 8.2.2.2a and 8.2.2.2b

124

Table 8.2.2.2 continued Type 222 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Megiddo Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 IAIIA V Megiddo II: Pl. 90:8 Megiddo IAIIA Va Megiddo II: Pl. 90:9 Megiddo IAIIA Va Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.53:3 Megiddo IAIB VI TM II: Abb. 76 Megiddo Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:5* Michal IAIIA XIV-XIII Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1573* Nasbeh IAIB T. 32 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1580 Nasbeh IAIB T. 54 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1585 Nasbeh IAIIA Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1586 Nasbeh IAIIA Qasile II: Fig. 32:4* Tell Qasile IAIB XI-X Qasile II: Fig. 32:5 Tell Qasile IAIB XI-X Qasile II: Fig. 52:15 Tell Qasile IAIIA IX Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:1 Tell Qasile IAIB X Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:3 Tell Qasile IAIB X Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:c Tell Qasile IAIIA IX Maisler 1951: Pl. 28:4 Tell Qasile IAIB X Maisler 1951: Pl. 28:5 Tell Qasile IAIB X Mazar, B. 1980:163, cited by Dothan 1982:62, Fig. 9 Tell Qasile Qiri: Fig. 28:9* Qiri IAIB VIII Internet Site (Study No. 1) Safi IAIIB Temp. 4 Biran and Negbi 1966:160-73, Fig. 5:7 Sippor IAIB I Baramki 1935:109-110, Pl. LXI:1 Zahiriyye IAIA Tomb * Illustrated in Figs. 8.2.2.2c and 8.2.2.2d Table 8.2.2.3 Type 223 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Amal IAIIA III Levy and Edelstein 1972:325-67, Fig. 16:3* Amal IAIIA III Edelstein and Feig 1993:1449 Ashdod IAIIA M 11 = X Dothan, M. and Porath 1982:111, 117, Fig. 5:2 Dan IAIIA IV Biran 1989:122 Fig. 4 top left Dan IAIIA IV Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:1* Farah I: Pl. 60:8 Farah (N) IAIIA VIIb CPP: Fig. 17F2 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 240 CPP: Fig. 17H2 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 240 CPP: Fig. 17K2 * Farah (S) IAIIA T. 201 Sellin 1913: 36.A.47b* Jericho IAIIC Sellin 1913: 36.A.47c Jericho IAIIC Keisan: Pl. 73:6 Keisan IAIB 9c Masos II: Pl. 137:5* Masos IAIB II Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3 Megiddo Trans VIIb-Via Megiddo II: Pl. 87:6 Megiddo .IAIB VI TM I: Abb. 154 Megiddo IAIIA Palast TM I: Abb 246e Megiddo Grave A Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:20* Megiddo IAIA T. 39 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 73:5 Megiddo IAI T. 1090A Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576* Nasbeh IAIIB Level II Ben-Tor et al. 1981:137-64, Fig. 7:4 Qashish IAIA Phase 5 – IV Qasile II: Fig. 24:18 Tell Qasile IAIB XI Maisler 1951:133, Fig. 6:2 Tell Qasile IAIB X Rehov Registration No. 16257/3* Rehov IAIIA IV Rehov Registration No. 24336/3 Rehov IAIIA V * Illustrated in Figs. 8.2.2.3a and 8.2.2.3b

125

Table 8.2.2.3 continued Type 223 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 44149/1 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 44204 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 44205 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 44207 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 46521/5 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 54464 Rehov IAIIA IV Rehov Registration No. 64684 Safi IAIIB Israel Museum Exhibit (2006) Safi IAIIB Temp 4 Safi Internet (Study No. 2) IAIIB Temp 4 Safi Shai 2003:111, Fig. 1:5* * Illustrated in Figs. 8.2.2.3a and 8.2.2.3b Table 8.2.3.0 Type 230 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Batash IAIIA IVB Timnah II: Pl. 2:22 Timnah II: Pl. 84:11 Batash IAIIB IV Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:7 LB T. 73 Megiddo Table 8.2.3.1 Type 231 Chalices Location Chronology Stratum Reference Batash Timnah II: Pl. 32:13 IAIIC II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:3 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS II: Pl. XXXVI:17* Beth Shemesh IAIB III AS II: Pl. XXXVI:36* Beth Shemesh IAIIA II AS III: 6.3-54* Beth Shemesh IAIIA IIa AS IV: Pl. LXII:48 Beth Shemesh IAIIA IIa AS IV: Pl. LXIV:33 Beth Shemesh IAIIA II Grant 1929:211, 143d Beth Shemesh IAIIA City debris CPP: Corpus 17S2 * Gezer LB T. 58 CPP: Corpus 17S4 * Gezer IAIIA T. 96 CPP: Corpus 17S5 Gezer IAIIA T. 96 CPP: Corpus 17S7 Gezer IAIIA T. 96 CPP: Corpus 17S10 Gezer IAIIA T. 96 CPP: Corpus 17S11 Gezer IAIIA T. 96 Biran 1970:151-68, Fig. 4:8 Halif IAIIB Tomb CPP: Corpus 17L7 Jemmeh IAIIC DH 193 CPP: Corpus 17L8 * Jemmeh IAIIB FL 189 Ben-Arieh 1981:115-28, Fig. 3:3* Judur LB Cave Stern and Beit-Arieh1979:1-25, Fig. 3:5 Kedesh IAIIB Tomb Lachish V: Pl. 42:14* Lachish IAIIA V Lachish III: Pl. 103:662 Lachish IIAII III-IV Megiddo II: pl. 87:5 Megiddo IAIB VI Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.59:4* Megiddo IAIB VI Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1583 Nasbeh IAII Bin 384 Qasile II: Fig. 40:8* Tell Qasile IAIB X Qasile II: Fig. 47:9 Tell Qasile IAIB X Rehov Registration No. 24845* Rehov IAIIA V-VI Rehov Registration No. 24899 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 26630/3 Rehov IAIIA V Rehov Registration No. 44051/1* Rehov IAIIA IV Rehov Registration No. 44310/2 IAIIA V Rehov Rehov Registration No. 44596/1 IAIIA IV Rehov * Illustrated in Figs. 8.2.3.1a and 8.2.3.1b

126

Location Chronology Arad IAIIA Batash IAIIC Beth Shemesh IAIIA Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh IAIIA Beth Shemesh IAIIA Beth Shemesh IAIIA Jemmeh IAIIA Tell Qasile IAIB * Illustrated in Figure 8.2.3.2

Stratum XII II II Iia Iia II GN 185 X

Location Chronology Stratum Batash IAIIB IIIA Batash IAIIB IV Beth Shean IAIB S2/S3A Beth Shemesh IAIIA II Beth Shemesh IAIIA Iia Farah (S) IAIB XT 372 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 202 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 229 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 201 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 240 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 202 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 213 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 229 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 228 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 238 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 229 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 229 Farah (S) IAIIA T. 201 Gezer LB T. 58 Hazor LB 2 Jericho IAIIC Judadite Masos IAIB II Nasbeh IAIIB Rehov IAIIA IV Rehov IAIIA V Rehov IAIIA V * Illustrated in Figures 8.2.3.3a, and 8.2.3.3b

Table 8.2.3.2 Type 232 Chalices Reference Aharoni, M. 1981:181-204, Fig. 1:19 Timnah II: Pl. 65:3 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:4* AS II: Pl. XXXVI:38* AS III: 5.4-100 AS IV: Pl. LXII:53 AS IV: Pl. LXIV:35 CPP: Fig. 17C8 Qasile II: Fig. 40:9 Table 8.2.3.3 Type 233 Chalices Reference Timnah II: Pl. 93:14 Timnah II: Pl. 101:2 Mazar 1993:213, Fig. 10* AS III: Fig. 6.3-86* AS IV: Pl. LXII:50 CPP: Fig. 17D2 * CPP: Fig. 17H3 CPP: Fig. 17H4 CPP: Fig. 17H5 CPP: Fig. 17H8 * CPP: Fig. 17K3 CPP: Fig. 17K6 CPP: Fig. 17K7 * CPP: Fig. 17L2 * CPP: Fig. 17L4 CPP: Fig. 17N2 CPP: Fig. 17N3 CPP: Fig. 17Q4 CPP: Fig. 17C7 * Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1* Sellin 1913: 36.A.47a* Masos II: Pl. 154:8* Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1577 Rehov Registration No. 16324/1 Rehov Registration No. 24619/2* Rehov Registration No. 64746

127

Location TYPE 311 Dan Dan

Chronology

Table 8.3 Type 311,312, and 313 Chalices Stratum Reference

IAIB IAIIA

V IV

Biran 1994a: Fig. 98:5 Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:2

TYPE 312 Azekah

IAIIB

B

Bliss and Macalister 1902: Fig. 45:17z *

IAIIC IAIIC IAIIA IAIIC IAIIA IAIIC

II II T. 202 DR 195 GB 187 IB

Timnah II: Pl. 65:2* Timnah II: Pl. 95:1* CPP: Fig. 17P6 CPP: Fig. 17P4 * CPP: Fig. 17P8 *

IAIB IAIIB

T. 32 Temp. 4

TYPE 313 Batash Batash Farah (S) Jemmeh Jemmeh Miqne Nasbeh Nasbeh Safi

Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a* Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1579 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1581 Safi: Internet Site, Study # 3; Maeir 2003:243, Fig 4*

* Illustrated in Figure 8.3

128

CHALICE ILLUSTRATIONS BY TYPE

129

Figure 8.1.1 Type 111 Chalices No.

Location

1.

3. 4. 5.

Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Deir Alla Kinneret Lachish

6.

Megiddo

7. 8. 9.

Megiddo Pellla Sippor

2.

Comments

Reference

AS II: Pl. XXXV:22 Decorated bowl interior

AS III: Fig. 2:13

Fenestrated pedestal

Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11

Decorated with stripes on exterior

Fritz 1999:107, Fig. 8:3 Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30.3

Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12 Decorated rim Decorated rim Decorated with stripes on exterior and top of rim

130

Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 60:30 Pella in Jordan1:Pl. 120:12 Biran and Negbi 1966:171, Fig. 6:8

131

Figure 8.1.2 Type 113 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Ay

Decorated bowl interior and rim exterior

AY: Pl. LXVII:17.363

2. 3. 4,

Deir Alla Megiddo Rehov

5.

Taanach

Deir Alla: Fig. 4-9:23 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19 Decorated rim

Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:12

Taanach I: Fig. 89:5

132

Figure 8.1.3 133

Type 112 and 133 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Tell Qasile Type 112 Hazor Typr 133

Decorated on exterior rim and foot margins Decorated with crosses on bowl interior and stripes on rim top and foot

Qasile II: Fig. 27:19

2.

134

Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24

135

Figure 8.2.1.1a Type 211 Chalices No.

Location

1.

AbuHawam Batash Beth Shean Hazor Jerusalem

2. 3. 4. 5.

Comments

Reference Balensi 1980: Pl. 8:7 Kelm & Mazar 1995:51, Fig. 4:13 James 1966: Fig. 34:12 Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31 Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2 left

Partially solid pedestal Red slip Red slip

136

137

Figure 8.2.1.1b Type 211 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Mevorakh

Decorated rim exterior

Megiddo II: Pl. 72:13 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:8 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 16:9 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 34:11 Mevorakh: Fig. 1:23

6.

Qiri

T. 989 A1 Ridged rim T. 912 B

Qiri: Fig. 29:3

Tall Pedestal

138

139

Figure 8.2.1.2a Type 212 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Beth Shemesh Deir Alla Farah (S) Gezer Gezer

Moderate carinated bowl Goblet style Decorated exterior, goblet style Warped, rim decorated

Deir Alla: Fig. 5-13:7 CPP: Fig. 17D CPP: Fig. 17T4 Gezer II: Pl. 29:14

6. 7. 8.

Hazor Jericho Jerusalem

Goblet style Goblet style Goblet style

Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22

Comments

Reference

AS IV: Pl. LXI:45

Tushingham 1965: Fig. 256:21 Eshel 1995: Fig. 31:9

140

141

Figure 8.2.1.2b Type 212 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Masos Megiddo Michal Nasbeh Taanach

Comments

Reference

Masos II: Pl. 136:21 Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11 Arched rim T. 32

Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:6 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1572 Taanach I: Fig. 27:2

142

143

Figure 8.2.1.3a Type 213 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2.

Dan Deir Alla

3. 4. 5.

Deir Alla Deir Alla Hazor

6.

Jemmeh

Comments

Reference

Decorated bowl interior, irregular ridged pedestal Tall slim pedestal

Biran 1994a: Fig. 87:1 Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10

Deir Alla: Fig. 5-3:10 Deir Alla: Fig. 5-5:3 Hazor III-IV: Pl. CLXI:6 CPP: Fig. 17P

144

145

Figure 8.2.1.3b Type 213 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Lachish Megiddo Megiddo Megiddo Menorah

Irregular ridge on stout pedestal

T. 221 B Traces of red on rim exterior and foot

Lachish III: Pl. 83:164 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:18 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:7 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 71:17 Gal 1979:138-45, Fig. 3:6

6.

Nasbeh

Rim and body fragment

Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1578

146

147

Figure 8.2.2.1a Type 221 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Broad bowl

Hamilton 1935:23, Fig. 88

6.

AbuHawam Amal Batash Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Farah (N)

7. 8.

Farah (N) Farah (N)

Remnant of bowl tang (?)

2. 3. 4. 5.

Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:5 Kelm and Mazar 1995:103, Fig. 5:12 AS II: Pl. XXXVI:31 City debris

Grant 1929:211, 152d

Farah I: Pl. 60:6 Farah I: Pl. 60:7 Farah I: Pl. 60:10

148

149

Figure 8.2.2.1b Type 221 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2.

Farah (S) Farah (S)

CPP: Fig. 17E4 CPP: Fig. 17L5

3.

Farah (S)

4. 5.

Gezer Gezer

Stripes on exterior bowl and pedestal Geometric pattern decoration on bowl exterior Serrated rim and bowl base, hook rim and decorated with dots on the exterior of the bowl T. 58, Chalice combination T. 96 Tall pedestal

6.

Ira

Decorated with band on bowl exterior

Ira: Fig. 4.33:9

7.

Izbet Sartah

CPP: Fig. 17P2 CPP: Fig. 17B7 CPP: Fig. 17S3 Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:6

150

151

Figure 8.2.2.1c Type 221 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2.

Jokneam Judeideh

Partially reconstructed pedestal Globular chalice bowl

3. 4. 5.

Lachish Lachish Lachish

Tall trumpet pedestal Triangular-shaped pedestal Tri-pod pedestal

Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:266, Fig. 4:7 Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 53:1j cited by Gibson 1994 Lachish V: Pl. 42:15 Lachish III: Pl. 83:154 Lachish III: Pl. 83:155

6.

Megiddo

7.

Megiddo

Megiddo II: Pl. 87:9 Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10

T. 63E Missing foot

152

153

Figure 8.2.2.1d Type 221 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3.

Nasbeh Tell Qasile Tell Qasile

Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1584 Qasile II: Fig. 43:22

4. 5.

delete Rehov

T. 32 Fish bowl like chalice bowl Missing foot, decorated rim Fish bowl like chalice bowl, decorated rim interior delete

6.

Rehov

7. 8.

Rehov Taanach

Red slip

Maisler 1951:203, Fig 12:e delete Rehov Registration No. 16335 Rehov Registration No. 44164 Rehov Registration No. 44244/1 Taanach I: Fig. 53:5

154

155

Figure 8.2.2.2a Type 222 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4.

Amal Ashdod Batash Batash

Decorated rim interior, tall pedestal Knob atop tall pedestal Tall Pedestal Decorated bowl exterior, decorated tall pedestal

Levy and Edelstein 1972:325-67, Fig. 16:2 Dothan, M. 1982:117, Fig. 8:7 Timnah II: Pl. 56:1 Timnah II: Pl. 65:1

5.

Beth Shean

6.

Beth Shemesh

James 1966: Fig. 19:21

AS II: Pl. XXXV:15

Tall pedestal

156

157

Figure 8.2.2.2b Type 222 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Multi-strand (6) pedestal core

AS II: Pl. XXXV:21

Solid pedestal core

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:11

Knob atop ridged pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:35

4. 5.

Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Farah (S) Gezer

Fish bowl style chalice bowl

CPP: Fig. 17F4 CPP: Fig. 17S8

6.

Jemmeh

CPP: Fig. 17N

7.

Jerusalem

Shiloh 1984: Fig. 21:2, right

8.

Kh. edDawwara

Finkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9

2. 3.

158

159

Figure 8.2.2.2c Type 222 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Lachish Lachish Lachish Masos Masos

Tall pedestal

Lachish V: Pl. 42:20 Lachish III: Pl. 83:156 Lachish III: Pl. 83:162 Masos II: Pl. 137:6 Masos II: Pl. 154:9

6.

Michal

7.

Nasbeh

Red slip exterior and bowl interior

Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:5 Decorated with stripes on exterior

160

Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1573

161

Figure 8.2.2.2d Type 222 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2.

Tell Qasile Qiri

Comments

Reference

Decorated on top of rim and exterior of bowl

162

Qasile II: Fig. 32:4 Qiri: Fig. 28:9

163

Figure 8.2.2.3a Type 223 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Amal Dan Farah (S) Jericho Masos

Comments

Reference

Tomb 201, Highly decorated exterior Tall pedestal

164

Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig. 16:3 Biran 1994a: Fig. 104:1 CPP: Fig. 17K2 Sellin 1913: 36.A.47b Masos II: Pl. 137:5

165

Figure 8.2.2.3b Type 223 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Megiddo Nasbeh delete Rehov Safi

Tomb 39

Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:20 Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576

delete

delete Rehov Registration No. 16257/3 Shai 2003:111, Fig. 1:5

Decorated bowl exterior, petals on pedestal

166

167

Figure 8.2.3.1a Type 231 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Well defined cone-shaped pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:17

Tall trumpet pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:36

Multiple ridges on pedestal

AS III: Fig. 6.3-54

4. 5.

Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Gezer Gezer

T. 58 Combination of vessels T. 96 Multiple ridge pedestal

CPP: Fig. 17S2 CPP: Fig. 17S4

6.

Jemmeh

Decorated bowl exterior

CPP: Fig. 17L8

2. 3.

168

Figure 8.2.3.1b 169

Type 231 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Judur Lachish Megiddo Tell Qasile Rehov

6.

Rehov

Comments

Reference Ben-Arieh 1981:119, Fig. 3:3 Lachish V: Pl. 42:14 Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.59:4 Qasile II: Fig. 40:8 Rehov Registration No. 24845

Decorated rim top

Rehov Registration No. 44051/1

170

171

Figure 8.2.3.2 Type 232 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1.

Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh

Stout short pedestal

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:4

Extant part of pedestal is solid

AS II: Pl. XXXVI:38

2.

172

173

Figure 8.2.3.3a Type 233 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2.

Figurine on rim Tall pedestal

Mazar 1993:213, Fig. 10 AS III: Fig. 6.3-86

3. 4. 5.

Beth Shean Beth Shemesh Farah (S) Farah (S) Farah (S)

CPP: Fig. 17D2 CPP: Fig. 17H8 CPP: Fig. 17K7

6.

Farah (S)

Sharply-carinated chalice bowl Decorated bowl exterior Decorated with lotus pattern on bowl exterior Decorated with geometric pattern on bowl exterior

174

CPP: Fig. 17L2

175

Figure 8.2.3.3b Type 233 Chalices No.

Location

Comments

Reference

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Gezer Hazor Jericho Masos Rehov

Combination of vessels in tomb Tall slim pedestal Tall slim pedestal Unique proportions

CPP: Fig. 17C7 Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1 Sellin 1913: 36.A.47a

Masos II: Pl. 154:8 Rehov Registration No. 24619/2

176

177

Figure 8.3 Type 312 and 313 Chalices No.

Location

1. 2.

Azekah Batash

3. 4. 5.

Batash Jemmeh Jemmeh

6.

Miqne

7.

Safi

Comments

Reference

Elaborate decorations, medallions on tall pedestal

Timnah II: Pl. 65:2

Bliss and Macalister 1902: Fig. 45:17z

Timnah II: Pl. 95:1 CPP: Fig. 17P4 CPP: Fig. 17P8

Scalloped bowl exterior Decorated bowl exterior Decorated on bowl exterior and pedestal Tall pedestal

178

Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a Safi: Internet Site, Study # 3; Maeir 2003:243, Fig 4

179

180

APPENDIX SELECTED SITES WITH CHALICES

181

182

Deir ‘Alla

Appendix A

(3-09-0405) function, stating: “if they were used in offering ceremonies then their presence in the storerooms suggest they were filled from the storerooms” (Deir Alla:164). In addition to the chalices, goblets were found in the sanctuary Phase E and may have been used in sanctuary ceremonies, perhaps as pouring vessels.

General Information Deir Alla was one of the first Late Bronze Age cities to be excavated in Jordan. It is situated east of the Jordan River, ca. 10 km south of Tell es-Sa’iyideh. The University of Leiden carried out initial excavations at Deir Alla from 1960 to 1967 and, in coordination with the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, resumed excavations in 1976 continuing until 1987. Two publications were released, one in 1969, Deir Alla I, and a second in 1992, Deir Alla. Each publication included several chalice profiles.

The three chalices from the Iron Age appear to have no association with the Late Bronze Age sanctuary, and the style and the proportions of one of these examples suggest that it is a footed bowl (Deir Alla I: Fig. 48:53). This example was found in clay debris in front of the early Iron Age furnace installation. The remaining two Iron Age chalices were found in destruction debris near walls (Deir Alla I: Figs. 63:28 and 69:28).

Stratigraphy The sanctuary was the main feature of the site. Dated to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I transition, the sanctuary consisted of a cella, storerooms, workshops and dwellings. The excavation report indicated that this Late Bronze Age complex was built on an artificial terrace that was regularly renewed by adding a thick layer of fresh clay to the floor and stones to the pillar bases. The walls and the roof were raised to ensure that they remained at a higher level than the surrounding buildings. There were storerooms and workshops to the west of the cella, and domestic quarters for officials to the east (Franken 1997:137-138). The sanctuary and the Late Bronze Age phase ended in an earthquake and fire that occurred at the beginning of the 12th century BCE (Deir Alla I:19). Franken suggests that another sanctuary existed in Phase IX of the eighth century BCE (Franken 1997:137-138).

Context The rooms west of the cella were storerooms and those east of the cella were described as a shrine, kitchen and pantry. A collection of rectangular clay tablets was found in one of the eastern rooms. The cella was not rebuilt after its destruction. Although no Iron Age remains survived above the sanctuary rooms E1-3 (Deir Alla:7), there were Iron Age wash levels over the cella (Deir Alla:27). Pits from later periods were dug down to sanctuary floor levels and below. These pits were dug through the debris that covered the ruins of buildings of the sanctuary Phase E (Deir Alla:8). Other Finds An Egyptian drop vase with a Tausert cartouche was found in the destruction level of the cella and clay tablets in a linear script were found in rooms E4-5 to the east of the cella. The tablets remain essentially undeciphered. Two additional vessels found in the cella were classified as chalices although each had the shape of a goblet (Deir Alla: Fig. 3-7:9-10). Ten similar vessels were found in room E4 of the ‘Treasury’ and classified as goblets (Deir Alla: Figs. 4-14:12-15; 4-15:16-21). Oil lamps were found with the sanctuary examples.

Pottery Details The two publications illustrated a total of 19 chalices. Sixteen of the chalices are dated to the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition, and three are dated to the Iron Age I. Most of the chalices were found in the Late Bronze Age sanctuary. Although four of the chalice bowls are clearly rounded, five other chalice bowls have gently sloping walls that that could be interpreted as either rounded or straight-sided. Eight of the chalice bowls are straight-sided, and two are carinated. Six rims are inverted and 13 rims are everted. Eight rims appear to be folded and 11 rims are plain.

Pieces of plaster from Wall #36 were found in Phase M/IX, Iron Age IIB. Inscriptions on these pieces of plaster relate the Balaam oracle.

Judging from the published profiles, the chalices are not impressive. Only two chalices are decorated. One example features matt light brown concentric circles on the interior of the bowl (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:10), and the other has matt dark red hash marks on the exterior of the rim (Deir Alla: Fig. 4-14:11). The pedestal of the latter chalice is unusual in that it has cutout windows. Both of these chalices come from the Late Bronze Age, Room E4.

Chronology A Carbon-14 analysis of charcoal from a burnt roof beam of the sanctuary dates the destruction of the sanctuary and the beginning of the subsequent Phase A to 1180 BCE±60. For the end of Phase D, a stratum with no secure architecture but a few walls and pits, a Carbon-14 date of 1190 BCE ±50 was given. An ash level provided a Carbon-14 date of 1150 BCE±40 for Phase J (Deir Alla 1:245).

In regard to the chalices found in the rooms adjacent to the cella, Franken appears to have ascribed a cult

183

Table Type 111 113 113 113 213 211 213 111 213 213 213 213 211 213 212 113 213 213 222

Figure Deir Alla: 4-6:10 Deir Alla: 4-6:11 Deir Alla: 4-9:23 Deir Alla: 4-9:24 Deir Alla: 4-9:25 Deir Alla: 4-14:9 Deir Alla: 4-14:10 Deir Alla: 4-14:11 Deir Alla: 5-3:10 Deir Alla: 5-5:3 Deir Alla: 5-5:5 Deir Alla: 5-5:6 Deir Alla: 5-9:8 Deir Alla: 5-9:9 Deir Alla: 5-13:7 Deir Alla: 5-13:8 Deir Alla I: 48:53 Deir Alla I: 63:28 Deir Alla I: 69:28

Figure 4-6:10 4-6:11 4-9:23 4-9:24 4-9:25 4-14:9 4-14:10 4-14:11 5-3:10 5-5:3 5-5:5 5-5:6 5-9:8 5-9:9 5-13:7 5-13:8 48:53 63:28 69:28

Rim Diameter 17 cm 17 cm 18 cm 20 cm 17 cm 18 cm 14 cm 17 cm 14 cm 16 cm 14 cm 16 cm 17 cm 20 cm 14 cm 20 cm 17 cm 16 cm 15 cm

Stratum E2 E2 E3 E3 E3 E4 E4 E4 E7 E8 E8 E8 E9 E9 E10 E10 Phase B-2 Phase G-3 Phase J-5

Rim Angle Inverted Inverted Inverted Inverted 7 cm. 120° 125° 145° Inverted 90° 120° 120° 120° 90° 130° 140° Inverted 125° 120° 145°

Chronology LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI LB/IAI IAIB IAIB IAIB

Bowl Depth 5 cm 5 cm 5 cm 16 cm 5 cm 5 cm 3 cm 4 cm 4 cm 5 cm 4 cm 5 cm 6 cm 6 cm 4 cm 7 cm 6 cm 5 cm 5 cm

Illustrations Arranged by Type in Appendix A-1, A-2, A-3 References See Bibliography

184

Height 20 cm 16 cm 16 cm

12 cm 16 cm 18 cm 14 cm 18 cm 18 cm 16 cm 18 cm 13 cm 22 cm 11 cm 20 cm 20 cm

185

186

187

188

Hazor

Appendix B

(1-08-27) General Information

The six-chamber gate and casemate walls of Stratum X, (Area A) and a citadel in Stratum VIII (Area A) with a solid wall are examples of Iron Age architecture.

Situated at a strategic point on the ancient highway connecting Egypt with Babylon, Hazor became one of the largest and most powerful Bronze Age cities in the region. This vast site, some 200 acres in size, consists of an acropolis or upper city and a larger lower city. The site is located in the upper Galilee, ca. 15 km north of Lake Kinneret.

Only the upper city, represented by Strata XII-III, was occupied in the Iron Age. The first citadel in Area B was probably built in Stratum VIII and remained until it was destroyed in Stratum V. At the end of the Iron Age IIB, a conflagration destroyed Stratum V in the upper city. The Area B Stratum III citadel may have reused the earlier citadel walls and was probably built by the Assyrians in the seventh century BCE. This is the only significant architectural remain in Stratum III. The citadel continued to be used in Stratum II. The fill for the citadel structure was taken from earlier strata.

References to Hazor date back as far as the Middle Bronze Age when the city was mentioned in the Mari archives of Zimri-Lin. Late Bronze Age references are found in the city lists of Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, and Seti I. Hazor also is mentioned in Amarna letters #227 and #228 and the Papyrus Anastasi I.

Pottery Details Hazor appears in the Bible as a city conquered by Joshua (Joshua 11:10), a city under Solomon’s control (I Kings 9:15), and a city captured by Tiglath-Pileser (II Kings 15:29).

The pottery will be discussed in the order of publication. The material illustrated in Hazor I included fragments of chalice bowls, and pedestals with and without a foot. Although no complete chalice profile was illustrated, a footed bowl was shown (Hazor I: Pl. XC:14). This vessel provides a good example of the footed-bowl form, albeit in miniature. It is light red-slipped, burnished, and stands ca. seven cm high. It was found in the Late Bronze Age stelae temple shrine room, Stratum 1B (Area C). Other examples from Hazor included two chalice bowls with rims that may be folded. One rim is slightly inverted and decorated with black-on-red horizontal bands, a possible Cypro-Phoenician connection (Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32). The other rim is everted and extended obliquely outward. This example is from a Late Bronze Age cave (Hazor I: Pl. CXLIII:31). The chalice bowl in Hazor I: Pl. LXXVII:32 is a late Iron Age II bowl from a possible fill locus just north of the Stratum III citadel.

Garstang carried out initial soundings at the site in 1928. The Hebrew University consortium excavations followed this work from 1955 to 1958 and again in 1968. In 1990 Hebrew University renewed the excavations that continue today. The results of the excavations of 1955 to 1958 appear in four volumes published in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1989. These early excavation reports illustrated five complete chalice profiles and several chalice-bowl and pedestal profiles. The ongoing excavations reported two chalices (and two goblets) that were discovered in a favissa (BenTor 1999:272, Fig. 2). Stratigraphy

The Hazor II report illustrated four complete chalice profiles and the bowl of another example. Other plates in the report illustrated goblets, footed bowls and fragments of chalices and footed bowls. Four chalices and one chalice bowl are from the Late Bronze Age II lower city rooms, open areas, and a Stratum 1 purpose-built tunnel. Another bowl, probably the bowl of a goblet, is from the Iron Age IIB citadel. Three of the chalices have rounded bowls (Hazor II: Pls. CXVIII:21, 23, CXLI:20). Of these one chalice bowl is deeper than the other two (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21). None of the chalices have a ridge on the pedestal. One chalice has a straight-sided bowl (Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21). The rims of two chalices are plain (Hazor II: Pls. CXVIII:21 and CLI:21) and one of these chalices appears to have a folded rim (Hazor II: Pl. CLI:21). The chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXLI:20 also shows this treatment, but the rim is inverted. The rim of the chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:24 is ledge-shaped and inverted, while the rim of the chalice in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23 appears to be plain and inverted. Two chalices are

The earliest and most impressive temples and cult areas were first identified in the lower city, Stratum 3 (Areas F and H). These temples originated at the end of the Middle Bronze Age IIC and continued in some form until the end of the Late Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age lower city Stratum 1-b/a (Area C), a broad-house temple complete with a niche, stelae and basalt statues was exposed. A rectangular structure identified as a temple of the Middle Bronze Age was found in the upper city, Strata XVI-XV (Area A). Less impressive shrines and small cult sites continued in the upper city through Strata XIV and XIII (Area A) of the Late Bronze Age. At the end of the Late Bronze Age, the lower city, Stratum 1-a and the upper city, Stratum XIII, were destroyed in most areas

189

decorated with stripes on the rim and a distinctive double cross inside the bowl (Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:23-24). The chalices illustrated in Hazor II: Pl. CXVIII:21, 23-24, are from a room that is described as a possible storage or sales room for objects associated with the Stratum 1B shrine (Area C), (Hazor II:106).

“A deep pit, the lower part of which is lined with stones is located at the exact center of the building. The pit was identified as a favissa due to dozens of clay vessels, most of which of a cultic nature, such as votive vessels, incense burners, chalices, accompanied by bones and ash, which were recovered from it. This favissa and the recessed niche located in the center of the rear wall, seem to indicate that the building functioned as a temple. The vessels found in the favissa date the building to the transitional phase from the Middle Bronze II to the Late Bronze I….” Ben-Tor, Hazor internet excavation site.

Vessels typical of the goblet form are illustrated in Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:21-22. Similar goblet-shaped vessels appear at Samaria (SS III: Pl. 25:5) and Megiddo (Megiddo I: Pl. 33:8-9, 12). Although the vessel illustrated in Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:21 is a complete profile, only the decorated goblet bowl illustrated in Hazor II: Pl. XCIII:22 is included here. This example comes from the citadel long room, Stratum VA (Area B). The complete vessel is also from the citadel, Stratum VA.

This information was also included in the excavation updates published in the Israel Exploration Journal (BenTor 1990:272). The chalices shown in the photograph have rounded shallow bowls and everted rims. One chalice has a hint of a ridge on the foot (Ben-Tor 1990:272, Fig. 2). The chalices are certainly early examples of this type of chalice.

A number of chalice bowls were illustrated in Hazor IIIIV. Four of these bowls are from Stratum 1 in the lower city, a fifth is from Stratum 2 in the lower city, and a sixth is from Strata XIV-XIII in the upper city. All are dated to the Late Bronze Age. Three of the bowls are rounded (Hazor III-IV: Pls. CCLXXIII:1, 3; CCLXXX:4), while three others are straight-sided (Hazor III-IV: Pls. CLXI:6; CCLXIV:1; CCLXXIII:20). The rims are everted; one is a ledge rim (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXIV:1). Although the report noted that the ledgerimmed chalice was perforated, the perforation marks shown in the illustration are neither clear nor conclusive. This example is from the Stratum 2 courtyard temple area and is illustrated with a tall slim pedestal. The excavators describe the red-slipped burnished chalice in Hazor IIIIV: Pl. CCLXXIII:3 as ‘orange ware.’ Another elaborately decorated red-slipped burnished fragment is also described as ‘orange ware’ (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:20). This example lacks a rim. The chalices illustrated in Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:1, 3 and 20 are from a room of the temple and from the favissa in front of the Stratum 1b temple (Area H). The chalice illustrated in Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXX:4 is from the holy of holies of the Stratum 1a temple (Area H).

Context Many of the chalices were found beneath destruction levels that signaled the end of the Late Bronze Age. Other Finds Stratum 1b temple finds included lamps, incense stands, and zoomorphic vessels. A paved room in Stratum 1a (Area F) yielded a nest of smashed vessels including a considerable quantity of locally-made vessels (Hazor II:157). Also recovered from this locus was a colorfully decorated Mycenaean ‘chalice’ pedestal fragment ca. six cm long (Hazor II: Pl. CXLVIII:7). It would be unwarranted, however, to conclude that this type of Mycenaean vessel, probably a kylix, was the predecessor or model for the chalices that followed. Chronology Stratum 1 in the lower city is the last Late Bronze Age stratum. Tiglath-Pileser III may have destroyed Stratum V in the upper city. The settlement of Stratum III in the upper city dates to after the Assyrian conquest of Hazor. The dating of the Iron Age strata is the focus of current scholarly debate.

Although 12 of the 13 chalice profiles published by Yadin were dated to the Late Bronze Age, and were mostly from the lower city excavations, no one chalice type predominates within the corpus. Two chalices and two carinated goblets were reported from the current excavations. The context is described by A. Ben-Tor: Table Type 113 211 212 211 111 133 111 213 213

Figure/Plate Hazor I: LXXVII:32 Hazor I: CXLIII:31 Hazor II: XCIII:22 Hazor II: CXVIII:21 Hazor II: CXVIII:23 Hazor II: CXVIII:24 Hazor II: CXLI:20 Hazor II: CLI:21 Hazor III-IV: CLXI:6

Stratum III Cave Va/Vb 1b-1a 1b-1a 1b-1a 1b 1b XIV-XIII 190

Chronology IAIIC LB II IAIIB LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB

233 211 211 003 211 211 211

Hazor III-IV: CCLXIV:1 Hazor III-IV: CCLXXIII:1 Hazor III-IV: CCLXXIII:3 Hazor III-IV: CCLXXIII:20 Hazor III-IV: CCLXXX:4 Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 left Ben-Tor 1999:272, Fig. 2 right

Fig./Pl. Rim Diameter Hazor I: LXXVII:32 20 cm Hazor I: CXLIII:31 15 cm Hazor II: XCIII:22 11 cm Hazor II: CXVIII:21 21 cm Hazor II: CXVIII:23 15 cm Hazor II: CXVIII:24 15 cm Hazor II: CXLI:20 15 cm Hazor II: CLI:21 19 cm Hazor III-IV: CLXI:6 20 cm Hazor III-IV: CCLXIV:1 23 cm Hazor III-IV: CCLXXIII:1 27 cm Hazor III-IV: CCLXXIII:3 17 cm Hazor III-IV: CCLXXIII:20 Hazor III-IV: CCLXXX:4 18 cm IEJ 49:272, 2, right IEJ 49:272, 2, left Illustrations Arranged by Type in Appendix B-1, B-2 References See Bibliography

191

2 1b 1b 1b 1a Favissa Favissa

LB LBII LBII LBII LBII MB/LB MB/LB

Rim Angle Inverted 135° 135° 130° Inverted Inverted Inverted 90º 130° Flat 90° 110°

Bowl Depth

6 cm 5 cm 5 cm 4 cm 4 cm 7.5 cm 5 cm 10 cm 7.5 cm

17 cm 13 cm 16 cm 16 cm

90°

7 cm

15 cm

Height

4 cm

192

193

194

Lachish

Appendix C

(2-03-43) General Information

Pottery Details

Second in size only to Hazor, Lachish was one of the great fortress-cities of ancient Judah. The site lies at the edge of the Shephelah, or maritime plain of Philistia, ca. 30 km east of Ashkelon.

The largest number of chalices reported were from the Wellcome Marston Expedition. The Lachish III report indicated that the expedition found 25 chalices. This is less than one percent of the vessels examined and classified (Lachish III:267). Although some of the chalices were not complete, the remains were sufficient for the expedition to classify the chalices into 13 types. The Lachish III report illustrated one of each type. Of those illustrated seven chalices have carinated bowls, five have rounded bowls and one has a straight-sided bowl. Nine of the chalices have splayed everted rims, one has an inverted plain rim, two have everted plain rims, and one has a flat everted rim. Four of the chalices have a ridge on the pedestal, and one from Cave 6024 has a unique tripod pedestal (Lachish III: Pl. 83:155). Several fragments of tripod bases were found in the same location, Cave 6024. Ten of the 13 chalices are from either a cave or a tomb. One of the caves, 6024, is described as ‘the weaver’s workshop.’ One chalice came from a quarry (Lachish III: Pl. 103:663), a second was found on a surface area near a wall, and a third was found on the floor in a room together with approximately 70 loom weights. The chalice illustrated in Lachish III: Pl. 83:163 is unusual in that it is depicted with the bowl open at the bottom suggesting that it is either a funnel or a chalice bowl in secondary use. The chalice illustrated in Lachish III: Pl. 103:662 closely resembles a goblet. A chalice on exhibit in the British Museum may be one of those illustrated in Lachish III.

The most famous reference to Lachish is in the Lachish Ostracon IV. As interpreted by numerous scholars, this inscription indicates in a few terse words the forthcoming fate of Lachish at the hands of the Babylonians. Lachish is mentioned in several of the Amarna letters (EA: 288, 328, 329, 332, 335) and appears in the Biblical text as the city where Amaziah of Judah sought refuge (II Kings 14:19). It is also described as the campsite of Sennacherib before his battle with Hezekiah (II Kings 18:14-17). The first large-scale excavations at Lachish were carried out by the British Wellcome Marston Expedition in 19321938, with the report of their excavations published in several volumes from 1938 to 1958. In 1966-1968 Y. Aharoni excavated in the area of the ‘Solar Shrine,’ first identified as such by the Wellcome Marston Expedition. He published his results in 1975. In 1973 excavations were continued by Tel Aviv University. Although the primary Tel Aviv University excavations ended in 1987, work on restoration, clearing and preparation for a national park extended selective excavations through 1994. The results of these excavations were published in preliminary reports in 1978, 1983, and 1996. The complete report was published in 2004 as The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994).

The Lachish V report illustrates seven chalices from the Stratum V sanctuary. An eighth example consists only of the pedestal of a chalice and it is not included here. Three of the chalices have rounded bowls and three have carinated bowls. One chalice has a ledge rim and five have splayed everted rims. The incomplete chalice lacks a rim. One example has the upper edge of the interior rim painted. Two examples have a ridge on the pedestal/foot. These chalices were found on shelves and on the ground with ‘incense burner stands’ in the main room of the sanctuary. The pedestal of the chalice in Lachish V: Pl. 42:20 is similar to those illustrated in a Miqne Internet photograph illustrating chalices and vessels.

The chalices in this study appeared in Lachish III, Lachish V, and The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Stratigraphy The Late Bronze Age Fosse temple had three principle phases. The temple was built in the remains of the Middle Bronze Age Fosse at the base of the mound on the west side and ceased to function with the end of Stratum VI. The elements used to identify the structure as a temple were the benches, an altar attached to the front of the bench, and a hearth in the floor. Circular refuse pits and dumps outside the walls of the temple were discovered. The excavators reported that no obvious cult object was found in the temple (Lachish II:19-24).

The recently published report on the renewed archaeological excavations at Lachish includes several items that are labeled as chalices and chalice fragments. In area D remains of a poorly preserved Middle Bronze Age cult place were identified. These remains were immediately below the lime-plastered floor of the Level III Palace-Fort courtyard (Ussishkin 2004:282). Vessels described as ‘the cult place’s votive vessels’ were uncovered in the debris layers of Locus 7015 ‘upper’ (Ussishkin 2004:290). This locus is south of Wall 7078 and east of Wall 7117 in square U/13. The cult place was dated to the Middle Bronze Age based on the associated

The chalices reported by the Wellcome Marston Expedition were primarily from Iron Age tombs and caves. A principle feature of the Y. Aharoni excavation was the Stratum V sanctuary. Ussishkin, however, does not agree with Aharoni’s interpretation of this area (Ussishkin 2004:105-109).

195

pottery (Ussishkin 2004:295). The vessels described as a ‘votive group of chalices’ are small in size, ca. six-seven cm high with a ca. six cm bowl diameter (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 16.3:7-12). From the illustration they appear to more closely resemble stumps or stands with a depression at the top.

Tomb 224 was associated with shaft 228 which led to the tomb. The shaft was blocked with large and small stones. The roof of the tomb was intact. Tomb 227 may have been a dwelling as well as a burial cave. Cave 1002 had deposits of secondary burials and contained more than 600 pottery vessels including some 100 lamps. Caves 6003-6004 exhibited intermittent use in both the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Tomb 6006 was entered via a dromos with steps. The dromos to the east was sealed with neatly packed stones. Cave 6020 was located east of the path leading to the mound. The roof of the cave collapsed. Tomb 6024 was described as a weaver’s dwelling and workshop. The cave was reused.

Other chalice fragments were reported in Late Bronze Age contexts. A bowl fragment without a rim and decorated with bands in three shades of brown on the interior (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 19.4:12) is similar to a bowl fragment from Hazor (Hazor III-IV: Pl. CCLXXIII:20). No clear floor surface is associated with Area S, Locus 3975 (Ussishkin 2004:398). Another bowl fragment from Area S, also without a rim, has a series of parallel red Xs painted on the interior of the bowl (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 19.22:11). This fragment is from a stone-paved courtyard in a Level VIIB house, Locus 3884.

A chalice drawn in Lachish III was found at the floor level of H. 15 (Lachish III: Pl. 83:163). The contents may have fallen from the roof or come from secondary occupation. One chalice was found in a quarry (Lachish III: Pl. 103:663), and another on the surface near the Palace north wall.

The only complete chalice included in the excavation report is from a pit in Area P, Level P-1 (?), Locus 5280 (Ussishkin 2004: Fig. 20.30:3, 20.32:12). The interior of the chalice is decorated with red from midway down the bowl to the base of the bowl. The exterior of the vessel features a series of red and reddish-black bands on both the bowl and the pedestal. The find spot is a deep pit cut into Wall 347. This Late Bronze Age locus is beneath the main complex of the Level VI temple. The bowl is rounded, the pedestal has no ridge, and the wall of the bowl is incurving.

Stratum V Sanctuary The chalices from the Stratum V sanctuary were below a layer of deep debris and partly covered by a Stratum IV terrace wall. Other Finds Tomb 224 contained 33 oil lamps, and Cave 1002 yielded ca. 100 lamps.

In Lachish III Tufnell proposed parallels for several of the Lachish types as follows: Type 154 Jericho (Sellin: Pl. 36.A.47d); Beth Shemesh, (AS IV: Pl. LXII:50); Tell Abu-Hawam (Hamilton 1935:.23, Fig. 88); Tell el-Farah (South) (CPP: Fig. 17E4). Type 156 Beth Shemesh (AS IV: Pl. LXIV:34). Type 159 ez-Zahiriyye (Baramki 1935: Pl. LXI:1); Jericho (Sellin: 36.A.47b).

Sanctuary finds included four incense stands, a horned limestone altar, and oil lamps. Although there is a proliferation of cup-and-saucer and oil-lamp vessels in the Fosse Temple and environs, there were no chalices of the type included in this study. However 14 footed bowls, some with handles and others with large diameter rims, were found. These shortpedestal vessels may be precursors to the Iron Age chalice, but no evolutionary sequence is suggested.

Context Fosse Temple A blazing roof fell in on the Fosse Temple, and the destruction was sealed by debris washed down from the mound above (Lachish II:27-28).

Chronology

Caves, Tombs and Other Tomb 116 was reused as an ossuary. Tomb 223 revealed multiple usage.

Although the dating of the sanctuary excavated by Y. Aharoni is the Iron Age IIA, the tombs can be dated only to the Iron Age II.

The three phases of the Fosse Temple functioned during the Late Bronze Age.

196

Table Type 221 221 222 222 222 222 222 211 222 111 213 231 222 231 221 Incomplete* 222 221 222 222 222* 111 * not illustrated. Fig./Pl. 83:154 83:155 83:156 83:157 83:158 83:159 83:160 83:161 83:162 83:163 83:164 103:662 103:663 42:14 42:15 42:17 42:18 42:20 42:21 British Museum 20.30:3

Figure/Plate Stratum Lachish III: 83:154 Tomb L.6006 Lachish III: 83:155 Cave L.6024 Lachish III: 83:156 Cave L.6020 Lachish III: 83:157 Tomb L.227 Lachish III: 83:158 Tomb L.224 Lachish III: 83:159 Tomb L.224 Lachish III: 83:160 T. 116/Cave L.1002 Lachish III: 83:161 T. 116/Cave L.1002 Lachish III: 83:162 Tomb L.224 Lachish III: 83:163 II-III Lachish III: 83:164 Tomb L.223 Lachish III: 103:662 III-IV Lachish III: 103:663 Quarry Lachish V: 42:14 V Lachish V: 42:15 V Lachish V: 42:16 V Lachish V: 42:17 V Lachish V: 42:18 V Lachish V: 42:20 V Lachish V: 42:21 V Photograph British Museum Ussishkin 2004: 20.30:3 P-1 (?) Rim Diameter 17 cm 18 cm 18 cm 17 cm 19 cm 18 cm 15 cm 12 cm 18 cm 23 cm 19 cm 12 cm 16 cm 16 cm 15 cm 18 cm 18 cm 16 cm 17 cm 20cm

Chronology IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAIIB IAII IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA IAII IAIIB LB

Rim Angle Bowl Depth 145° 5 cm 145° 7 cm 145° 8 cm 145° 7 cm 155° 7 cm 140° 7 cm 130° 6 cm 115° 5 cm 160° 6 cm Inverted 140° 7 cm Flat 7 cm Flat 6 cm Flat 6 cm 155° 6 cm 150° 6 cm 160° 7 cm 160° 5 cm 155° 7 cm Photograph 90º 6 cm

Illustrations Arranged by Type in Appendix C-1, C-2, C-3 References See Bibliography

197

Height 17 cm 16 cm 17 cm 14 cm 18 cm 17 cm 17 cm 17 cm 17 cm 18 cm 18 cm 17 cm 23 cm 18 cm 16 cm

198

199

200

Megiddo

Appendix D

(1-07-50) General Information

destruction of Stratum VI and the monumental architecture of Strata VA-IVB and IVA. In Strata V-IVA, Unit 340 of Building 338 was suggested as a sanctuary based on the associated standing stones, model shrine, and altar.

Visible for kilometers around, the towering mound of Tel Megiddo is located at a strategic point overlooking the Aruna Pass and the fertile Jezreel Valley. It is ca. 25 km east of Dor, ca. 40 km southeast of Tell Abu-Hawam, and ca. 40 km west of Beth Shean.

Pottery Details

The site features prominently in the annals of Thutmose III and is listed as a town that Shishak later conquered. Megiddo is also mentioned in both the Taanach letters and the Amarna letters and appears in several Biblical passages.

The chalices included here were reported in the Oriental Institute publications, Megiddo I and Megiddo II. These chalices date from the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age II, and represent a wide variety of chalice types. Chalices reported by the German and Tel Aviv University excavations are also included.

The German Society for Oriental Research first excavated Megiddo from 1903 to 1905. Major excavations conducted by the Oriental Institute of Chicago followed from 1925 to 1939. In the 1960s and again in 1971 the Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavated limited areas of the mound. Full-scale excavations were resumed in 1992 by Tel Aviv University and continue until today.

Thirteen of the 29 chalice bowls found at Megiddo are rounded. An additional nine are straight-sided, and seven are carinated. The everted rim is prevalent, with 25 everted-rim chalices illustrated. Four of the chalice bowls have inverted rims. Eight chalices feature ridges on the pedestal.

The German Society, the Oriental Institute and Tel Aviv University each published chalices and chalice sherds in their excavation reports. A chalice found by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during their excavations was illustrated in an article on the ‘chronology debate,’ (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:267, Fig. 5:7).

Among the most decorative chalice fragments are those illustrated in Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15, 33:17. The interior of the chalice bowl shown in Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 is painted with concentric circles while the exterior is adorned with stalactite-shaped petals. The chalice bowl illustrated in Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17 appears to be a smaller version of Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15. Unfortunately the fragment illustrated in Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 was found on the surface, southeast of and off the tel. The fragment in Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17 was found proximate to the fill layer under Courtyard 1693.

Stratigraphy In Chicago’s Area BB, the excavators identified a shrine in Stratum XIX. The identification of this Early Bronze Age shrine was based on finding a plastered mud brick platform in an area subsequently assigned a ‘cult’ function. A sanctuary at Ein Gedi was suggested as a parallel for this cult area.

A number of chalices found at Megiddo were distinguished by holes or deep perforations either in the base of the chalice bowl or the pedestal. The chalices illustrated in Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14, 47:18 have a hole in the pedestal or the bowl tang respectively. The chalice in Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16 has a series of perforations on the exterior base of the chalice bowl. The chalices in Plate 47 of Megiddo II are from the environs of Temple 2048.

In the same area a round altar was revealed in Stratum XVII. This enormous altar, long considered one of the most important features of the Megiddo mound, continued through Stratum XV, at which time three buildings proximate to the altar were identified as temples: Buildings 4040, 5192, and 5269. In the view of the excavators, the area continued to serve a ‘sacred’ function in Strata XIV through XII. The identification of any sacred function in these strata is, however, tenuous. The primary feature of Late Bronze Age Stratum VIII was a fortified sanctuary with two towers at the entrance, Building 2048. This sanctuary continued with modifications into Stratum VIIA. A further shrine, albeit a household shrine, was identified in Stratum VIIB, Room 3103.

The chalice bowl illustrated in Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3 also has holes in the base as does the chalice bowl in Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10 (seven holes in the latter). The exterior of the chalice bowl in Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3 is highly decorated with a series of multiple horizontal stripes while the chalice bowl in Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10 is undecorated. This undecorated chalice is similar in shape to the decorated chalice illustrated in Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3. The chalice in Megiddo II: Pl. 90:9 was found inserted into a decorated stand. The chalice in Megiddo II: Pl. 47:18 also appears to have been used with a stand.

A cult function also was assigned to a corner of a large room, Locus 2081, in Stratum VIIA of Chicago’s Area AA. The Iron Age strata are highlighted by the massive

Each of the three chalices reported by Schumacher differs from the other. The find spots were diverse, ranging from the Palace (Palast) to a grave.

201

The renewed excavations by Tel Aviv University reported chalice fragments in their publication, Megiddo III. Unfortunately most of the fragments are insufficient in size to determine either a type for the chalice or even whether the fragment is from a chalice, a footed bowl or simply a bowl. One exception is a pedestal complete with its foot found in the 2002 excavations. In addition a complete chalice, a chalice bowl, and two pedestal/foot fragments were illustrated by Eran Arie in his Master’s thesis. These were included in the Tel Aviv University excavation report, Megiddo IV. The complete chalice has a rounded bowl and an everted rim. The chalice bowl is also rounded, but the rim is ledge-shaped. These finds are from Stratum VI.

Context The chalice material included here provides a general picture of the chalice types found in Iron Age and Late Bronze Age strata. In each case the context is that given by the excavators at the time of their excavations and in subsequent publications. Other Finds A cult stand was found in Locus 2081. Chronology The traditional chronology as given in NEAEHL is used throughout this study. No attempt has been made to adjust the findings to either a ‘high’ or ‘low’ chronology.

Table Type 222 111 213 221 211 211 213 213 223 111 212 211 111 111 211 213 211 231 223 213 211 221 222 222 223 223 222 222 231 Fig./Pl. Meg. I: 33:15 Meg. I: 33:17 Meg. I: 33:18 Meg. I: 33:20 Meg. II: 47:14 Meg. II: 47:15 Meg. II: 47:18 Meg. II: 55:16

Figure/Plate Megiddo I: Pl. 33:15 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:17 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:18 Megiddo I: Pl. 33:20 Megiddo II: Pl. 47:14 Megiddo II: Pl. 47:15 Megiddo II: Pl. 47:18 Megiddo II: Pl. 55:16 Megiddo II: Pl. 67:3 Megiddo II: Pl. 67:5 Megiddo II: Pl. 70:11 Megiddo II: Pl. 70:12 Megiddo II: Pl. 72:11 Megiddo II: Pl. 72:12 Megiddo II: Pl. 72:13 Megiddo II: Pl. 74:17 Megiddo II: Pl. 79:10 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:5 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:6 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:7 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:8 Megiddo II: Pl. 87:9 Megiddo II: Pl. 90:8 Megiddo II: Pl. 90:9 TM I: Abb. 154 TM I: Abb. 246e TM II: Abb. 76 Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.53:3 Megiddo IV: Fig. 13.59:4 Rim Diameter 18 cm 12 cm 16 cm 17 cm 33 cm 32 cm 55 cm 27 cm

Stratum Surface V V V V XII-X X X-IX IX VIIb-VIa VIIb VIIa VIIa VII VII VII VIb VIIb-VIa VI VI VI VI VI Va Va Palast Grave A

Chronology IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA MB MB MB/LB LB LB/IAI LB IAIA IAIA LB/IAIA LB/IAIA LB/IAIA IAIB LB/IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIIA IAIIA IAIIA

VI VI

IAIB IAIB

Rim Angle 177° Inverted Flat Flat 90° 130°

Bowl Depth 4 cm

Height

5 cm 7 cm 6 cm 7 cm

17 cm 17 cm 31 cm 26 cm 17 cm

130°

7 cm 202

Meg. II: 67:3 Meg. II: 67:5 Meg. II: 70:11 Meg. II: 70:12 Meg. II: 72:11 Meg. II: 72:12 Meg. II: 72:13 Meg. II: 74:17 Meg. II: 79:10 Meg. II: 87:5 Meg. II: 87:6 Meg. II: 87:7 Meg. II: 87:8 Meg. II: 87:9 Meg. II: 90:8 Meg. II: 90:9 TM I: Abb. 154 TM I: Abb. 246e TM II: Abb. 76 Meg. IV: 13.53:3 Meg. IV: 13.59:4

15 cm 12 cm 12 cm 12 cm 12 cm 12 cm 15 cm 17 cm 17 cm 15 cm 16 cm 18 cm 18 cm 18 cm 18 cm 20 cm

150° Inverted 90° 90° Inverted Inverted 90° 150° 120° 180° 140° 100° 130° 150° 140° 170°

6 cm 3 cm 5 cm 3 cm 5 cm 3 cm 4 cm 7 cm 7 cm 5 cm 7 cm 5 cm 5 cm 6 cm 5 cm 6 cm

17 cm 24 cm

160° 180°

5 cm 7.5 cm

Illustrations Arranged by Type in Appendix D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5 References See Bibliography

203

12 cm 14 cm 16 cm 19 cm 15 cm 15 cm 16 cm 17 cm 18 cm 19 cm

17 cm

204

205

206

207

208

Megiddo Tombs

Appendix E

(01-07-51) General Information

Context

The Megiddo tombs were located on the east side of the tel, an area that was later used by the Oriental Institute of Chicago as the dump for the 1925-1939 excavations the Institute carried out on the tel. The tombs were excavated before the tel. The Oriental Institute report, published in 1938, illustrated 23 chalices.

Tomb 26: A deep cave with many chambers and alcoves that was robbed in antiquity. (LBI/LBII) Tomb 39: A shaft tomb subjected to later intrusions. (EI1) Tomb 40: A large cave with the contents disturbed. The chalice in Pl. 59:13 was found upside-down and inside a bowl. The tomb roof was completely collapsed. (LB) Tomb 63: A cave with a well cut doorway and several pits in the floor. (Mixed) Tomb 73: An irregular cave that was much disturbed. Iron Age vessels indicate a domestic occupation. (LBI/LBII/IA) Tomb 76: A rock-cut tomb with three chambers that later served as storage areas. (IA) Tomb 221: A rock-cut tomb with four chambers and with stairs. The tomb was rifled in antiquity. Two small silos were cut into the floor. (EI1) Tomb 911: A shaft tomb with four chambers disturbed by a later cistern. A robber’s hole connected Chamber C with Chamber D of Tomb 912. (MB/LBII) Tomb 912: A disturbed shaft tomb similar to Tomb 911 but without a chamber C. (MB/LBII)

Stratigraphy Like most ancient tombs, the Megiddo tombs may have been reused or pillaged. Consequently the tomb finds should be interpreted conservatively and with caution. Pottery Details Most of the chalices are illustrated with a complete profile and all of the chalice bowls are either rounded or straight-sided. Sharply carinated bowls are absent. Eight chalices have an everted rim; there is one ledge-rim sherd (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 65:7). Only four of the 23 chalices are decorated. Of these the most elaborate features concentric circles in a spoke-andwheel pattern on the bowl interior and horizontal stripes on the exterior. The pedestal/foot of this example is missing. Nevertheless, the chalice is illustrated with a smooth splayed pedestal and foot, and without a ridge (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 58:24).

Tomb 989: Two occupations were indicated. The tomb was discovered with the contents in great confusion and with much breakage. (MB/LB) Tomb 1090: A rock-cut tomb with stairs, contaminated by a later wall; confusion was evident. (EI1) Tomb 1101: This tomb formed part of a complex of chambers with several occupations, not all funerary. (EB/EI1)

The chalice from Tomb 40 was found inverted in a bowl (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 59:13). The Megiddo Tombs report features a large number of photographs taken during the excavations, including photographs of tombs where chalices were found. In all the photographs, however, only one chalice appears to have been found in an upright position (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 68:19). Although the significance of this observation can be only speculative, the fact that the photographs show all the other chalices on their side may suggest subsequent disturbances of these chalices by later burials, reuse of the space for other purposes, and/or robberies that occurred in antiquity or more recently.

(The chronology indications, EB/EI etc., are from the Megiddo Tombs excavation report.) Other Finds Included among the grave finds were juglets, oil lamps with a single spout, a white milk bowl with a wishbone handle, and pilgrim flasks decorated with concentric circles. Cup-and-saucer vessels were also found but apparently were not used as oil lamps in the tombs as P.L.O. Guy reported: “no specimens known to me show traces of fire” (Megiddo Tombs:5). Unfortunately, no further analysis was provided to suggest a function for the cup-and-saucer vessel.

Three fragments, possibly all from the same vessel, were found in Tomb 80. The fragments may be part of a highly decorated chalice. The rim fragment is gracefully splayed and everted. The second fragment may have been part of the pedestal, while the third fragment features a pointed ridge at what may have been the join between the chalice bowl and pedestal. These red-wash fragments are decorated with blue-black horizontal lines (Megiddo Tombs: Photograph 17 S:2).

Chronology Fifteen of the chalices are dated to the Late Bronze Age and eight to the Iron Age.

209

Table Type 211 211 211 211 113 113 113 211 211 211 211 111 111 111 221 211 230 113 223 213 223 221 113 Fig./Pl. 8:3 8:14 16:9 16:10 19:17 30:4 31:7 34:11 34:12 35:28 58:24 59:13 60:30 60:36 62:10 65:6 65:7 68:19 68:20 71:17 73:5 74:25 99:8

Figure/Plate (Megiddo Tombs) 8:3 8:14 16:9 16:10 19:17 30:4 31:7 34:11 34:12 35:28 58:24 59:13 60:30 60:36 62:10 65:6 65:7 68:19 68:20 71:17 73:5 74:25 99:8 Rim Diameter 17 cm 15 cm 13 cm 15 cm 13 cm 14 cm 15 cm 13 cm 18 cm 13 cm 24 cm 13 cm 13 cm 10 cm 17 cm 15 cm 15 cm 16 cm 17 cm 17 cm 16 cm 12 cm. (e)

Stratum Tomb 1101A Tomb 1101B Tomb 989A1 Tomb 989A1 Tomb 989 C1 Tomb 911 A1 Tomb 911 C Tomb 912 B Tomb 912 B Tomb 912 D Tomb 26 B Tomb 40 Tomb 63A Tomb 63 B Tomb 63 E Tomb 73 Tomb 73 Tomb 39 Tomb 39 Tomb 221 B Tomb 1090 A Tomb 76 A Tomb 989

Rim Angle 90° 110° 95° 90° Inverted 90° Inverted 90° 90° 90° 125° 90° Inverted Inverted 150° 90° Flat Inverted Flat 145° 120° 150° Inverted (e)

Chronology IAIA IAIA LBII LBII LBII LBII LBII LBII LBII LBII LBI LBII LBII LBII IAIA LBII LBII IAIA IAIA IAIA IAIA IAIA LBII

Bowl Depth 5 cm 5 cm 4 cm 4 cm 4.5 cm 3 cm 4 cm 4 cm 7 cm 5 cm 7.5 cm 5 cm 4 cm 3 cm 6 cm 5 cm

Height 15 cm 16 cm 12 cm 12.5 cm 13 cm 13 cm 12.5 cm 15 cm 15 cm 13 cm

5 cm 5 cm 5 cm 7 cm 6 cm 4 cm (e)

15 cm 17 cm 17 cm 16 cm 15 cm 12 cm (e)

Illustrations Arranged by Type in Appendix E-1, E-2, E-3 References See Bibliography

210

13 cm

211

212

213

214

Tell Qasile

Appendix F

(01-06-60) General Information

was published in T. Dothan’s book, The Philistines and their Material Culture (Dothan 1981:62, Fig. 9). This chalice may be the same chalice as one of the four in the photograph that appears in Israel Exploration Journal 1 (Maisler 1951, Pl. 28). In the earlier Qasile I report, a chalice with an unusually shallow bowl and a wide ridged pedestal was published (Qasile I, Fig. 33). The Qasile II catalogue of finds (abridged version) from Strata XII-X recorded more than 100 chalices, chalice fragments and chalice sherds (Qasile II: 152-60). However, only 13 examples from Strata XII through IX are illustrated in the report. Six examples are shown as complete, four chalices are missing the foot, two examples are chalice bowls, and one example is a rim sherd. The report of the short seasons published a chalice bowl and a rim/bowl sherd.

The ancient harbor settlement of Tell Qasile is located at the northern edge of modern Tel Aviv, on the bank of the Yarkon River. The site is a prominent feature on the grounds of the Eretz Israel Museum. Tell Qasile was first excavated on behalf of the Israel Exploration Society from 1948 to 1950 and reported in the initial editions of the Israel Exploration Journal. Later full-scale excavations were carried out on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Israel Exploration Society, and the Haaretz Museum between 1971 and 1974. Further short seasons were conducted between 1982 and 1989 (Mazar 1993:1204). The reports of the 1971 to 1974 full-scale excavations were published in Tell Qasile I in 1980 and Tell Qasile II in 1985. A report of the short seasons was published in 1994.

Most of the published chalice bowls are carinated. Only four chalice bowls are rounded, while five have straight sides. The majority of the rims (17), including four ledge rims, are everted. Only four rims are inverted. Six chalices have ridged pedestals.

A total of 23 chalices and chalice bowls were illustrated in these reports.

Tell Qasile provides a clear starting point for the development of an Iron Age chalice chronology on the west coast of Israel. Stratum XII at Tell Qasile represents the beginning of a new occupation phase, a phase that is coincidental with the appearance of the Sea Peoples bichrome pottery in Canaan. This Stratum XII occupation phase also serves as a relative anchor for Iron Age chronology. The excavator dates Stratum XII to the early Iron Age IB. The chalice forms at Tell Qasile provide a guideline for the development of the Iron Age I chalice. The debate concerning the Iron Age chronology is not considered in this study.

Stratigraphy Tell Qasile was founded in Iron Age I with the first settlement, Stratum XII, built on the kurkar rock. The end of the settlement of Stratum XII is signaled by the rebuilding in Stratum XI. This rebuilding took place because of the normal decay and replacement of the Stratum XII buildings (Qasile II: 122). The end of Stratum XI was also “a result of development rather than catastrophe” (Qasile II: 122). Stratum X was a period of peak building activities. The Stratum X temple, as well as part of the adjacent residential quarter was destroyed in a violent fire (Qasile II: 127). The foundation of Stratum XII on the kurkar rock and the Stratum X destruction contribute to secure contexts for the findings in strata XII-X.

Two different chalice types are reported from Stratum XII. One chalice type has an inverted rim (Tell Qasile CH 1, Qasile II: Fig. 14:6). A second type, represented by a sherd of a chalice bowl, has an inverted possibly folded rim that is extended outward and downward (Qasile II: Fig. 14:11). The Stratum XII chalice finds were from the Courtyard 110 environs. The example that was most intact was missing the lower pedestal/foot (Qasile II: Fig. 14:6). This chalice was found in Locus 287, an accumulation on bedrock in this area.

In Stratum IX, the rebuilding and recovery from Stratum X destruction was on a modest scale. Many parts of Stratum IX were destroyed violently (Qasile I: 11). A series of temples in Strata XII-X was the most important feature uncovered in the northern part of the mound. A less impressive structure, Temple 118, was rebuilt in Stratum IX over the ruins of the Stratum X Temple 131.

Stratum XI may represent the transition period for the chalice form, i.e., from an inverted rim to an everted rim. The chalice illustrated in Qasile II: Fig. 27:19 shows an inverted rim similar to the chalice in Qasile II: Fig. 14:6. In contrast, the chalice and the chalice bowl illustrated in Qasile II: Figs. 24:18 and 26:9 show the rim everted above the straight side of the bowl.

The excavator believes that the city developed around the Temple of Area C and expanded out from this center (Qasile II: 122). Pottery Details

The unusual chalice illustrated in Qasile I: Fig. 33 may have had animal figurines, possibly birds, on the rim. It was found near an installation in Room 147 of Stratum XI (Qasile II: 28).

The excavation report in the inaugural issues of the Israel Exploration Journa1 published drawings of five chalices and a photograph of four chalices. A Tell Qasile chalice

215

The three chalices from the Strata XI-X Temple 300 demonstrate additional possible transition characteristics. One chalice (Qasile II: Fig. 32:6) has an inverted rim and, except for the pedestal, is similar to other chalices from Strata XII and XI (Qasile II: Figs. 14:6 and 27:19). In contrast the two other chalices have pronounced everted splayed rims with carinated broad-based bowls. One chalice has a ridge on the pedestal (Qasile II: Fig. 32:4). The rim of the chalice in Qasile II: Fig. 32:5 is trending toward a ledge shape and may presage the next stage of the chalice development as this type of rim is seen in three Stratum X chalice examples (Qasile II: Figs. 40:8-9, 47:9).

The Stratum IX chalice illustrated in Qasile II: Fig. 52:15 has a deep carinated bowl with a splayed everted rim. This chalice has a ridge on the pedestal. Two additional chalices were illustrated in the second installment of the Maisler excavation report. The stratum IX chalice shows a round carinated bowl with a splayed everted rim (Maisler 1951:203 Fig. 12:c). The chalice Maisler reported from Stratum VII is similar to the Stratum IX chalice except for the decorations on the interior of the rim (Maisler 1951:203 Fig. 12:e). It is also similar to a Stratum X chalice (Mazar 1985: Fig. 40:8) except for the rim. Subsequent analysis attributed Maisler’s Stratum VII architecture to part of the Stratum VIII buildings (Qasile I: 11; Qasile II: 127). The pottery in Stratum VIII in Area A was deemed to be no later than the late 10th/early 9th century BCE (Qasile I: 11; Qasile II: 127).

Another chalice from Stratum X (Qasile II: Fig. 43:22) is similar to a chalice in Strata XI-X (Qasile II: Fig. 32:5). Except for the chalice illustrated in Qasile II: Fig. 40:9, the Stratum X chalices have rounded chalice bowls, but no ridge on the pedestal. Other examples are from Building 495. Both examples have everted splayed rims, but one chalice bowl is decorated with three stray marks on the upper rim of the rounded bowl (Mazar and Harpazi-Ofer 1994: Fig. 10:17). The other example is a rim/bowl sherd with a carinated bowl (Mazar and Harpazi-Ofer 1994: Fig. 18:11).

Nine of the chalice examples included here are from Shrine 300, the temple rooms, or the environs of the immediate buildings. Context Debris from rebuilding covered the chalices in Strata XII and XI, while the destruction of Stratum X sealed the underlying strata. Five of the examples were found in Shrine 300 and Temple 131.

In his initial excavation report Maisler (Mazar, B.) included figures of three chalices and a photograph of four chalices, all from Stratum X (Maisler 1950:133, Fig. 6:1-3; Pl. 28). Two of the four examples in the photograph also appear as figures. In all examples the chalice bowl is carinated and the rim is everted. However, one chalice has a tall pedestal without a ridge and a shallow bowl with a cyma-shaped rim (Maisler 1951:133 Fig. 6:1), while a second chalice is more angular and similar to a Stratum XI chalice (Maisler 1951:133 Fig. 6:2). This example has a ridge on the pedestal. The third chalice has a deep carinated bowl, but otherwise is plain (Maisler 1951:133 Fig. 6:3). The examples illustrated in Maisler 1951: Plate 28 show similarities to other Stratum X chalices with wide splayed everted rims.

Table Type 203 113 110 223 213 112 222 222 111 231 232 221 231 222 222

Figure/Plate Qasile I, 33 Qasile II, 14:6 Qasile II, 14:11 Qasile II, 24:18 Qasile II, 26:9 Qasile II, 27:19 Qasile II, 32:4 Qasile II, 32:5 Qasile II, 32:6 Qasile II, 40:8 Qasile II, 40:9 Qasile II, 43:22 Qasile II, 47:9 Qasile II, 52:15 IEJ 1:133, 6:1

Other Finds Philistine bichrome pottery was found in strata XII-X. Cylindrical cult stands accompanied by bowls with animal figurines were found in Strata XI-X. A cult vessel also was found in these strata. Oil lamps were found with the pottery from Shrine 300, Temple 200 and Temple 131. Chronology Most of the chalices are from the Iron Age I, Strata XIIX. A few examples are from IAIIA Stratum IX of the tenth/ninth centuries BCE.

Stratum XI XII XII XI XI XI XI-X XI-X XI-X X X X X IX X

Chronology IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIB IAIIA IAIB 216

223 222 222 221 222 222 Fig./Pl. Qasile I: 33 Qasile II: 14:6 Qasile II: 14:11 Qasile II: 24:18 Qasile II: 26:9 Qasile II: 27:19 Qasile II: 32:4 Qasile II: 32:5 Qasile II: 32:6 Qasile II: 40:8 Qasile II: 40:9 Qasile II: 43:22 Qasile II: 47:9 Qasile II: 52:15 IEJ 1: 6:1 IEJ 1: 6:2 IEJ 1: 6:3 IEJ 1: 12:c IEJ 1: 12:e IEJ 1: Pl. 28:4 IEJ 1: Pl. 28:5

IEJ 1:133, 6:2 IEJ 1:133, 6:3 IEJ 1:203, 12:c IEJ 1:203, 12:e IEJ 1, Plate 28:4 IEJ 1, Plate 28:5 Rim Diameter 14 cm 14 cm 21 cm 12 cm 17 cm 16 cm 16 cm 15 cm 11 cm 13 cm 33 cm 13 cm 14 cm 15 cm 14 cm 15 cm 15 cm 12 cm 19 cm 16 cm (e) 14 cm (e)

X X IX VII(VIII) X X

IAIB IAIB IAIIA IAIIA IAIB IAIB

Rim Angle Inverted Inverted Inverted 45° 45° Inverted 145° 160° Inverted Flat 170° 165° Flat 140° 130° 140° 160° 140° 150° Everted 150° (e)

Bowl Depth 3c 5 cm 4 cm 5 cm 6 cm 6 cm 5 cm 2.5 cm 6 cm 13 cm 5 cm 5 cm 7 cm 4 cm 5 cm 6 cm 5 cm 7 cm 5 cm (e)

Illustrations Arranged by Type in Appendix F-1, F-2, F-3 References See Bibliography

217

Height 17 cm

17 cm 17 cm 10 cm 15 cm 15 cm 15 cm 19 cm 14 cm 16 cm 13 cm 18 cm 13 cm (e) 18 cm (e)

218

219

220

Tel Rehov

Appendix G

(07-67) SOME OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS BASED ON UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL FROM THE ONGOING EXCAVATIONS. COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE STRATIGRAPHY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHALICES IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY. THE REPORTS OF THE EXCAVATION DIRECTOR ARE THE ONLY VALID INTERPRETATIONS. General Information

key diagnostic pieces sufficient to form complete profiles, Table G-2. This collection was supplemented by numerous fragments of chalice rims, pedestals, and bases. The rims on all chalice examples are everted and are finished in a plain, splayed or ledge style. Pedestals with a ridge above the flaring base, a form common in Iron II chalices, are found in all but one of the Rehov examples, although in some examples the ridge is minimal. An additional 26 pedestals were found.

Tel Rehov is located at the eastern end of the Beth Shean Valley just south of Beth Shean. It is a few kilometers west of the Jordan River, and less than seven kilometers west of Pella in Jordan. A stele of Seti I was found in Late Bronze Age strata at nearby Beth Shean. The stele mentions the ‘prince of Rehob.’ Rehov was one of the cities conquered by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak at the end of the tenth century BCE.

One chalice from Locus 4424 stands apart (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1). The surface of this example is red-slipped with irregular hand-burnish. The vessel has a cyma-shaped rim, and a bowl that is joined to a tall straight pedestal via a series of rough-cut steps. As shown in the illustration, the connection between the base of the bowl and the pedestal is concave, a finish that may be related to the technique used to make the pedestal. In this case it appears that the potter opened the lump of clay with his thumbs and then lifted the sides of the clay to form the pedestal. Using this technique, the potter could then either ‘punch’ a hole through the part of the clay he first opened, i.e., the top of the pedestal, or leave it closed. It appears that he left the top of this pedestal closed. Significantly, the pedestal has no ridge.

Prior to the current excavations, limited excavations in the area of the mound revealed Iron Age tombs (Tsori 1975:9-17). In 1997 the Hebrew University of Jerusalem began large-scale excavations that continue until today. A preliminary report of the first two seasons was published in 1999 (Mazar 1999:1-42). Additional comments concerning the chronology of the site have appeared in articles in several scholarly journals. The report of the excavations of the Iron Age tombs included three chalices (Tsori 1975:17 Fig. 5:10-12). Several chalices from the current excavations were previously published (Mazar 1999:25, Fig. 14; Mazar 2003:153, Fig. 18:9; Mazar et.al. 2005:193-255). Stratigraphy

No chalice was found in an unequivocal cult context. However, such features as a square mud brick platform, as well as some large stones and a flat limestone slab in front of the platform, suggest that a part of Area E served as an ‘open cult place’ (Mazar 1999:25-28). Although fragments of a pottery altar were found next to the platform, no chalices were found. Seven chalices however were found in loci proximate to the ‘open cult place’ in Area E, Squares D-E/15, Local Stratum E-1. It should be pointed out that the location of these chalices does not preclude a domestic cult function, or even storage in a domestic structure for subsequent cult functions in the ‘open cult place.’

Strata that predate the Iron Age were identified in Area D, a step trench excavated on the western slope of the lower city, as well as Early Bronze Age remains in Area H, on the southwestern slope. Iron Age II strata were identified in Areas C, E, F and G in the lower city and Areas B and J on the slope of the upper city. An abbreviated stratigraphic table shows the correlation between the general stratum and the local strata in the individual excavation areas, Table G-1. Pottery Details

Seven other chalices were found together in Area C, Locus 4424. The seven were lined up ‘en face de’ Wall 2411, the thick outer wall of Strata V-IV Building G, a possible granary. This context is attributed to local Stratum C-1b, general Stratum V. One of the seven is the distinctive red-slipped, hand-burnished tall pedestal chalice mentioned above. The function of this group of seven chalices is not known, although it appears that they were intentionally placed before the outer face of the wall. Possible reasons for this placement might include a cult function, a foundation deposit, preparation for a cult function, a commemorative purpose, an exhibition of vessels – perhaps for sale, invocation of protection from a

The three chalices from the early Iron Age tombs have shallow bowls with inverted rims. All of the rims are decorated on the exterior. The three chalices are illustrated (Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:10-12), Fig. G-1. The descriptions of the chalices and the comments regarding the examples from the 1997-2005 excavations are based on information from the Tel Rehov Excavations. These excavations uncovered an extensive collection of chalices in an Iron Age IIa context. During the 1997-2005 seasons 53 chalices were identified including complete and reconstructed vessels, as well as

221

threat, or an assembly point of chalices for use with the ‘community open place’ of Area C.

material. In fact, judging from the irregular placement of these marks on most examples, it appears more likely that the burn marks resulted from the destruction in which the chalices were found.

Five additional chalices were found in one partially enclosed space in the 2003 excavations in Area C, Stratum IV, Locus 6411. These chalices were found together with several large storage jars and cooking pots.

Any possible attribution of a cult function with the chalices in this type is limited to (a) several chalices from Locus 4437 and Locus 4454 (Rehov Registration Nos. 44244/1, 44310/2, 44496/1, 44496/5, 44517/20) that are coterminous with a cult stand and a pedestal with petals, and (b) a chalice found within the environs of the Area E open cult place (Rehov Registration No. 16333/1). These potential cult attributions exclude any interpretation for the group of chalices found in front of Wall 2411. The Rehov Type 1 chalices from the collection before the wall include four examples (Rehov Registration Nos. 44204, 44205, 44206, 44207).

More than 125 chalices and chalice fragments were found during the 1997-2005 seasons. This abundance of chalices, falling primarily within two closely related types, Rehov Type 1 and Rehov Type 2 (see below for typological descriptions), makes Tel Rehov an important reference for this pottery form in the Beth Shean Valley in the Iron Age IIA. Typology The following typology is based on the shape of the rim and the bowl. Rehov Type 1 and 2 are arbitrary numbers assigned only to this appendix. The type numbers explained in Chapter 7, viz. Type 221, 222, 223, are also included here in order to correlate the Rehov examples with the other chalices in this study.

The tall cone-shaped pedestal with petals near the top resembles similar pedestals with petals from Safi Temporary Stratum 4 (Shai and Maeir 2003:111, Fig. 1:5), Miqne Stratum 1B (Gitin 1993:253), an eighth/seventh century BCE bronze brazier at the Walters Gallery, Baltimore MD, (Walters: #54.2296), and a bronze incense stand from a Persian period tomb near Shechem (Wolff 2002:133). A pedestal from Beth Shemesh could be included in this category (AS II, Pl. XXXVI:30). The Rehov example has a wide flaring foot. Significantly, there is no ridge at the bottom of the pedestal.

Any attempt to assign a precise typology among handmade vessels requires a rigid discipline in order to place the rim shape into a limited number of types. Therefore, the rims of the Rehov examples will show slight variations in shape within each type. Analysis of the Rehov chalices results in two general types within an Iron Age IIA time frame. In those instances where an excavation-drawn chalice profile was not available, the chalice profile was based on a comparison to profiles drawn for similar Rehov examples. The shape of the chalice bowl is included to illustrate the distinctive bowl shapes associated with the various rims within each type. Although it is easy to distinguish among chalice bowls that are exclusively rounded, carinated, or straight-sided, assigning types to chalices with bowls that combine these elements is highly judgmental.

Rehov Type 1 Examples: Rehov Registration No. 44244/1 (Study Type 221) and Rehov Registration No. 44207 (Study Type 223) Two examples illustrate the variations found in this type. Both examples are red-slipped, but the contexts in which they were found are different. The chalice with a straightsided bowl is from the group of seven chalices found next to Wall 2411 of Stratum V (Rehov Registration No. 44207 discussed above), Fig. G-1. The chalice with a rounded bowl (Rehov Registration No. 44244/1) was found in a layer of destruction debris sealed by a plaster floor of Stratum IV, Fig. G-1. An important feature of this locus was the discovery of a chalice with a distinctive pedestal. This pedestal was painted in red, white and yellow and also decorated with down-turned petals, reminiscent of the lower branches of a palm tree. Fragments of the bowl that could not be restored to the pedestal indicate that it had been from a Rehov Type 1 chalice.

Rehov Type 1 Rehov Type 1 represents the largest number of chalices, Table G-2. The rims of Rehov Type 1 chalices are everted and splayed with a carination below the rim that varies from rounded to sharp and angular. The degree of carination, however, does not influence the splay of the rim. Although most chalice bowls are rounded, they can show carinated and straight-sided elements. The chalices are found in Strata IV, V and VI. The Rehov Type 1 chalice bowl ranges from 16-19 cm in diameter, from 5-6 cm in depth, and from 16-18 cm in height. One chalice from the Area D stepped trench was associated with a 12th/11th century locus (Rehov Registration No. 28875/1). All the chalices feature a ridge on the pedestal and several examples show slight to extensive red slip. A number of chalices have burn marks. These marks, however, do not necessarily indicate that the chalice was used to burn

Additional examples that appeared in publications of the excavation are shown in Fig. G-2. Rehov Type 2 There are 13 examples of the Rehov Type 2 chalice, Table G-2.

222

The rims of the Rehov Type 2 chalice are everted and extended horizontally. Although the horizontal rim is the critical factor in determining the Rehov Type 2 chalice, this horizontal finish can be subtle in a few instances. The carination below the rim varies in a fashion similar to those in Rehov Type 1. This type of chalice was found in both Strata IV and V. All of the chalices feature a ridge on the pedestal. Burn marks are found on several examples, but once again there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the burn marks were caused by burning material in the chalice bowl. The diameter of the rims and the depth of the chalice bowls are similar to the Rehov Type 1 examples. The chalices range from 15-17 cm. in height.

Stratum X (Qasile II: Fig. 40:9), and Tel Qashish, Phase 5 (Ben Tor 1981:149 Fig.7:4). The Rehov chalice parallels continue into the tenth century BCE as seen in Taanach Period IIB (Ta’anach I: Fig.53:5), Megiddo Stratum V (Megiddo I: Pl.33:15,20), Farah North Stratum VIIb (Far’ah I: Pl.60:8,10), Qiri Stratum VIIc (Qiri: Fig.10:11), Abu Hawam Stratum III (Hamilton 1935:23, Fig.88), and Qasile Stratum IX (Qasile II: Fig.52:15). Additional tenth century BCE parallels include examples from Tel Amal Stratum III (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363 Fig.16:1, 3), Megiddo Palastwohnung (Tel el-Mutesellim I: Abb.154), Megiddo Grave A (Tel el-Mutesellim I: Abb.246e - Iron Age I? ), and Jericho (Jericho: Blatt 36: A,47d Jewish Period). A probable tenth-to-eighth century BCE chalice from Tell en-Nasbeh (Nasbeh II: Pl. 69:1576; see also a ninth/eighth century BCE example in Nasbeh II: Pl 69:1583, Bin 384 of AF17) is similar to the Rehov types, as is Beth Shemesh Stratum II (Ain Shems II: Pl. XXXVI:33). A similar parallel is reported in the ninth/eighth century BCE at Beth Shean, Stratum IV (James 1966 Fig. 34:12). Other parallels are found at Megiddo (Megiddo Tombs: Pl. 62:10, Tomb 63E; Pl. 68:20, Tomb 39; Pl. 74:25, Tomb 76A).

The example from the Area E open cult place may be associated with a cult function (Rehov Registration No. 16324/1). Another chalice was found proximate to the locus of the cult stand (Rehov Registration No. 44310/2). Rehov Type 2 Examples: Rehov Registration No. 24845 (Study Type 231) and Rehov Registration No. 16324/1 (Study Type 233) Two examples illustrate the variations that can be found in this type. Although both examples have ridged pedestals, one chalice has a very rounded bowl (Rehov Registration No. 24845), Fig G-3. The other chalice is from the Area E ‘open cult place’ (Rehov Registration No. 16324/1), Fig. G-3.

More examples from the Iron Age but in less definite contexts are from Dor (Dor 1A: Fig.9.19:2, Coastal Area), and Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim II: Abb.76). Rehov Type 2 Special Example: Rehov Registration No.44209/1 (Study Type 221)

An additional example that appeared in previous publications of the excavation is shown in Fig. G-3.

This beautiful chalice is the only example of its type found at Rehov, Fig. G-3. It is distinguished primarily by its tall pedestal and deep red-slipped coloring. In other respects it resembles the classic Rehov Type 1 example. The chalice bowl is rounded and carinated midways up the side. The bowl wall above the carination appears to be straight. The sharp angle of the cyma-shaped rim finishes in a splayed near-horizontal ledge. The pedestal is 26 centimeters tall and there is no ridge above the flaring trumpet foot. The chalice profile shows that the join between the chalice bowl and the pedestal has a smooth concave surface. The chalice is red-slipped and handburnished, with hard cut ‘steps’ at the junction of the bowl and the pedestal. These ‘steps’ may be an attempt to reproduce a bronze metal cult vessel, or may even be a prototype for a cult form. This chalice may also represent an attempt to imitate the petal-pedestal although without the petals. The petal-pedestal chalice was found in Locus 4437 some 15 meters south of this unusual chalice. Both examples belong to Stratum V. This chalice was one of the seven found along Wall 2411 in Area C.

General A number of parallels can be found for the two Rehov types. The following list of comparisons is restricted to sites that have a geographic proximity to Rehov. The Rehov Type 2 Special chalice is discussed under the entry Type 2 Special (Rehov Registration No. 44209/1). Both Rehov Type 1 and Type 2 chalices have parallels in the 12th and 11th centuries BCE with Tel Menorah, Stratum II (Gal 1979:143, Fig.3:5), Megiddo Strata VIIBVIA (Megiddo II, Pls. 67:3, 74:17, 87:5, 6, 9), and Jokneam, Stratum XVII (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997:266, Fig.4:7). Although the shape of the chalice bowls of these comparisons continues into the early Iron Age II, the pedestals of some of the examples lack a ridge. The pedestal with a ridge is a common feature of Iron Age II chalices and is well illustrated in the Rehov examples. A 12th century BCE chalice of the Rehov type was reported from Beth Shean Stratum S-3 (=Lower VI), (Mazar 1993:213, Fig. 10). Additional parallels are reported in 11th and 10th century BCE excavations. The eleventh century BCE finds are from Keisan Stratum 9c (Keisan Pl.73:6), Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar-Maisler 1951:133 Fig.6:1-2; Qasile II: Figs. 40:8, 43:22, 47:9), Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Qasile II: Fig. 24:18), Qasile

Twelfth and eleventh century BCE parallels for this special type include Beth Shemesh Stratum III (Beth Shemesh IV: Pl.LIX:26), Nasbeh Tomb 32 (Nasbeh II: Pl.69:1584), Gezer Strata 6b/a (Gezer IV: Pl.24:9), and Masos Strata III-II (Masos II: Figs.131:2; 149:1).

223

Examples from the tenth century BCE are Amal Stratum III (Levy and Edelstein 1972:363, Fig.16:2; although this example lacks the foot, it is a good parallel from the Beth Shean valley), Tell Qasile Stratum IX, (Mazar, B.Maisler 1951:203, Fig.12:c), and Beth Shemesh Stratum IIa (Beth Shemesh III: Fig.5.4-100). Other parallels include examples from Lachish ninth century BCE caves (Lachish III: Pl.83:156, Caves 6003-4,6020), Khirbet edDawwara (Finkelstein 1990:181, Fig. 14:9), and Tell Qasile (Mazar-Maisler 1951:203, Fig. 12:e). The Tell Qasile example was originally assigned to Stratum VII, but the date of the finds from this stratum is probably Iron Age IIA. According to A. Mazar these particular loci should be attributed to Stratum IX or VIII [personal communication].

A few rim fragments show a morphology that differs from the Rehov Type 1 and 2 examples described above. A 13th century BCE everted plain-rim fragment was registered in a locus where no other chalices were found (Locus 1866, Rehov Registration No. 18664/87). A slightly inverted plain-rim chalice bowl fragment (Locus 2482 Rehov Registration No. 24802/8 from Stratum VI) and a simple everted plain-rim bowl fragment (Locus 5419 Rehov Registration No. 54155/6 from Stratum IV) also differ from the Rehov chalices from this period. The profile of a Strata IV-V rim fragment is unusual for a chalice of the late tenth/early ninth century BCE, and may not in fact be from a chalice (Locus 3249 Rehov Registration No. 42292/2). Context

Examples with a less clear context include Tell Jemmeh, Tomb/Dump (CPP Corpus Fig.17N), and Beth Shemesh Large House (Ain Shems II: Pl.XXXV:21).

Stratum IV was the first stratum below the surface in Areas C, E, F and G. In Area D, “The uppermost layer …. must be earlier than Stratum IV in the adjacent Area C” (Mazar et al. 2005:214), and the initial layer exposed in Area B was probably general Stratum II dated to after 732 BCE. See discussion in Mazar et al. 2005:193-255.

It is tempting to classify these tall-pedestal chalices as offering stands. Fragments

Chronology In addition to the 53 complete and reconstructed chalices, 81 chalice fragments have been found in the Rehov excavations to date. Although a fair number of fragments are rims, it is the large number of complete or nearly complete pedestals that best illustrate the abundance of chalices at Tel Rehov. More than 26 pedestal fragments were registered, most with the identifying Iron Age II ridge on the pedestal foot. If we classify these nearly complete pedestals as chalices, then at least 79 chalices have been recorded at Tel Rehov.

All the chalices are from strata that are assigned to the Iron Age IIA. Professor A. Mazar, the excavation director, defines the Iron Age IIA as extending from ca. 980 BCE to ca. 830 BCE (Mazar et. al. 2005). Illustrations The chalice illustrations are limited to those included in previous excavation publications, and registration numbers 24845, 44207, 44209/1, and 44244/1.

Table G.1 Stratigraphic table of Tel Rehov General Stratum

Local Strata in Excavation Areas

III

IV V

D-1*

Chronology

Conventional Dating (BCE)

B-3

Iron Age IIB

Until 732

Until ca. 830-840

C-1a

E-1a

B-4*

Iron Age IIA

C-1b

E-1b

B-5a* B-5b

Iron Age IIA From ca. 980

VI

D-2

C-2

VII

D-3 D-4 D-5

C-3

E-2

B-6

Iron Age IIA Iron Age IB

Until 990-980 ca. 1130 (?)

From Mazar et al. 2005:197 Table 13.1

224

* Needs further clarification in the future.

TABLE G-2 Inventory of Rehov Chalices Appendix G Type 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2

Study Type 223 233 221 221 221 223 233 231 223 231 221 231 221 221 231 223 223 221 221 223 223 221 223 221 221 221 231 221 221 223 231 223 221 223 221 221 231 223 231 223 221 221 221 221 221 221 223 221 233 223 231 221 231 113 113 113 (?) indicates needs further claification

Registration 16257/3 16324/1 16333/1 16335/1 16723 (?) 24336/3 24619/2 24845 24877 24899 26293/19 26630/3 26757/17 28875/1 (?) 44051/1 42148/26 44149/1 44164 44187/10 44204 44205 44206 44207 44209/1 44210/1 44244/1 44310/2 44496/1 44496/5 44517/20 44596/1 46521/5 54435/8 54464 54594/6 54715/1 62380 (?) 64068 64112/2 64258 64279/3 64340 64342 64348 64349 64357 64684 64745 64746 74079 74460 74724 75129 Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:10 Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:10 Tsori 1975:17, Fig. 5:10

225

Locus 1610 1610 1610 1610

Stratum IV IV IV IV

2422 2441 2485 2491 2458 1606 2638 1606

V V V-VI V V IV V IV

2417 3253 4417 4417 4424 4424 4424 4424 4424 4424 4424 4437 4437 4454 4454 4454 2417 4634 5461 5478 5461 5461

IV V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V IV V IV V IV IV

6401 6401 6433 6411 6411 6411 6411 6411 6411 6416 6449 6449 7420 7444 7444 7505 Tomb Tomb Tomb

IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV V V IV IV IV V-VI (?)

226

227

228

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS I.

Periodicals

AASOR Atiqot BASOR EI IEJ IAA PEQ QDAP Qedem

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Journal of the Israel Department of Antiquities Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Eretz Israel, Israel Exploration Society Israel Exploration Journal Israel Antiquities Authority Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Qedem: Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Revue Biblique Tel Aviv, Journal of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology

RB TA

II.

Other Publications

AS II AS III AS IV Ashdod IV Ashdod VI AY Beer-sheba I Beer-sheba II CPP Deir Alla Deir Alla I Farah I Gezer II Gezer III Gezer IV Hazor I Hazor II Hazor III-IV Ira Keisan Lachish II Lachish III Lachish IV Lachish V Masos II Megiddo I Megiddo II Megiddo III

E. Grant. Ain Shems Excavations, 1928-1929-1930-1931, Part II. Haverford, 1932 E. Grant. Ain Shems Excavations III. Rumeileh Being Ain Shems. Haverford, 1934 E. Grant and G. E. Wright. Ain Shems Excavations Part IV: The Pottery (plates). Haverford, 1938 M. Dothan and Y. Porath. Ashdod IV: Excavations of Area M – The Fortifications of the Lower City. Atiqot XV. 1982 M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo. Ashdod VI. The Excavations of Areas H and K: The Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavation. IAA Reports No. 24. Jerusalem, 2005 J. Marquet-Krause. Les Fouilles d’Ay (et Tell). Paris, 1949 Y. Aharoni (ed.). Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 1973 Z. Herzog (ed.). Beer-sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv, 1984 J. Duncan. Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. London, 1931 H. J. Franken. Excavations at Tell Deir Alla: Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Louvain, 1992 H. J. Franken. Excavations at Deir Alla I: Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden, 1969 A. Chambon. Tell el-Farah I: L’Âge du Fer. Paris, 1984 W. G. Dever, et al. Gezer II. Jerusalem, 1974 S. Gitin. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Jerusalem, 1990 W. Dever. Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis.” Jerusalem, 1986 Y. Yadin, et al. Hazor I. Jerusalem. 1958 Y. Yadin, et al. Hazor II. Jerusalem, 1960 Y. Yadin, et al. Hazor III-IV. Jerusalem, 1961 I. Beit-Arieh (ed.). Tel Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv, 1999 J. Briend and J. B. Humbert (eds.). Tell Keisan (1971-1976), Une Cite Phenicienne en Galilee. Fribourg, 1980 O. Tufnell, et al. Lachish II, The Fosse Temple. London, 1940 O. Tufnell, et al. Lachish III, The Iron Age (Text and Plates). London, 1953 O. Tufnell, et al. Lachish IV, The Bronze Age. London, 1958 Y. Aharoni, Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V), Tel Aviv, 1975 W. Fritz and A. Kempinski. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Masos (Tel Masos) 1972-1975. Weisbaden, 1983 R. S. Lamon and G. M. Shipton. Megiddo I. Chicago, 1939 G. Loud. Megiddo II. Chicago, 1948 I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern. Megiddo III, The 1992-1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 2000

229

Megiddo IV Megiddo Tombs Mevorakh Michal Nasbeh II NEAEHL OEANE Pella in Jordan 1 Pella in Jordan 2 Qasile I Qasile II Qiri SS III Taanach I Timnah II Tell el-Farah (N) I Tel ‘Ira TM I TM II

I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern. Megiddo IV, The 1998-2002 Seasons. Tel Aviv, 2006 P. L. O. Guy and R. M. Engberg. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago, 1938 E. Stern. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part Two: The Bronze Age. Qedem 18. Jerusalem, 1984 Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi (eds.). Excavations at Tel Michal, Israe, Tel Aviv, 1989 J. C. Wampler. Tell en-Nasbeh II: The Pottery. Berkeley, 1947 E. Stern, (ed.). New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vols. I-IV. New York, 1993 E. Meyers (ed.). Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vols. 1-5. New York, 1997 A.W. McNicoll, R. H. Smith and J. B. Hennessy. Pella in Jordan 1. Canberra, 1982 A. W. McNicoll, et al. Pella in Jordan 2. Sydney, 1992 A. Mazar. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One, The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem, 1980 A. Mazar. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two, The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem, 1985 A. Ben-Tor, Y. Portugali, et al. Tel Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Qedem 24. Jerusalem, 1987 J. W. Crowfoot, G, M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon. Samaria Sebaste III: The Objects. London, 1957 W. E. Rast. Taanach I, Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge MA, 1978 A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen. Timnah (Tel Batash) II, The Finds From The First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem, 2001 A. Chambon. Tell el-Farah I, L’Age du Fer. Paris, 1984 I. Beit-Arieh (ed.) Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv, 1999 G. Schumacher. Tell el-Mutesellim I. Leipzig, 1908 C. Watzinger. Tell el-Mutesellim II. Die Funde. Leipzig, 1929

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aharoni, M. 1981 Aharoni, M. 1993 Aharoni, M. and Y. Aharoni 1976 Aharoni, Y. 1956 Aharoni, Y. (ed.) 1973

Aharoni, Y. 1974 Aharoni. Y. 1975

The Pottery of Strata 12-11 of the Iron Age Citadel at Arad. EI 15 (Y. Aharoni Volume):181-204. Arad. In NEAEHL. Vol. 1:83. New York: Simon and Schuster. The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.E. BASOR 224:73-90. Galilean Survey: Israelite Settlements and their Pottery. EI 4 (Ben Zvi Volume): 56-64. Beer-sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba 1969-1971 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba. Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season, 1972. TA 1:34-42. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and The Residency (Lachish V). Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 4. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. 230

Aharoni, Y. 1982 Albright, W. F. 1932 Amiran, R. 1969 Anati, E. 1959 Ayalon, E. 1995 Balensi, J. 1980

The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. M. Aharoni, ed. London: SCM Press Ltd. Publications The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 1: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns (AASOR 12). New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. English Translation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Excavations at the Cemetery. Tell abu-Hawam, 1952. Atiqot 2:96-97. Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage From Horvat Teiman (‘Kuntillet Ajrud). TA 22:180. Les Fouilles de R. W. Hamilton a Tell abu-Hawam, Niveaux IV and V. Vols. IIII. Ph. D. dissertation Strasbourg.

Balensi, J. and M. D. Herrera 1985

Tell Abu Hawam 1983-1984. Rapport preliminaire. RB XCII:82-128.

Baramki, D. C. 1935

An Early Iron Age Tomb at ez-Zahiriyye. QDAP 4: 109-10.

Beck, P. 2002

Beck, P. and M. Kochavi. 1993 Beit-Arieh, I. 1995

Beit-Arieh, I. (ed.) 1999

Imagery and Representation, Studies in the Art and Iconography of Ancient Palestine: Collected Articles. N. Na’aman, U. Zevulun, and I. Ziffer, eds. Occasional Publications No. 3. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Aphek (in Sharon). P. 62-72 in NEAEHL. Vol. 1. New York: Simon and Schuster. Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 11. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 15. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Ben-Arieh, S. 1981

Tel Judur. EI 15 (Y. Aharoni Volume):115-28.

Ben-Tor, A. 1999

Notes and News. Excavations and Surveys. Tel Hazor, 1999. IEJ 49:272, Fig.2.

Ben-Tor, A.

Ben-Tor, A., Y. Portugali, et al. 1987

Hazor Internet Site. http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il~hatsor/hazor.html. Excavation Reports. 1999 Season. Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Qedem 24. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. 231

Ben-Tor, A., Y. Portugali and M. Avissar 1981 The First Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish, 1978-1979: Preliminary Report. IEJ 31:137-64. Ben-Tor, A., Y. Portugali and M. Avissar 1983 The Third and Fourth Seasons at Tel Yoqne’am, 1979 and 1980: Preliminary Report. IEJ 33: 40-54. Bierling, N. 1998

Biran, A. 1989 Biran, A. 1994a Biran, A. 1994b

Tel Miqne-Ekron. Report of 1995-1996 Excavations. Field XNW. Areas: 7779, 89-90, 101-102. Iron Age I. Text and Data Base. Field Reports and Monographs-Ekron Limited Edition Series No. 7. ed. S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Albright Institute/Hebrew University. The Evidence for the Metal Industry at Dan. EI 20 (Yadin Volume):120-134. Jerusalem. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Tel Dan: Biblical Texts and Archaeological Data. In Scriptures and Other Artifacts, Essays in the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. eds.. Louisville KY: Westminister John Knox Press.

Biran, A. and R. Gophna 1970

An Iron Age Burial Cave at Tell Halif. IEJ 20:151-69.

Biran, A. and O. Negbi 1966

Tel Sippor. IEJ 16: 160-73.

Bliss, F. J. and R. A. S. Macalaster 1902 Bourke, S. J. 1997 Briend, J. and J. B. Humbert (eds.) 1980

Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898-1900. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Pre-Classical Pella in Jordan: A Conspectus of Ten Years’ Work (1985-1995). PEQ 129:94-115. Tell Keisan (1971-1976), Une Cite Phenicienne en Galilee. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 1. Fribourg: Editions Universitsires.

British Museum

Lachish Chalice. WA 1980-12-14- *****, (one of series of vessels from Lachish). Room 57. Case 10.

British Museum

Es-Sayideh Chalice. WA. Room 57. Case 8.

Bunimovitz, S. and Z. Lederman 2001 Chambon, A. 1984 Cohen, R. 1983

Iron Age Fortifications of Tel Beth Shemesh. 1990-2000 Perspective. IEJ 51: 121-47. Tell el-Farah I: L’Âge du Fer. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Memoires 31. Paris: Association pour la Diffusion de la Pensée Française. Kadesh-barnea: A Fortress from the Time of the Judean Kingdom. Catalogua No. 233. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

232

Cohen, R. and Y. Yisrael 1995 Cooley, R. and G. Pratico 1994

Crowfoot, G. M. 1957

On the Road to Edom, Discoveries from ‘En Hazava. Catalogue No. 370. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Gathered to His People: An Archaeological Illustration from Tell Dothan’s Western Cemetery. In Scriptures and Other Artifacts, Essays in the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. eds. Louisville KY: Westminister John Knox Press. B.2. Israelite Pottery, General List. In Samaria-Sebaste. No. 3. The Objects from Samaria. Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon, K. M. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Crowfoot, J. W., G, M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon 1957 Samaria-Sebaste. Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and the British Expedition in 1935. No. 3. The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Dever, W. 1993

Gezer in NEAEHL, Vol. 2: 496-507.

Dever, W., H. D. Lance and G. E. Wright 1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1976-70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem: Nelson Gleuck School of Biblical Archaeology. Dever, W., H. D. Lance and G. E. Wright. 1986 Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis.” Jerusaelm: Nelson Gleuck School of Biblical Archaeology. Dothan Project Dothan, M. 1954 Dothan, M. and D. Ben-Shlomo 2005 Dothan, M. and Y. Porath 1982 Dothan, T. 1982 Dothan, T. and S. Gitin 1993 Duncan, J. 1931 Edelstein, G. and N. Feig 1993

Dothan Publication Project. Dr. Robert Cooley. The Western Cemetery. www.gordonconwell.edu/dothan/ Excavations at Afula. Atiqot I: 19-70. Ashdod VI. Excavations of Area H and K: The Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavation. IAA Reports No. 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Ashdod IV: Excavations of Area M – The Fortifications of the Lower City. Atiqot XV. Jerusalem. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tel Miqne (Ekron) p. 1051-1059. In NEAEHL. Vol. 3. New York: Simon and Schuster. Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Tel Amal p. 1447–1450. In NEAEHL. Vol. 4. New York: Simon and Schuster.

233

Eshel, I. and K. Prag (eds.) 1995

Finkelstein, I. 1990 Finkelstein, I. (ed.) 1986

Jerusalem IV. Caves I and II from Ancient Jerusalem in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. Iron Age Cave Deposits on the Southeast Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Volume IV. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. British School of Archaeology in Jerusaelem. Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara. An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem. TA 17:163-208. Izbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel. Oxford: Bar International Series, BAR Publishing.

Finkelstein, I., D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, (eds.) 2000 Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 18. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Finkelstein, I., D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern, (eds.) 2006 Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 24. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Fisher, C. S. 1924

FitzGerald, G. M. 1930

Franken, H. J. 1969 Franken, H. J. 1992 Franken, H. J. 1997 Frick, F. S. 2000 Fritz, V. 1999 Fritz, V. and A. Kempinski 1983 Funk, R. W. 1968

in Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-1910, Volume 1, The Text. G. A. Reisner, C. S. Fisher, and D. G. Lyon. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth Shean. Part II. The Pottery. Publications of the Musuem of the Iniversity of Pennsylvania. Philadephia: University Press, University of Pennsylvania. Excavations at Deir Alla I: Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Excavations at Deir Alla: The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Louvain: Peeters Press. Tell Deir Alla. In OEANE, Vol. 2:137-38. Tell Taannek 1963-1968. IV/2. The Iron Age Cultic Structure. Birzeit: Birzeit University. Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-Oreimeh (Tel Kinrot) Preliminary Report on the 1994-1997 Seasons. TA 26: 92-115. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Masos (Tel Masos), 19721975. Weisbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Bronze Age-Iron Age I Pottery in The 1957 Excavations at Beth Zur. O. Sellers et al. AASOR XXXVIII.

234

Gadot, Y. 2006

Aphek in the Sharon and the Philistine Northern Frontier. BASOR 341:21-36.

Gal, Z. 1979

Early Iron Age Site near Tel Menorah in the Beth Shean Valley. TA 6: 138-45.

Gibson, S. 1994 Gitin, S. 1990 Gitin, S. 1993

Tell ej-Judeideh (Tel Godeh) Excavations. A Reappraisal Based on Archival Records in The Palestine Exploration Fund. TA 21:194-234. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Jerusalem. Seventh Century BCE Cultic Elements at Ekron. p. 248-58. in A. Biran and J. Aviram (eds.) Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem June-July 1990. Jerusalem.

Grant, E. 1929

Beth Shemesh. Haverford.

Grant, E. 1932

Ain Shems Excavations, 1928-1929-1930-1931, Part II. Haverford.

Grant, E. 1934

Ain Shems Excavations III. Rumeileh Being Ain Shems. Haverford.

Grant, E. and G. E. Wright 1938

Aim Shems Excavations, Part IV: The Pottery (plates). Haverford:

Greenberg, R. 1987

New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim. BASOR 256: 55-80.

Guy, P. L. O. and R. M. Engberg 1938 Hamilton, R. W. 1935 Herzog, Z. (ed.) 1984

Herzog. Z. 2002 Herzog, Z., G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi 1989

Megiddo Tombs. (Oriental Institute Publications 33). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Excavations at Tell abu-Hawam. QDAP 4:1-69. Beer-sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 7. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report. TA 29:3-109. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Higgins, R. 1989

Minoan and Mycenaean Art. revised edition, pb. London: Thames and Hudson.

Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Safi Chalice. Monarchy Room. Case 6. Item 3.

235

James, F. and P. E. McGovern 1993

James , F. W. 1966

The Late Bronze Age Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A study of Levels VII and VIII. Vols. I and II. University Museum Monographs No. 85. Philadelphia: University Museum of University of Pennsylvania. The Iron Age at Beth Shean: A Study of Levels VI-IV. University Museum Monographs No. 28. Philadelphia: University Museum of University of Pennsylvania.

Joffe, A. H. 1997

Tell el-Farah (North) in OEANE. Vol.:2:303-304.

Kelm, G. and A. Mazar 1995

Timnah: A Biblical Town in the Sorek Valley. Winona Lake, IN.:Eisenbrauns.

Kochavi, M. 1969

Excavations at Tel Esdar. Atiqot 5: 14-48.

Kochavi, M. 1976 Kochavi, M. 1977 Kochavi, M. 1993 Lamon, R. S. and G. M. Shipton 1939 Levy, S. and G. Edelstein 1972 Loud, G. 1948 Maeir, A. M.

Notes and News. Excavations and Surveys. Tel Aphek Aphek, 1975. IEJ 26:5152. Aphek-Antipatris. Five Seasons of Excavations at Tel Aphek (1972-1976). Pb. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Tell Esdar. In. NEAEHL. Vol. 2:423. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925-34 Strata I-V. (Oriental Institute Publications 42) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cinq Années de fouilles à Tel Amal (Nir David). RB LXXIX:325-67. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-1939. (Oriental Institute Publications 62) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Safi Excavations Internet Site. 1)www.biu.ac.il/JS/archaeo/telzafit.htm, 2)http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira/picture_gallery/chalice_a2.jpg, 3)

Maeir. A. M. 2003

Notes and News. Tel Safi. IEJ 53:243, Fig. 4.

Maisler, B. 1951

Excavations at Tell Qasile, Preliminary Report. IEJ 1:125-40, 194-218.

Malter Galleries 2001 Marquet-Krause, J. 1949 Mazar, A. 1980

Abu-Hawam Chalice. Auction October 28, 2001. Lot No. 138. Malter Auction Galleries. http://www.maltergalleries.com/fall2001/lot138.jpg. La Reurrection d”une Grande Cite Biblique. Les Fouilles d’Ay (et Tell): 19331935. Paris. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One. The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. 236

Mazar, A. 1985

Mazar, A. 1990 Mazar, A. 1993 Mazar, A. 1995 Mazar, A. 1999 Mazar, A. 2003

Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. NewYork: Beth Shean in the Iron Age. Preliminary Report and Conclusions of the 19901991 Excavations. IEJ 43: 201-29. Excavations at an Israelite Town at Khirbet Marjameh in the Hills of Ephraim. IEJ 45: 90-105. The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report. IEJ 49:1-42. The Excavations at Tel Rehov and their Significance for the Study of the Iron Age in Israel. EI 27 (Miriam and Hayim Tadmor Volume):143-60.

Mazar, A., H.Bruins, N. Panitz-Cohen and J. van der Plicht 2005 Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and radiocarbon dates. In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science., edited by T. E. Levy and T. Higham. London: Equinox. Mazar, A. and S. Harpazi-Ofer 1994

Mazar, A. and N. Panitz-Cohen 2001

The Excavations at Tell Qasile from 1988 to 1991. Israel – People and La nd 1990-1993 (Eretz Israel Museum Year Book), 7-8 (1994):9-34 (in Hebrew).

Timnah (Tel Batash) II, The Finds From The First Millennium BCE. Text and Plates. Qedem 24. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

McNicoll, A. W., R. H. Smith and J. B. Hennessy 1982 Pella in Jordan 1. Canberra. McNicoll, A. W., P. C. Edwards, J. C. Hanbury-Tenison, J. B. Hennessy, T. F. Potts, R. H. Smith, A. G. Walmsley and P. M. Watson 1992 Pella in Jordan 2. Sydney. Meyers, E. (ed.) 1997 Moshkovitz, S. 1989

Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vols. 1-5. New York: Oxford University Press. Iron Age Stratigraphy and Archiecture. In. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi. eds. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Ohata, K. 1966-67

Tel Zeror I-II. Tokyo: Society for Near Eastern Studies.

Preziosi, D. and L. A. Hitchcock 1999

Aegean Art and Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

237

Rast, W. E. 1978 Rast, W. E. 1994

Taanach I, Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Priestly Families and the Cultic Structure at Taanach. In M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum and L. E. Stager eds. Scriptures and Other Artifacts, Essays in the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville KY: Westminister John Knox Press.

Schumacher, G. 1908

Tell el-Mutesellim I. Fundbericht. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt.

Sellin, E. and C. Watzinger 1913

Jericho, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Sellers, O. R. 1933

The Citadel of Beth Zur. Philadelphia:

Shai, I. and A. M. Maeir 2003

Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. TA 30:108-23.

Shiloh, Y. 1984 Singer-Avitz, L. 1989 Stern, E. 1984 Stern, E. ed. 1993a Stern, E. 1993b Stern, E. et al. 1996 Stern, E. and I. Beit-Arieh 1979 Tsori, N. 1975

Excavations in the City of David I, 1978-1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Iron Age Pottery (Strata XIV-XII). In. Michal.

Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part Two: The Bronze Age. Qedem 18. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vols. 1-4. New York: Simon and Schuster. Tel Mevorakh. In NEAEHL. Vol. 3:1031-35. Excavations at Dor, Final Report Vol. 1A. Area A and C: Introduction and Stratigraphy. Qedem Reports 1. Jerusalem. Excavations at Tel Kedesh (Tell abu Qudeis). TA 6: 1-25. Middle Bronze and Early Iron I Tombs near Tel Rehov. EI 12 (Glueck Volume):9-17. Jerusalem.

Tufnell, O., C. H. Inge and L. Harding 1940 Lachish II (Tell ed-Duweir) The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University Press. Tufnell, O., et al. 1953

Lachish III, The Iron Age (Text and Plates). London: Oxford University Press.

Tufnell, O., et al. 1958

Lachish IV, The Bronze Age. London: Oxford University Press.

238

Tushingham, A. D. 1965

Ussishkin, D. 2004

Wampler, J. C. 1947 Watzinger, C. 1929

Tombs of the Early Iron Age in Excavations at Jericho, Volume 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955-1958. Kenyon, K. ed. London: British School of Archaeology at Jerusalem. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Tell en-Nasbeh II: The Pottery. Berkeley: American Schools of Oriental Research. Tell el-Mutesellim II. Die Funde. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, T. Dothan, M. Dunayevsky and J. Perrot 1958 Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, T. Dothan, I. Dunayevsky and J. Perrot 1960 Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, T. Dothan, M. Dothan, M. Dunayevsky and J. Perrot J. 1961 Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Yadin, Y. 1972 Zarzeki-Peleg, A. 1997 Ziffer, I. 1990

Zimhoni, O. 1997

Hazor (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970) London: Oxford University Press. Hazor, Jokneam amd Megiddo in the Tenth Century BCE. TA 24: 258-88. At that time the Canaanites were in the land: Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age 2, 2000-1550 B.C.E. Exhibition Catalogue. Spring 1990. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, Typological, Archaeological and Chronological Aspects. Singer-Avitz, L. and Ussishkin, D. eds. Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications No. 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

239

Addendum: (Original source for Aharoni: FitzGerald, G. M. 1935. The Earliest Pottery of Beth Shean, Pl.8:6. The Museum Journal 24:5-22.) (Amiran, R. and Perrot, J. 1972. A Cult Vessel from the Beit Aula Region, West of Hebron. The Israel Museum News 9:56-61). (Illustrated in Aharoni:1982:38, Fig.7:7. Excavations: Teleilat Ghassul I. Mallon, A., Koeppel, R. and Neuville, R. 1934. Rome.; Teleilat Ghassul II. Koeppel, R. et. Al. 1940. Rome. Pontifical Biblical Institute.) (Cohen, R. Kadesh-barnea. A Fortress from the Time of the Judean Kingdom. Israel Museum Exhibit 1983 Catalog No. 233, Winter 1983) (Illustrated in Aharoni:1982:33, Pl. 6:7,8. Archaeology of the Land of Israel, pb. SCM Press. London. From: Perrot, J. 1968. La Prehistoire Palestinienne. Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris 8:416-439, Fig. 845.)

240