Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine, Parts I and II 9781407358666, 9781407358673, 9780860546696, 9781407348193

Table of contents :
PART I
Cover Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Line Drawings and Plates
INTRODUCTION
PART 1. THEORY AND METHOD
1.1. APPROACHES TO WEAPONS: THE CURRENT LITERATURE
1.2. TYPOLOGY: A CONSIDERATION
1.3. METHOD
PART 2. THE MATERIAL
2.1. AXES
2.2. TANGED SPEARHEADS
2.3. SOCKETTED SPEARHEADS
2.4. DAGGERS
2.5. CURVED-BLADED KNIVES AND CURVED SWORDS
2.6. PROJECTILES
PART 3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1. WEAPONS IN THEIR CULTURAL CONTEXT: INTRODUCTION
3.2. WEAPONS IN THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
3.3. COMMENTS ON THE ANALYTICAL DATA
3.4. THE WIDER PERSEPCTIVE
3.5. THE LATE BRONZE AGE
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
REFERENCES
PART II
Cover Page
Copyright Page
CATALOGUE
Introduction
NARROW-BLADED AXES
CRESCENTIC AXES
SHAFT-HOLE AXES
TANGED SPEARHEADS
RIVETTED SPEARHEADS
SOCKETTED SPEARHEADS
NARROW DAGGERS
LONG-TANGED DAGGERS
OTHER DAGGERS
CURVED-BLADED KNIVES
CURVED SWORDS
TABLE 1: CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF MAIN ALLOYING ELEMENTS, ARRANGED BY TYPE
TABLE 2 PUBLICATION DETAILS OF ANALYSES
FIGURES AND PLATES

Citation preview

Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine

Graham Philip

Part I

BAR International Series 526 (I) 19·89

B.A.R.

122 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7BP, UK

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -S526(I), 1989: 'J(etal Yeapons of tbe Early and X iddle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine' , Part I @ Grabam Philip, 1989

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 9781407358666 (Volume I) paperback ISBN 9781407358673 (Volume II) paperback ISBN 9780860546696 (Volume set) paperback ISBN 9781407348193 (Volume set) e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860546696 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

Table

of

VOLUME Acknowledgements List of Line Drawings

and

Contents I :

TEXT

Plates

INTRODUCTION PART

1 .

1

THEORY AND METHOD

1 .1. 1 .2. 1 .3.

Approaches to Weapons: the Typology: a consideration Method

current

literature

PART

2 .

2 .1. 2 .2. 2 .3. 2 .4.

2 .6.

Axes Tanged Spearheads Socketted Spearheads Daggers 2 . 4.1. Well-Defined Types and their Variants 2 . 4.2. Less Tractable Material Curved-bladed Knives and Curved Swords 2 . 5.1 Curved-bladed Knives 2 . 5.2. Curved Swords Projectiles

PART

3 .

3 .1.

Weapons in their Cultural 3 .1.1. Introduction 3 .1.2. Weapons, Warfare and

2 .5.

THE MATERIAL 3 7 69 88 1 02 127 1 41 1 42 1 44

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Context 1 49 the

Archaeological

Record Cultural Attitudes to Weapons The Production and Distribution of Weapons Weapons in their Archaeological Context 3 .2.1. Types of Context

3 .1.3. 3 .1.4. 3 .2.

7 1 8 2 9

158 1 62

3 .2.2.

3 .3. 3 .4.

Weapon Sets: Regional and Chronological Differences 3 .2.3. Mechanisms of Typological Change Comments on the Analytical Data The Wider Perspective

149 155

3 .5.

The

Late

Bronze

List of Abbreviations References

Age

2 17

Used

VOLUME

1 63 1 74 1 82 187

2 20 2 23 II:

CATALOGUE

CATALOGUE Introduction Narrow-bladed Axes

2 63 2 66

Crescentic Axes Fenestrated Axes

2 80 2 82

Shaft-hole Axes Tanged Spearheads

303 3 10

Rivetted Spearheads Socketted Spearheads

342 350

Narrow Daggers Long-tanged Daggers

387 414

Other Daggers Curved-bladed

426 505

Curved Table Table

Swords 1 . 2 .

FIGURES AND Figs. Figs.

Knives

1-58 59-62

Figs. 63-90 Plates 1-3

514 Analytical Data Publication Details

515 of

PLATES Line Drawings Plots and Dendrograms Distribution Maps

II

Analyses

519

Acknowledgements The present volume i s a shorter and slightly updated version of the author's Ph. D. thesis, Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze ages in the Levant, ( Edinburgh University 1 988). A lthough there are arguments against the publication of theses soon after completion, i t seemed wiser to make the i nformation available now, than to delay in the hope of producing a ' definitive' treatment in the long d istant future. The work could not have been carried out without the kindness and co-operation of a host of individuals and institutions. Space prevents me from thanking a ll by name, but I would l ike to express my particular gratitude to the following, who gave most generously of their time and knowledge; Prof. Manfred Bietak, Dr. Anne Caubet, Dr. Roger Moorey, Dr. E . J. Peltenburg, Dr. Trevor Watkins and Mr. Joe Z ias. Mistakes, where they occur, are my own particular contribution. I a lso wish to express my sincere thanks, to the staff of the numerous museums kind enough to let me examine and record material i n their collections. ( As a full l ist of the institutions concerned appears in the Introduction to the Catalogue, I will not repeat their names here.) The photographs reproduced as Plates la-3b were taken by kind permission of the following institutions; Musäe du Louvre, Paris ( P1.1a); National Museum, Amman, Jordan ( Pls. lb 2b); University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge ( Pl. 2 a); Archaeological Museum, I stanbul ( Pl. 3 a); Institute of Archaeology, London ( Pl. 3b). Thanks are also due to those institutions which permitted me to sample weapons from their collections, for the purposes of chemical analysis; the Allard-Piersson Museum, Amsterdam; the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow; the Institute of Archaeology, London; the Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen; the Kunsthistorische Museum, Vienna. Many thanks must a lso go t o Mr Mike Cowell of the Research Laboratory, British MuSeum, who carried out the analyses. The following individuals i nformation, for which I D r Ö . B ilgi, Mr E . Braun, Machule, Dr. A . McNicol, Mr Burhan Suleiman, Dr V . D r E . Winkler.

kindly made available unpublished am most grateful; Dr Adil ' Abbu, Dr D . L. Esse, Dr L . Khalil, Dr D . Prof. P . Matthiae, Mr R . Miller, Sussman, Prof. M . van Loon, and

F inancial support was provided by a Faculty of Arts S tudentship from Edinburgh University. Additional a ssistance was provided by the Abercromby Fund, a lso of E dinburgh University, the British School of Archaeology in J erusalem and the British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History. I am most grateful to these bodies f or their generosity. In addition, I wish to thank I II

all in the Department of Archaeology, Edinburgh University, who kindly made available the necessary facilities to convert the original thesis into the present work. I wish to acknowledge the following illustrations, redrawn from published sources; Fig. 8 No. 362, Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, Fig. 351.9; Fig. 16 No. 32, Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, Fig. 371.5; Fig. 21 No. 218, de Maigret 1976b, Fig. 1.1; Fig. 23 No. 180, Fugmann 1958, Pl. X; Fig. 25 No. 1428, Guy 1938, Pl. 86.3; Fig. 26 No. 628, Yogev 1985, Fig. 4.2; Fig. 44 No. 1080, Dunand 1954, Pl. LXIV; Fig. 44 No. 1235, Dunand 1954, Pl. LXIV; Fig. 45 No. 1143, Smith 1962, Pl. XVII.37; Fig. 45 No. 1020, Smith 1962, Pl. XVII.39; Fig. 48 No. 1186, MacDonald, Starkey and Lancaster-Harding 1932, Pl. XLIII; Fig. 52 No. 1120, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, Pl. LX; Fig. 52 No. 1330, Thureau­ Dangin and Dunand 1936, Pl. XXVIII.4; Fig. 56 No 1236, Dunand 1954, Pl. LX; Fig. 56 No. 191, Dunand 1954, Pl. LXVIII; Fig. 57 No. 360, Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936, Pl. XXIX.5; Fig. 57 No. 363, Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936, Pl. XXIX.3; Fig. 57 No. 367, Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936, Pl. XXIX.7; Fig. 57 No. 451, Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1936, Pl. XXVIII.6; Fig. 58 No. 20, Loud 1948, Pl. 283.1. Finally I must thank my wife Caroline, for her patience and encouragement, and her invaluable help with the illustrations. Note: The study by H.W. Müller Der Waffenfund vom Balata­ Sichem und die Sichelschwert became available to the writer too late to be taken into consideration in the present volume.

IV

List of Line Fig.

Drawings

and

Plates

No

Types

1 2 3 4 5 6

Narrow-bladed Axe Type 1 Narrow-bladed Axe Type 2 Narrow-bladed Axe Type 3 Narrow-bladed Axe Type 4 Crescentic Axe Type 1 ( left), Fenestrated Axe Type 1

7

Fenestrated Axe Type left), Type 5 ( lower

8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4

Shaft-hole Axe Type 2 , Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type

except 1 2 3 3 8 9

15

Tanged Spearhead Type ( others) Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type Tanged Spearhead Type ( right) Rivetted Spearhead

5 ( centre),

1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Represented

2 ( top), right)

Type

2 ( right)

Type

3 ( lower

No.

380

Type

Type

3

1 3

4 ( left), Type 15 ( right) 6 6 ( left), Type 7 ( others) 1 5 ( left), Type 17 - Barbed

26 27

Socketted Spearhead Type 1 Socketted Spearhead Type 3 ( left), Type 5 ( right) Socketted Spearhead Type 6 ( left), Type 8 ( right), Type 10 ( lower) Socketted Spearhead Type 9 ( lower right), Type 7 ( others) Socketted Spearhead Type 10 ( left), Type 8 ( right) Dagger Type 1 ( right), Type 1 2 ( left) Dagger Type 2

28 29 30 31

Dagger Type Dagger Type Dagger Type Dagger Type

32

Dagger Type 2 6 Type 3 7 ( lower Dagger Type 3 5

( top right), Type 27 ( top right and left) ( left), Type 8 ( right)

Dagger Dagger Dagger Dagger

2 9 1 0 1 2 1 3

( left),

1 4 1 7

( left),

Type

15

( right)

( left),

Type

2 1

( right)

24 25

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

3 4 7 2 8

( left),

Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type

3 2 3 0 3 1

( lower

Dagger Type

3 1

( left),

Dagger Dagger Dagger Dagger Dagger Dagger Dagger Dagger

19 2 0 2 7

Type

Type

( right),

V

26

25

Type

35

left),

( right)

15

right),

Type

( right)

( others)

Type

3 6

( right)

( others)

47

Dagger

Type

3 2

( right),

48 Dagger Type 3 4 49 Dagger Unclassified ( others)

Unclassified

( top

r ight),

Type

( left) 3 4

50 51 52 53 54

Dagger Type 3 4 Dagger Type 3 3 Dagger Type 35 Dagger Type 3 8 ( lower), Curved-blade Knife Type

55 56

Curved-blade Knife Type 1 Dagger Type 9 ( left), Socketted Spearhead Type ( right) Shaft-hole Axe Type 1 ( top), Type 2 ( left), Crescentic Axe Type 3 ( right) Tanged Spearhead Type 14

57 58

Type 35 ( others) 2 ( top), Type 1 ( lower)

Plates la lb 2a 2b

Fenestrated Axe Type 4 Narrow Dagger Type 5 Dagger Type 25 Curved-bladed Knife Type

3a 3b

Dagger Type 1 3 Details; note outline of hafts on the narrow daggers ( top and 2nd top) and irregularly cut grooves

on

Type

1 3

dagger

VI

1

( bottom).

2

INTRODUCTION

The main

aims

of

the project

are

as

follows.

1 . The collection, collation and presentation o f a reliable body o f data on the weapons o f the Early and Middle Bronze Ages i n the Levant. This i ncludes d imensions, stylistic data, the results of metallurgical analysis and the provision of adequate i llustrations for comparative purposes. Much o f this material i s e ither unavailable or d ispersed through many publications, making i t d ifficult to study the development of weapons systematically. 2 . The analysis o f this data, and the production i nsofar a s possible, of a typology which can be used as a basis for future work. The present work i s not i ntended a s an a ll embracing typology, designed to endure for decades, and providing convenient s lots i nto which new data can be pushed. I t represents rather a f irst attempt to bring some order into a confusing mass o f material. There i s p lenty of s cope for modification, expansion on points of detail, and the addition o f new material. The use of a s imple running series o f type numbers, rather than a hierarchical scheme with A 's, Al's and Ala's, i s designed to stress the f luidity o f the s cheme, its adaptability. I n order to l imit the l ength o f the main text, detailed descriptions of each object and a ll types are g iven i n the Catalogue. 3 .

To

consider the material

within

i ts

cultural

context.

Composition of the Database From the outset i t was decided to exclude a ll unprovenanced i tems, barring s everal small groups of material, whose provenances were considered reliable by the archaeologists who purchased them, and who were working i n the area at the t ime. These comprise the material from l ooted tombs, bought by Woolley i n the area around Carchemish ( Woolley 1 914) and material bought by Dever i n Jerusalem, a fter tomb l ooting i n the occupied West Bank ( Dever 1 971, 1 972, 1 975). This policy was adopted f or two main reasons 1 . Had unprovenanced material been i ncluded, the s ize o f the corpus would have increased to such an extent as to r ender i t unmanageable 2 . In view o f the a ims of the project, the only real c ontribution which the addition of unprovenanced items could have made was to expand the database for typological r efinement; their contribution to studies of chronology, d istribution and context would have been minimal. F lat axes have not been considered. I t i s believed that many of these were i ntended to function primarily a s tools, a nd that use a s weapons was a secondary, optional aspect, 1

unlikely to f eature so strongly i n their basic characteristics. The smaller f lat axes are hard to s eparate f rom chisels, and others may have been multipurpose i tems, being resharpened f or use as adzes as necessary. This i s reinforced by their rarity i n grave contexts, i n contrast to the rest o f the material covered i n this survey. Also omitted f rom the typological study are small projectile heads. Their reporting i s very uneven; many are poorly preserved, and their s implicity makes the establishment of a valid typology very d ifficult. However, those i dentifiable projectile heads occurring i n E arly and Middle Bronze Age contexts are summarised, and their contextual d istribution i s compared to that o f the other weapons. I n order to f acilitate comparison among examples, a standard scale of 1 :2 h as been maintained for i llustrations wherever possible. Where the scale d iffers this i s c learly marked on the f igure concerned. Geographical

Extent

The geographical area covered comprises the long arc of f ertile l and running from Mari i n the east, north-west to C ilicia, and south i nto Palestine. For the period o f the M .B. A., the area i s extended west i nto the N ile delta to encompass recently d iscovered s ites there showing a ' Levantine' material culture. I n d iscussing parallels for our types f ound outwith this area, a n exhaustive l ist has not been attempted. Rather the a im has been to indicate the main occurrences and outline their i mplications. Chronology And Terminology The chronological range of the survey encompasses the E arly and Middle Bronze Ages. The absolute chronology of western Asia i s still i s the subject of debate. Both overall sequences, i nvolving changes of s everal decades ( Huber et a l 1 982) and short term, readjustments a ffecting the r eignl engths of i ndividual kings, such a s Z imri-Lim of Mari ( Birot 1 978, Sasson 1 980) are subject to frequent revision. As we are dealing with the Levant, we must a lso consider the impact of revisions i n the Egyptian historical sequence. Work by several German s cholars ( summarised i n B ietak 1 984) which d iffers f rom the chronology adopted here, has important implications f or the absolute chronology o f the Palestinian M .B. A. The various regional chronologies cannot be easily reconciled ( see f or example the problems caused by the use o f s carab evidence, summarised i n Ward 1 987), a d ifficulty which i s largely overlooked by those scholars working exclusively in Mesopotamia or Egypt. It seems unlikely that the competing chronologies will be unified i n the near future, unless there are major new additions to our data. For the second millennium, the Middle Chronology o f the Cambridge Ancient History ( 1973) has been adopted, f or i ts convenience and wide f amiliarity to archaeologists working i n the Levant. I n a survey such a s this, i t i s felt that 2

small d ifferences between the various absolute chronologies are not of vital importance. Changes in metal types are not to be correlated with particular reigns or historical events. It is the sequence in which things occur, their relative chronological positions that are our primary concern. Our interest i s in the processes of change and the way i n which these operate in different regions. Furthermore, most of our material derives from archaeological contexts such as tomb groups or domestic areas which can rarely be tied to absolute chronological schemes. Such contexts are generally dated on the grounds of ceramic typology, which changes gradually, at different paces in different regions, and i s related to absolute chronology in a general way only. Our ceramic sequences themselves cannot be tightly defined, although their general outlines may be known. Problems are caused by the continued use of tombs over a period of time, the differences between tomb ceramics and that from stratified sequences, and our l imited grasp of the pattern of ceramic regionalism. In brief, we are dealing with archaeological material, and our questions must be of a kind which archaeology can answer. The

E arly Bronze Age P alestine

For third millennium Palestine we have a series of synchronisms with the Egyptian historical chronology, provided by both Egyptian f inds in Palestine and Palestinian pottery from tombs in Egypt ( Kantor 1 965, de Vaux 1 971). However, these are few, and we must turn to other methods to check our schemes and permit the relating of d ifferent regional sequences. Recent reviews of the evidence of radiometric dating i n Palestine ( Weinstein 1 984a) and in Egypt ( Hasan and Robinson 1 987), i ndicate that it i s in broad agreement with the third millennium historical chronology, and the absolute dating for the Palestinian sequence which i s employed here is essentially that of Weinstein ( 1984a). Palestine: 1 984a) E .B.I E .B.II E .B.III E .B.-M. B. M .B.I M .B.II

Absolute

Chronology

3 400-3100 B .C. 3 100-2750/2700 B .C. 2 750/2700-2350/2300 2 350/2300-2000/1950 2 000/1950-1750 B .C. 1 750-1550 B .C.

The preferred nomenclature E .B.

I

E .B.II

for

( adapted

from

Weinstein

B .C. B .C.

Palestine

is

as

follows.

Kenyon's Proto-Urban A and B , Wright's ( 1937) E .B.IA and B . Includes Wright's E .B.IC and Kenyon's E .B.I ( see Esse 1 984) and conventional E . B.II. 3

E .B. I II E .B.-M. B.

Undivided Equivalent to

Kenyon's preferred Bronze-Middle Bronze ( 1984, 6 8).

E .B

IV/M. B.I

terminology o f Intermediate Early i s used for the reasons given by Prag

Syria For the Syrian material, absolute chronology i s more d ifficult as we lack published, well stratified, sequences and an adequate corpus of radiocarbon dates, especially f rom the earlier part of the third millennium. However, the basic picture i s emerging, helped by rescue work both i n Syria and in the upper Euphrates basin ( see Dornemann 1 988). An upper l imit i s provided by the presence o f ' Uruk' material of mid-late fourth millennium date at a number of s ites in Syria, which can be broadly equated with ' Amuq F . The lower l imit i s the well known i ncised pottery of Hama phase ' H', which marks the beginning of the M . B.A. This i s conventionally placed around 2 000B.C. ( Matthiae 1 980b; Gerstenblith 1 983; Tubb 1 983). Between these two points we must rely on the stratified evidence from the ' Amuq sites ( Braidwood and Braidwood 1 960), Hama ( Fugmann 1 958), Tell Mardikh ( Matthiae 1 980b) and recent excavations in the Syrian Euphrates Valley, ( van Loon 1 979; Dornemann 1 979; Orthmann 1 981), a i ded by new material now appearing from s ites in eastern Turkey ( Palmieri 1 973, 1 981; Hauptmann 1 982; Behm Blancke 1 984; Marfoe et al 1 986). The provisional overall framework i s as follows. Material equivalent to ' Amuq J , Mardikh I IB2, Hama J5-1 and the s ettlement at Tell Hadidi are taken as representing the l ate third millennium. That of ' Amuq I , Mardikh I IB1, Hama J8-6, Til Barsip ( Hypogeum) i s taken as middle third millennium, as i s that from the Sajur Valley sites which Prag ( pers. comm.) notes as having good parallels i n E .D.II-III Mesopotamia. This i s supported by the calibration of radiocarbon dates from Tell Selenkahiye ( van Loon 1 979, 1 11) and Hama ( Fugmann 1 958, 2 82). The earlier third millennium i s more of a problem. However, the new material from Anatolia dating to the E . B.I and I I periods, which succeed the phase of the Uruk settlements permits us to p lace certain deposits ( Carchemish cist graves, ' Amuq GH , some groups from Halawa and Tawi) early in the third millennium. Clearly this scheme i s provisional and will be subject to modification as material becomes available. Nor i s there an agreed terminology for the E .B. A. of Syria. I n e ffect it i s ' sandwiched' between a four phase scheme in Palestine which some would also use throughout Syria ( e. g. Dever 1 980, Matthiae 1 980b), a three phase system i n use in Anatolia, which has much in common with the material of north-western Syria and a Mesopotamia-derived terminology in use at sites such as Tell Brak ( Oates 1982). The 4

sequence of stages defined in the ' Amuq ( Braidwood and Braidwood 1 960) which i s rather peripheral to Syria at l arge, cannot cope adequately with the degree of regional differentiation which i s becoming apparent ( Kühne 1 976, Mazzoni 1 985a, 1 985b). Although the second half of the third millennium i s becoming clearer, the internal sequence of the earlier centuries i s rather harder to define. In particular the l ack of Black Burnished Ware, which defines Phase H in the ' Amuq, in many areas is a problem. Therefore, the system adopted ( outlined above) assigns material to early, middle or late phases of the third millennium according to local sequences as currently understood. Middle

Bronze Age

Palestine The M . B. A. is divided into two phases, M . B.I and M .B. I I, as generally accepted in Syria, and as applied to Palestine by Kenyon ( 1966, 1 973). No attempt i s made to divide the MB I I period into strictly defined units, for, as B ienkowski ( 1984, 1 3) has pointed out, such distinctions have generally been made on the basis of stratigraphic breaks at particular s ites, not on ceramic changes of wide validity. Even were it possible to establish a ceramic d ivision at any one s ite, it i s by no means certain, given the distinct regionalism shown by Palestinian pottery ( Kempinski 1 983, 1 91ff; Cole 1 984, 9 5) that these would have more than l ocal significance. Those tomb groups which seem l ikely to be early or late in the period, in terms of the ceramic sequence at that site are however distinguished. This i s based on criteria, derived from an assessment of the excavation reports, supplemented by the re-analyses of the Megiddo sequence by Kenyon ( 1969) and Müller ( 1974) and more recent works by Kempinski ( 1983), Cole ( 1984) and Bienkowski ( 1984). However, many groups cannot be defined more precisely than to M . B.II in general. As regards the material from Tell e l-Dab'a, the relative sequence of tomb groups as indicated b y the information available at the time of writing is employed. However, this must be seen as provisional as the material i s not fully published. The second problem i s that of the relationship between the sequence in the Delta a nd that of Palestine proper. This must also await full p ublication and d igestion of the basic data, and will not b e treated in detail here. Syria F or Syria the same nomenclature of M . B.I and M . B.II has been adopted. The main problem in the M . B.I period is the dating of the various j ar deposits from Byblos. Attempts to assign the material of the Montet Jar to the late third m illennium ( Tufnell and Ward 1 966) have been criticised by other specialists who prefer a date in the early second 5

millennium ( Porada 1 966, 0 ' Connor 1 983, 1 65) and Ward himself now assigns the Montet Jar to the l ater 2 0th century ( 1987, 5 09-512). Scholars working on the f igurines from the deposits, have generally dated these to the early second millennium, although the exact duration of the deposits varies between a long span as favoured by Seeden ( 1980), and a short phase within the 1 9th-18th centuries posited by Spycket ( 1981). It seems that the various writers have all overlooked the value of the important body of weapons from these deposits for dating, and it i s this that f orms the basis of our assessment. This topic will be discussed at length elsewhere. Suffice it to say here, that the weapons have their best parallels in contexts of the local M . B.I period, a lthough types appearing late in the period such as narrowbladed axes and ribbed daggers are generally absent. The beginning of M .B.I, i s taken as c 2 000 B .C. in Syria, and a l ittle l ater in Palestine, probably even more so i n the south. The transition between Palestinian M . B.I and I I i s placed around the middle of the 1 8th Century ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 1 06). This better accommodates the new M . B.I material from Ras el-'Ain/Aphek ( Kochavi and Beck 1 975, Beck 1 985) and Tell el-Dab'a ( Bietak 1 981, 1 984, 1 985) than the higher dating of Dever ( 1976). We cannot assume that the Syrian M . B.II sequence, in particular that of inland areas, i s directly comparable in ceramic terms to the better known Palestinian material. Therefore we must be cautious. However, this problem is l argely circumvented b y the fact that most of the present corpus of Syrian M .B.II metalwork comes from tombs at Ras Shamra, which were used for multiple successive interments. As these graves were in use over some time, and were not a lways adequately recorded, a ll M .B.II material from the northern Levant has been treated as belonging to an undivided M . B.II period. It i s hard to separate late M .B.II groups from L . B.IA deposits, solely on the grounds of local ceramics. Therefore, the appearance of Bichrome ( Bienkowski 1 986, 1 28), Base Ring or White S lip Wares ( Gittlen 1 981, 4 9) is taken as indicative of a date in, or continued use into, the L . B.I period. Material from such deposits has been excluded from the present study, unless there are good p grounds for accepting the presence of a distinct M . B. A. component. A note on Byblos It has only proved possible to include a part of the material recovered from Byblos. Many objects, in particular those from the ' Döpöts des Offrandes', published by Dunand ( 1939, 1 954) lack i llustrations or adequate descriptions. In keeping with our policy, only those pieces for which the data i s reliable have been i ncluded. Fortunately, this provides a representative sample of that recovered from the ' Döpöts' as a whole 6

PART 1 .

1 .1.

THEORY AND METHOD

APPROACHES TO WEAPONS:

THE CURRENT LITERATURE

Introduction Most l arge-scale considerations o f metalwork approach i t from a typological stance. There are implicit a ssumptions underlying many such works, i n particular, the way i n which types are defined a nd how these types are i nterpreted. I t i s i ntended to comment on several major studies and a number of other contributions i llustrating the way i n which scholars from varied backgrounds, writing at d ifferent times, have approached the subject. F inally, recent work carried out on material of a broadly comparable nature, found outwith the N ear East, will be discussed, i n order to provide a different perspective on our material. Pre-war

studies

Early writers on the subject ( e.g. Petrie 1 917, Bonnet 1 926) were dealing with material with l ittle or no archaeological context. Where some sort of provenance could be assigned, often on the basis of attributions provided by antiquities dealers, the resulting corpus consisted of a r elatively small quantity of material, spread thinly over a wide geographical area. This restricted their ability to study artefact d istribution, l eading to a concentration on the objects themselves, rather than on archaeological context. The result was a heavy reliance on e ither very general, or very particular morphological s imilarities, as an i ndication of the degree of ' closeness' between objects. Scholars would then move straight f rom these apparent ' typological relationships' to explanation in d irect historical terms. Many o f the key assumptions of these early writers, and their basic approach to the material, underlie more recent l iterature. Part of the reason for this, i s that archaeologists have paid scant attention to the reasons f or creating typologies, to what they hope to achieve with them. All too often c lassification has been seen a s an end i n itself. While this may be perfectly reasonable i n some c ircumstances, a s et of types derived for this purpose will not necessarily suffice f or measuring chronological change, or conform to ' emic' types recognized by their makers, a lthough i t i s a long such l ines that types are generally i nterpreted. ( The whole notion of typology i s discussed e lsewhere see 1 .2). KEY PROBLEMS We must now identify a number o f deficiencies which apply to many studies o f Near Eastern weapons, and to suggest ways in which these might be avoided. 7

Fragmentation

of

the material

Related to the view outlined above, that classification i s a valid aim in itself, is the tendency to compartmentalise groups of material. This was the case with MaxwellHyslop's ( 1946, 1 949) separate studies of Western Asiatic daggers and shaft-hole axes. By artificially fragmenting a body of material as interrelated a s are weapon forms, one risks losing much of the explanatory value of the data. The whole is clearly greater than the sum of its parts, and there i s a l imit to what can be said on the evidence of one group in i solation. We must consider archaeological context, patterns of association and substitution, s imilarities and contrasts, but we cannot begin to consider evidence of this nature i f the material is studied i n i solated compartments. Problems

of

Provenance

and

Dating

Often, l ittle attempt was made to assess the reliablity of the a lleged provenances of material in museum collections, the older parts of which are especially prone such difficulties. Provenances that are patently wrong present l ess of a problem than do those that are credible, but are without supporting evidence. We should consider an entry i n the British Museum register of accessions referring to some hooked-tang weapons of Cypriot style, allegedly from Gezer. "Prof. Macalister of Dublin says these things were not from his diggings and doubts i f they are from any adjacent spot: dealers assign objects to any well known excavation" ( quoted in Watkins 1 981, 1 22). Misattributions, once in the l iterature can easily be taken at face value by subsequent scholars, resulting i n erroneous reconstructions. Such a s ituation has occurred in the case of two fenestrated axes, now in the Ashmolean museum which were described by Oren ( 1971, 128) as " from Cyprus ( provenance unknown)". In view of the l ack o f s imilar axes from the i sland, despite the extensive excavation of cemeteries of the l ate third-early second millennia ( summarised in Äström 1 957; Stewart 1 962), this seems highly suspicious. However, these same axes have been cited as of Cypriot provenance in a recent review of the M . B.I period in the Levant ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 90). L ike early writers such as Petrie and Bonnet, MaxwellHyslop and Stronach ( 1957) faced a shortage of reliable material and the ,resulting surveys are uneasy mixtures of credible and suspect items. Quite recent surveys such as those of de Maigret ( 1976) and Erkanal ( 1977) still contain some material of doubtful context, while providing no clear statement of the criteria employed in deciding which pieces to include. The mixing of material from good and poor contexts should be avoided. It i s not that the latter should be i gnored, but that it should not be treated in the same way as reliable data, as it has less evidential value. space-time distribution and internal development 8

The basic of a type

must be constructed on the basis of the reliable material. The role of the rest is to reveal the range and variety of variation occurring, and is descriptive rather than explanatory. Where this is not done types can become a confusing muddle, with their true space-time patterning masked by a large number of members whose provenances are unreliable. Surely the only valid course, in an analytical study, is to be ruthless with all doubtful material, accepting provenances only when we have good reason to believe them, rather than the reverse. This i s the policy adopted in the present work. A related consequence of the concentration on objects themselves rather than consideration ' in-context' i s a lack of chronological precision in many typological works. The result of this i s that information i s lost, and the true temporal relationship between types i s obscured, the very i nformation that would allow us to construct sequences of development on independent, rather than on ' typological'grounds. For instance, Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1949, 1 14-116) did not appreciate that axes of her Type 2 4 predate those of her Type 2 3, which occur over roughly the same area, a point which is of some importance ( see 3 .2.3). I n his turn, de Maigret ( 1976, 1 65) by an uncritical acceptance of Guy's ( 1938, 1 63) L . B. A. date for Megiddo Tomb 1 100, despite the presence of M . B.I material ( Dever 1 975, 2 3 note 5 ), separates the socketted spearheads from that tomb ( his Type B7iv), from a l arge number of s imilar weapons ( Types B7 i which are from M .B.I contexts. Thus the restricted l ifespan of such small spearheads goes undetected.

i- i )

The Typological

Process

Archaeologists have often talked in terms of typological change as i f it were a process with an internal dynamic of i ts own, rather than a product of human selectivity, i ntimately bound up with the contexts within which an object is produced and used. This i s partly a product of the original role of types as a means for constructing c h ronological sequences ( see 1 .2), but also owes to the tendency to j ump from types to explanation, while failing to consider the intervening social matrix. The metal industry developed in a complex manner; consider the sophisticated products of the fourth millennium Palestinian industry ( Bar. - Adon 1 980). Production should not be seen as entirely determined by technical factors. Deliberate human choice, possibly governed by a culturally determined notion of ' correctness' was involved. If we accept this, then we cannot assume that an object which i s made using a s imple technology i s necessarily earlier ( or l ater i f it i s considered ' degenerate') than one which i s made by a more sophisticated method. We encounter the typological change,

implicit connection, technology, chronology, i n Curtis' ( 1983) 9

reconsideration of the Nimrud axe. He suggests ( 1983, 7 3) that a lthough two s imilar axes from Nimrud and Chagar Bazar are c learly from different moulds, they are l ikely to be the product of the same workshop, thus minimizing the chronlogical gap between the two objects. One obvious criticism i s that this view underestimates the sheer scale and complexity of the metal industry in north Mesopotamia during the second millennium. The implicit logic would seem to be ' typologically similar chronologically equivalent', a continuation of the old typology chronology connection. We cannot a lways relate degrees of morphological difference directly to the passage of time, nor are there unvarying rules governing something called ' typological behaviour'. Types may survive in use over a l ong period, even quite e laborate types, i f they are deemed particularly appropriate for some purpose. On the other hand, quite different material may be in production contemporaneously in nearby centres - the output of a village smith and a palace workshop for example. Surely the only effective approach to this problem is a consideration of archaeological context. Modern archaeology has a sufficient array of dating techniques available to imply that temporal sequence building should no longer be the main object of typological studies, and that we should have moved on to more interesting areas o f research. The Definition of Types I n most typological works, the types are defined on morphological grounds. Although this is also the approach followed here, previous discussions are still open to criticism. The term type i s used without any attempt at proper definition, nor explanation of what constitutes a type or sub-type, nor where boundaries are taken to l ie ( Maxwell-Hyslop 1 946, 1 949; de Maigret 1 976). The actual criteria used i n classification are often l oosely defined. An example i s Maxwell-Hyslop's ( 1946, 6 ) definition of her dagger Type 2 : " flat blade, slightly convex sides; tang with one, two or three rivets" which seems to cover a multitude of variations. In other groups, for example her dagger Types 3 and 4 , or Types 1 6 and 2 2, it is hard to see where the differences l ie, and it s eems unlikely that the actual objects could be sorted into those types given only the criteria provided in the text. The members of MaxwellHyslop's dagger Type 4 cover an area from Iran to Cyprus ( Maxwell-Hyslop 1 946, 8 ), while those of Type 1 2 span a chronological interval of nearly two millennia ( MaxwellHyslop 1 946, 1 2). I f true, this deserves further consideration, i f not, the very basis of type-definition i s called into question. The problem l ies not with MaxwellHyslops's pioneering work, but in the fact that her types have been used rather uncritically by more recent scholars. I n some s ingle

cases, class

widely different items may be assigned on the basis of one obvious but 1 0

to a not

necessarily important criterion. The reason that this happens is that typologists have not examined the dataset for a ssociations between different values of different variables. Types have really been formed on an impressionistic basis. An example would be de Maigret's ( 1976, 47ff) Type A 3 tanged spearheads, which are defined a having a shank of circular section. The type includes a heterogeneous collection of i tems covering a wide geographical and chronological range, and include items assigned to several different types in the present study. Their sole common factor i s the possession of a shank of c ircular section. As a result, de Maigret ( 1976, 5 0ff) assigns both the s lender weapons of the ' poker-butt' form known from Ur, Kish and other s ites in southern Mesopotamia ( our Type 3 , see 2 .2), and the broader bladed northern form as found at Carchemish, Kara Hasan and Hamman, ( our Type 1 ) to a single type. The result is to obscure the differential distribution of the two forms. This confusion i s further enhanced by acceptance of a date of c 1 750B.C. for the Hamman material ( 1976, 5 2), and the l ack of any date for that from Carchemish and Kara Hasan, which places the Syrian form in an erroneous ' late' position and therefore of Mesopotamian derivation ( de Maigret 1 976, 5 6). From this example it is easy to see how the construction of types, and the i nterpretations which are based upon them are often inextricably l inked and that errors in the former can result in misleading historical reconstructions. I t i s the l arger, more homogeneous groups which provide the building b locks f or interpretative studies. One of the weaknesses of Maxwell-Hyslop's and Deshayes studies are that there are rather many types; in the former example f ifty-six for a f airly small corpus of daggers ( compare the thirty-nine types defined for the corpus of around seven hundred daggers covered here). I n part this results from a tendency to assign odd pieces to s ingle member types, l eading to a proliferation of small groups. The result i s an i nability to synthesise the material, as it i s hard to produce a coherent space-time framework, within which patterning can be investigated. Furthermore, i f the types are arbitrary to any significant extent, or include too many inappropriate members ( see below), then patterns present i n the data may be masked. Here we see the conflict between classification and the construction or derivation of problem-oriented types. The different ends cannot necessarily be met by a s ingle scheme. Procedures Deshayes ( 1960) s eems to have made the f irst attempt, as f ar as Near Eastern metalwork i s concerned, to consider s eriously the way in which types are defined. Items were c lassified according to a hierarchical scheme with an i nitial d ivision into broad functional classes, such as axe, knife, chisel etc. At a l ower level, the unit of i nterest i s the so-called " forme" ( Deshayes 1 960, 3 4). D eshayes admits that this constitutes the most arbitrary 1 1

area of h is c lassification ( 1960, 3 5), i n particular because of the d iffering standards of i llustration provided i n d ifferent publications. Although this problem i s acknowledged, a practical s olution i s not attempted, and a ll objects are treated as more or l ess the same, despite the d ifference i n the reliability of the typological i nformation available. I t a lso seems that he considers decorative e lements a s secondary to the basic functionally determined e lements of an artefact. This notion i s called i nto question however, i f one accepts Wobst's ( 1977) i dea that the v isual appearance of artefacts may be of considerable s ignificance, a s means o f communication. Deshayes ( 1960, 3 5) agrees that treating a ll s tylistic e lements of an artefact a s of equal importance i s impractical, and accepts that some s election of traits or variables to be i ncluded i n a typological analysis, i s necessary. He does not however, present a method f or doing so, admitting rather that this will be a l argely subjective a ffair. Deshayes adherence to a hierarchical scheme presents problems when dealing with a number of variables. I n the material o f most i nterest to us, h is treatment of socketted axes, assignment to one of the main types - A , B , C - etc i s on the basis o f the form o f the socket. Within these, f or example Type A , a ssignment to a sub-type - Al, A2, A3 - etc i s l argely on the basis of the shape o f the b lade ( Deshayes 1 960, 1 55). The problem i s that the d istribution o f one variable often cuts across that of others. Where an i nitial partition i s made according to the value o f one particular variable, this l eads to the s ituation where members of one type or sub-type a re often more c losely related to members of another, when a wider range of variables i s considered. Data Treatment and Handling Deshayes did not i nspect the patterning o f i ndividual variables to seek possible a ssociations between them. The problem of course was how to handle the amount o f data generated through recording and analysis o f a range of variables for each i tem. I t should be remembered that today's statistical methods and computer power were unavailable when D eshayes was working. These practical d ifficulties should not be underestimated. Perhaps h is work can be v iewed a s ahead of its t ime. In practice however, Deshayes f ramed c lasses on i mpressionistic grounds based on a f ew s imilar items, and assigned additional objects to them, a s had previous writers, rather than by starting with the i ndividual i tems and attempting to build c lasses based on their common properties. The value o f metric data, measurements and the ratios between them, has been overlooked i n the l iterature. D imensions are i ncluded i n de Maigret's ( 1976) catalogue, but do not s eem to have been actively employed i n type definition, and are not discussed i n the text. Although Deshayes ( 1960, 3 5) and Oren ( 1971, 1 39) both comment on 1 2

the value of metric data in typological exploits this much i n practice.

procedures,

neither

Metallurgy L ittle attention has been paid to questions concerning metal composition or working practices. However, as i nterest i n these f ields i s fairly recent, this was unavoidable when most of the main studies of our material were written. We should however note that a number of writers have attempted to define a s d istinct types items with markedly i ncurved blades ( de Maigret 1 976, 1 42; Richard 1 978, 2 30). I n fact, many such objects are s imply worn by frequent sharpening, and a lthough this i s an i nteresting trait, i t cannot form the basis for a d istinct type. However, the l ack of an attempt to relate typology and technical studies remains a major l acuna i n the l iterature. We should however, note that authors of technical reports have made l ittle attempt to consider typology, i n terms of their own results. Context A major weakness o f a ll general typological studies i s the l ack of consideration given to the archaeological context i n which objects were found. This i s partly the result of the data used, which included many poorly provenanced p ieces, but i s symptomatic of a more general trend towards ' object-orientated' archaeology. I nterest i n the context o f weapons i s confined to those studies ( Oren 1 971; Dever 1 975) covering a l imited spatial or chronological range, wherein the contextual data i s more apparent, and i s often better known to the writer. It i s perhaps unreasonable to e xpect a s ingle s cholar to be f amiliar with this kind of d ata i f he i s covering as topic as vast as that tackled by D eshayes ( 1960). However, this f act might constitute a powerful argument against work carried out on such a grand s cale. Where detailed patterning i s subsumed i n f avour of a grand view, i nherent contradictions may go unnoticed. T he 'big picture' must be built upwards, f irmly grounded in detailed analysis. It cannot be imposed from above. C ontextual analysis i s a vital component of this structure, a nd its omission i s a serious f law, which can l ead to problematic i nterpretations, as d iscussed below. THE INTERPRETATION OF TYPES Classifications

i n use

The value of Maxwell-Hyslop's contribution i s made c lear by the fact that her basic classification i s still used today, l argely because of her identification of a number of i nstantly recognizable forms, e .g. dagger Types 2 5 and 2 7 ( 1946, 2 6, 2 7). I t serves then, more as a convenient s horthand than a s an explanatory framework ( see Oren 1 971; D ever 1 975; Watkins 1 981; Yogev 1 985 among others). She h erself makes f ew i nterpretative statements; that was not 1 3

the a im of her work, which she herself described as a preliminary step, a classification ( 1946, 2 ). Deshayes ( 1960) sought to use his types as units of basic data, for making archaeological and historical inferences. This procedure runs a number of risks. I f his types were arbitrary to any real extent, then there will be problems i f they are treated as culturally meaningful units. Interpretations put forward in typological studies, often use types i n this manner, as units of data upon which to base subsequent arguments. A case in point i s provided by de Maigret's ( 1976, 2 8) use of Type Alii ( four l arge hooked-tang spearheads from a hoard at Kfar Monash, Palestine and four undated pieces from Anatolian museum collections) to argue for a strong connection between coastal Palestine and Anatolia during the E . B. I II period. In fact the Kfar Monash pieces are much more similar to each other than they are to any of the Anatolian objects placed in the same type. The well known parallels between Palestinian Khirbet Kerak ware and Anatolian B lack Burnished ware, c ited by de Maigret ( 1976, 2 8) as supporting evidence for contacts between Palestine and Anatolia do not really connect, as the ware is rare on coastal Palestinian s ites and does not occur i n association with the Kfar Monash hoard itself. A f ew writers have considered the material in context, but these studies have generally been of a highly specific nature, dealing with particular s ite, region or period. The marked homogeneity of the metalwork deposited in M .B.II funerary contexts, warrior burials in particular, was emphasised by Stewart ( 1974, 5 2), while Oren ( 1971) traced this tradition back into the M . B.I period, demonstrating its widespread occurrence throughout not only the coastal Levant, but a lso in inland Syria. Such studies emphasise that the importance of typological breaks should not be overstated. They may mask long spells of underlying continuity. As before this can only be investigated by a consideration of context. Mechanisms

of

Transmission

The reasons for typological change and the mechanisms by which new ideas or styles are transmitted are rarely dealt with explicitly, a lthough there i s often an implicit assumption that the pursuit of greater technical efficiency was the dynamic behind such changes. The term ' typologically advanced' is used i n a sense indicating technical sophistication, although the word advanced a lso implies a chronological dimension, as explained previously. There are references in Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1946, 1 949) to travelling smiths and prospectors, who we might understand as at l east one of the agents of transmission although this i s not made explicit; perhaps here we see the influence of Childe ( 1942). Other problems i nclude that of the suitability of particular types, why one form should be preferred over others; why x not y . Obviously, this question i s hard to approach without considering the 1 4

contextual data discussed above, but even so the lack of i nterest is hard to explain. Deshayes ( 1960) too i s rather sketchy on the mechanisms by which material culture, in this case his types, is transmitted between different groups and areas. He prefers to talk in general terms about ' currents' and ' influence', which would seem to evade the i ssue. There i s l ittle discussion of the social and economic factors which are involved in the adoption or rejection of new i deas and techniques, and a traditional diffusionist explanation of ethnic movements, as a means of transmission i s often implied, work of earlier scholars.

a clear

connection

with

the

Another thread running through many works i s the idea that Mesopotamia should be seen as the centre of metallurgical developments, with new ideas spreading from there outwards. This view, which assigns the Levant a secondary role, can be challenged on the basis of more recent evidence ( see 3 .4). Such is its grip however, that it has survived as the favoured explanation, even among archaeologists whose data is largely non-Mesopotamian in origin. The problem is that a ll too often such ideas s imply go unquestioned, and determine not only our approach to the data, but the framing of the problems which we wish to i nvestigate. Although Stronach ( 1957, 9 9-100) i s able to i dentify daggers of his Types 5 and 6 as Syrian forms, and ( 1957, 1 13) stresses the importance of the material from Carchemish and Til Barsip in North Syria, with regard to developments i n Anatolia, the full s ignificance of this material i s lost as he ascribes their appearance to a " break-up of the Sumerian metal i ndustry" ( 1957, 1 13), a v iew which survives i n more recent work ( de Maigret 1 976, 5 0ff). The possibility that these cemeteries are broadly contemporary with the E . D.II-III material from southern s ites such as Ur and Kish i s not mentioned; on this see Watkins ( 1983a). Yadin No d iscussion of this nature could reasonably omit mention o f Yadin ( 1963), the starting point for discussions of ancient warfare i n the region. His interest in weaponry i s e ssentially in i ts development in terms of functional e fficiency, and changing response to military requirements, rather than typology. The organisation of the study around the single theme of warfare, cuts across the divisions beloved o f typologists, and emphasises the interconnectedness of the material, of different types of weapon, as part of a larger whole. It also provides one potentially useful explanation for why typological change takes place at a ll, with a feedback mechanism envisaged whereby change i n one aspect of warfare or defence l eads to n ew, compensatory developments in others ( 1963, 2 ). Thus the focus of interest is moved from classification to the r elationship between metalwork a nd the social, political a nd economic spheres, to the connection between technological development, military power and political 1 5

dominance. This the traditional,

i s i tself a major breakthrough i n t erms of c lassificatory approaches to the s ubject.

H is analysis of the way i n which the apparently d iverse developments o f d ifferent weapon types can be shown to be related, such a s the connection between the development of the composite bow, metal arrowheads, scale armour a nd the chariot, provides much for us to consider when attempting to explain typological change, or the appearance/disappearance of types i n the archaeological record. S imilarly, his e lucidation of the apparent connection between the development o f axes from broad to narrow f orms ( 1963, 1 2) and the development o f body a rmour, i n particular metal helmets should make us return to the archaeological evidence anew. I n f act, the l ack o f metal helmets i n the archaeological record, their omission from the Tale of S inuhe ( Pritchard 1 955, 1 8-22) and their absence from Egyptian reliefs of the earlier second millennium cast doubt on this idea. However, the major point, the need to reconsider our a ssumptions, should be taken. Another point which Yadin raises i s that the frequency of f ortifications at E .B. A. s ites in Palestine, suggests that warfare was a common occurrence ( 1963, 5 3). This must f orce us to ask why this i s not reflected i n terms of the burial evidence where weaponry i s r are, i n contrast to the M .B. A., or even the E .B.-M.B. period, where f ortified s ites are s eemingly absent. Yadin himself does not address this question, as it l ies outwith his ambit, but h is c lear j uxtaposition of various bodies of evidence forces i ts consideration. I n the l ight of the apparent i ncompatibility between the d ifferent f orms o f evidence, we should perhaps consider more deeply the exact nature o f the archaeological record. Yet Yadin's study l eaves many things unsaid. By t aking a ' functional-efficiency' stance with regard to the processes behind typological change, he neglects the role o f ' nonoptimising' behaviour i n determining the form of weaponry. H is emphasis on the dagger midrib a s a strengthening d evice ( 1963, 6 1) i gnores both its frequent use a s a decorative e lement, and i ts absence on L .B. A. cast-hilt daggers, which are robust, e ffective weapons. Statements such a s " for c lose f ighting the axe and mace were preferred" ( 1963, 1 1) fail to consider the nature of the relationship between the material forming the archaeological r ecord, i .e. f unerary deposits, and the actual implements o f war. Yadin i s not a lone i n h is l iteral i nterpretation of the evidence. Observing the rarity of spearheads f rom M .B.II contexts in Palestine , Tubb ( 1985a, 1 93), attributes this to changes i n the nature o f warfare, concomitant with the development of g lacis fortifications, which he argues would have r endered spearheads redundant i n favour of the l onger range bow. We must note however that the bulk of our M .B.I spearheads come from graves. Their paucity i n the succeeding p eriod may reflect changes i n the range o f i tems considered acceptable as grave goods, rather than changes in warfare. I t should be observed that metal arrowheads do not appear 1 6

in M .B.II graves, despite their apparent value when attacking ramparted s ites. Furthermore, in Syria, where even l arger defended cities existed, spearheads form a l arge part of the f unerary repertoire of M . B.II tombs, in particular at Ras S hamra ( Schaeffer 1936, 1 938). We must remember the social transformations which intervene between material culture i n action, and the archaeological record as available to us. New perspectives In r ecent years substantial changes have taken archaeology in western Europe, although l ittle of f iltered through to the Near Eastern l iterature. prominence of weapons in European archaeology, we consider the way i n which metalwork studies are being carried out there, in order to assess their to the Levantine material. Four key areas identified.

place in this has Given the ought to currently relevance can be

1 . The use of statistical methods for analysing the characteristics of bodies of data, and as a means to identify data structure and hence define types ( e. g. Green 1 980; Needham 1 983). This topic is explored in greater detail elsewhere ( see 1 .2) 2 . The collection of large bodies of metallurgical analyses ( e.g. Northover 1 980; Needham 1 983, 4 23), and the study of the composition of groups of material rather than i ndividual items, with particular interest i n the relationship between a lloying patterns and chronology, typology, techniques of manufacture and the investigation o f regional industries. 3 . Greater consideration of the archaeological contexts of objects. This has focused on both the comparative distributions of different types ( e. g. Rowlands 1 976; E llison 1 980), and on the kinds of contexts from which they come. This issue was raised in Coombs' ( 1975) analysis of the weapon hoards of the British Bronze Age, which are seen as the result of deliberate deposition, the actions of the h igher levels of a ranked society, with ritual, conspicuous consumption and d isplay. In his study of E . B. A. axes, Needham ( 1983) pays attention to the different patterns of deposition, seen f or a range of types, in various parts of Britain, and contrasts the kind of metalwork found in hoards, graves and as s ingle f inds. This aspect of the material has been farther developed by Bradley ( 1985), arguing that the archaeological record i s evidence for the pattern of consumption, not of exchange. Thus our focus must shift from the study of particular kinds of objects, to the analysis o f their interrelationships. 4 . A more extensive consideration of the part which these objects might have played in the socio-economic or symbolic worlds of their u sers. This has included consideration of possible connections between metalwork and social status, 1 7

d ifferential access to materials, the organisation and manipulation of exchange networks and detailed w ithincontext arrangement of objects. Sets of items, patterns o f equivalence and substitution ( e.g. Pader 1 982), b ear on s ocial or symbolic meaning. The i dea here is to return material to its central role i n human societies, to remove i t f rom abstract study and c lassification. S imilar points have recently been made by Muhly ( 1985) in a study dealing l argely with Aegean metalwork, where he stresses the difference between typology and explanation, suggesting that the presentation o f a set of types i s no l onger a valid end i n itself. However, it should be stressed that one of the main reasons why European work has been able to address the questions outlined above, has been the f act that basic corpora and typological studies are more readily available than i s the c ase in the Near East, where we l ack such basic sources. No matter how f ruitful new approaches might seem, they cannot operate i f comparisons are still made on impressionistic grounds, or between i ndividual p ieces, rather than on the basis of groups of well documented, c learly presented stratified material.

1 8

1 .2.

TYPOLOGY:

A CONSIDERATION

Introduction As a number of criticisms have been made o f the way i n which typologies e xisting f or Near Eastern weapons have been constructed, i t seems appropriate to carry out a review of attitudes towards typology, as seen i n the wider archaeological l iterature. I n essence, one must begin with a body of data, e lucidate i ts structure, and attempt to relate features of that structure to other aspects of the archaeological record. There are many ways i n which to do so, though not a ll are suitable i n a ll c ircumstances. I t should be c learly understood that the following d iscussion has been framed with the construction o f a typology o f a particular set of artefacts i n mind, and may not apply equally well to other k inds of material such as potsherds, s ites or human societies. This stands i n contrast to views expressed by Hill a nd Evans ( 1972, 2 32) among others, who believe that approaches of a more general applicability are feasible. The writer f eels that the problems encountered in this process are o ften specific to one k ind of material, as are the measures required to overcome them. One must therefore have a c lear i dea of the problems which one wishes to i nvestigate, though i t s eems reasonable to f rame these in such a way a s to permit the exploration o f such new l ines o f enquiry as may be suggested as the analysis proceeds. In answer to the question as to whether there i s a way o f distinguishing a good typology f rom a bad one, the key i s not whether it i s ' theoretically sound' but whether the typology i s useful, whether i t shows s ignificant patterning i n terms of other a spects of the archaeological record. I n the case of a typology of metal weapons f ormed on the basis of object morphology, the l atter would i nclude spatial and chronological distribution, though one would w ish to go beyond this and e xamine the nature of the archaeological contexts i n which the material occurs and technological factors as well. Shepard ( 1956, 3 15) considers types a s " categories i n the process of f ormulation", not as f ixed entities. This s eems a reasonable view, a lthough i f e ach type i s so, then any typological scheme built upon the recognition of a number of types will be even more subject to change. Rowlands ( 1976, 2 1) suggests that the object i s to analyse the material for patterns o f s imilarity and difference, stressing that one must consider the reasons for this variation, and that chronology and d istribution cannot be s een a s causal explanations. On that basis the results of the analysis presented here can be v iewed a s a solution appropriate for the body of data available at the t ime of writing. I t will hopefully be of considerable help i n understanding the context within which the material was produced and employed, but cannot be regarded a s correct or f inal, and will be subject to modification as required by new data or d ifferent research i nterests. I n summary then, the value o f a typology should be j udged heuristically. 1 9

The i ntention here i s to seek morphological types, a s this i s believed the procedure best suited to the material i n question and the i nformation available. Many of the objects are complete, and a s they were made in a highly controlable medium, the maker's i ntention should be revealed i n many cases. Chronology and distribution will f unction as criteria against which to test types, not as f actors i n their definition. I t i s f elt that sufficient i ndependent chronological data exists for the period i n question, to obviate the need for our material to function a s a primary chronological i ndicator. As i t i s a f undamental premise of this work that the explication of space-time patterning a lone i s i nsufficient, attention i s d irected to the reasons behind the d iscernible patterns. When we talk of subject-generated variability, we are really dealing with what have been called ' cultural types'. That being so, we ought perhaps to consider the d ifference between that which archaeologists consider as types, and the way that typology might be approached by an anthropologist l ooking at a l iving s ociety. Clearly the l atter will be working from a synchronic perspective, while much archaeological typology has an inherent temporal d imension. Even were an anthropologist to devise a strictly morphological typology, i gnoring the verbal terms or conceptual categories o f the people concerned, he would still be unable to construct the kind of types which archaeologists have routinely considered, namely types as areas of s imilarity i dentified as part of long temporal trajectories. This aspect o f archaeological typology i s l argely impossible to investigate i n anthropological f ieldwork. The d ifference i s important, as i t i s surely i n an anthropological study that true ' cultural' types are most easily approached. However, i t i s archaeology with i ts unique ability to deal with material over a l ong timedepth, that i s best able to i nvestigate the way i n which this a spect o f material culture changes over time, through a detailed consideration of material i n its archaeological, and thus its cultural, context. As Redman has j udiciously remarked ( 1978, 1 69) " analysis mugt be based on material recovered with excavation controls at l east a s precise as the desired detail o f f inal i nterpretation". One should not fall v ictim to the bewildering array of modern analytical techniques, and attempt to ask questions which the data cannot answer. One cannot attempt to produce a f ine chronological sequence of artefact types with material from disturbed collective burials, or f rom excavations carried out with i nadequate stratigraphic control. The above warning i n part explains the nature of the current project. C areful scrutiny of the various excavation reports shows that the data i s o f highly variable quality. As a result a grading system i s built i nto the data handling process, e nabling selection o f batches of material of comparable standards of reliability. This grading o f data quality has been applied to a number o f a spects o f the material, quality of context, condition 2 0

of object and the quality of the data source. The p lan i s to work from the best data outward, from areas of high confidence to those where the information i s less secure. S imilarly, Cross ( 1983, 7 ) has noted an implicit assumption underlying recent analytical work; namely that a r igorous, precise i nvestigation of a small scale problem i s believed to be i n some way ' better' than a more loosely organised investigation of a larger issue. The present writer feels that such ideas l ead irrevocably towards i ncreasing f ission of the discipline, and a tendency to l ose s ight of the overall picture through ever more detailed investigations of small-scale topics. This belief has been important in the framing of the present project. As a l arge body of material and a wide chronological range i s covered, it i s felt that one must accept some loss of f ine-grained resolution and accept a certain number of rough edges, as part of an attempt to tackle a number of wider i ssues. It i s believed that this i s a realistic position to adopt considering the nature and variability of our data. It would be methodologically unsound to treat a ll data as i f it had been well excavated and recorded, but to write off a l arge part of the total corpus because it was collected according to the standards of the day, and not to those of the 1 980's, would present us with a secure but much impoverished research base. Surely the best solution i s to include as much of the material as possible, but accept that not all has the same evidential value. APPROACHES TO TYPOLOGY: European

SOME RELEVANT THEMES

Prehistory

The basic European method, which had a clear evolutionary emphasis ( Klein 1 982, 1 -5), consisted of building up local relative chronologies using typological sequences based on the co-occurrence of types in graves and hoards, and their extension to other areas by the use of interregional comparisons, thus generating overall chronological schemes ( Clark 1 957, 5 6). In time, the type concept became closely l inked with that of the archaeological culture; the l atter being defined by Childe ( 1956, 1 5) as " a recurrent a ssemblage of archaeological types". Childe ( 1956, 3 3) in f act defined two levels of type. The f irst, ' typef ossils', are broadly equivalent to space-time types as understood in the U .S. A. ( see below), and which can be used as to define cultures and periods. There are also many types which " are useless in classifying cultures but of prime importance f or describing them" ( 1956, 3 3). The existence of types as such generally went unquestioned, with type definition seemingly an intuitive process i nvolving l ittle explanation of the reasoning behind it. Beyond this, the common appearance of particular d istinctive types in regions whose material culture was otherwise quite d istinct, allowed the correlation in time o f widely separated areas. The minus s ide of this equation 2 1

was the tendency to compress d istinctive widespread cultural changes, e . g. Beakers, into chronological horizons, which could be used as pan-European f ixed points, connected to ' migrations', thus missing the real social changes of which these types represented a visible expression. Piggott ( 1959, 5 6) admits that at that stage no c lear definition existed of what constituted a type, or why its boundaries l ay where they were assumed to be. It i s c lear that within Europe the type concept was used with much l ess heart searching than was the case i n the contemporary United States. North America I n contrast to the s ituation in European and Near Eastern archaeology, American writers have devoted considerable energy to discussion of the basis and meaning of types. While their more critical attitude has much to recommend i t, f ew programmatic statements have been allied to a substantive application. In fact the situation i s one where " the theoretical l iterature has diverged from practice to such an extent that the two are now unrelated" ( Dunnel 1 986, 1 5). The result seems to have been an excessive concentration on details of method ( see Whallon and Brown 1 982 for recent statements), rather than on the reasons for attempting to classify material in the f irst p lace. One of the few attempts to put some of these ideas into practice has been made by Redman ( 1978, 1 61) who has admitted to a clear divergence between his theoretical i deals and his typological practice. Many American archaeologists have adopted what Hill and Evans ( 1972, 2 52) have described as the ' positivist' view, placing emphasis on the confirmation or rejection of particular hypotheses by statistical means. However, Klejn ( 1982, 1 24) points out this i s often done without adequate consideration of the way in which the necessary confirmatory evidence should be chosen, and as Whallon ( 1972, 2 52) has observed, ' traditional' typologies have often been more successful than formalised approaches. Hill and Evans ( 1972, 2 36) suggest that this i s because ' traditional' approaches have been guided by research problems, although these have often been so vaguely stated as to be virtually unconscious, and so have not been acknowledged in the l iterature. Another important criticism of the hypothesis testing approach i s that it fails to allow f or observations which do not support any prior hypothesis ( Fletcher and Lock 1 985, 1 70). By selecting variables i n the way recommended by Hill and Evans, we force our research to proceed a long a pre-set path. Such a technique effectively prevents the detection of the unexpected. Clarke ( 1978, 1 51) has suggested that " fundamental entities and processes which pervade the material . .. must be defined and explored before any of the higher a ims could be approached l egitimately". The key word here i s explored. Surely no 2 2

archaeologist i s so omnipotent a s to have considered a ll possible points o f i nterest prior to embarking on datacollection ? I t s eems therefore that having a c lear i dea o f a ntecedent research problems i s important, but that prior hypotheses, which one i ntends to test against the data, are not v ital. It i s surely better to i nvestigate the data structure before attempting to seek explanations. A r ecent contribution by Dunnel ( 1986) has put the various v iews which can be f ound within the American l iterature i nto h istorical and philosophical perspective. He argues that the vital d ivision i s between Essentialist and Materialist views o f the nature of c lassification, that c onfusion between these two a spects o f the problem has l ed to much frustration with typological work. The f irst concerns i tself with the study of difference. I t attempts to produce a s et of discrete entities with variation between these considered as ' background noise'. This i s c lose to the view e spoused i n the present study, concerned a s i t i s with ' created' variation and the study of patterns o f s imilarity and d ifference. The s econd i s concerned with the s tudy o f change. I n this v iew ' kinds' are i llusory, i t i s variation that matters. Types are thus s een a s measurement tools, f or the passage o f t ime i n particular. I t s eems that much typological work carried out i n the U .S.A. has been concerned with types of the second f orm. Thus the various ceramic types which f all i nto the c lassic Type-Variety system of the American south-west, were defined l argely f or their ability to order material i n t ime a nd space. As new dating methods have appeared, the f ocus o f i nterest as regards types, has shifted f rom temporal to s ocial i ssues. The result i s that many o ld space-time types have been a ssigned cultural meanings f or which they were never designed. S tyle

and Function

D espite the f act that much of the l iterature seems to take this separation a s a g iven, the reality i s not that s imple. Much American work has attempted to explain at l east some a rtefact variability, by reference to assumed f unctional a ttributes, a v iew which has been much criticised i n recent y ears ( e.g. Hodder 1 982a, Miller 1 982). Many have a lso r ecognised the existence of an a lternative component o f a rtefact variability, generally referred to a s style. ' Style' has been defined i n a number of d ifferent ways i n r ecent d iscussions, ( Sackett 1 977; Dunnel 1 978; Jelinek 1 980; Brown 1 982) which a lso differ on the d istinction between the f unctional and stylistic components o f artefact variation. Such i nconsistency presents considerable problems f or typologists wishing to separate these areas o f variability. D iscussions on which variables are primarily d etermined by ' functional' f actors and which by ' stylistic' considerations, tend to overlook the f act that the value o f a ny variable, e .g. l ength, i s l ikely to be the product o f a number of f actors, both functional and stylistic, a s well a s the l imitations o f material and manufacturing processes. 2 3

The sheer practical d ifficulties entailed in trying separate the two spheres of variability should not underestimated.

to be

D . M iller ( 1985, 6 5ff) has shown how poorly adapted most pottery vessels are to their day to day function, and outlines the massive ' redundancy' of f orms i n use c ompared to the actual number of roles f ulfilled, concluding that notions of functional e fficiency p lay l ittle part i n any detailed explanation of artefact variability. Shanks and T illey ( 1987, 4 4) a lso argue that " material culture i s primarily a world o f style not function", casting doubt on the suggestion made by H ill and Evans ( 1972, 2 64) that archaeologists ought to a im to define standard s ets of variables relevant to particular hypotheses, and a rguing rather for an open-ended, more exploratory approach to material culture c lassification. Culture

and Communication

Building upon C larke's ( 1978) notion of material culture as coded information, Wobst ( 1977) argues that artefacts, ( some more than others) s ignal social roles, status and group identity. Although certain details of Wobst's argument, e specially the connection between information exchange and adaptive efficiency can be criticised ( see M iller, D .1985, 4 ), the implication that artefact s tyles are c losely connected to the social world i s important. Objects which p lay a role i n the articulation of i ndividuals and human groups are termed ' sociotechnic artefacts' by B inford ( 1972, 2 4), a concept of considerable value for i nterpreting the s ignificance of weaponry. We might therefore believe that there would be an e lement of standardisation among particular f orms of an artefact, having a specific communicative function, which m ight i n turn be related to the concept o f types. One might e xpect artefacts employed i n this role to be h ighly v isible ( Wobst 1 977, 3 27) and weapons would seem to f orm obvious candidates for such a role, a lthough Hodder ( 1982a, 5 5) observes that this i s not a lways so i n practice. I n'what way might we seek to identify those artefacts which are most extensively i nvolved i n this sphere ? The message transmitting e lements of artefacts may be o f perishable materials that are l ost a s part o f the process o f, or subsequent to, their deposition. The f orm of the message will surely depend on the makeup o f the target group. This kind of messaging has been suggested to i ncrease i n value with increasing social d istance; immediate family and members of one's own community know one's social statuses a lready. I t would s eem to be especially useful as a means of conveying i nformation to the more d istant members of one's own group, and to members o f other communities w ith whom one comes i nto contact. C learly, beyond a c ertain social d istance, the system begins to break down as d ifferent s ets of symbols are used. Peebles ( 1971, 6 9) has refined B inford's notion of sociotechnic types to a llow f or 2 4

the differentiation of those which act as local and supralocal symbols. The former have a meaning comprehensible to people within a community, the l atter can be understood by a wide constituency which may cut across political or ethnic boundaries. It might then be possible to consider the d istribution of particular types of artefact, as related to areas within which particular communicative codes were understood. The important role of copper items in the social and prestige areas of activity in central African societies has been well documented i n a recent study ( Herbert 1 984). The present writer's experience of collections of weapons from this area has indicated a substantial overlap with that of the ancient Near East, in terms of the basic building b locks used to create variability, and the way in which these are arranged. The classic techniques of elaborate shape, incised decoration and contrasting inlay encountered i n the weapons from both areas are summarised by the term " The Ornate Implement" ( Northern 1 981, 3 -4). It i s the heavy emphasis on decoration and striking appearance that enables these objects to function as "part of a language of materials expressing values or beliefs integral to the culture within which the object was employed" ( Herbert 1 984, 2 10). This concept appears highly relevant to the Near Eastern material under consideration here. As i s the case with the Levantine material, Herbert ( 1984, 2 27), too has observed the wide spatial distribution of many of the African items, cutting across those of other forms of material remains such as ceramics. The parallels are surprisingly strong. Types

in

theory and practice

A useful definition of a type i s "a group of highly standardised artefacts" ( Doran and Hodson 1 975, 6 3). Brown ( 1982) on the other hand simply defines typology as the search for structure within a body of data, while the goal according to Redman ( 1978, 1 62) should be to "maximize the available information". All of these suggestions are sensible, i f not a lways compatible. However, how do these id as relate to types as they functioned within the l iving societies ? While Chang's suggestion ( 1967, 7 8) that "the ' right' categories should reflect the natives' thinking about the way in which their physical world should be classified", has been criticised ( Binford 1 972, 7 5), recent studies by Hodder ( 1982a) and Miller ( 1985) have shown the reality of types i n some form in ethnographic situations. Considerable energy has been spent in attempting to differentiate between different kinds of types. The heart of the matter seems to depend on the relationship between types as defined by the archaeologist and the conceptions of the actors. A common belief among archaeologists i s that a type in some way represents a set of abstractions, the ' mean' of a series of artefacts ( Taylor 1 948, 1 19), perhaps mental patterns in the minds of their makers ( Krieger 1 944, 2 72), or creations which were socially 2 5

approved ( Childe 1 956, 9 ). Such types are believed to appear to us as non-random attribute clusters, groupings i ncorporated into the material by the makers, and representing a culturally defined order. Certain objects may have a well defined role, expressing concepts such as social status or group affiliation, as suggested by Wobst ( 1977) and should therefore be detectable to us. These may at times be masked by ' background noise' due to the presence of variables which change i n an irregular manner within the artefact population ( Clarke 1 978, 1 54), and which must be identified and e liminated in order to ascertain the more significant variables. Therefore extensive preliminary investigation of the patterning of variables will be required. The mental template notion employed by Taylor ( 1948) assumes that a verbalised concept of the given type existed i n the l iving society. However, i f we follow Spaulding ( 1953, 3 05) and Clarke ( 1978, 2 12) and aim to detect types by seeking non-random clusters of attributes i .e. patterned variation within the data, we will detect numerous such i nstances, some of which were probably unknown to the makers. Types defined in such a manner have been termed ' Empirical Types' ( Taylor 1 948, 1 23-129), and ' true' cultural i .e. cognitive types would seem to represent a subset of these. What do we do with these different forms of type ? Although cultural types are important i n attempts to interpret material culture, the second form o f patterned variation is surely the situation that we encounter when we study variation through time, change observable to us, but almost certainly undetected by the actors. Doran and Hodson ( 1975, 1 76-6), have argued on empirical grounds, that clusters detected in the data should not be excluded j ust because their s ignificance i s not immediately clear to the archaeologist. This seems a sensible practice, but requires to be p laced on more secure theoretical basis. A number of clear cultural types, of the kind that Taylor ( 1948) describes can be identified among the Levantine material ( fenestrated axes for example), but there a lso exist more subtle, complex patterns of variation. In order to deal with this we turn to recent anthropological research, which has concentrated on the role of material culture in l iving societies. I n his study of a south I ndian village, D . Miller ( 1985, 1 1) highlights several valuable points. Not all variability which is detectable by traditional archaeological means, i s recognized by the actors. "Articulation at the level of language may be a poor reflection of the complex expression evidenced in the actual range of products" ( Miller 1 985, 1 0). Some variability occurs at a non-discursive l evel, However, Miller also stresses the role of the producers as the creators of the order which we can detect within the material, arguing that that order cannot be reduced s imply to the hypotheses of the analyst, as some writers have 2 6

sought to do ( e.g. B rew 1 946; H ill and Evans 1 972). Miller argues that we must emphasise the role o f objects i n providing the material environment for social r eproduction. I tems of material culture may therefore f unction to constitute social r elations at a l evel seen a s mundane and natural by the actors, and hence not explicitly understood by them, implying that much of the argument concerning the means by which we move between the two ' types of types' ( 'empirical' and ' cultural') may be redundant. I f we can detect patterned variability, then i t i s c learly there, whether or not the actors were conversant w ith i ts subtlties. G iven the complexity o f l iving societies, and the deep l evel at which certain a spects of material culture operate, i t seems u nlikely that we will be able to explain a ll patterned variation which we can detect archaeologically. W ithin a society c lassification i s dependent on who i s c lassifying, and u nder what circumstances, ( for example details of weapon c lassification may not be apparent to women) and we should not assume that a ll members of a society would c lassify their material culture i n the same way ( see Hodder 1 986, 6 4-65). We cannot assume that there were ' real', unproblematic categories recognised by the l iving population ( D. Miller 1 985, 1 97), and i t i s unlikely that any s ingle c orrect, original, c lassification exists f or us to d iscover. What we detect will r epresent a mixture of things, s ome meaningful only to some people, some probably meaningful to none, a lthough potentially valuable to us ( chronological and regional variations f or example). As a r esult of his research, Miller concludes that classifications used by archaeologists ought to be j udged heuristically ( 1985, 1 0), which i s e ssentially the position adopted h ere. Having outlined a theoretical position, regarding the existence of types, and a general method f or their detection ( patterned variation detected by extensive dataexploration) we must now consider the means by which these notions can be put i nto practice. Typology a s applied to metals will d iffer f rom the approaches suggested f or other materials. The basic typological criteria f or metalwork are morphological. Chemical analysis i s valuable, but most useful when combined with a shape typology, a nd cannot r eally provide a n a lternative method i n most i nstances. M iller ( 1985, 3 5) has recently raised an important point, a rguing that we must not assume that technology determines the f inal product. Frequently i t i s social or cultural f actors which decide the appearance o f an object. I t i s a basic t enet of this project that many types are polythetic i n the sense defined by C larke ( 1978, 3 6), a lthough a ll types need not be so. I n the l atter case, universal f eatures will be fairly f ew i n number, and probably morphologically d istinctive e .g. a ll f enestrated axes have holes i n the blade; i t i s this very f act that makes them the s triking phenomenon which they are. The 2 7

detection o f such a " highly correlated core of attributes" a s the basis of a type ( Clarke 1 978, 2 12), i s the same i n e ssence a s the statistically detectable variable a ssociations employed by Spaulding ( 1953, 3 05). However, the l atter emphasised the use o f s tatistical tests ( the Chi-squared test i n particular) a s the means whereby such associations could be demonstrated. Of course, the Chisquared test i s a means of testing hypotheses, an approach to which there are a number of s erious objections when applied to archaeological data. ( For f urther discussion of methodology see 1 .3.). There i s another aspect of this problem which i s f requently overlooked i n the l iterature. C larke ( 1978, 1 58) would recognize " clusters of repeatedly and c losely i ntercorrelated attributes" a s recurrent ' attribute complexes', forming an entity at a l ower l evel than t hat of the artefact i tself, a concept c lose to Rouse's ( 1960) idea o f ' modes'. Beneath the p lethora o f terms employed i n d iscussing such ' sub-artefactual' variable c lusters, there exists a valuable point. Examples m ight i nclude p articular s ets o f decorative motifs which a ppear on a range of d ifferent i tems; pots, wall-paintings, textiles etc, or common styles of handle, occurring on several d ifferent f orms of dagger-blade, i .e a coherent entity which can transfer as a unit, rather than a s i ndividual attributes. Such phenomena may well be of cultural s ignificance, and i f detected should be i solated, rather than subsumed within a general series of types. Types,

sub-types

and variants

Too much energy has been spent attempting to define r igid terms f or what should be considered a highly f luid s ituation. The whole notion of types and sub-types i s i nextricably bound up with c lassification carried out with h indsight. I n practice, i t matters l ittle whether regional variants of a f orm o f axe are c lassed as variants, subtypes or even a s d ifferent types. I t i s the detection and i nterpretation o f the variation that matters. I n many cases types are defined i n relation to what they are not, i n terms of d ifference. The approach taken here i s that we talk i n terms o f types; the term sub-type being restricted to groups o f c learly related material, the members o f which d iffer on one, consistently detectable, morphological detail. As f or variants, the term h as been retained for i tems which have no good parallels i n the rest o f the corpus, and which are l umped together f or ease of handling. I n summary, types are defined on a morphological basis, through patterning detected among the variables, where necessary on a multivariate basis. Emphasis i s p laced on data-exploration, on s eeking out patterns, rather than on the f ormulation and testing o f hypotheses. Spatial, contextual and compositional data are not employed i n typedefinition, but f orm the basis of i nterpretation.

2 8

1 .3.

METHOD

In the l ight of the foregoing discussion, we must now consider the procedures adopted in the present study. I f we are to deal with polythetic types, a multivariate approach will be necessary. Therefore a short note on terminology is appropriate. Scales of measurement are discussed fully in standard statistical texts such as Blalock ( 1972), and will not be described in detail here. Suffice it to say that interval scales are essentially those concerned with numerical data, e . g. L ength - 3 30mm or Percentage of Tin - 6 .34. Nominal scales order items into discrete categories but say nothing about the differences between the categories e . g. Colour red, green, blue or cross Section - ovoid, rectangular, circular. Presence/absence ( dichotomous) scales are s imply a variant of the l atter. The definitions given below are those used here. A brief guide to alternative terms is also provided ( in brackets). ' item',

' object'

variable'

used interchangeably, individual weapons.

refer to

most American writers also use this term, ' attribute'is preferred by Clarke 1 978, Doran and Hodson 1 975).

variable-value'

attribute in much American writing, ' attribute-state'Clarke and Doran and Hodson ) : the score on a particular variable attained by a particular item.

DATA ANALYSIS S election

of

variables

Bearing in mind the importance of the production process in the creation of variability ( as variation i s taken to be subject-generated), the selected variables are connected with shape and other aspects of physical appearance. These represent the result of actions taken by the producer, though they may not have been explicitly considered. In such a study some variables will prove difficult to record consistently for practical reasons such as differential preservation, the quality of published data and so on. Therefore we must resist the temptation to assign values to variables in cases where we are not absolutely certain. Numeric Variables Sneath and Sokal ( 1973, 4 34) have emphasised the value of numeric variables in classification procedures. As well as the obvious importance of factors such as ' size', numeric data can act as a counterweight to those obvious 2 9

characteristics which tend to dominate t raditional c lassifications, the importance of which may b e rather overrated. Support comes from recent anthropological work, D . Miller ( 1985, 4 1) having stressed the role of c ontinuous variability, gradation, as part o f human categorisation processes. I n our case, i t i s c lear that absolute s ize may be an important f actor i n determining d ifferent f unctional c lasses of weapon, particularly when considering s ocketted spear f orms. I t i s possible that two or three main s ize c lasses underlie a multitude of l ocal stylistic variations, and may therefore provide a c lassification which cuts across groupings suggested on categorical variables ( see 2 .3). Unless one has access to l arge quantities o f material at one t ime, or can a ssemble a body o f i llustrations at the same scale, s tudy of metric data provides the only means o f comparing s ize variation between d ifferent objects. Categorical

variables

The i nvestigation of categorical variables i s a n obvious task, and has formed the core of typological work f or many decades. The problem here i s how one decides where the boundaries of a particular c lass l ie. Do we d efine two values, red and b lue, or recognise a third, purple ? F or some variables the categories used are f airly obvious. I n other cases i t i s l ikely that the c lasses r epresent convenient points within a continuous spectrum o f variability ( Needham 1 983, 4 2). Many would be e xtremely d ifficult to express numerically, so they are best treated a s categorical variables. Consider for example crosss ection, where square, rhomboidal and c ircular f orms could show equal values f or thickness and breadth although the shapes are c learly d ifferent. The problem of boundaries i s more d ifficult. The best approach i s to try a nd define f airly strict categories, but note the particular values o f variables which s eem to shade i nto e ach other. Areas o f overlap and possible mis-classifications, or even the possibility of merging d ifferent values will become clear when one attempts variable by variable crossc lassification. The approach suggested here i s therefore based on trial and error, and i s dependent on the analyst's ability t o work i nteractively on the data. Naturally, when one i s u nsure o f the correct value to assign, one should s imply l eave that variable undefined on that particular object. Thus one can be sure that what patterning i s observed i s genuinely present. A variety of methods are used, s ome statistical, others more empirical. The basic premise i s that research should move from the s imple to the more complex, not the reverse. I n cases where a s imple a nalysis provides valuable results, we stop. A lthough the statistical i nvestigations are i nteresting in themselves, method must remain subordinate to research a ims. I t i s not i ntended to pursue ever more complex s tatistical i nvestigations past the point of d iminishing returns. 3 0

Analytical

methods

The f irst step then i s data-exploration, to seek out its internal structure. One of the fundamental problems with most w idely employed statistical methods, i s that they make unjustified assumptions about the distribution of the data ( usually assuming normality). In addition, many measures, even s imple terms such as mean and standard deviation can mask s kewness or multimodality ( Hartwig with Dearing 1 979), the very things which are of interest to us. These problems become greatly increased when multivariate methods are u sed. As a result, emphasis i s placed on visual displays such as s catter-plots to detect multiple peaks, clusters and other non-linear relationships, and for the detection of deviant cases before they can upset summary statistics. These can reasonably be expected, given the nature of metal production and patterns of wear. These procedures are really concerned with pattern recognition, and i t should not be forgotten that traditional study of material, in particular the experience of handling artefacts, i s a highly effective way of observing patterns, and c an often suggest underlying structures within data. These can then be investigated statistically, so that they can b e clearly spelt out. Following this procedure will provide a good i ndication of exactly what i s happening within the data. ( When summary statistics are quoted it i s generally as a shorthand measure, calculated after typedefinition, to enable the absolute s izes of different types to be compared.) In s ome cases multivariate methods are employed. Much recent debate has centred on the applicability of what are termed object c lustering and variable association methods ( see Whallon and Brown 1 982). As Brown remarks ( 1982, 1 78) theory and practice exist on two separate planes, and no s ingle method will be the most useful in all cases. For a summary of the two f ields the reader i s directed to Doran and Hodson ( 1975) and Whallon and Brown ( 1982). A more detailed discussion of these problems with particular reference to the present project i s provided elsewhere, ( Philip 1 988a). Multivariate statistical techniques are employed here but not as a blanket approach. F letcher and Lock ( 1985, 1 69) have recently drawn attention to the dangers inherent in an uncritical use o f such methods. 0 ' Shea ( 1985, 1 05) has underlined the i nherent r isks i n cluster analysis, r evealing that i t proves most effective when the groupings w ithin the data are characterised by strong redundancy among the variables. It i s therefore proposed to rely extensively on s impler statistical methods, using c luster a nalysis as an exploratory technique only, to point out underlying features of the data. Considerable reliance has a lso been placed on the writer's f irst hand knowledge of the material, still recognized as a sound basis upon which to make archaeological j udgements, ( Fletcher and Lock 1 985, 1 70). 3 1

C lassification Procedures Doran and Hodson ( 1975, 1 02) suggest that a n i nitial d ivision of material i nto a f ew broad categories i s a valid procedure. On this basis f ive c lasses have been defined; axes, tanged spearheads, socketted s pearheads, daggers and knives ( similar to a dagger but with only a single cutting edge). Only one particular group of knives i s i ncluded i n this study ( see 2 .5 for details). Moving on from this, i tems are classified to a certain l evel within a s eries of types, though not necessarily the same l evel in each case. The f irst s uch l evel i s termed ' series', such a s ' fenestrated axes' or ' narrow d aggers'. These are defined by obvious morphological f eatures, a scertainable i n a ll but the most badly damaged i tems. I n the case of such objects, assignment to a series s uch a s ' fenestrated axe' may be a ll that i s possible. F or these i tems the focus of i nterest now shifts from their typology to context. This i s the major reason for i ncluding less well preserved material at a ll. The next l evel i s that o f the ' Type'. These are d efined on the basis of the patterning of a polythetic variable set and will form the raw material f or contextual analysis. I n practice two s ituations can arise here. I n some cases, f enestrated axes f or example, the material falls r eadily i nto groups which are c learly distinguishable. I n other cases, a f ew d istinctive groups o f material c an be i solated, l eaving a l ess-tractable remainder. I n this s ituation, the easily d istinguished types are removed and the remainder subjected to re-analysis to seek more subtle patterning. This process can be repeated several t imes i n a step-wise manner until s ignificant p atterns can n o l onger be detected. At this stage a residue of unclassifiable or idiosyncratic p ieces may well remain. It would be unrealisitic t o expect a ll material to f all i nto neat groups, so the notion of a residue seems perfectly reasonable. P ieces which do not belong to any o f the defined types a re collected together a s groups of ' variants'. As well as being administratively convenient for the database, this serves a twofold p urpose. They are separated from those i tems which genuinely do belong to our main types so that they cannot confuse the p icture, and can then be examined i ndividually, i n an attempt to establish exactly where their true relationships do l ie. The writer i s not i n f avour of complex hierarchical typologies so the f inal l evel, sub-type, which is employed when the members o f a type can be subdivided on the basis of the value o f a s ingle variable, i s used only where potentially meaningful patterns are observed. The e ssential a im i s to maintain f lexibility, to prevent the explanatory potential of the material from being lost through an over-tight structure. 3 2

Detailed information on Catalogue. That provided

each type i n the main

i s provided text consists

i n of:

the

A short definition of d istinguishing f eatures. S ummary of chronological and spatial d istribution. D iscussion of f oreign ( non-Levantine) parallels. Brief d iscussion of i ts relationship to other types. The Problem of

C omparability

The h eart of the project i s an attempt to assess scores of the i ndividual objects, across a range of variables, which can t hen be analysed for patterning. Essential to this i s a means of grading data quality, otherwise we will not be comparing l ike w ith l ike. Two d ifferent aspects o f this have been considered, the condition of i ndividual objects, how much data has s imply been l ost due to corrosion or damage ( details below) and the reliability of the source through which the i nformation was collected. A s cale of reliablity was developed, built i nto the database, and used in the s election of comparable groups of material ( see details i n Philip 1 988a). Within this framework, i t proved possible to i nclude observations concerning corrosion, repairs, use wear etc. A s imilar hierarchy of reliability was established f or the sources of the d ata collected on each object, running from f irst hand study, through various kinds o f published i nformation, good, adequate, poor, to other sources such a s material seen in museum cases but otherwise unpublished ( information l isted in the Catalogue). E stablishment of the typedefining criteria was carried out via statistical data derived from the best preserved material only. The procedure was to work from the most reliable data outward, rather than to treat a ll objects i n the s ame way, regardless of condition. To be included w ithin the body of data employed i n the actual definition of types, an i tem had to be substantially complete, e ither s een at f irst hand or available i n a reliable published drawing, and have some record of absolute d imensions. I n some cases this has meant that a substantial minority of the corpus has been excluded f rom type definition. After having examined the patterning among variables a nd defined types, using only the reliable p ieces, the rest o f the corpus was assessed i n the l ight of the framework thus provided, and assigned to types on the basis of those c riteria which were c learly i dentifiable. There still remained a minority of p ieces which could not be reliably a ssigned to a type, owing to reasons of preservation or poor publication. Such i tems appear i n the C atalogue a s ' unclassified'. Procedures

in practice

An immense amount of s election, c lassification o f data was required, 3 3

recoding and crossand the only practical

means whereby this could be carried out was through a relational database. The SIR package ( Scientific I nformation Retrieval) produced by S ir Inc. ( The program i s fully described in SIR Users Manual, Version 2 , 1980, 1 984) was chosen on account of its wide availability and its suitability for the problem in hand. In particular S IR permitted the selection of sets of comparable data for analysis; by screening out those items which failed to meet certain criteria of reliability. I t also facilitated the recognition of the underlying variable structure o f groups suggested by cluster analysis, the detection of the spatial and chronological distribution of types, and patterns of association. In addition it held i nformation on chemical composition, details of museum numbers, publication references, and drawing and photographic records. Preliminary analysis of variables was carried out using the statistical package MINITAB ( Ryan, Joiner, Ryan 1985), which i s both simple to operate and can be used i nteractively. The importance of the latter point is now recognized in the l iterature ( Lewis 1 986, 3 05). Interactive data analysis allows the analyst to see the results of various tests and plots instantly, and i s therefore ideal a s a means by which to explore data structure, as i t becomes possible to pursue promising l ines of enquiry as they come to one's notice. I n some cases there may well be multi-way associations between several variables. This i s hard to detect w ith the methods outlined above. The solution here has been to employ c luster analysis, after preliminary examiniation of the data to highlight the most important variables. Used i n a number of research areas, cluster analysis i s generally viewed as an exploratory technique, providing i nsight into the structure of the data set. In that sense then, i t i s a logical extension of the data exploration methods described above. " Cluster analysis is used as a heuristic tool for creating one of several possible empirical classifications" ( Lorr 1 983, 1 14). It w ill not provide a single ' correct' answer. A number of d ifferent variable sets, selected from those variables identified as potentially s ignificant by preliminary testing, were employed in order to investigate the possibility o f there being different, cross-cutting patterns, within the data. The problems encountered when dealing with a mix of numeric and categorical variables have been surmounted by the use of a suitable coefficient of similarity, the Gower coefficient ( Gower 1 971) which can deal with a mixture of quantitative, multi-state categorical, and presence-absence data ( Sneath and Sokal 1 973, 1 35-136). Doran and Hodson ( 1975, 1 42) note that this coefficient can deal with missing data, which would seem to make it especially useful f or archaeological research. The way in which this i s employed i s described by Philip and Ottaway ( 1983), who discuss the program FLEXI, which calculates a coefficient of s imilarities which can then be entered into CLUSTAN, a standard package of clustering routines ( Wishart 1 982). 3 4

I nterpretation of the s ignificance of c lusters i s at present a d ifficult area. The best procedure ( O'Shea 1 984, 6 9) i s to examine t he referent variables for each c luster i n a n attempt to extract the l ogic underlying the d ivisions, easily a chieved via the database. As Sneath and Sokal observe ( 1973, 4 30), numerical taxonomy may s imply confirm an existing typology. I f so, this i s revealing i n i tself. However, quite frequently i t will reveal new, h itherto undetected relationships within the data, a s i n several instances i n the present analysis. Apart from the choice of s imilarity coefficient, the analyst i s a lso f aced with an array of c lustering methods. These will tend to produce r ather different results, depending on the a ctual data s tructure. The writer has tested several o f the best known methods i ncluding S ingle L inkage and Ward's Method but has f ound the Average L inkage method to g ive consistently better results. both here and i n previous trials ( Philip ( a) i n press). This i s i n l ine with recent experimental trials ( summarised i n Lorr 1 983, 1 17ff). There are several reasons f or this, mostly related to the nature o f the data used i n this sample. Among the most important a re i ts resistance to the e ffects o f outliers ( a weakness of the much used Ward's Method i n particular), and i ts better f acility for dealing with well s eparated, as opposed to overlapping c lusters. As a r esult the dendrograms provided are produced by the Average L inkage method. The Types A number of the types observed are strikingly c lear. Childe's remark ( 1956, 3 5) that " the s ignificance o f a type .. i s proportionate to i ts improbability" i s apposite here. Following this one could argue that the f enestrated axe series i s " improbable" and should therefore be treated a s an i ndependent type ( Clarke 1 978, 2 28), though i t may well comprise a s eries of transform types ( see below). I t m ight be argued that a number o f these types do approximate to ' cognitive' types and are e ssentially normative, though they are not necessarily static f ixed forms. The detailed a rgument will be presented on a case by case basis at a l ater time, and types' validities supported both i nternally ( statistically) a nd f rom other evidence. Such types are based on a set o f variable a ssociations which are easily d etectable today, and are l ikely to have been equally obvious to people i n the past. These are types w ith c lear unequivocal boundaries. Most o f those types defined by Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1946, 1 949) but still c ited today, f all i nto this category. Examples i nclude the two main forms o f f enestrated axe, the ' broad' and ' narrow' or ' duckbill' v ersions, and the ' notched', narrow-bladed axe. A s econd group o f types are not so immediately apparent on v isual i nspection, a lthough they can be detected by s tatistical means, through d istinctive though sometimes c omplex variable patterning. These will often approximate 3 5

to C larke's ( 1978, 2 28) concept of ' Transform Types', which r epresent " successive or multilineage type-states from a s ingle artefact-type system t ime trajectory, separated one f rom another merely by thresholds". Unlike the types defined above the boundaries between Transform Types are l ess r igid, and membership i s based on a polythetic set o f variable values. A good example of this i s provided by the range of regional variants, which c an be s een to derive from the basic tanged spearhead with square-sectioned b lade ( see 2 .2). These types show a wide r ange of forms, a ll o f which are related. However to attempt to c lassify these types as sub-types of one ' ancestral' type, would be to p lace the entire series i n a f alse evolutionary f ramework. I t was i n the detection of such relationships that c luster analysis proved most valuable. Naturally, the boundaries between the two kinds o f types so f ar described w ill be b lurred i n p laces, and we should perhaps consider them a s opposite halves of a continuous spectrum of more a nd l ess morphologically distinct types. A third group of material will a lso exist. This will consist of material which cannot readily be a ssigned to any o f the kinds of types described above. Having previously criticised the tendency to f orce material into p igeon holes, we are c learly going to be l eft with a body o f material which i s not broken or corroded, but which cannot be f itted easily i nto a c lassificatory scheme. That such a group exists i s revealing i n i tself. The reasons f or this may reflect the nature of production, or the way i n which these i tems were conceived by the producers. Not a ll weaponry will necessarily express particular social concepts, nor will i t a ll have been manufactured by specialist craftsmen. Thus a third category of type i s r ecognised. This consists of s everal groups of l oosely r elated material, possibly not conforming to any particular design, but within which i t i s possible to identify a certain degree of structure, permitting the definition o f groups on the basis of certain f eatures which they h ave i n common. These f eatures may well show regional or chronological coherence. That this i s so raises a number o f i nteresting points concerning the very existence o f s everal d ifferent ' kinds' of types, a matter discussed at more l ength e lsewhere ( see 2 .4.2).

36

PART

2 .

THE MATERIAL

This s ection deals with the basic archaeological material. Types are defined, and their chronology and distribution outlined. Detailed arguments concerning the basis upon which types were defined can be found in the Catalogue. Only a short summary is provided here. The numbering of types i s arbitrary, so that the typology remains f lexible, and can adapt to accomodate new material. In certain cases the types are not discussed in numerical order, rather those which seem to be related in some way are discussed together. ( Note: in order to avoid repetition, full references to the original publication are not always cited when i ndividual items are discussed in descriptions of types; these can be found under the entry for each object in the Catalogue.) 2 .1.

AXES

Axes were divided into four groups on morphological grounds. These are narrow-bladed, fenestrated, crescentic and shaft-hole axes respectively. Most of the material i s c learly assignable to one of these groups. Where a possibility of overlap exists this has been pointed out in the d iscussion. NARROW-BLADED AXES The e ssence of these axes i s that they possess long, s lim b lades with a narrow cutting edge. The long axis of the b lade l ies perpendicular to the handle, which i s straight, and f its into an ovoid socket. These axes are clearly distinguishable from the fenestrated, crescentic and shafthole forms discussed below, and their recognition as a broad class i s already well established in the l iterature. The form of axe described as narrow-bladed conforms essentially to those classed as Types 2 3 and 2 4 by MaxwellHyslop ( 1949) and Types E and F by Deshayes ( 1960). Type 1 Axe w ith notch on underside of blade and undecorated socket ( fig. 1 ). The axes of this type show a wide range of absolute s ize, suggesting that i t was more important for an axe to be of the ' correct' shape than of a specific s ize or weight. The l atter would seem especially important were the weapon designed to counter developments in body armour, metal helmets i n particular, as Yadin ( 1963, 60) has suggested, implying that shape and appearance were as s ignificant as mechanical efficiency, and that the form of these axes was determined as much by social as by functional factors. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 6 3a) Type 1 axes are distributed widely throughout the coastal Levant, from Tell Sukas in Syria to Tell el-Dab'a in the 3 7

N ile Delta. Examples are known from all over Palestine and from Ruweise in coastal Lebanon. Those from the Lebanon and Tell Sukas suggest that the rarity of the type in coastal Syria, reflects the lack of work in the area, rather than a genuine absence of the type there. Their apparent rarity i n inland Syria, where only a s ingle example has been reported, ( from Hama) may be genuine. This would seem plausible i f, as suggested below, fenestrated axes continued in use rather longer i n inland regions. However we should be cautious about accepting this until more tombs of the appropriate period, away from the coast, have been excavated. Three moulds for the manufacture of axes of Type 1 are published. These come from Megiddo Str. V ( Lamon 1 939, 1 48, P l. 1 05) in a secondary context, and Byblos, where one occurs as a surface f ind ( No. 6 794 Dunand 1954, 1 1 P l. 1 84), and another in Lev. V , also lacking a proper context ( No. 8 978 Dunand 1 954, 2 34, Pl. 1 84). Both sites l ie well within the area defined by the distribution of the axes themselves, thus confirming that the area of production and that of distribution overlap. An additional point clarified by the moulds i s that the cross-stops encountered i n a number of these axes were added subsequent to casting. This mounting would of course prevent the top of the handle j utting out beyond the upper end of the socket. The sockets of these axe imply that the handles were straight. By contrast, the fenestrated axes shown in Egyptian reliefs ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. XXVIII, XXX-XXXI), and those excavated from Baghouz in central Syria ( du Mesnil Du Buisson 1 948, P l. XLVII), have curved handles which project some way beyond the top of the socket. The approach described below i s the method which was used with a ll types in the present study, and is therefore presented at rather more l ength than i s the case i n subsequent discussions. The relevant information could be accessed and tabulated using the Interactive Query Language ( SQL) of the S IR database package. Thus full details of a ll contexts in which a type appears, as well as the nature o f any associated weapons, could be obtained. Many of these axes come from reused or otherwise disturbed contexts. The best dating evidence i s l ikely to come from c losed groups, in particular from undisturbed single burials, or those with several burials showing minimal d isturbance, as sometimes occur at Tell el-Dab'a. When dealing with tombs used for multiple successive i nterments, the best source of reliable data i s from small groups of a ssociated material, i ncluding diagnostic pottery, which can be clearly i solated, by stratigraphic, rather than typological means. Such occur in a number of the reused tombs at Jericho. The difficulty with this approach i s that we must, therefore, evaluate each tomb-group i ndividually, examining contents, stratigraphy, preservation, and standard of excavation and recording ( all this i nformation can then be entered into the database and 3 8

used i n future analysis). This exercise leads to the conclusion that the number of reliable groups i s l imited. However, methodological rigour demands that it i s these which form the basis of any discussion of the chronological place of this material. Axes of Type 1 occur in several such groups; Tell el-Dab'a A/II-1/12 Gr 5 and F/I-d/23 Gr 1 , which belong to M . B.I or early M . B.II, Tomb 1 015 at Tell el-'Ajjul of M .B.I date, and Kfar D jarrah Tomb 3 3, dated to late M . B.I or early M . B.II ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 4 2). Other burials, mostly of the multiple successive type, where the material cannot always be assigned to any particular phase, provide general confirmation of this date. An example i s published from Ginosar Tomb 1 ( Epstein 1974) where the pottery i s of later M .B I or a transitional M . B.I-II variety ( called M . B.IIA-B by the excavator), which can be correlated with the postpalace phase at Ras el-' Ain/Aphek ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 3 5). Another example, f rom Tomb 3 1-31A at El-Gib was found in association with a dagger of our Type 1 3 ( Pritchard 1 963, 1 2). This group has been dated to the middle M . B.I by Gerstenblith ( 1983, 3 4), although the main dating criteria would seem to have been the weapons themselves, which argue for a late M .B.I date. In such an exercise as ours, in which we are attempting to date the metalwork itself, arguments based on such evidence cannot be employed. In summary, axes of Type 1 can be dated towards the end of M .B.I Additional support for this position exists. I f, as seems l ikely, these axes succeed the fenestrated axe as the preferred burial item, then they must appear relatively l ate in the M .B.I period, as examples of the former appear in contexts dating to the late 1 9th century at Kültepe Kanesh Ib, and the 1 8th century at s ites such as Tell Mardikh and Baghouz, although this may result from regional differences which are discussed elsewhere. Narrow-bladed axes of this type are noticeably absent from the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos ( see below). It should also be observed that the pottery associated with those found in Palestine i s of the red s lipped and burnished types now known through recent excavations at Aphek ( Beck 1 975, 1 987) and other s ites i n the coastal plain of Palestine ( Kochavi et a l 1978), to be diagnostic of only the l ater part of the M .B.I period. Chronologically therefore, axes of Type 1 seem to be restricted to a relatively short duration, in the latter part of the M .B.I period, after which they are replaced by axes of Types 2 -4. This may account, in part, for the marked homogeneity shown by the objects. The absence of these weapons from the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos, despite the presence at the s ite of moulds for their production, i s s triking. These weapons are common in graves, and there i s a large overlap between the material f rom the ' Döpöts' and the contemporary grave f inds ( Philip 1 988b), implying that the ' Döpöts' were closed prior to the 3 9

appearance of Type 1 axes, i .e. before the end o f M . B.I, a view supported by the s imilar rarity o f Type 1 3 d aggers i n these deposits ( see 2 .4), a point with chronological implications f or other material from the ' C i pöts'. Foreign Parallels Reliably provenanced parallels for t hese axes have not been reported from s ites outwith the Levant. The axes s how some resemblance to the Mesopotamian form c lassed as Type C 3a by Deshayes ( 1960). A number of additional examples of this f orm have come from tombs in the Hamrin, north-east o f Baghdad, dating to the I sin-Larsa or O ld Babylonian periods ( Najim 1 984, f ig. 2 8, Rumeidiyeh 1 984, 5 4, f ig.18.2). However, the morphological s imilarity i s no more than approximate, and serves only to u nderline the d istinct d ifferences between Mesopotamian and Levantine metalwork o f the earlier second millennium. The Mesopotamian weapons are not sufficiently well dated to a llow us to assign clear chronological priority to e ither region. Type 2 Axe with stops ahead of, and behind, socket, a nd with s imple beading on upper and lower margins of socket ( see f ig. 2 ). Two sub-types are defined on the basis o f blade cross-section, which can be e ither h exagonal, or ovoid, and which i s determined by the shape of the mould used. These show markedly d ifferent d istributions ( see below). Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 3b) The distribution of these axes e xtends from northern Palestine, to the Nile Delta. The l argest number o f such weapons come f rom tombs at Jericho a nd Tell el-Dabia. A s yet, none have been reported from s ites i n Syria. The contrast with the d istribution of Type 1 axes, which covers both Palestine and Syria, i s c lear. E ight of the nine examples with hexagonal sections come from Tell e l-Dab'a, the n inth ( No. 4 24), from Megiddo, while e ight of the nine with ovoid section b lades come from Palestine, w ith the n inth ( No. 4 37), coming from Tell e l-Dab'a. I t seems l ikely that these represent the p roducts of l ocalised i ndustries, a point reinforced by the d ifferent compositions o f weapons from Jericho a nd Tell el-Dab'a ( see Table 1 ), and that the exceptions are i ndicative of a degree of i nterregional exchange. Thus we can detect a degree of l ocalised variation within a f orm which s hows a high degree o f conformity over a l arge area. The most l ikely explanation f or this i s that the r egional differences reflect l ocal metalworking practices, the underlying unity, a widely understood notion o f the ' correct' form which the artefact should take. This i s an intriguing d ichotomy. These axes c learly date to the M .B.II period. An e xample comes from Megiddo Tomb 4 110, which K enyon ( 1969, 3 1) would ascribe to her phase B , i .e. early i n the M . B.II period. Another, from Khirbet Kufin, comes from Tomb 3 Chambers 6 -7 Upper stratum, which i ncludes material of both M .B.I and 4 0

early M . B.II date ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 3 4). Those from single burials at Jericho come from tombs dating to the earlier part of the period ( Tomb J3 and A 1 34) which belong to Kenyon's Groups I and I II, although Dever ( 1976, 2 4; note 3 6) suggests that Tomb J3 should be reassigned to her Group I II or IV. That from Tell el-Far'ah ( N) comes from Tomb A which also belongs to the M . B.II period. Examples from Tell el-Dab'a come from tombs, the dates of which range from the beginning to the end of the M .B.II period ( information provided by Dr B ietak). As yet no examples from Palestine are from contexts of an exclusively late M .B.II character, although a number come from tombs whose use spans the whole of the period. In summary, these axes appear early in the M . B.II period, and continue in use, in the Delta at least, until the end of the period. In contextual terms, these axes would seem to represent the M .B.II successor to the Type 1 axes of late M . B.I, a lthough it i s interesting to observe that no ' intermediate' form seems to exist. This whole question requires an approach different from the classic ' typology-technology-chronology' framework, which has structured many earlier investigations. A more detailed consideration i s provided elsewhere ( see 3 .2.3) Foreign Parallels No parallels are known. Type 3 Axe with beading running along the upper and of b lade, and with a hook ahead of the socket

lower ( fig.

margins 3 ).

Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 4a) This type unlike Types 2 and 4 , shows a widespread distribution. Examples are known from Ras Shamra in Syria, from Palestine, and the Nile Delta. However, given the large numbers of narrow-bladed axes of other types found at Tell el-Dab'a and Ras Shamra, we might reasonably argue that the examples of Type 3 found at each represent imports, and that they are an essentially Palestinian form. Additional examples recently recovered from tombs i n the vicinity of Tell Beit Mirsim ( information kindly supplied by E . Braun), l end further support to this view. The example from Tel Aviv Harbour ( No. 4 35) might well be of l ate M . B.II date, but there is insufficient evidence as yet, to permit us to assign this type to a specific phase within the M . B.II period. Foreign Parallels No parallels are known. Type 4 Axe with large cylindrical socket ribs. Larger and heavier than Types Chronology and D istribution At present, the d istribution

of 4 1

Type

bearing two or 1 -3 ( fig. 4 ).

4 axes

i s

three

restricted

to the s ite of Ras Shamra in Syria. Whether these axes represent a product specific to that s ite, or a product at home in Syria generally must await f uture excavation. The l atter seems more l ikely. There i s a fragment of a twop iece, stone mould from Ras Shamra, which on the evidence of i ts surviving dimensions may well be for an axe of this type ( Musöe du Louvre AO 8 4.289, unpublished). The matrix measures 2 8 mm across the f lared cutting edge, and suggests a relatively thin blade. Both traits are typical of axes of this type. All published examples are from tombs dating to the M .B.II period. It i s hard to be more precise than this, a lthough the quantity of Cypriot pottery in these tombs, and their reuse with minimal disturbance in the L . B. A. might suggest that they were in use during a late phase of the period. However, this alone i s insufficient evidence on which to a ssign these axes to such a date, as a ll the tombs were i n use over a period of time. These weapons should therefore be considered a contemporary Syrian version, of the better known Type 2 axe, common farther south. Foreign Parallels The most coherent body of comparative material i s a group of narrow-bladed, socketted axes, all of which are a scribed to a Cypriot provenance. These weapons have been classed as Type 5 by Äström ( 1957, 1 39) and B 4a by Deshayes ( 1960, 1 73). I n a recent review of these axes, Buchholz ( 1979) presents a corpus of fourteen examples, which he believes were manufactured locally. Unfortunately few of these axes are from well stratified contexts, which presents certain problems i n their interpretation. The Cypriot axes are generally believed ( Äström 1 957, Catling 1 964) to be of a date contemporary with the M .B.II period in the Levant. Bearing in mind the distinct regionalism shown by several of the types outlined above, the Cypriot type f its easily i nto the general M .B.II pattern, a s another regional variant of a general Levantine tradition. Axes of Type 4 are concentrated at Ras Shamra, and i t i s interesting that this i s the group providing the closest parallels for the Cypriot axes. That Cypriot contacts were stronger with Syria than with Palestine should not come as a surprise. The frequent f inds of Cypriot pottery i n Palestinian M .B. A. contexts ( Johnson 1 982), may well reflect the greater archaeological activity there, rather than the real pattern of interaction. Until recently the only provenanced parallel from Mesopotamia was an example from Kish ( Langdon 1924, 78 P l. XX.5). This axe i s ascribed to the O ld Babylonian period, coming from " the western city ruins" ( Langdon 1 924, 7 8), a lthough as Maxwell-Hyslop observes ( 1949, 1 15) the stratigraphy i s not clear. It i s poorly i llustrated, and i ts exact typology was uncertain. Deshayes ( 1960, 1 71) has a ssigned this axe to his group B 2b, most of the members of which are from uncertain contexts. Recent excavations i n 4 2

the Hamrin Basin, have produced several axes of Deshayes Types B 2a and B 2b, dated to the I sin-Larsa or Old Babylonian periods ( Najim 1 984, f ig. 2 8; Rumeidiyeh 1 984, 5 4 f ig.18.2; Land o f the Two Rivers 1 985, No. 1 22), which have clarified the fact that the Kish piece belongs to a Mesopotamian form s imilar to, but distinctly different from, our Type 4 . Another example, probably of s imilar date, i s reported f rom Susa ( Tallon 1 987, No. 4 5). Until this new material i s fully published, we cannot be sure whether the form was adopted f irst in one area, or whether they represent contemporary variants. However, Deshayes ( 1960, 1 71) observes that axes of his Type B2 have sockets of e lliptical section. Such sockets had been the rule in the Levant s ince the development of fenestrated axes, at the beginning of the M . B. A., and may be descended from the ovoid handles employed on E . B. A. crescentic axes ( see below). Those on the well-known third millennium Mesopotamian axes, had traditionally been circular, suggesting that borrowing was not a one way process. Type 5 ( Variants) See Catalogue for description. Discussion The narrow-bladed axe series would seem to represent a d istinctive tradition developed in the coastal Levant. Even were it proved that the Mesopotamian axes of Deshayes Type B 2 were earlier, it i s still the case that the form underwent a lengthy series of modifications and adaptations i n the west. Type 4 , which has the closest Mesopotamian parallels, i s not the earliest version of narrow-bladed axe found in the west. This, Type 1 has no direct ancestor, l ocally or farther east. It seems unlikely that these axes are derived from the fenestrated axe series, which they s eem to succeed a s the preferred funerary axe, a lthough their shared preference for an ovoid socket should be noted. On the other hand, none of the local forms of shaft-hole axe ( see below) provide a credible precedent e ither. It i s possible that this type represents a completely new design, developed in the cities of Syria, whether to meet f unctional or sociological requirements i s not clear. Some similarity exists with the axe from Alalakh a ssigned to Type 5 here, and to a group of four shaft-hole axes o f Type 6 from the Palace at Mari ( dating to some t ime prior to c 1 760), but there i s no hard evidence to connect these. The axes of Types 2 -4 are more clearly related to each other, to the distinctive Cypriot form discussed above, and possibly to shaft-hole axe Type 5 , ( see below) a lthough the l atter connection i s by no means certain. These clearly represent regional variants of a s ingle general tradition. There may also be a chronological dimension, but our ability to detect this i s l imited by the nature of the evidence, reused t ombs, and our inadequate knowledge of the f ine detail of r egional ceramic sequences. How these 4 3

relate to the axes of Type 1 i s uncertain. Type 1 i s the direct predecessor of Types 2 -4, a lthough in typological terms the s imilarity is one of general shape, but no more, and no ' transitional' forms are known. The break between the types i s quite distinct. Therefore it i s difficult to p lot a direct l ine of descent from Type 1 to Types 2 -4, in the traditional sense. We seem to be witnessing a design change, yet the threads of continuity are quite clear. From a mechanical point of view, the stops and hook of Types 2 and 3 , replace the notch o f Type 1 , as a means of binding the handle securely to the axehead. However, the other changes are more obviously stylistic. We will return to this point e lsewhere ( see 3 .2.3). The s ingle example of a Type 1 axe published from Hama represents the only example of a narrow-bladed axe from inland Syria. I t i s tempting to argue that these axes are essentially coastal products. However, although this may be true for Types 2 and 3 , which s eem to be of southern manufacture, we should remember that our knowledge of M .B. A. inland Syria i s l imited. It would be interesting to know whether the material of the i nland s ites relates to that of the coast, or that of the Euphrates Valley and s ites to the east. More work is c learly needed i n these regions. S imilarly, we should note the contrast between the h ighly standardised Type 1 axes of the l ate M . B.I period, found throughout the Levant, and the more regionalised Types 2 and 4 , which succeed them. Although probably a Palestinian form, the chronological position of axe Type 3 remains uncertain.

4 4

CRESCENTIC AXES

1

This i s the preferred term for a group of axes which possess a blade, often curved in form, which i s attached to the h aft by one or more tangs, rather than by means of a socket. The exact form of attachment i s variable but all forms have a ' crescent-like' appearance when viewed in profile. Although a large number of the axes have been reported, few are from good contexts. A useful corpus of such axes, from both reliable and suspect contexts, has been assembled by Tubb ( 1982). The following discussion is restricted to patterns observable among those which are both from the Levant, and of known provenance. Type 1 Axe with curved b lade, mounted by s ingle tang wrapped around the handle. The two ends of the blade curve back to rest against the haft ( fig. 5 left). All are substantially l arger than fenestrated axes to which they are supposedly ancestral. Chronology and D istribution All four examples of this type are from s ites in the southern Levant. An example from Jericho i s from Tomb A 1 14, which can be dated to the early part of the E . B.III period ( Tubb 1 982, 8 ). One from Bab edh-Dhra i s from Charnel House A 4 4, and can also be dated to the E . B.III period ( Lapp 1 966, 1 07). An axe from Tell el-Hesi ( Bliss 1 894, 3 5 f ig. 6 9) is of uncertain stratigraphic position, the lowest level reached by Bliss, and can be dated only on the grounds of its similarity to those from Jericho and Bab edh-Dhra, to E .B.III ( see Kenyon 1 955). The Kfar Monash example a lso lacks a good context. Gophna ( 1968, 4 9) would date it to E . B.I or early E . B.II on a possible connection with the hoard found nearby ( but not actually in a ssociation), and because there are E .B.I sites in the v icinity ( Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 86-287). While possible, this i s by no means certain. There are no a rchaeological grounds for connecting this axe with the hoard. The axe f rom Kfar Monash i s without context, and is typologically different from the others. It i s much smaller, and l acks the distinctive dome on the blade, a lthough it was probably made and hafted in the same way as the others. The only reliable conclusion i s that it is probably of E .B. A. date, on the grounds that there are no crescentic axes from the Levant which are known from the p receding or succeeding periods. Evidence of Production A fragment of a mould for the production of axes of this Type was found at Byblos ( No. 5 034 Dunand 1 939, Pl. CVIII). I t comes from Lev e XXV which would suggest an E .B. A. date, p erhaps E . B.III by the pottery from that level ( Tubb 1 982, 9 ). I nterestingly, this i s the only one of the weapon moulds from Byblos which was found i n the level to which it i s l ikely to have belonged. The others are all from s econdary contexts. The mould, a lthough damaged, clearly 4 5

shows the depression wherein the central dome was formed, and the central tang i s visible. This f ind from Byblos i s i nteresting in the l ight of the fact that a strong connection between that site and Palestine, during the E .B. A., i s suggested by the local ceramic repertoire ( de Vaux 1 971, 2 30; Sagieh 1 983, 1 08-9 ) . Foreign Parallels An axe from a looted grave at Kültepe, assigned to the Karum Ib period by the excavator ( Özgü9 1986, 7 4, Pl. 1 28.5), i s s imilar in appearance but noticeably smaller. Apart from this this piece, which was found well outside the southern Levant, no close parallels for these a xes have been found in the Near East. A wide variety of crescentic axes are known, but their resemblance to those of Type 1 is general, rather than specific, a point easily verified from the i llustrations i n Tubb ( 1982). Type 2 Axe with curved cutting edge, attached by curl around the handle ( fig. 5 right).

three

tangs which

Chronology and D istribution The two examples from known contexts originate from Amarna ( No. 4 52) and Tawi ( No. 454), both i n northern Syria. The material collected by Woolley ( 1913) and assigned by him to Amarna, has been studied by Dr. Prag, who informs me ( Prag pers. comm. 1 987), that the ceramic l inks are w ith the E . D.II and E .D.III periods in Mesopotamian terms. The example from Tawi comes from T 3 1. The associated pottery i s hand-made, and a lthough difficult to date in absolute terms, c learly belongs to the earlier part of the Syrian E . B. A. ( Kohlmeyer 1 986b, 1 47). A date in the earlier third millennium would seem reasonable for these axes. Manufacturing Evidence Evidence for the l ocal production of this type of a xe has been provided by the discovery of a l imestone mould from recent excavations at Halawa. In fact, the mould s eems to be for a slightly different variant. The ends of the blade actually project a l ittle way beyond the outer tangs, but it i s clearly closely related. Tubb ( 1982, 1 ) has observed that the example from Amarna is made of very thin metal ( c1mm), and has suggested that it was cut from sheet and subsequently hammered out. This is possible, although it would not be impossible to produce a thin casting i n the mould cited above. The provenances of both axes a nd the mould suggests a basically north Syrian distribution for this type. Foreign Parallels A group of f ive crescentic axes was found in association with the E . D.II Shara Temple excavated at Tell Agrab i n the D iyala region of Mesopotamia ( unpublished, see Tubb 1 982, 4 for details), p lacing them around the 2 8th century, confirming the early date suggested for the S yrian examples. The context of these axes, the fact that they 4 6

were f ound together, and in association with the temple, resembles a number of deliberate deposits of metalwork in association with cult-structures, known from the Levant ( Philip 1 988b). The implication i s that these axes were ' valuable', and had some sort of r itual or ceremonial s ignificance ( see 3 .1.2). Type 3 Axe w ith straight cutting edge, secured to handle by straight tangs, rivetted to the haft ( fig. 5 7 right). Chronology and

three

Distribution

The two examples are from Til Barsip ( No. 4 51) and Byblos ( No. 458). The Hypogeum at Til Barsip, which represents an exceptionally rich burial, at least in Syrian terms, has been assigned a variety of dates over the years. The writer would follow Tubb ( 1982, 4 ) who draws ceramic parallels with Hama J8-J5, suggesting a date in the third quarter of the third millennium. The example from Byblos i s f rom Döpät ' g' in the Temple of the obelisks. This deposit i ncludes a number of fenestrated axes and a range of material in precious metals, and should date to the early second millennium. The Byblos example i s made of gold and i s part o f a ritual deposit, and may therefore be a s pecial item, perhaps representing a late instance of an archaic form, of l imited value for comparative purposes. I n a consideration of three-rivetted crescentic axes from Susa, Tallon ( 1987, Nos. 95-97), uses the i nsecurity of the hafting technique to argue that these axes had a symbolic f unction, rather than an everyday role. The occurence of both Levantine i nstances in rather special deposits, would s eem to strengthen this argument. F oreign Parallels A number of crescentic axes hafted by means of r ivets are known ( Tubb 1 982, f ig. 2 .6-2.17; Tallon 1 987, Nos. 9 5-97). However, the number of good parallels for our Type 3 axes i s l imited. Those from the Soli hoard, published by Bittel ( 1940) and other Anatolian examples ( Özgüg and Akok 1 958) a re illustrative of this point, in that they bear only a g eneral resemblance to our material. A rather better parallel is reported from the ' A' Cemetery a t Kish ( Langdon 1 924, Pl. XIX.1), but no r ivet holes can be seen i n the i llustration. This axe could be unfinished a s Tubb has suggested ( 1982, 4 ). However, the bulk of axes f rom grave contexts which the writer has seen, show traces o f having been hafted, suggesting that this explanation i s unlikely. It s eems that the presence of an appropriate h andle was a necessary component of axes i n funerary c ontexts, implying that their s ignificance was greater than t hat of their metal weight-value. This axe has a span of approximately 3 00mm, and is dated by Moorey ( 1978, 7 4-75) to the l ate E . D.III -early Akkadian period c 2 400-2300 B .C. Other crescentic axes are reported from the ' Y' Graves at K ish, from cart burial I I ( Moorey 1 978, 1 08) and from grave 3 86, Y .408A ( Moorey 1 978, f iche 2 . F11). The burials in the 4 7

' Y' sounding are dated late in the E . D.I period or to E . D.II ( Algaze 1 983-4, 1 35). Another i s reported a s coming from Tomb 3 00 at Mari ( Parrot 1 938, 4 ). This tomb i s dated by Moorey ( 1978, 1 05) to the E . D.II period, on the basis o f the pottery. No details are available for these three items, other than that the two examples from the ' Y' Sounding measure 1 40mm in length ( presumably equivalent to our term ' breadth'). This suggests that some axes are considerably smaller than any of the Levantine e xamples discussed above, and may not provide particularly good parallels. On the whole therefore, the Mesopotamian material supports a f loruit for these axes, spanning roughly the 2 8th century to the 2 4th. This supports the dates suggested above for the Levantine material, and does not imply any chronological priority for the Mesopotamian versions. Discussion The Mesopotamian examples show that crescentic axes o f some k ind, were in regular production by the E .D.II period at the l atest. In Syrian terms, the e arliest occurrences in Mesopotamia would correspond to E .B.II or early E .B.III, and would f it well with the dates suggested above f or the axes of Types 1 and 2 in the Levant, making them contemporary variants, rather being related to the Mesopotamian axes in a l inear f ashion. The wide geographical spread of the crescentic axe, in its various forms, i s clear from the examples c ited by Tubb ( 1982), which occur in an area extending from Central Anatolia to I ran and the coastal Levant. Other variants are known from Egypt; the dates given range from the Archaic to the Second Intermediate Periods ( Kühnert-Eggebrecht 1 969, 1 00-101, Type C ). These have three tangs secured by rivets, and probably represent a local Egyptian design. Few have good archaeological contexts, restricting our ability to a ssess their position vis-a-vis the Levantine material. This l arge geographical and chronological spread, and the existence of variants showing more restricted space-time distributions, should warn us against treating these axes as a single phenomenon. We should therefore avoid attempts to f it a ll crescentic axes into a s ingle sequence of typological development, and accept that we are seeing a range of contemporary, regional variants, which may not be interpretable in terms of a traditional model of typological change.

4 8

FENESTRATED AXES Fenestrated axes are socketted axes, of semicircular or half-ovoid form, with two holes ( fenestrations) in the blade. They are designed for a curved handle which tapers towards the top; the socket is thus shaped accordingly ( see example from Baghouz, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, Pl. XLV). The combination of shape and fenestrations makes these axes i nstantly recognizable. They were sufficiently well known to be depicted accurately in Egyptian representations ( of Asiatics) dating to the XIIth Dynasty ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. XXXI), despite their being foreign to Egypt itself. The f our main types can be clearly distinguished on a plot of Max. Breadth v Length ( fig. 5 9a). Type 1 Axes of Type 1 are essentially ' narrow' fenestrated axes of Maxwell-Hyslop's Type B4 ( 1949, 1 20), sometimes referred to a s ' duckbill' axes ( fig. 6 ). These axes are generally p lain and give an impression of being quite functional. C hronology and Distribution ( fig. 6 4b) E xamples occur throughout the Levant, and as far east as the large cemetery at Baghouz, near Mari, and in fact at Mari itself. An example i s also known from Karaköy in the S ajur Valley of north-western Syria, suggesting that f urther work in that area would produce many more such a xes. Others come from south Syria and Palestine. Another i s known from a Middle Kingdom context at Tell elD ab'a ( information courtesy of the excavator). In c onnection with this last piece, it i s interesting to observe that the southernmost such axe reported from P alestine comes from ' Ain es-Samiyeh, in the hill country n orth of Jerusalem. None are reported from s ites i n the S hepelah, nor in the southern coastal areas, despite the quantity of M .B.I cemetery material known from s ites such a s Tell e l-' Ajjul, Dhahrat e l-Humraiya and Gezer ( see G erstenblith 1 983, 3 1-35 for summary of tomb groups in the a rea). This might suggest that the axe at Tell e l-Dab'a was the result of direct contact with the cities of the S yrian coast, rather than through Palestine, a view which i s in keeping with the l imited evidence for direct Middle K ingdom-Palestinian contacts ( Weinstein 1 975). E vi dence for the production of these axes is available in the form of stone mould fragments. Examples are known from B yblos; No. 3 069 ( Dunand 1 939, 1 98 Pl. CVIII), No. 7 402 ( Dunand 1 954, 9 6 Pl.CLXXXIV) and Ras Shamra ( Mus e du Louvre A .O. 8 4.268, unpublished). An axe of this type appears, wielded by an ' Asiatic', on Egyptian tomb paintings which can be securely dated to the early 1 9th Century B .C. ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. XXXI). An example from a s ingle grave at Tell Rehov, near Beth Shan, i s dated early in the M . B.I period by the associated material ( Yogev 1 985, 1 10). Others come from reused tombs, 4 9

such as those the Tombeaux des Particuliers at Byblos, Tomb 4 at Amrit, at Tell et-Tin and Hama Tomb G I . Between them these deposits seem to span most of the M . B.I period, suggesting that these axes continued in use through most of M .B.I. I f, as suggested above, the narrow-bladed a xes of Type 1 appear l ate in M . B.I, succeeding fenestrated axes, this makes sense. There are no Type 1 fenestrated axes from contexts which can be demonstrated a s being exclusively E . B. A.. Nor have examples been recovered from secure M . B.II contexts in the coastal Levant, suggesting that the representation of a fenestrated axe seen in a relief from the Temple of Amun at Karnak, dated to the reign of the Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV ( Lange and Hirmer 1 978, f ig. 1 39) i s anachronistic. Many of these axes were found i n graves at Baghouz near Mari, dated by Tubb ( 1980) to c2000-1750B.C. ( by reference to the material from phase ' H' at Hama, following the Palestinian chronology of Dever 1 976). However, more recent work in the Euphrates Valley itself ( Joannes et a l 1 983; Kohlmeyer 1 986a, 55-57), suggests that some o f the pottery types from the Baghouz cemetery may have continued i n use after this date, implying that the axes may have remained in use rather longer in this region, than on the coast. Some support for this view comes from the presence of a Type 1 axe in the ' Tomb of the Lord of the Goats' at Tell Mardikh, which also produced an object inscribed with the name of an Egyptian ruler of the later 1 8th century, and ceramic types which appear to be of M . B.II s tyle ( Matthiae 1 980a). Additional support comes from the l ack of examples from inland s ites, of narrow-bladed a xes of Type 1 , the immediate successor of the fenestrated f orm in the coastal zone. A f inal statement will not be possible until we have a better understanding of the M . B. A. sequence i n i nland areas. Foreign Parallels Parallels are few outwith the Levant proper. Hillen ( 1953, 2 13) c ites two unpublished examples, now in the I raq Museum, which were found during road building work near Kirkuk i n northern Mesopotamia, while another i s reported from recent excavations at Tell Yelkhi in the Hamrin ( Land of Two Rivers 1 985, No. 1 23). One from Mari i s on d isplay i n the National Museum in Damascus, while an example f rom Acemhöyük in Anatolia has recently been published by Erkanal ( 1977, 2 2, Taf. 6 .70). This axe which is approximately 1 22 mm long and 5 8mm in breadth, has a l ength/breadth ratio of 2 .1, near the average for a Type 1 axe, and comes from the burnt Palace of Level I II, dated to a period contemporary with Kültepe I I-Ib ( N. Özgü9 1 966, 5 0). A contemporary example has recently been published f rom a Level Ib grave at Kültepe itself ( Özgü9 1 986, Pl. 90.3) A mould f or the production of fenestrated axes of Type 1 , came from a workshop assigned to Level I I of the Karum at Kültepe ( Özgü9 1 986, 4 5, Pl. 8 6.2a). 5 0

The a xes of a lleged Cypriot provenance which are cited even in the recent l iterature ( Oren 1 971, Gerstenblith 1 983), have been dealt with e lsewhere ( see 1 .1) and it i s only necessary to repeat here that there are no grounds for believing that their attribution to Cyprus i s reliable. Type 2 Axes o f Type 2 comprise what has traditionally been known as ' broad' or ' D-shaped' fenestrated axes, Maxwell-Hyslop's ( 1949, 120) Type B 3 ( fig. 7 top). The shape i s easily distinguishable from that of Type 1 . The fenestrations themselves are often very large, continuing well back into the s ocket, which must have been considerably weakened as a result. This ought to make us question whether these axes were meant to be functional or whether stylistic considerations were of greater importance. A number o f these i tems occur in precious metals, a ll from the ' Däpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos. Axes of Type 1 have not yet been found in such materials. Some of those from Byblos have e laborately decorated i nternal s leeves, generally a lso of precious metals. Clearly not a ll of these axes were ' functional' in the utilitarian sense of the term. Axes and other weapons in, or decorated with, precious metals are regularly encountered in the contemporary texts from Mari ( see Durand 1 983a, No. 2 22; 2 90), and suggest that the Byblos deposits should be seen a s part o f a widespread phenomenon, rather than as a s ingle, i solated case ( see Philip 1 988b). It i s clear that i n many cases Type 2 axes place more emphasis on visible decoration than do those of Type 1 . It seems possible that a difference i n meaning underlies the typological d istinction, a point reinforced by the contexts within which the two types appear ( see below). C hronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 5a) The first point to notice is that a lthough there are a l arge number of Type 2 axes in the corpus, forty-two e xamples as compared to f ifty-five of Type 1 , by far the bulk of the Type 2 weapons, twenty-five of them, are from the ' Döpöts c l es Offrandes' at Byblos. Had this group r emained undiscovered, Type 2 axes would be seen as a rare variant o f Type 1 ( 17 examples against 5 5). B esides Byblos, these axes occur on both coastal and inland s ites. A number are also reported from Palestine, mostly f rom the north or centre of the country. Oren ( 1971) has argued that the broad form should precede the narrow variety. The s ituation i s not quite so simple. Absolute dates are provided by the depiction of these axes in E gyptian tombs. That showing a Type 1 axe ( cited above) i s i n a tomb dated to the 6th year of Sesostris I I ( c 1 890 B .C.), that showing a Type 2 axe ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. XVI) dates to the 4 3rd Year of Sesostris I ( c 1 928 B .C.). A lthough I would accept that the paintings do show f enestrated axes of these two types ( contra Ward 1 987, 5 30), I am not convinced that one can use this to argue 5 1

for a chronological distinction between the two types. There are only two such paintings, hardly a good sample f or statistical purposes, and they are separated by only a f ew decades. We must therefore consider the archaeological evidence. There are no examples of Type 2 axes from contexts dated unequivocally to the Syrian E . B. A.. Those Syrian examples found with associated material seem to date from the M .B.I period. However, the contexts in which they do appear, Hama Tomb G VI which produced goblets of l ate Hama J form ( Wäfler 1 979, 7 84), Hortfund 2 at Tell Mumbaqat, which has l inks with material from the earlier stratified l evels o f phase H at Hama, ( Heinrich et al 1 974, 3 4) and those finds associated with the graves of the ' Porteurs des torcs' at Ras Shamra, which de Contenson ( 1979, 862) would p lace at the beginning of M . B.I, suggest that these objects should be assigned to the earlier part of the period. Whether they appear prior to axes of Type 1 i s open to debate. However they do not seem to continue in use over such a l ong period. As remarked above, i f we discount those Type 2 axes from the ' Döpöts des Offrandes', they would be far f ewer in number than examples of Type 1 , a s ituation which would support a shorter f loruit for the broad form o f axe. The Palestinian examples are traditionally assigned to the E .B.-M.B. period ( Kenyon 1 971, 585). It i s the writer's belief that until an internally consistent, radiometric chronology i s produced, or failing that a set of stratified sequences from different parts of the country which can be successfully i nterrelated, absolute dates f or the Palestinian E .B.-M. B. period, must be derived f rom the Syrian sequence, and not the reverse. This l ine of reasoning underpins all subsequent comment on the i nternal chronology of the period. There are four Type 2 axes from Palestine. That from Jericho forms part of a deposit, contained within a wavyl ine incised j ar, found on the Tell. Both these facts would suggest that the axe ought to be dated late i n the E .B.-M.B. period ( Kenyon 1971, 5 78, Dever 1 980, 4 8). The only other Type 2 axe from Palestine, from a r eliable context, is from Tomb 6 at Ma'abarot, near modern Hadera. Dever ( 1980, 3 9) would assign the tombs at this site to his E . B.IV B , although the nearby settlement is c lassed as of E .B.IV C date. However, the tomb from which the axe came a lso produced a j ar with incised-line decoration ( Dar 1 977, 6 5.7), suggesting that this example too might be l ate in the period. The remaining Palestinian examples are from unreliable contexts, although that from Megiddo Tomb 8 4C would s eem to be associated with a socketted spearhead of our Type 5 , a M . B.I, rather than E .B. A. type ( see 2 .3). In summary then, we see that in Palestine, these axes come from contexts which must be placed late in the E .B.-M. B. period, and which through their Syrian parallels should be contemporary 5 2

with the beginning of the M .B.I period in the north. Some chronological overlap must therefore be allowed between the l ater stages of the Palestinian E . B.-M. B. period, and the beginning of the ' true' M . B. A. in Syria. Steatite moulds for casting Type 2 axes are known from Byblos; No. 6 793 ( Dunand 1 954, 1 0 f ig. 1 0) with a matrix for an axe of length 1 05 mm and breadth 1 64 mm, a classic Type 2 axe with fenestrations cut well back into the socket, No. 7 419 ( Dunand 1 954, 9 8 P1 CLXXXV) and No. 7 016 ( Dunand 1 954, 5 7, not i llustrated) which is said to be for the production of the broad form of axe. These are all from poor contexts. Weiss ( 1985, 2 43, Pl. 1 86; No. 1 18) has r ecently published a mould for an axe of Type 2 from a male grave at Tell Mardikh, and there i s an unpublished example from Ras Shamra ( Musöe du Louvre AO 1 4836). The matrix is for an axe of length c 6 0mm and estimated breath 8 5-90 mm. The ratio would then be around 0 .66-0.70, a standard Type 2 axe. In this example, the matrix i s cut so as to leave four vertical facets running down the back of the socket. These could have been removed by hammering the f inished product a lthough actual f inds suggest that this was not always done. An example is also known from Hama ( 4B 2 31, unpublished, now in the National Museum, Copenhagen). This example has risers, peg-holes and i s cut in a white-grey stone which has a ' soapy' feel and may be a form of steatite. These axes were clearly widely produced, on a considerable scale. Despite this, a high degree of internal homogeneity was maintained within the type, as seen in the strict conformity of length/breadth ratios, regardless of the absolute size of the axes. Variations existed, but these were not regionalised, suggesting that a ' correct' form was widely acknowledged. Foreign Parallels Exact parallels for these axes are few outwith the Levant. Two examples from Tell Harmal in Iraq would actually seem to be of a distinct Mesopotamian/Iranian variety ( see below), and another i s " said to be from Khafajeh" ( Hillen 1 9 .5 3, 2 13) but it is unpublished. Yet another comes from a Level I I grave on the Karum at Kültepe ( Özgüg 1 986,46, Pl. 9 0.2). Type 3 Length and breadth are almost equal, giving these axes a triangular shape ( fig. 7 lower left). They bear more r esemblance to Type 2 axes than to those of Type 1 . Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 65b) Their d istribution i s largely the same as that of Type 2 a xes. They probably appear early in the M .B.I period as they occur in the Byblos ' Döpöts'. However, two come from the ' Tomb of the Lord of the Goats' at Tell Mardikh dated t o the 1 8th century ( Matthiae 1 980c), which suggests that the type continued i n production well into the M .B. A. That f rom Megiddo Temple 4 040 i s a lso of interest, as this very a xe formed the basis upon which Kenyon ( 1958) dated this 5 3

building to the E . B.-M. B. period. Dunayevsky and Kempinski ( 1974, 1 72) have redated the temple as a result of new excavations, and would associate the axe with the terminal use of the building, which they place some time i n the l ate E . B.-M.B. period. This type seems to span a considerable chronological period, from the end of the E .B.-M. B. i n northern Palestine, down to the later 1 8th C ., thus arguing for the contemporaneity of various types of f enestrated axe. A comparison of the contexts in which axes of Type 1 , and Types 2 and 3 ( treated together), appear, is revealing. These were found i n only one deposit at Byblos, Döpöt S igma. Axes of Types 2 and 3 on the other hand, occur i n many of the ' Döpöts'. It i s unlikely that this d ifference i s entirely fortuitous. Type 2 axes occur in several other deliberate deposits of metalwork; at Tell Mumbaqat ( Hortfund 2 ), Jericho ( late E .B.-M. B. j ar deposit on the tell), and in various contexts near the temples on the acropolis at Ras Shamra, which may represent badly preserved ' offerings'. A Type 3 axe was built i nto the wall of Temple 4 040 at Megiddo, surely a lso some sort of offering. Although axes of Types 2 and 3 also occur i n graves, this i s not surprising as there i s a considerable overlap between the grave and ' hoard' material ( see Philip 1 988b). Nearly all Type 1 axes, however, come from burials, where they may represent the personal weapons of the deceased. Given the fact that Type 2 axes have larger f enestrations, often so big as to l essen the strength and security of the socket, one might reasonably ask whether these may not represent a variant of the fenestrated axe made l argely for display purposes. This would also explain the very broad blade, which i s more visibly a fenestrated axe at a distance, than a narrow Type 1 axe would be. Those of Type 1 which are plainer and more robust may represent a more ' functional' form. This last point i s only a suggestion but should alert us to the possibility of more subtle explanations for typological variation, than s imple chronological succession. Foreign Parallels There are two examples of this type from Kültepe. The f irst i s from a Level I I cist grave ( Özgüg 1 959, 1 09, f ig. 6 4). I t i s 9 1 mm long, 9 4 mm broad, and the length/breath ratio i s 0 .97. Unusually it has a nail driven through the top of the socket in order to secure the haft. The second comes from a Level I I house ( Özgüg 1 986, 4 6 Pl. 8 9.5). A mould for such axes was found i n a workshop, also attributed to Level I I ( Özgüg 1 986, P l. 8 9.4). Level I I at Kültepe should probably be dated in the later 2 0th or early 1 9th century, which i s in agreement with a M . B.I date. C learly, fenestrated axes were made locally at Kültepe, perhaps to meet a requirement for these items by foreigners resident in the merchant colony, no real surprise i n the l ight of the references to metal trading in the texts ( Veenhof 1 972), and the evidence for contacts with Syria as 5 4

well a s the better documented Assyrian l inks ( Larsen 1 976, 8 6ff), It i s possible that the occurence of all types in graves at Kültepe, i ndicates the grave/hoard dichotomy did not operate fully i n the commercial outposts of central Anatolia. Type 4 Miniature

fenestrated

axes

( Pl.

l a).

Chronology and Distribution Examples are reported from Baghouz and Mari, and are especially common at Ras Shamra. Those from Ras Shamra come from the acropolis ( upper-town) area and probably represent the disturbed remains of offerings ( see Philip 1 988b). The example from Baghouz comes from Tomb Z 1 03bis and cannot be f irmly dated until we have a better understanding of the new material which is currently being excavated in the Euphrates Valley ( see above). The axe from Mari comes from Room 6 9 in the Palace of Z imri-Lim, which would seem to suggest that fenestrated axes were in c irculation, at l east until the destruction of that building by Hammurabi of Babylon, ( c 1 760 B .C.). F oreign Parallels A m iniature fenestrated axe i s reported from a l evel I I grave at Kültepe ( Özgüg 1 986, 4 6, P l. 9 0.4), but these are otherwise rare outwith the Levant. Miniature versions of weapons generally are known from Afghanistan and Iran ( Haerink and Overlaet 1 985, 4 07ff). It was important that these axes resemble closely the form of the full s ized objects, a lthough they do not seem to have been restricted to a ny particular version of the full s ized form. We have a lready a lluded to the appearance of fenestrated axes in deliberate deposits ( see above), suggesting that they were s omehow considered appropriate as offerings. Given the f requency of miniature ceramic vessels at cult s ites, in p articular at Nahariyah ( Dothan 1 956), the occurrence of m iniature weapons in such contexts is not really s urprising. However, this indicates that fenestrated axes had a s ignificance far beyond their mere value as weapons o f war ( see 3 .1.2). Type 5 A f ifth type of fenestrated axe can be i solated ( see example from Abydos, Egypt, f ig. 7 , lower right). These are the so-called ' anchor' axes, classified as Type B2 by Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1949, 1 19). These axes are distinctive but are related to the fenestrated axe series. This can easily be shown by comparing a s imple l ist of shared/differing criteria. Only one example has been reported from an excavated context in the Levant. This axe ( No. 5 37) comes f rom Byblos. Chronology and D istribution The Byblos example i s from a context that i s of l ittle value from a chronological point of view, coming from the " Demolition des murs de l a Levee I ä la Levee X " ( Dunand 5 5

1 939, 1 97). Two others in the collection of the Archaeological Museum of the American University o f Beruit ( Baramki 1 967, Pl. IX), are probably from the region, but l ittle e lse can be said concerning the distribution of the type within the Levant. A mould for the production of Type 5 axes i s also known from Byblos ( Dunand 1 954, 2 0 f ig. 1 7). This i s particularly interesting in view of Byblos' well known connections with Egypt during both the Old and Middle Kingdoms, as two of the three provenanced examples come f rom Egypt. Foreign Parallels Besides the example from Byblos, three Type 5 axes of known context are published. Two examples are known from Egypt. The f irst i s from a grave at Abydos ( fig. 7 , lower r ight), from a tomb which Petrie assigned to the Middle Kingdom ( 1925, 6 ). ( The exact grave cannot be identified though the writer prefers Grave 5 1 for the reasons given by Tubb 1 982, 2 ). This axe i s reported to be a 1 2% t in-bronze ( Sebelien 1 924, 8 ). The second is from a tomb at Helwan ( Saad 1 947, 1 73 P l. 8 8). It was dated to the First I ntermediate Period on the basis of the f inds in the tomb ( letter from the excavator, quoted in Ward 1 971, 5 7 note 1 87). Whether the axe was itself the key factor i n this dating i s not clear. The third example is from Private Grave 6 91 in the Royal Cemetery at Ur ( Woolley 1 934, P l. 2 24, U 9 687). This grave has been dated to the Middle-Late Akkadian Period ( Nissen 1 966, 1 74), a lthough the cylinder seal U . 9 688, apparently an introduction scene, may imply an Ur I II date. The reason for covering this ground in detail i s that H illen ( 1953, 2 11) views the anchor axe as a transitional form, lying between the crescentic and true fenestrated axes, in particular Type 2 axes as defined above. Tubb has argued ( 1982, 4 ) that this cannot be demonstrated using the dated examples available, while accepting that the statement seems reasonable on typological grounds, a c lassic example of ' traditional typology'. A comparison of the typological details of the axes of Type 5 , reveals that their closest similarities l ie with axes of Types 2 and 3 . Fenestrations are broad, midribs absent, the axes are f lat in profile and may bear f langes around the f enestrations. Their length/breadth ratios are as follows: Byblos 0 .84, Abydos 0 .92, Helwan 0 .75, Ur 0 .98. The axes from Helwan and Byblos are closer to those of Type 2 , those from Abydos and Ur to the more triangular axes of Type 3 . It i s clear however, that a ll of them l ie well above the mean l ength/breadth ratio for axes of Type 2 which i s around 0 .6-0.7. I f one was to assume a l ine of development from broad crescentic axes to the narrow fenestrated axes of Type 1 , the length/breadth ratios of the axes of Type 5 , would place them too far along the sequence of development to represent an early, transitional form. I t may be that this i s setting up an extreme version of H illen's ( 1953) argument, merely to knock it down. 5 6

However, there reasoning.

are

other

weaknesses

i n

this

l ine

of

All Type 5 axes possess a d istinct rear projection, and a partly open socket. This implies that their hafting involved the use o f a binding around the shaft and projection, something not used on axes of Types 1 -4. Nor i s this feature found on Syro-Palestinian, crescentic axes. Type 5 axes must h ave been cast i n two-piece moulds, as were f enestrated a xes. This i s not necessarily the case for crescentic axes which could have been cast i n moulds with a simple f lat cover. The technology required to produce a Type 5 a xe i s the same as that needed f or a ll other forms of f enestrated axe, and i s not ' intermediate'. It i s clear from examples found i n Anatolia, that the technology f or casting socketted axes was available as early as the E .B.I period ( see below). The copper axes from Nahal Mishmar in Palestine, which date to the Chalcolithic period ( Bar Adon 1 980), and the range of socketted axes o f E . D. I II date f rom the Royal Cemetery at Ur ( Woolley 1 934), reinforce this point. Therefore there i s no reason to a ssume that the partly open socket of the anchor axe represents a transitional step on the road to the development o f fully socketted f enestrated axes. Regarding the preparation of moulds, that necessary for casting a Type 5 a xe, would be no easier to make than would a mould f or any o ther type of f enestrated axe. We have been mislead by the way in which we conceive o f typological change. Our i deas are too often based on s imple visual comparisons, r ather than systematic analysis of s imilarities/differences, and consideration o f how these might affect the manufacturing process. The conclusion must be that the Type 5 , ' anchor' axe, represents yet another, contemporary variant s elected f or production by choice. That this i s so, i s made supported by the existence of other ' idiosyncratic' f orms of f enestrated a xe. V ariant Forms An unusual axe was found i n a c ist-grave d iscovered below a tumulus, excavated near Dera'a i n southern Syria ( Nasrallah 1 950, 3 25-326 f ig. 5 0). In this case the socket i s tubular. The f enestrations do not actually cut i nto the s ocket, which e xtends beyond the blade at both ends. I t has a rear projection, as do axes o f Type 5 , broad f enestrations w ith low f langes around them and has no m idrib. I n terms of i ts l ength/breadth ratio of 0 .68, this axe f its i nto the middle of Type 2 . Smiths did therefore produce variations on the general theme of the f enestrated a xe. This seems perfectly reasonable, viewed against the background of t he prosperous Syrian c ity-states of the p eriod. Examples of the rarer variants have been viewed by s ome scholars a s ' transitional' types, which must somehow b e f itted i nto a l inear scheme, o ften with confusing r esults. The a lternative view, that o f a number of broadly c ontemporary variants, seems more satisfactory. 5 7

Discussion I t i s widely believed ( Hillen 1 953; Tubb 1 982) that this type was developed f rom the crescentic axeheads d iscussed above. I t has been argued e lsewhere, that the problem should not be approached from a standpoint which presupposes a l inear development. The two forms o f weapon are related i n some way. Both s hare the distinguishing f eature o f two holes i n the blade, a lthough the f enestrated f orm possesses a true socket. These holes can be s hown t o be an i nevitable consequence of the mode of hafting a crescentic axe, but are not so i n the case of the socketted, f enestrated variety. Therefore, i t seems l ikely that the holes i n the blade were deemed sufficiently desirable to be carried over into the production of the l ater f orm, where they had no mechanical f unction. S imilarly we should note that both forms of a xe were designed to f it a curved handle, i n contrast to other contemporary axes. We must therefore a ccept that s tylistic considerations p layed a large part i n determining the form of the f enestrated axe. Our task i s surely to e stablish why these were f elt to be so important ( see 3 .2.2). I n summarising the above material several points s hould be brought out. The commonest form of the fenestrated axe i s Type 1 , the narrow version. This type s eems to continue i n production over a l onger period than do other variants. There i s no convincing evidence that Type 2 axes, the broad type, preceded Type 1 . It i s l ikely however, that they went out o f use at an earlier date. However, there does s eem to be a d ifference in the contexts i n which the two main types appear, a difference which m ight be connected to the l ess robust nature of the broad f orm, possibly made specifically a s g ifts, offerings or s tatus i tems. C learly no hard and f ast boundaries can be drawn, and exceptions will a lways appear, but the distinction i s of value. Foreign

Parallels

- Synthesis

Fenestrated axes were made at a number, perhaps all o f the major settlement s ites i n Syria. They appear i n Anatolia, and were produced on the Karum at Kültepe ( see above). Metal f igurines bearing what appear to be f enestrated axes, have been reported f rom Kültepe Kanesh Level Ib and A lishar V ( Emre 1 971, P l. IX.2, X .6), and a mould f or the casting such f igurines i s a lso known from Kültepe Kanesh Ib ( Emre 1 971, 1 42). I t i s i nteresting to note that a ll occurrences so f ar reported f rom Anatolia are from central Anatolian s ites, and f rom a restricted chronological horizon, corresponding to a phase of trading l inks with Assyria and the c ities o f Syria. However, N .Özgü9 ( 1965, 5 2) has observed that shaft-hole axes appear f ar more f requently as the weapon of the war-god on seals o f the ' Anatolian' group, than do f enestrated axes, suggesting that the l atter form d id not f eature strongly i n the l ocal Anatolian s cheme of things, and that the production of these a xes may have been connected with the presence of f oreign merchants at 5 8

the s ite. These axes are unlikely to be a part of the Assyrian repertoire, as they conform to distinctive western, rather than Mesopotamian forms ( see below), suggesting that they argue for the presence at Kültepe of Syrians, who go largely unnoticed in the texts. Fenestrated axes are a lso known from s ites to the east of our area ( Calmeyer 1 969, 4 4-45, Abb. 4 6). Many are ascribed to an Iranian provenance, but few are from good contexts. However, f inds from Tell Harmal in Iraq ( Calmeyer 1 969, 4 5) and a recently excavated grave at Tell es-Suleimeh in the Hamrin area ( Rumeidiyeh 1 984, 4 9, f ig. 8 .1), suggest that an independent style did exist in Mesopotamia/Iran ( for details, see now Tallon 1 987, 1 09). These are rather d ifferent from the Levantine form, and may f eature z oomorphic decoration i n relief, a tradition popular i n Iranian metalworking ( Moorey 1 982b). The eastern examples show ' eyebrow' decoration on the socket, and may bear elaborate radial ribs on the blade ( Calmeyer 1 969, 45). An example i s depicted on a seal dated to the l ate Ur I II period ( Frankfort 1 940, 2 15 Pl. 1 00. A, B ), broadly contemporary with the appearance of fenestrated axes in the Levant. Matthiae ( 1980c) has suggested that one of the fenestrated axes from the ' Tomb of the Lord of the Goats' at Tell Mardikh, i s actually of Iranian manufacture, which i s quite possible, as it has no close parallels elsewhere in the Levant, and this r ich tomb has produced an eclectic range of items ( Matthiae 1 980a)

5 9

SHAFT-HOLE AXES The term shaft-hole axe i s applied to a l arge a nd rather heterogeneous group of socketted axes. I t includes material which Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1949) would assign to her Types 1 -22, and which i s often considered to be o f Mesopotamian i nspiration. The preponderance o f examples f rom there, i n both her work, and that o f Deshayes ( 1960) would seem to support this v iew. However, s ome reconsideration i s required i n the l ight of more recent evidence. The total corpus of shaft hole axes f rom within our area i s small, thirty-one only, when compared to the numbers of narrow-bladed or f enestrated axes. That i s f ewer than those f rom the Royal C emetery at Ur, l et a lone other Mesopotamian s ites, suggesting that such axes a re quite rare i n the Levant. This i s a ll the more c lear when i t i s remembered that this f igure i ncludes material f rom contexts extending from the E .B. A., through the M .B. A., to the beginning of the L .B. A. Shaft-hole axes have sockets designed to take a straight handle. This can be quite l ong, a lthough not a lways the case, i s generally fairly substantial and need not be perpendicular to the blade. Within this body s ome types are absolutely d istinct, such a s Types 1 and 6 , while others are rather more heterogeneous. One feature which a ll shaft-hole axes have i n common ( as f ar as details are available), i n contrast to the f enestrated and narrowb laded series, i s that the shaft holes are circular, not ovoid. It seems reasonable to assume that the ovoid socket was designed to prevent the handle f rom rotating. I t would seem therefore, that this precaution was overlooked i n the case o f the shaft-hole axe series. Why this should be i s an i nteresting question. The answer may have more to do with cultural preference, and the strength of e stablished tradition, than with strictly f unctional factors. A chronological explanation, based o n the f act that shafthole axes were developed prior to the other forms, cannot fully explain this e ither. The u se of c ircular sockets continues i nto the L . B. A. on axes o f Types 3 and 4 , which c learly post-date a whole range of a xes with ovoid s ockets. Type 1 Axe w ith l ong, square-sectioned b lade tapering to a sharp point, mounted by d istinctive socket ( see f ig. 5 7 top). This type was c lassed as Type 9B by Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1949, 9 9) who refers to them as ' picks'. A very s imilar a xe from Ur ( U. 9 680) i s a ssigned by her to Type 1 6, seemingly on account of its bearing a d ifferent form o f socket decoration, i n this case three pointed projections. These axes f orm a component of Deshayes rather l oosely defined Type A5c ( 1960, 1 65). All three are very s imilar, and are l ikely to represent a distinct ' emic' type. Chronology and D istribution Full contextual data exists for only one example, f rom the Hypogeum, Til Barsip. The other two examples are f rom Mari 6 0

but a s they are unpublished, both date and context remain uncertain. The Hypogeum at Til Barsip has been variously dated; that favoured by the writer being c2400-2250. The concentration of this type in the Euphrates Valley is interesting. Foreign Parallels Parallels from reliable contexts are rare. There i s an axe from Private Grave 6 89 in the Royal Cemetery at Ur ( Woolley 1 934, Pl. 2 23, U . 9 680) of s imilar blade and socket form, but which has three spiked projections at the rear. This grave is dated to the Late Akkadian by Nissen ( 1966, 1 74) and M iddle-Late Akkadian by Pollock ( 1985, 1 51). Another, this time with the point apparently rolled-up, comes from Susa ( Tallon 1 987, f ig.1). A more distant parallel comes from an upper level at Tell Chuera ( Moortgat 1 960, 6 , Abb 7 ), where it i s said to be associated with pottery dating to the Akkadian period. This piece has a blade which i s a lmost cross-shaped in section, and a long socket cut away at the bottom, which lacks any decoration or rear crest. I n s ize, length 1 80mm, height of socket 8 0 mm it corresponds roughly to that of our Type 1 , and i s s imilar i n conception. S everal parallels from ' Luristan' are cited by Deshayes ( 1960, 1 66) and Calmeyer ( 1969, 3 4-35). These are poorly provenanced, although the sheer number of such examples suggests that the type i s indeed Iranian in origin. The concentration of these axes at s ites on the vital Euphrates Valley route i s hardly surprising. The presence of tin at Ebla ( Pettinato 1 981, 1 73), of eastern style seal i mpressions at s ites in the Tabqa dam area ( Teissier 1 987), a nd of Iranian-style zoomorphic decoration on a Type 2 s haft-hole axe at Til Barsip itself ( see below), all u nderline the strength of trade contacts with lands to the e ast. Type 2 T ype 2 axes possess parallel-sided ( fig. 8 No. 3 62) or l obate ( fig. 8 No. 3 69) blades, mounted to s lope downwards when the handle i s held vertically. The socket may be cutd own ( fig. 8 No. 3 62), but this i s not always the case ( Fig. 5 7 No. 3 63). Within certain broad parameters the type i s quite heterogeneous ( see f ig. 8 Nos. 3 62, 3 69, 3 73; f ig. 5 7 Nos. 3 63, 3 67). C hronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 6a) S uch axes are concentrated at sites in north Syria, in p articular along the Euphrates Valley. Exceptions are from T ell Tayinat i n the ' Amuq ( No. 3 62) and Byblos ( No. 3 70). I t is not clear whether this results from the recent c oncentration of f ieldwork at sites in the Tabqa Dam area. H owever, the distinct northern concentration of these axes, a nd their absence from Palestine i s striking. This i s not r eally surprising given the nature of the local E . B.-M.B. p eriod, which apparently l acked large urban settlements ( Kenyon 1 973; Dever 1 980) and was much l ess i nvolved in 6 1

i nternational trade networks. I t seems l ikely t hat north Syria i n general, and the Euphrates s ites in p articular, had greater contact with the Mesopotamian and Anatolian worlds during the l ater third m illennium, than had more southerly regions. The dateable examples i n the corpus a ll belong to the s econd half of the third millennium, contemporary with the production o f lobate-bladed axes i n Mesopotamia ( see below). However, there i s reason to believe t hat these axes were i n production prior to this date. The presence o f a mould f or an axe of s imilar form, with cut-away socket, i n an E .B. I context at Nor untepe in the Keban area ( Hauptmann 1 982, 5 7), suggests a background of some antiquity for these axes, i n south-east Anatolia a t least. Production of these axes would therefore s eem to h ave been i n-part contemporary with that of crescentic axes. The two do not f orm a strict chronological succession. F oreign Parallels A problem i n dealing with this material i s that a l arge number o f general parallels can be f ound over a w ide area, f rom Mesopotamia and I ran, to Anatolia. I n fact, one axe f rom T il Barsip shows z oomorphic decoration in r elief, a trait much used i n I ranian metalworking ( Moorey 1 982b, 8 8). The Syrian material i s only a small part of a broader p icture. This being so, i t would be d ifficult to p roduce a detailed subdivision of this type based solely on the examples found i n Syria. The s ituation i s d ifferent from that envisaged i n the case of crescentic axes, where particular l ocalised types can be detected. What i s required i s a reworking of the material in a g lobal context. Of particular importance i s the Mesopotamian component which provides by f ar the bulk of the comparative material f rom good contexts, i n particular a large number o f axes f rom Woolley's excavations at Ur. This l atter group have been published only by reference to the excavator's type series, ( Woolley 1 934, 3 03ff). The Syrian material can only be thoroughly understood i n terms o f this w ider p icture. As no s ystematic study of the material a s a whole has yet been undertaken, it was felt best to l eave a l oosely defined Type 2 , rather t han to attempt to subdivide i t. However, this does not m ean that the patterning of particular variables should n ot be examined, to s ee what l ight can be shed on the material. Subdivisions made on this basis s hould be regarded a s provisional. The Anatolian Material A f ragmentary axe with a cut-down socket i s published from Arslantepe, near Malatya ( Palmieri 1 973, 8 9 f ig. 4 7.1), where i t belongs to Period VI, l ate E .B.III. A mould for an axe with a cut-down socket i s reported a s coming from o ld excavations at Arslantepe ( Edgü 1 983, 9 1, A .176). At Norsuntepe a metal workshop was f ound i n Stratum X IX which i s dated to the E .B.I period ( Hauptmann 1 982, 5 7). This 6 2

produced both parts o f a b ivalve stone mould f or what i s termed a ' Karaz' type axe by Anatolian archaeologists ( Hauptmann 1 982, Taf 2 6.10), s imilar to our Type 2 . The Nor untepe mould would have produced an axe with a downward-sloping, parallel-sided b lade and a cut-away socket, a good Type 2 f orm. This date may seem early, but should not come a s a surprise in the l ight of the sophisticated material recently reported as occurring i n l ate f ourth millennium contexts i n the region ( Palmieri 1 981; 1 985). Other moulds for ' Karaz' axes have been f ound at Gavur Höyük i n the Keban basin. Kosay reports two sandstone moulds, one of which i s i llustrated ( Ko ay 1 976, P 1 1 10.11). One ( Gavor Höyük No. 8 37) i s a surface f ind but the other ( Gavur Höyük No. 8 36) was from l evel I II and i s ascribed to the E .B.A. ( Kclay 1 976, 2 14). The published mould i s c learly f or casting axes with downward-pointing, s lightly f lared b lades, with cut-away sockets with a raised r ib at each end. Another has been excavated i n a f inal E .B context at Kültepe ( Özgüg 1 986, 4 5, P l. 8 9.2). These too, would seem c losely r elated to our Type 2 . Thus we have a c lear suggestion o f the existence of a northern f orm o f shaft-hole axe, with a roughly parallel-sided b lade and a cut-away socket. The Mesopotamian Material As Martin ( 1985, 1 6) observes, the c lassic Mesopotamian socketted axe o f the Early Dynastic period, f eatures a l obate blade with the cutting edge positioned on the underside. A collation o f the examples of Woolley's Type A 3 axes, by f ar the most common form i n the Royal Cemetery, revealed the following p icture. Using the chronology of Nissen ( 1966) seventy-two axes came from E .D.III contexts, as against twenty-six f rom contexts dated to the Akkadian period. N ine axes were f rom contexts which could be assigned to e ither period. A s imilar study, using the dates suggested by Pollock ( 1985) r evealed f ifty f rom E .D.III contexts, n ine f rom Akkadian p eriod graves, and thirteen f rom contexts which could be a ssigned to e ither period. This suggests a heavy concentration o f these axes i n the E .D. period. However, two are f rom tombs ( P. G. 1 847 and 1 850) which are a ssigned by Nissen ( 1966, 1 91) to the Ur I II period, suggesting a l ong l ife f or this f orm of weapon. As the two periods are not of equal l ength, and the number of E .D.III tombs excavated i s greater than that of Akkadian tombs, i t i s possible that the r elative f requency of these axes i n the Akkadian period i s somewhat under-represented. The conclusion must therefore be that these l obate-bladed axes were in production over a period l asting several centuries, a nd cannot be used a s a means of tying Syrian axes i nto the Mesopotamian chronology. The Syrian f orms must be dated i n terms of the l ocal ceramic sequence. I n p laces where the l atter i s poorly known, we must s imply accept the s ituation u ntil more information i s available. 6 3

I n addition to the l obate b lade, c ertain socket f orms and types o f decoration common amongst Mesopotamian axes, occur on some examples of our Type 2 . The most easily i dentifiable f eatures are that the top o f the s ocket i s l evel with the upper edge o f the b lade, i .e. the s ocket i s not cut down at the top, and that r ibbed decoration seems to be restricted to a f airly basic arrangement, a s ingle r ib around each of the margins o f the socket. I n contrast, parallel-sided or s lightly f laring b lades with cut down sockets, are the main criteria f or assignment o f axes to Deshayes Type C ( 1960, 1 55). Most of the members o f this type can be seen from h is catalogue to come from contexts i n Syria and north Mesopotamia, and are c learly r elated to northern traditions generally ( see above). Type 2 axes; i nternal variation. I f those axes with cut down sockets are examined, the f ollowing p icture emerges. These occur at T il Barsip ( two such), Hammam, Tell Tayinat, Byblos and Habuba-Kabira, c learly a northern d istribution. Axes with such s ockets have not been reported f rom southern Mesopotamia. The r ecent f ind of a s imilar axe with r ibbed, cut-away s ocket, and s lightly f laring b lade, i n an Akkadian context at Tell Brak ( Oates 1 985, P l. XXVII), offers further support for the northern d istribution of this variant. Those with socket forms more typical of Mesopotamia and points east, occur at Selenkahiye, T il Barsip, Halawa, Mari and Terqa and a lso on the well known shell reliefs f rom the Temple of I shtar at Mari ( Parrot 1 956, f igs. 7 7; 7 9; 8 0). Accepting the l obate blade a s a Mesopotamian preference, as s eems l ikely, then i ts appearance at T il Barsip ( one axe out of f ive), Terqa, Hammam and Mari would reinforce the evidence o f the socket forms. With the recent publication o f the metalwork from Susa, i t has become c lear that the p iece f rom Selenkahiye i s a variant o f Deshayes Type Ala, which i s the s ingle most common l ate third-millennium axetype at Susa ( Tallon 1 987, 6 7 Nos. 1 -20). Such axes are rare at Ur, where only two examples are known, suggesting that the S elenkahiye p iece i s an import. The s ituation would seem to be that we are s eeing a m ix of southern Mesopotamian, and l ocal styles, at s ites i n the Euphrates valley. The dominance o f d ifferent f orms in Anatolia, and their presence at Byblos and Tell Tayinat, as well as at the s ites a lready mentioned, might suggest that the adoption o f Mesopotamian f orms was a l ocalised phenomenon, concentrated i n the valley, where regular contact with the south, via r iver borne traffic and d iplomatic communication, would have been more f requent than was the case for s ites f arther west. On the other hand, the use of a style more at home i n the north, over a wider area o f Syria, supports the notion of an independent northern metal i ndustry with i ts own r ange o f products as suggested by Watkins ( 1983a). None have yet been reported f rom Palestine. 6 4

Summary The adoption of particular features, which seem to be of Mesopotamian origin, should therefore be seen as an addition to an existing local tradition of axe manufacture. Although there are neither chronological, nor technological, grounds for ascribing the local styles to ' Mesopotamian influence', there are good grounds for positing the existence of a strong north Syrian-Anatolian industry ( see 2 .2). Type 3 ( Types 3 and 4 are clearly related and will therefore be described separately and then discussed together.) Axes with horizontally-mounted, f laring-sided blades with ribbed socket and stop below ( fig. 8 . 3 80). Chronology and Distribution Four examples of Type 3 axe are included in the corpus. No. 3 74 is from Alalakh, and i s ascribed to Level V , which dates from the earlier part of the L . B. A. The other three are a ll from Ras Shamra. No. 3 77 is given a L . B. A. date, but the context i s poor. No 3 79 is unpublished and of unknown context. No. 3 80 i s from the excavations in the Tranchöe Sud-acropole, and may be from the M . B. A. tombs reported by Schaeffer ( 1963, 2 11), although this is uncertain. On balance this type would seem to data to the L .B.A., although an earlier development cannot be ruled out. There i s l ittle that can be said regarding d istribution except for the fact that all four are from northern Syria, rather than Palestine where many more s ites o f the period have been excavated. It should be observed that these show l ittle morphological relationship to any of their local M .B. A. predecessors, namely narrow-bladed and f enestrated axes. Type 4 Axes with f laring-sided blades, tipping upwards towards cutting edge, socket bears a set of heavy, f laring r ibs has a stop below. Types 3 and 4 are related, but there noticeable differences.

the and are

Chronology and D istribution F our examples are included in the corpus. One from recent e xcavations at Shiloh, i s from a l ate M . B.II context ( Finkelstein and Brandl 1 985, 1 7). The other examples are f rom Ras Shamra. All are from uncertain contexts ( Nos 3 76, 3 81) or as yet unpublished ( No. 3 78), although some material apparently from the same context as this latter a xe has been published ( Courtois 1 979, fig. 9a-c), and would seem to be of L .B. I-IIA date. It i s general to a scribe these axes to the L . B. A., and this i s probably the correct view in most cases. They have often been taken as a n essentially northern phenomenon. However we can now see that they occur throughout the Levant, appearing as early a s the 1 6th century. Unfortunately, l ittle else can be s aid until more information i s available on the contexts of the axes from Ras Shamra. 6 5

As one might expect, there i s evidence for the manufacture of these axes at Ras Shamra. A broken mould for an axe of Type 3 or 4 was found ( R.S. 7 .059 unpublished, Musee du Louvre). The matrix reveals that the blade was c 9 8 mm l ong, had a cutting edge of c 5 0 mm across and a minimum breadth of 3 2mm. This places it comfortably within the range of values attained by the axes of these Types. The b lade had no f langes on its upper or lower edges. The socket bore four decorative r ibs and there was a projection below. As the mould i s damaged, it i s impossible to establish whether the r ibs f lared out or not. This shows that these axes were produced, not only i n north Mesopotamia, but also in western Syria. As with axes of Type 3 , the clear Syrian concentration i s interesting, with only one Palestinian example reported. These axes occur in l imited numbers, in contrast to the dozens of narrow-bladed and f enestrated axes found in earlier contexts. Foreign Parallels Most parallels for these axes come from sites to the north o f our area. Part of a clay mould, probably for an axe of Type 3 or 4 , i s known from Tarsus ( Reg. No 3 7.701, Goldman 1 956, f ig. 4 36.6 ) where it i s recorded as coming f rom Room 1 9, a M . B. A. context ( Goldman 1 956, 3 05). I t i s f ragmentary, but i s clearly a part of a bivalve mould for casting an axe of one of these types, or one very s imilar. Two more come from Kültepe, from a Level I I workshop ( Özgü9 1 986, 4 4, Pl. 8 7.1) and a Level Ib context ( Özgü9 1 986, 92, P l. 1 34.2). Several axes which seem quite s imilar to our Type 3 , are known from Boghazköy in Anatolia; all three are s lightly different ( Boehmer 1 972, Taf 2 . 1 7-19). Only one of these i s from a well dated context ( Taf 2 .17). This example i s from Büyükale I IIb, which i s dated to the L .B. A. by an associated seal of Suppililiumas. The northern connections of axes of Types 3 and 4 are clear. Although most of the examples of these types date to the L .B. A., their origins are to be sought in north Syria, or northern Mesopotamia, i n the preceding period. They c annot s imply be viewed as a late phenomenon, succeeding the better-known M . B. A. forms. These axes are quite different from the narrow-bladed form which they succeed i n the Levant. Their s ize and weight, and the possession of c ircular sockets, a trait not seen in Levantine axes s ince the third millennium, suggest connections with the earlier shaft-hole axe tradition, represented here by Type 2 . Neither should it be forgotten that axes of Types 3 and 4 occur in far smaller numbers than do examples o f the fenestrated and narrow-bladed c lasses. This seems unlikely to be a chance occurrence, suggesting that more attention should be paid to the contexts in which these different forms occur. It seems that these axes represent a form that developed out of the the Type 2 axes of the E . B. A, and that variants on this form continued in production in north Mesopotamia and Anatolia, during the earlier second millennium, while 6 6

fenestrated and narrow-bladed examples were in favour in the Levant. This i s an interesting contrast, made all the more striking by the re-adoption of shaft-hole axes in Syria, towards the end of the M .B. A, after an interval of several centuries ( see 3 .5). Type 5 Type 5 is a convenient unit for a several items which f it no e stablished class but which are related to each other. Nos 3 83 and 3 84, from Byblos and Ras Shamra respectively, are a ssigned by Deshayes ( 1960, 1 85) to his Type E 2a. Both axes have an elaborate socket which i s heavily built up towards the rear, and possess a projecting rear ' stud'. The third member of Type 5 i s No. 3 82, which i s also from Byblos, and i s the sole example of Deshayes Type E2c ( 1960, 1 87). This axe has an e laborate arrangement of stops in front of the socket and a large crest at the rear. The i llustration i s poor, preventing detailed typological comment. Chronology and Distribution Nos 3 83 and 3 84 come from Byblos and Ras Shamra respectively, while number 3 82 i s a lso from Byblos. Therefore examples of this type are reported from the two main coastal entrepöts of the M .B. A.. Detailed chronological and contextual data i s not available. Foreign Parallels An axe s imilar to Nos 3 83 and 3 84 i s reported as coming from Cyprus by Gjerstad ( 1926, 2 31) but no exact provenance i s g iven. Bearing in mind our comments earlier concerning provenance, we should perhaps be wary of this example; the writer knows of no other parallels for these items. A good parallel for No. 3 82 has recently been published ( Özgüg 1 986, 7 4, P l. 1 28.5). This example, from a l evel Ib grave at Kültepe, resembles the Anatolian axes that have been c lassed as for ' Typ F irkatin' by Erkanal ( 1977, 1 2). Good dating evidence i s rare for these, and such dates as do exist, point to the H ittite Empire period ( Erkanal 1 977, 1 4). However, the date of the Kültepe axe f its better with those for Levantine narrow-bladed axes, to which these have a degree of resemblance. No 3 82 may be an import from Anatolia, and its presence hints at the production and export of a range of as yet poorly known, Anatolian, variants of southern axe-types. I n summary then, the axes of Type 5 present a number of points. None has any real context. All three occur at major trading centres on the Levant coast. These are the very places where one might expect to f ind either the development of new forms, or the appearance of occasional i tems of foreign origin. We can add l ittle more until our corpus of well stratified material from Mesopotamia and Anatolia has i ncreased substantially. Had metric data for the axes i n this group been available, or a f irst hand examination of even one example been made, it might have been possible to say something more about their 6 7

relationships to other types o f axe. I t seems possible that despite their f laring b lades these axes bear a c loser relationship to the members of the narrow-bladed s eries, than to the shaft-hole c lass. An i ndication o f the i nternal shape of the socket would go a l ong way to e stablishing this. While an impressionistic assessment suggests that this may be so, i t i s best to suspend j udgement until better data i s available. Type 6 Axe with pointed, square-section b lade which i s attached centrally, to a short, cylindrical socket, bearing three broad r ibs, one each at the top and bottom, and one around i ts centre. Chronology and D istribution All were f ound together, at Mari, i n Salle 8 of the P alace o f Z imri-Lim, where they are described as door h inges ( Parrot 1 959, 8 7); not a very convincing i nterpretation, as Parrot observed ( 1959, 8 7 note 1 ). I t i s not possible to establish the exact f indspot of these objects from the published i nformation. Axes with pointed blades are known e lsewhere ( see Type 1 above and narrow-bladed axe Type 5 ). However, i f we accept that these are axes, rather than h inges, then their a ssociation with a doorway, which i s implied by Parrot's i nterpretation, may possibly mean that they are actually f rom a deliberate deposit p laced below the threshold, not c learly d ifferentiated during the excavation of the destruction debris. This would be i nteresting, but more evidence i s required before this can be other than surmise. I n chronological terms a ll we can safely say i s that the production of these axes predates the destruction of the Palace of Z imri-Lim, c 1 760 B .C., suggesting that they are contemporary with the better known f enestrated axes.

6 8

2 .2.

TANGED SPEARHEADS

This group of material is divided i nto 1 6 types, showing varying degrees of interrelationship. The types were defined on the basis of detailed variable analysis, the results of this process are summarized in a dendrogram ( fig. 6 0). ( A more extensive discussion of procedure and full details of type definition is provided in the Catalogue.) Not a ll types can be interpreted as of ' cultural' s ignificance, some are heuristic units. Some are quite distinctive, defined by unambiguous criteria, others can be interpreted as Transform Types, i .e. areas of convergence between d ifferent sets of variable trajectories within an artefact-type system. Certain items are idiosyncratic and will not f it any of the major types. The main concern in the l atter s ituation i s that such items are detected and i solated from the main body of data. This has two functions. The typology and contexts of these items can be easily checked, permitting investigation of their possible s ignificance, and removal of odd items from the main series of types, in order to prevent confusion. Two other forms, barbed, and rivetted spearheads, are also described i n this section, as they are more c losely related to tanged weapons, than to the l ater socketted forms. LARGE TRIPARTITE FORMS Type I Large, broad-bladed weapons having a tripartite structure of b lade, shank and a tapered butt ( fig. 9 ), although the miscast from Kara Hasan discussed by Watkins ( 1974, 1 90) suggests that examples with hooked tangs a lso occurred. All have b lades with length/breadth ratio of around 4 .0, and are generally well-finished. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 6 6b) Type 1 spears come from s ites in north-western Syria. An example from Tell e l-Judeideh i s dated to phase ' H' in the l ocal ' Amuq sequence, which places it in the f irst half of the. third millennium. Those from Carchemish and Tell Kara Hasan are rather difficult to date. The material from Carchemish was generally associated with a type of pottery known as ' champagne cups', which has no f irmly dated parallels and may be a local product. However, Graves 1 and 2 produced p ins of a very distinctive form with a conical, f luted head, and ribbed decoration on the upper part of the shank ( Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 19, Pl. 6 0b l eft, 6 1b centre). These have good parallels from E . B.I contexts i n Anatolia, from Arslantepe VIB ( Palmieri 1 985, f ig. 2 6.2 and 3 ) and in bone from No uuntepe ( Hauptmann 1 982, Taf. 2 6.6). Behm Blancke ( 1983, 6 9) describes s imilar p ins as coming f rom the early E .B. A. cemetery at Hassek Höyük. Of the f our spearheads from Carchemish, two are f rom Cist Grave 1 5, which is poorly recorded, the other two are from C ist Grave 1 , a s ingle burial ( Woolley 1 952 and B arnett 2 19) which produced one of these pins, suggesting an early date. The pottery from Kara Hasan has some 6 9

parallels among that which Orthmann ( 1981a) describes as "mid-third millennium" at Halawa ( compare that from Tomb H 1 23 for example), and among Mesopotamian material assigned to the E . D.II and I II periods ( Prag 1 970, 7 9ff). This type would appear millennium.

to

date

from

the

f irst

half

of

the

third

Foreign Parallels Twelve spearheads from Arslantepe ( Palmieri 1 981, 1 09, f ig. 4 .1-3) are s imilar. They are tripartite with broad b lades, round or polygonal shafts, and four-sided tapering tangs. However, the three i llustrated examples are l onger, varying between c 4 60mm and 5 40mm, than are the examples from Syria. Further members of this group published more recently ( Palmieri 1 985, f igs. 1 6; 1 8) range between 3 40mm and 4 95mm in l ength, in l ine with the dimensions of the Syrian examples. When the ratio between the length of blade and breadth of blade i s calculated it falls between 3 .7 and 4 .8, with a mean of 4 .2 ( using the s ix examples published to date), very close to that found with the Syrian examples. It i s clear that these weapons represent examples of the same type, rather than general parallels. The Arslantepe spearheads have proved to be arsenicalcoppers ( Caneva et al 1 985, Tab. 1 ), with most having arsenic present at 2 -3 % . These form part of what seems to be a deliberate deposit of metalwork found in a building belonging to Level VIA, dating to the late fourth millennium. Although this date may s eem rather high, two s imilar weapons have recently been reported from a tomb at Hassek Höyük ( Behm-Blancke 1 983, 6 8), assigned to the l atest phase of occupation at the s ite, late E .B.I-E.B.II. These f inds would seem to confirm the high dates suggested above for the material from Carchemish, and are compatible with the date for the spearhead from Tell el-Judeideh. The weapons of this type occurring in Syria, could therefore be interpreted as the southern part of a distribution concentrated in north Syria and Anatolia. This i s s imilar to the pattern observed in our consideration of the shaft hole axes of Type 2 , where a distinctive north Syrian-Anatolian form was observed. Like the axes, the northern spearheads are early, and need not be derived from Mesopotamia, a point clarified by the dating of the Arslantepe material. In fact the Mesopotamian preference was for a rather s limmer weapon ( see Type 3 ) Type 2 Type 2 spearheads are distinctive, tripartite weapons, with a rhomboidal blade with high midrib, stop-ridge between tang and shank, and a bent tang often ending in a button ( fig. 1 0). They often bear relief or i ncised decoration on the shank, and their design seems intended to exploit fully the potential of two-piece moulds, a trait which can a lso be seen on contemporary dagger for ins ( see 3 .2.3). The high midrib g ives the weapon a cross-section s imilar to that of a socketted spearhead, a point which i s emphasised by the c ircular shank. 7 0

Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 7a) Known examples are concentrated in the northern Levant. A number come from Ras Shamra and Byblos, others from Tarsus, Carchemish, Tell Mumbaqat, Tell Mardikh and Sarrageb ( near Idlib), a clear association with north-west Syria and C ilicia. Few examples are from reliable contexts, with most of the corpus coming from the ' Döpöts' at Byblos, or f rom unstratified contexts at Ras Shamra. That from Mumbar iat comes from a j ar deposit, dated by the excavator to a period contemporary with Hama ' H' ( Heinrich 1 974, 4 5). One from Tell Mardikh comes from the tombs below Palace Q , dated to the M . B.I period by Matthiae ( 1980a) while that from nearby Sarrageb is from a tomb which has produced material covering both the J and H phases at Hama ( Suleiman 1 983). The general impression one gets from these examples, i s that they date to the M . B. I period. This i s confirmed by the associated material from the ' Däpöts des Offrandes', which i s essentially M .B.I in character. Weapons of this type represent the latest widespread use of the tang as a f ixing for spearheads. As these are rather l arge, and resemble socketted spears in appearance ( see above), we might i nterpret them as ' substitutes' for the l atter. It seems possible that the development of l arge socketted spears l agged behind that of the smaller forms ( for details, see 2 .3). Therefore, I suspect that these i tems are a l ate form of medium-large s ized, tanged spearhead, designed to look l ike a socketted weapon. Their d isappearance i s no doubt l inked to the successful production of large, socketted weapons, as the M .B.I period progressed. Foreign Parallels No good foreign parallels are known. The close s imilarity among members implies that these weapons conformed to a c learly conceptualised style. A rough parallel i s known among the objects of the hoard from Soli ( Bittel 1 940, P l.IV; S 3405). However, the high degree of s imilarity amongst the members of this type, suggests that vague general parallels should be treated with caution. Type 3 The weapons of this type are tripartite, with tapering tangs and leaf-shaped blades as with Type 1 spearheads. The major difference between these and Type 1 items i s that the blades are much s limmer, with l ength/breadth ratios of between 5 .5 and 9 ( figs. 1 1; 1 2). In the typologies of Stronach ( 1957) and de Maigret ( 1976), they are treated together. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 7b) These weapons, reported from Til Barsip, Amarna, Mari, Terqa, Hammam a nd Serrin, show a distinct concentration at s ites a long the Euphrates Valley. It i s noteworthy that they occur as f ar south as Terqa and Mari, providing a l ink between these and s imilar weapons from Mesopotamia. The only items with a f irm context are those from Til Barsip, 7 1

from the Hypogeum which should be dated c2400-2250 B . C. Several more come from tomb groups collected by Woolley. These cannot be considered as closed groups. Prag ( pers. comm ) has noted that some of the pottery from Amarna and Hammam f inds its best parallels with material dated to the E . D.II-III period at Mari, and Buchanan ( 1966) has observed the early style of the seals from these groups, while Dornemann ( 1988, 2 7ff) suggests that the material compares best with the local E . B.III-IV sequence which is beginning to take shape. Foreign Parallels As i s the case with shaft-hole axes, there is no accessible summary of the Mesopotamian material. As a result, I have not attempted to make detailed parallels, but rather to a ssemble a body of material of known context from Mesopotamian sites, which can be compared with that found i n Syria. The major concentration of such weapons i s at Ur. Unfortunately the metalwork i s published in such a way as to make analysis very difficult. The material closest to Type 3 here, is that assigned by Woolley to his Spear Type 2 . Most of the examples are published only by a reference to a type number in the tomb catalogue. These give the impression that weapons o f this type were in general use in Mesopotamia during the E . D.III period, l ending support to our dating of the Syrian material. The Mesopotamian examples for which measurements are available are around 3 50-400mm in length, with tangs c 9 01 00mm long. This is in l ine with the f igures produced from the Syrian examples. Woolley ( 1934, 3 03) observed that spearheads were absent from graves of the ' Sargonid' period. An examination of his grave record, using the datings of Nissen ( 1966) and Pollock ( 1985) suggests that this i s, by and large, correct, although a few examples come from tombs, 7 11, 7 15, 1 267, 1525, which may be of early Akkadian date. However it i s c lear that spearheads of this tripartite form were in use a s early as the E .D. I IIA period. Two s imilar weapons have been reported as coming from Tell Chuera ( Moortgat 1 960, 7 , Abb. 8 ), wherthey are associated with pottery assigned to the Akkadian period. As these come from a surface l evel they cannot be considered as securely stratified. These pieces are over 3 00 mm in length and have r ibbed shanks. Again the blades are narrow and the tangs tapered. These were found together with an axe ( Moortgat 1 960, 7 , Abb 7 ) for which no exact parallels are known but which i s closest to those here c lassed as shaft-hole axe Type 1 . Another, this time with a ' waisted' blade, i s known from Tell Brak ( Mallowan 1 947, 1 70, Pl. XXXI.11). Mallowan has dated this piece to the Sargonid period, although it i s from " churned soil" in area F .S. ( Mallowan 1 947, 7 6) suggesting that this dating i s not certain. Types 1-3 General Discussion These weapons are part of a sophisticated metalworking, which had developed in north 7 2

tradition of Syria by the

E .B. A. They are c learly the product of b ivalve moulds. Watkins ( 1974, 1 90) h as observed a f ragment of a s imilar weapon f rom Tell Kara Hasan ( now i n the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford), with a hooked tang, that was c learly a miscast. This was the result of the use of the halves of two s imilar, but s lightly different moulds, which did not quite match. This i s a c lear contrast to the tanged spearheads found in Palestine, where a l ess sophisticated manufacturing process, based on hammering out a roughly shaped billet, was i n use. A ll the known examples are sufficiently distinctive in f orm to have required different moulds, suggesting that production was on a l arge s cale. In c omparison to the Palestinian material these are very sophisticated products, and point to an advanced E .B. A. Syrian metal industry. Study of such material as has been published from Mesopotamia, suggests that the narrow-bladed form of tripartite spear was the preferred type there. Thus the s ituation i n the E uphrates valley would seem to resemble that seen with the Type 2 shaft-hole axes, a mix of a l ocal north Syrian-Anatolian type, Type 1 , and southern styles represented by the s limmer b laded Type 3 weapons. SQUARE

SECTIONED FORMS AND THEIR VARIANTS

Type 8 These weapons consist of a square-section b lade, and a tapering, bent tang, which may expand towards the end ( fig. 1 3). These are very s imilar to examples of Type 5 . Type 8 r epresents a specialised development o f a well established s quare-sectioned weapon ( see below), to a llow the use of a p articular form o f f astening, with tang turned at r ight a ngles to the b lade. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 8a) The distribution of such p ieces i s so f ar restricted to S yria. Those f rom the Hypogeum at Til Barsip should date t o the third quarter of the third millennium ( see Tubb 1 982), and that from Halawa to the l ater third millennium ( Orthmann 1 981a) as should the example from Tell S elenkahiye ( Van Loon 1 979). F oreign Parallels T here are several possible parallels among the material a ssigned to the Soli hoard ( Bittel 1 940, 1 92, Abb 9 ( S3047); Abb 1 0 ( S3046)). One example S 3047 ends i n a b utton terminal and i s apparently composed of a l ow t inb ronze ( 1.8%). Another S 3 046 has a hooked-tang and a waisted blade, with a c lear polygonal shank between the t ang and blade proper. This p iece i s l ikely to have been cast i n a two p iece mould. The l engths o f these i tems are 3 44mm and 2 56 mm respectively, well within the range typical for weapons o f Type 8 . Type 9 These weapons

consist

o f

a

square-section 7 3

b lade,

and

a

s imple tapering tang of the ( fig. 1 4). There i s no hooked

form known terminal.

as

' poker-butt'

Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 8b) These are reported mainly from s ites in Syria, and from ' Ain es-Samiyeh and Tell ed-Duweir in Palestine. An example from Qatna i s probably an i ndication that the type was common in l ittle-known west Syria. These weapons come from tombs covering a l arge part o f the third m illennium; quite early at Carchemish ( the c ist-graves, see above), arounu the middle of the third millennium at Til Barsip, and from late third millennium contexts at Tell Mumbaqat and Qatna Tomb IV. Foreign Parallels These show a mainly Mesopotamian d istribution, w ith the l argest s ingle group of square-section tapered-tang weapons coming from Ur. These are classified as Spear Type 1 by Woolley ( 1934), who i llustrates two examples U7925, l ength 4 63mm and U7930, l ength 3 48mm. These are l arge compared to the Syrian specimens but as Woolley did not publish the Ur pieces individually, we have no way in which t o j udge whether these are typical of the rest of the material from Ur. These items have tangs of l ength 1 00mm a nd 90mm respectively. This i s more in l ine with the values typical of spears of Type 1 , suggesting that the Mesopotamian square-section weapons were hafted i n a manner similar to Type 1 spearheads, but rather differently from that employed in Levantine Types 5 , 8 and 9 . A review of the contexts given for square-section weapons at Ur using the chronologies of Nissen ( 1966) and P ollock ( 1985), suggests that they are concentrated in tombs dating to the E . D.III period, which f its well with the evidence from Syria. Despite the absence of such weapons from l ater contexts at Ur, this form continued i n use in the Levant until the end of the third millennium. North Mesopotamian examples come from Assur Tomb 15, l ength 4 02mm, dated to the Akkadian-Ur I II periods ( Haller 1 954, 9 Taf. 9d), another from the Temple of I shtar ( Andrae 1 935, 1 , f ig. 1 ), from Tell B illah V ( Speiser 1 933, 1 2 f ig. a ) of l ength 2 22mm, and Tepe Gawra VI ( Speiser 1935 P l. LXXXII.21). These can add l ittle to the data from the graves at Ur, as they are widely scattered and come f rom old excavations, a lthough they do seem to imply a l ong phase of use, as in Syria. A version with a perforated, tapering tang, through which a rivet was driven, occurs at Susa ( Tallon 1 987, Nos. 2 05-207). It could reasonably be argued that the apparent absence of such spears from good contexts in Anatolia, in contrast to their presence i n Mesopotamia, argues for the type a s an essentially Mesopotamian form. This possibility is g iven some support by the close typological similarities ( size, l ength of tang, a generally s lender profile) between these and the Mesopotamian version of the tripartite weapons assigned to Type 3 . However, the possibility that these represent a 7 4

Syrian f orm, a lso o ccurring i n Mesopotamia cannot be i gnored, although the evidence at present points more towards a southern origin. Much o f our material d ates to the s econd half of the third millennium, and when talking i n terms ' origins' i t should be borne in mind that Mesopotamian i nterest i n the middle Euphrates goes back a t l east as f ar as the Uruk period. Although sites such as Habuba-Kabira seem to be short l ived, that does not in i tself require a cessation of a ll contact. Perhaps a ll we see i s a change i n the mechanism, and a decline i n M esopotamian ' colonies', as the main agents of this contact. This being so, the earlier third millennium, which i s very poorly known in both Mesopotamia and S yria, might, i n f act, represent a period of continuing contact. Against s uch a background, i t may be that the notion of the origin of a particular type i s i nappropriate. Square-sectioned forms:

their Palestinian derivatives

Type 5 Type 5 spearheads c onsist of a very basic square-sectioned blade, which i s continued a s a tapering tang ending i n a s imple hook ( fig. 1 5 centre). Several examples have b lades which seem s lightly broader and f latter than the others. These seem to s how a north Palestinian d istribution, occurring at Beth S han and Barquai. This may be r elated to the preference f or the broader-bladed Type 4 i n northern Palestine ( see below), but this i s not certain. These weapons resemble domestic tools such a s s imple copper chisels, which c ould be made by hammering a squares ectioned l ength o f metal. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 9a) These weapons occur at s ites throughout Palestine i n contexts dating t o the E .B.-M.B. period. A f ew examples o ccur i n Syria. Most of the l atter are Carchemish or B yblos and are f rom unreliable contexts. One i s f rom C archemish C ist Grave 1 4, which a lso produced spearheads o f Type 1 , suggesting a date i n the earlier third millennium. Another example i s known from Döpöt X i at Byblos, but the p resence of one object among such a l arge quantity o f m etalwork i s not terribly i nformative. This supports the a rgument connecting these types with the more typically S yrian weapons o f Types 8 and 9 . As the technique i s a s imple one, there should be no surprise concerning i ts o ccasional appearance beyond Palestine. A f ew members o f this group have shanks which can be distinguished f rom the b lade and tang. These show a c lear concentration at s ites i n southern Palestine, and i n the central h ills area. For f oreign parallels s ee discussion under Type 9 . There i s a c lear relationship between Type 9 weapons and Types 5 and 8 . I n e ssence, the former represent the s implest c ast f orm of square-sectioned spearhead i n use. The Palestinian version, Type 5 i s presumably derived i ndirectly f rom this type via Type 8 , which combines this 7 5

f orm o f blade with a bent tang. The l atter might still be more suitable for f orming i n a b ivalve mould, than f or hammering, the preferred Palestinian technique. It i s i nteresting that we can detect d istinct regional preferences for tapering and hooked tangs i n S yria a nd Palestine respectively. This seems to represent a n example of the adoption of an idea, i n a s lightly different f orm, i n d ifferent areas, and may reflect d ifferences in the technological capabilities of the l ocal metal i ndustries. However, the sharing of a common f orm suggests a d egree o f i nterregional contact. Type 4 These weapons are bipartite with a l ong, l eaf-shaped blade with a clear medial l ine, and a short tang ending i n a hook turned at n inety degrees to the p lane of the blade ( fig. 1 6 l eft). They are l ikely to have been produced by h ammering a rough b lank. The tangs i n particular often l ook as i f they have been hammered out, and twisted, after the casting of the main b lade section. With this process i n mind, i t seems reasonable to i nterpret these weapons as a broader version of the f amiliar square-sectioned spearheads defined as Type 5 . Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 6 9b) The d istribution of these weapons i s concentrated i n northern Palestine, with an extension down the c oastal p lain as far south as Ma'abarot, near modern Hadera. The type i s so far known only f rom graves dating to the E . B.M .B. period. I t can therefore be considered as a d istinct regional variant, within the hooked-tang weapon s eries of the Palestinian E .B.-M.B. period. Type 1 3 These weapons are tripartite, but h ave a square-section b lade l ike Type 5 , 8 and 9 spears. They a lso possess a d istinct shank ( fig. 1 5 r ight, l eft). This a ssigns them to a transitional p lace, i n morphological terms, between Types 5 and 6 ( see below). The reason f or a ssigning these i tems to . a separate type, i s that i t i s considered that both t ' -e hammering out of a c ircular shank, and the formation o f a square, rather than a short, broad blade represent deliberate choices on the part of the smiths. That these particular choices occur frequently, i n combination, i s taken to represent ' patterned variation'. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 0a) These i tems occur i n Palestine, in contexts dating t o the E .B.-M.B. period, as their s imilarity to Types 5 a nd 6 suggests. Their spatial d istribution resembles that of Type 6 weapons, a marked concentration i n the h ill country and i n southern Palestine. L ike Type 6 , these have not yet been published f rom s ites i n northern Palestine, or the coastal p lain north of Jaffa. Type 6 Spearheads

of

Type

6 are tripartite 7 6

i n d esign,

w ith

a s hort

b lade, a circular shank, and a roughly hammered tang ending i n a hook ( figs. 1 7; 1 8 l eft). Although tripartite i n design, they bear considerable resemblance to both Types 4 a nd 5 a nd are s imilar in overall s ize, and especially to spears o f Type 1 3 which are essentially Type 6 weapons w ith square-sectioned rather than broad b lades. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 0b) These weapons are a ll from tombs o f the E .B.-M.B. period i n Palestine and show a d istinct concentration i n central and southern parts. The most northerly examples occur at ' Ain es-Samiyeh i n the h ill country and Jericho i n the Jordan Valley. Many occur i n association with band-incised vessels of Dever's ' Family S ', which represents a l ate phase of the period ( Dever 1 980, 4 8). As regards manufacturing, their connections are c learly w ith the roughly cast and hammered weapons, rather than w ith the more e laborate b ivalve mould products represented by Types 1 a nd 3 . The details of fabrication detectable on f irsthand inspection r eveal their c lose connection with the weapons of Types 4 and 5 . One m ight i nfer that these represent a development from those square-sectioned examples which show a distinct shank ( Type 1 3). Type 6 weapons have not been found i n Syria nor i n northern Palestine, representing a south Palestinian development. Types 1 3 and 6 are regional phenomena. There may a lso be a chronological e lement i n that weapons o f Type 5 are f ound a ll over Palestine, while Types 4 , 6 and 1 3, which on typological grounds can be viewed a s developments f rom Type 5 , are spatially restricted. This suggests that the b ipartite, square-section f orm i s the earliest, and the others represent l ocal developments. A s imilar p icture can be s een i n the case of the contemporary daggers ( see 2 .4). I f the weapons o f Type 5 ( the Palestinian variant c losest to the Syrian Types 8 and 9 ) are contemporary with the o ccurrence of Types 8 and 9 i n Syria, a date f or i ts a ppearance, r ight at the beginning of the E .B.-M.B. period, 2 350B. C. say, ( possibly even earlier, but then we have f ew w eapons f rom E .B.III burials), would be quite acceptable. a nd would a llow ample t ime for the development within P alestine of d istinct regional variants. That Types 6 and 1 3 occur frequently with pottery of Dever's ' Family S ' which belongs to the l atest phase o f the period, supports this

reconstruction.

OTHER SQUARE-SECTIONED

ITEMS

Type 1 0 T hese weapons consist of a square-section b lade, ending abruptly in a b lunt butt. Their absolute d imensions are c lose to those o f spearheads of Type 9 , and they would seem to represent ' tangless' versions o f Type 9 . The l ack of a tang would present problems i n hafting these objects, suggesting that they may not be weapons, despite their occasional appearance i n tomb groups. It should a lso be observed that two of the three have broad ' chisel' type 7 7

points, rather than sharp points. This might s upport an i dentification o f these objects a s tools, which f ound their way i nto graves f or some reason or other. Another explanation i s that these are unfinished castings. Their shape suggests that they are b lanks for Type 9 spearheads which have not been hammered out i nto their f inal f orm, a ccounting for the b lunt butts a nd the ' chisel' points. Two daggers, with no r ivet holes i n the t ang, were excavated at Carchemish ( see dagger Type 2 9), s uggesting that they too may have been put into graves in a n unfinished condition. Chronology and D istribution These i tems are from grave groups f rom Tell Kara Hasan and Carchemish. The material from Kara Hasan was bought by the archaeologists from v illagers who were engaged i n tomb l ooting, so l ittle more can be said about i t. The others come f rom C ist Graves at Carchemish which have p roduced numerous examples o f Type 9 weapons. Both sets o f graves have produced many genuine Type 9 spearheads. Type 1 1 These i tems are b ipartite, consisting of a square-section b lade of greater l ength than i s normal with s imilar Types ( e.g. 5 , 8 , 9 ). Two have closed hooks, one seems t o have some k ind o f tapering tang, but the i llustration i s poor. The great s ize of these objects casts doubt o n their belonging to the same series as d o most other s quaresection types. They may not be weapons at a ll. Although a number of Mesopotamian square-section weapons reach this s ize, these Byblos p ieces are the only Levantine e xamples to do so. This s eems rather unusual g iven that a substantial number of such weapons have been published. Analysis of context and d istribution m ight shed l ight on this problem. Chronology and D istribution All examples are f rom Byblos. Dunand ( 1939, 2 20, 2 79) has described them as ' broches', spits or s kewers, which may be correct. Certainly square-sectioned i tems o f different s izes were i n use f or various purposes, domestic as w ell as military. The present writer has e xamined a number of objects, showing a c lear square section, from l ate third millennium l evels exposed during recent excavations at T ell Brak. These are c learly domestic tools such a s chisels or punches but were made by the same process as were weapons, and hence l ook quite s imilar, e specially in p oor photographs. All the Type 1 1 i tems are f rom i ll-defined contexts at Byblos. However, they are certainly not f rom graves. This i s unusual, a s nearly a ll such material from other s ites does come f rom tombs, and supports the v iew that these were implements of some k ind, and have been wrongly i dentified a s weapons ( e.g. by de Maigret 1 976, 7 3). As pointed o ut under Type 1 0, this i s a very s imple form, and could be the basis o f a number o f d ifferent objects. 7 8

OTHER TYPES Type 7 These weapons are b ipartite, consisting of tang ending i n a t ightly closed hook and a l ong tapering blade with a d istinctive h igh, s harp, midrib, g iving a cross-shaped section ( fig. 1 8 centre, r ight). Chronology and D istribution Type 7 weapons have so f ar only been reported f rom Ras Shamra, and may b e a l ocally manufactured f orm, or a product of coastal S yria generally. They l ook as i f they were made i n two-piece moulds, a practice well e stablished in S yria by the m iddle of the third millennium. Dating evidence i s poor, a s a ll seem to come from unstratified contexts. On a purely typological basis, they might be dated to the l ater t hird millennium. Foreign Parallels An e xample f rom the Soli hoard ( Bittel 1 940, Taf.. IV, No. 3 412) might be considered as a parallel. This weapon has a broad blade but the tang which appears of square s ection is o nly s lightly bent, suggesting accidental twisting rather than a genuine hooked terminal. Therefore, this example should be treated with caution. However a l arge number of weapons with broad b lades, many with genuine hooked terminals h ave been excavated at an E .B.III cemetery at I kiztepe, in northern Anatolia ( information f rom Dr. Ö . B ilgi). These provide better parallels, and suggest that our Types 4 and 7 , with their broad b lades, may represent part of a much w ider distribution throughout the Levant and Anatolia during the third millennium, o f a series o f broadb laded spearheads with hooked tang terminals. This might argue for the existence of a shared tradition of metalworking i n the northern Levant and Anatolia during the third millennium, ( as a lso suggested by other common types) which developed i ndependently of the Mesopotamian i ndustry. F urther comment h owever must await full publication o f this material. Type 12 This type comprises two tripartite i tems ( 74 and 8 4) which b ear a resemblance to Type 6 , but which are f ar l onger. The two are d ifferent i n many r espects, and have been grouped mainly o n account of their l ength. Their c losest p arallels are w ith weapons of Type 6 , i n particular the p ossession of t he combination of broad b lade, shank, and a hooked f astening, which does not occur on any other type of s pearhead. However i n terms o f sheer s ize, these relate to t he much l arger weapons here c lassed a s Type 1 , a Syrian f orm. I t i s possible that these two p ieces represent a ttempts to copy the l onger spearheads common i n Syria, but e xecuted i n a d istinctly Palestinian style. The key point i s that these a re d istinguished f rom the main groups. C hronology and D istribution These were r eported f rom Yavne, 7 9

south

o f

Tell

Aviv,

and

Motza near Jerusalem. The f irst i s unpublished, t he second i s f rom an E .B.-M.B. tomb. Thus they f it both chronologically, and i n terms of d istribution, i nto the pattern seen f or the weapons of Type 6 . Type 1 4 This type i s represented by the four objects from the Kfar Monash hoard, and a s ingle weapon f rom Megiddo ( fig. 5 8). As outlined above, nearly a ll of the Palestinian material belonging to Types 4 , 5 , 6 or 1 3 f alls within a fairly restricted s ize range, and i s relatively l ight i n weight. The objects f rom Kfar Monash are d ifferent. Two o f them are f ar l arger than any other spears from Palestine, and a ll are much heavier. This suggests that they were not made to serve the same function as the other hooked-tang weapons. The f our weapons themselves, a lthough morphologically very s imilar, are o f different absolute s ize. This has important implications as this d ifference i s too great f or them a ll to h ave served t he same f unctional role equally well. These are l ikely t o have been made by hammering a roughly shaped blank. E vidence f or this technique exists i n the from of a b lank a nd two f inished p ieces from P inarbasi Gölü i n Turkey which have been discussed by Watkins ( 1974, 1 88ff). We must really a sk what these objects were for, what i s the nature of the deposit unearthed at Kfar Monash ? C ontrary to the suggestion made by Richard ( 1978, 2 37), these weapons do not necessarily provide a local Palestinian prototype f or the hooked tang p ieces o f the l ater E .B.-M. B. period. The l atter are part of a series whose origin can be traced to north Syrian types of the E . B.A. The Kfar Monash objects do not f it into this pattern. They a re too d ifferent morphologically, with f ar more solid hooks, and heavily i ncurved b lade edges, a s well a s being much b igger. That from Megiddo i s idiosyncratic, but i s big and heavy l ike those from Kfar Monash. Although rather different from the others i n terms of detail, it i s both large, and seemingly non-functional, as suggested by the elaborate scrolled shoulders of the blade, the traces o f a possible s ilver coating still detectable on parts of the surface. and the f act that the blade i s so heavy as to have been extremely d ifficult to mount e ffectively using the tang provided. Although the typological homogeneity of this group can be questioned, i t seems to be of value a s a heuristic device. Chronology and D istribution All f ive of these i tems come f rom Palestine. The K far Monash hoard has been variously dated between E . B.I a nd E .B.III ( Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963; Ben Tor 1 971; Watkins 1 975). However, the beads from this deposit ( Hestrin a nd Tadmor 1 963, f ig. 1 5) have good parallels i n E .B.I tombs at G ivat'ayim ( Sussman and Ben Arieh 1 966, 4 *, P l. VIII.5) a nd Azor ( Ben-Tor 1 975, 2 3-4, P 1.24.1), s uggesting that an E .B.I or I I date i s probably correct ( see a lso d iscussion of the accompanying Type 2 5 daggers; 2 .4). The weapon f rom 8 0

Megiddo i s f rom a rather d ifficult context, NW-4034 a ssigned to Stratum XVIII by the excavators, but a s this stratum i s composed of scrappy remains having no real relationship to each other ( Esse 1 982, 1 79), i t should probably to be l ocated within the temenos wall o f the Stratum X IX temple a s Epstein ( 1973, 2 3), suggests. The pottery from this area i s of l ate Chalcolithic-E.B.I types ( Esse 1 982, 1 91-195). It i s therefore l ikely that a ll these l arge spearheads should be dated quite early i n the E .B.A. The contexts of these i tems are of particular interest, as both f all i nto what are here termed ' deliberate deposits'. These are d iscussed e lsewhere ( see Philip 1 988b) but the combination of typological and contextual evidence suggests that these are objects deposited under special c ircumstances, and not necessarily representative of everyday weapons. Therefore the separation o f these i tems f rom the main body of hooked-tang weapons during c luster analysis i s i nstructive. Foreign Parallels Good parallels are f ew. Stronach ( 1957) l ists several p ieces which resemble these i n very general terms. An example from " the Troad" ( 1957, 1 06 f ig 4 .3) shares a general morphology with the Kfar Monash objects, but i ts provenance i s suspect. Two objects from P inarbasi Gölü i n south-west Turkey ( Omerod 1 912, 8 0ff) are a lso s imilar. Both are smaller ( length c 280mm and 2 39mm, Omerod 1 912, 9 4), than the members of our Type 1 4. These parallels are not very c lose, provide no i ndependent dating evidence, and are f rom s ites a l ong way f rom Palestine. Type 15 These weapons are b ipartite, having no shank, and bear a pair of parallel s lots on the b lade ( fig. 1 6 r ight, 1 9 l eft). Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 1a) E xamples are reported from several Syrian s ites and from Megiddo. They are therefore concentrated i n northern a reas, a lthough the example from Megiddo i s interesting a nd i s presumably a trade-object reflecting the importance and w ide connections of Megiddo with c ities to the north. They o ccur in contexts spanning many centuries, from the midt hird millennium ( Til Barsip Hypogeum) to the M .B.I period ( Megiddo Stratum X III, Tarsus M .B.I), reflecting their wide chronological horizon i n Anatolia ( see below). F oreign Parallels S uch weapons should be considered as Anatolian origin, and to represent i mports when they occur i n the Levant. A lthough a l imited number of these objects are published f rom Anatolian contexts ( see de Maigret 1 976, 3 6ff), recent additions to the corpus ( Özgüg 1 980, P l.XIV) reinforce this v iew. Accepting this, we should be sceptical o f the value o f general statements made on the basis of the small s ample i n the present corpus. The s lotted spearheads f ound i n the L evant represent a f airly heterogeneous assemblage. I f 8 1

considered i n terms of any of the typologies suggested f or the Anatolian material ( Stronach 1 957, 1 07, de Maigret 1 976, 3 6ff) they f all i nto a number of different types, or subtypes. As was the case with the shaft-hole axes, a detailed consideration of their typology cannot be properly carried out on the basis of the Levantine corpus a lone. A much greater proportion of the material from Anatolia would need to be examined before this could be done. As a result, s lotted spearheads are treated here as one type. The Anatolian parallels would seem to be l ong-lived. Examples of s lotted spearheads occur in mid-third m illennium contexts at Alaca Höyük ( Ar k 1 937, 9 6 P l. CCLXXIV). Other examples are known from contexts which date to the f irst quarter o f the second millennium. These occur at Kültepe i n a l evel on t he c ity mound j udged contemporary with Colony Period Ib ( Özgüg 1 956, 3 3ff f ig. 2 .3) and at Bogazköy ( Boehmer 1 972, 7 5 Taf. 1 2 No. 1 99) where i t i s dated to the l ater colony period. This broad bracket i s i n good agreement with that provided by the Levantine examples. Type 1 6 Group of ' variants' collected together f or convenience ( see Catalogue). I t i s l ikely that a number of these p ieces represent a small sample of a complex range of Syrian or Syrian-influenced material that will only be understood when a l arger corpus i s available. The metal industry of Syria i n the third millennium, was capable of producing a wide range o f sophisticated products using two-piece moulds, and was i n contact with metal i ndustries i n both Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Therefore a variety of material i s l ikely to have been produced. This range i s bound t o be d ifficult to c lassify and i nterpret, unless we have a l arge body o f material to work with. I n Palestine, where the range o f potential variation was more restricted, we now have a substantial corpus. As a result, types can be i dentified which show d ifferent chronological and spatial d istributions. I n Syria, where the corpus i s smaller, the area l arger and the pattern o f excavation l ess even, the s ituation i s l ess c lear. I t i s hoped that the types defined here can be taken as the f irst step i n clarifying the s ituation. Type 1 7 Barbed Spearheads This type comprises a group of f our rather enigmatic i tems, which have a l arge, heavy, pointed b lade, with two projecting barbs at the rear ( fig. 1 9). They are hafted by means o f a solid tang ending i n e ither a hole f or a peg or r ivet, or a t ightly c losed hook ( which could i tself be penetrated by a peg of some sort). Chronology and D istribution Three examples come from Tell e l-Hesi where they form part o f a deposit of metalwork generally dated to the E .B.III period ( Kenyon 1 955, Tubb 1 982) on the basis of the presence o f a crescentic axe of our Type 1 . The f ourth i s 8 2

from T ell el-Judeideh i n the ' Amuq, and dates to phase ' H', probably early within that period, i . e. in the f irst half of the third millennium. These weapons are all very heavy and would have required substantial shafts to support them. Although barbed, the s ize and weight of these items makes it unlikely that they were used as harpoons. These weapons are y et another element in the l ittle known metal industry of the Levantine E .B.A., confirming that a rich repertoire of objects was in production, l ittle of which has entered the a rchaeological r ecord. Their contexts are of l ittle help i n identifying their function, as a ll seem to have been deposited deliberately, suggesting that their role l ay in t he sphere

social or r itual world, ( see Philip 1 988b).

rather

than

the

utilitarian

RI VETTED SPEARHEADS This group consists of solid, heavy weapons, with a straight rectangular tang secured to the shaft by r ivets ( fig. 20). It i s l ikely that they represent a form of heavy spear, rather than a dagger or sword, which has been the usual interpretation ( Amiran 1 961, 9 2; Dever 1 971, 3 6). Examples published from a tomb at ' Enan in northern Palestine were positioned so as to permit room for long shafts, while four were found together in a bundle ( Eisenberg 1 985). Such an arrangement would seem more l ogical f or spears than for daggers, which are generally f ound in such a position as to suggest that they were worn by the deceased on i nterment. C hronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 1b) Many examples are published by Dunand ( 1954) as coming from the deposits in the Champs des Offrandes, while his c atalogue entries frequently refer to additional examples which are not i llustrated but cited as "the same". We must therefore assume that these weapons were produced i n l arge n umbers. They were not a phenomenon restricted to Byblos a lone, appearing in Palestine in E . B.-M. B. contexts at Ma'ayan Barukh a nd ' Enan. Other Palestinian examples e xist, but only s ite, not the context, i s known. The bulk o f this material comes from sites i n northern Palestine, a nd from contexts which one might place relatively l ate in the period ( e.g. ' Enan itself see E isenberg 1 985). Where there are associations it i s with the more developed forms o f dagger such as Types 1 and 3 rather than with the s impler daggers o f Type 2 ( see 2 .4), confirming a date l ate i n the l ocal E .B.-M.B. sequence. Support comes from the occurrence of these items in the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos, which are generally agreed to date to the M . B.I period. While those e xamples recovered from tombs at ' Enan ( Eisenberg 1 985, f ig. 8 , 9 ) and Ma'ayan Barukh ( Amiran 1 961, P l. X II; 8 .1, 8 .5) still have rivets attached, those f rom the Byblos deposits were a ll found without rivets, implying that the handles were removed prior to deposition of the weapons. This was not generally the case with the 8 3

daggers from the ' Depöts', providing further support f or the i nterpretation of these objects a s spears. Many of the objects from Byblos showed markedly concave blade edges, and, a higher frequency of sharp a s opposed to rounded points, than those from Palestinian contexts, s uggesting that they had undergone f airly regular re-sharpening. This a rgues against the possibility that the weapons f rom the Byblos deposits were never used ( i.e. hafted) in the f irst p lace. There may have been practical reasons for r emoving the handles prior to deposition, such a s their unwieldiness or a need to re-use the wooden shafts. I t should n ot be overlooked that a lthough e laborate handles seem t o have f ormed an important part of the overall appearance of dagger forms, the shafts of spearheads may have been s impler and therefore not deemed a n ecessary constituent of such deposits. The examples f rom Palestine need not necessarily be d irect imports from Byblos. I t may be that those occurring in northern Palestine are e ither l ocally made, or come f rom an unidentified source i n southern Syria or the Be'qa. This raises an important point concerning the way i n which the data available tends to i nfluence our thinking; namely that the sheer quantity of material f rom Byblos has made that s ite dominate d iscussions, not only o f the metalwork, but other aspects of the debate, to the extent that some scholars would see i t as the ' source' o f the M .B.I culture of Palestine ( e.g. Kenyon 1 966). These objects were manufactured i n some quantity, and were i n use over an area covering northern Palestine and s outh Syria/Lebanon. However, their chronological duration would s eem to have been quite short, and n o obvious successors can be detected i n the archaeological record. The most reasonable i nterpretation of this, would be that t hese weapons represented a heavy spear f orm which was replaced by more sophisticated socketted weapons a s the M . B.I period progressed. This would seem to support the argument ( see a lso 2 .3) that the development of heavy socketted spears l agged behind that o f l ighter weapons, a lready suggested on the evidence of the survival of the h ooked-tang into the M .B .I period on the medium-sized spearheads o f Type 2 . Presumably the development o f short sockets ( as opposed to the very l ong sockets employed on the earliest forms o f heavy socketted spears, such a s Types 2 and 5 ), capable of anchoring a l arge, broad blade, removed the need for s uch heavy, tanged and r ivetted f orms. TANGED SPEARHEADS:

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Nearly a ll Palestinian weapons employ a d istinctive twisted hook f astening, generally quite broad, s ay 1 1-14mm across its widest point. This i s much greater than the breadth across the ends of weapons with tapered butts, which i s nearer 5 -6mm, suggesting that the hook p assed through t he s ide o f the shaft and was bent back a long the outside, s o as to counter the tendency for the b lade to s lip f orwards, 8 4

out o f the haft. This was surely a problem with the tapered f orm o f butt, which l acks such an anchor point. I t would a lso help prevent l ateral twisting of the b lade, and to s ome extent a ct a s a stop to l imit damage to the shaft caused by the head being f orced i nto the wood of the handle on i mpact. A number of examples show traces of a thread b inding around the metal at the tang-blade j unction, suggesting that such material was wrapped around i n order to make the f it o f the tang i nto the haft t ighter and more secure. A series of bands of leather or other material would be bound around the outside of the b lade-tang j oint, and possibly coated w ith a material such a s mastic or some other gum. The style of the original b inding, can be guessed because o f the s urvival o f one or two examples with the remains o f twisted copper coils i n position ( see Dever 1 972, f ig. 5 .3, Bahat 1 975, f ig. 5 .1), a lthough an organic b inding would u sually have sufficed. To j udge from the general appearance of the Palestinian weapons, the standard method o f production was to cast a b illet in a rough s hape, and then f inish the process by hammering. A f inal f inishing process would have l eft the objects with a generally smooth b lade surface. The tangs however, seem to have been l eft in an ' as-hammered' condition, doubtless because they were hidden within the handle. Fortunately this enables us to see that they were c learly f ormed by hammering-out the upper end of the original b illet, i nto a thin tapering strip which could be e asily bent i nto a hooked f orm. This i s the standard method used on a number of P alestinian Types, 4 , 5 , 6 , and 1 3, which otherwise appear rather d ifferent, and s eems to r epresent a working ' tradition' i n hafting techniques, c utting-across other typological divisions which show a r egional basis. The contemporary narrow dagger series would seem to reflect a s imilar manufacturing process ( see 2 .4). This presumably r elates to the way i n which the Palestinian metalworking i ndustry was organised, and stands in contrast to the mo , -e d iverse and complex products of contemporary Syria. There a re, at present, no P alestinian equivalents of Syrian Types 1 a nd 3 . These a re sophisticated products, and a longside s haft-hole axes o f Type 2 i ndicate the existence o f a thriving, a nd technically competent, metallurgical i ndustry t here by the early third m illennium at l east. The presence o f well made spearheads and crescentic axes i n Palestine during the E .B.A., i ndicates a f air l evel o f skill there too, a lthough the rarity o f grave material means that our s ample i s too small to enable us to compare i t d irectly w ith that of E .B.A. S yria. By the E .B.-M.B. period, when we have a l arge s ample f rom Palestine, there are quite marked d ifferences between the products of the two areas, r eflecting their d ifferent socio-economic structures at t his t ime.

8 5

The Syrian equivalents o f Type 5 with i ts d istinctive square-section are Types 8 and 9 . These are hafted according to a d ifferent tradition. Type 8 s hares a hafting method with the e laborate weapons of Type 2 , a r ight-angle turn or button arrangement, which was probably cast, not hammered i nto shape. Type 9 f ollows the s imple practice of a tapered butt, a s f ound on other Syrian weapons such as Types 1 and 3 . The tapered butt, a s suggested above, would s eem to provide a l ess e ffective f astening than would the hooked f orm d iscussed above. The reason that the l atter i s l ess f requent i n Syria, may be the earlier replacement o f tanged spearheads by s ocketted varieties, there, than i n Palestine. Weapons of Types 5 , 8 , and 9 are ' equivalents', f ulfilling s imilar roles. The typological d ifferences s imply result from the adoption of d ifferent solutions to the hafting problem, governed i n part by available technology, but m ight a lso reflecting a degree of ' cultural' tradition, l ocal ' ways o f doing things'. Square-sectioned spearheads represent a series of Transform Types. Those of Type 5 are s imply l ocal, Palestinian versions of the Syrian Types 8 a nd 9 ; the differences reflecting l ocal metalworking practices. Types 4 , 6 a nd 1 3 should be seen as essentially Palestinian developments, utilising the technology employed i n the production o f Type 5 weapons. Type 4 , w ith i ts northern/coastal concentration, may represent an attempt to produce a broad b lade weapon s imilar to the Syrian examples of Type 7 . Type 6 on the other hand, represents the end o f a s equence o f development which can be traced f rom Type 5 , through the transitional form Type 1 3. The l atter may not truly represent an ' emic' type. I ts value i s essentially that i t reveals the underlying connection between the various, apparently d iverse Palestinian f orms, which i s r ather obscured by more visible morphological d ifferences. To that end i ts retention i s j ustified on heuristic grounds. Type 6 does not seem to have an equivalent i n the Syrian tanged spearhead repertoire. The r eason would seem to be that i ts real parallels are w ith the small socketted spearheads, which are l ikely to have been i n production i n Syria prior to the end o f the E .B.-M.B. period i n Palestine ( see 2 .3). It i s i nteresting to note therefore, that tanged weapons o f Types 6 and 1 3 a re absent i n northern Palestine too, suggesting that s ocketted spearheads may have been adopted there rather earlier than i n the s outh ( consider the example from Tomb 1 101B at Megiddo f or i nstance, see socketted spearheads Type 1 0). Square-section weapons are r are i n the ' Döpöts des O ffrandes' at Byblos. This s eems to confirm their replacement by socketted f orms ( common i n the ' Döpöts') by the beginning o f the M .B. A. i n Syria. As there i s a good deal of overlap, i n terms of types, between these deposits and the material found i n tombs o f the Palestinian E .B.M .B. period, ( e.g. r ivetted spearheads) we might i nfer that 8 6

some o f the Byblos material i n these ' Depöts' was contemporaneous with the l ater stages of the E .B.-M.B. period i n Palestine. Therefore socketted spearheads were i n use i n Syria at a period when the tanged variety were still f avoured i n Palestine, at l east on southern s ites. That s ocketted spearheads appear more s lowly i n southern Palestine, reflects the f act that they are made i n a d ifferent way from the tanged variety. It seems l ikely that this rather d ifferent technology, was not adopted i n Palestine until the r e-emergence o f an urban society i n the M .B.I period. What appears i n i ts p lace during the E .B.M .B., period i s Type 6 , a short bladed weapon of the correct size, but utilizing a l ocal method of manufacture.

8 7

2 .3.

SOCKETTED SPEARHEADS

The title socketted spearhead i s s elf e xplanatory. Although these made a relatively l ate appearance, ( end of the third millennium) compared to socketted axes, they soon became a key i tem o f military equipment. The f irst point to note i s that a ll spears i n this s tudy have sockets showing a c lear longitudinal j oin, implying that the the s ocket was not a one p iece casting a s i n l ater weapons. There i s l ittle evidence available concerning the manufacture of these items, but a mould f rom Tell e l-Dab'a ( Bietak 1 985a, f ig. 1 0; No. 3 110) provides some c lue as to how they were f ormed. The b lade and l ower part o f the socket were cast a s one piece around a b lank, resulting i n a hollow casting. The upper end o f the socket was cast as a f lat sheet, then rolled i nto position around the handle. F irst hand examination of the material suggests that this was i ndeed the method by which these spearheads were produced, a lthough the proportion of the socket which was c ast, as opposed to f olded i nto shape varies between i ndividual i tems. The handle was sometimes f ixed by a nail or peg, driven through the socket wall. I n many cases the end of the socket was secured by a twine binding or a metal collar, which i n addition to holding the shaft i n position, a lso served to bind tightly the j oint between the socket edges. In i ts crudest f orm ( Type 1 0), the entire weapon was f ormed from a f lat sheet, and the shoulders f olded-up around the shaft. Previous works on these weapons have a lready been d iscussed ( see 1 .1), and i t i s c lear from these that s ocketted spearheads as a group, are rather d ifficult to s ubdivide consistently. ( Details of the method employed here, and type-defining criteria are provided i n the Catalogue.) It must be borne i n mind that w ith the exception of Type 1 0, which has a distinctive method of f orming the socket ( see below), types were defined on the basis o f metric variables. However many show coherent patterning i n terms of categorical variables too, supporting the notion that a c lassification based on absolute d imensions i s a r ealistic way to deal with such weapons, and reinforcing the point made earlier concerning the need to f it method to the particular material ( see 1 .3). MEDIUM-LARGE SPEARHEADS Type 1 Large spearheads with broad b lades but l acking very l ong sockets ( fig. 2 1) The general impression i s that these are heavy weapons meant f or hand-to-hand combat. A lthough s imilar to weapons of Type 3 , those o f Type 1 are markedly l arger. Chronology and D istribution Examples are reported f rom Tell Mardikh dating to the M .B.II period. In the f inds at Mardikh, dated to the 1 8th 8 8

and Tell e l-Dab'a, l ight of Egyptian Century ( Matthiae

1 980a), and the c lear connections between Tell e l-Dab'a and the s ites of the Levant ( see B ietak 1 981) this i s not surprising. L ittle more can be said until more such weapons are recovered. Foreign Parallels No e xact parallels f or these l arge spearheads are known. This s hould not be over-stressed however, a s our knowledge of the weapons o f the l ater M .B. A. i n adjacent regions i s l imited. Type 2 Spearheads with l ong, narrow b lades, and very l ong sockets ( fig. 5 6 r ight). Many are decorated, bearing l ightly i ncised l ines running the l ength of the blade. These occur s ingly or i n pairs at each s ide of the midrib, and echo the decoration seen on certain contemporary daggers, Type 1 2 in particular. The decoration implies that the blades of these weapons were made i n bivalve moulds, a lthough the sockets may have been cast as f lat sheet, hammered out and subsequently rolled i nto shape ( see a lso Type 5 ). Chronology and D istribution So f ar such spearheads have only been reported from Byblos, from deposits i n both the ' Champs des Offrandes' and the ' Temple Syrien', suggesting a date i n the M .B.I period. Their presence there and apparent rarity at other s ites, might suggest that their production was short l ived. However, one could argue that the l ong sockets are vulnerable to corrosion and might not survive i n l ess well protected contexts. The tall ovoid j ars used f or many of the deposits at Byblos, seem particularly well suited i n this respect. Obviously, the chances of survival of such sockets i n regularly reused tombs, would be considerably l ess. These weapons represent an early stage in the development o f socketted haftings, and the l ong socket may represent a mechanical necessity rather than a deliberate choice. I t may have been hard to make a short socket that was s ufficiently strong to mount a l ong, heavy blade securely. This argument i s g iven some support by the continuation, i nto the M . B.I period, of tanged and r ivetted f ixings for l arger weapons ( see 2 .2). The f act that l arge bladed spearheads with short sockets are not common until the end o f the M .B.I period, a s Types 3 and 4 , gives credence to this

explanation.

F oreign Parallels S ee under Type 5 Type 5 The distinguishing f actor of members of this type i s that the socket i s l onger than the b lade. They are shorter than those a ssigned to Type 2 , a lthough s imilarly proportioned ( fig. 2 2 r ight). Type 5 weapons show a greater range o f morphological variation than the f ormer group. I t s eems 8 9

that the weapons of Type 2 , which are a ll from Byblos, represent a homogeneous, local component, of a l ess well documented, i f more widely distributed form, Type 5 . Ordering the material in this way, allows for the bias towards one or two s ites shown by our sample. It will thus be possible to comprehend these s ites in their wider perspective, thereby avoiding the temptation to see them ( i.e. Byblos and Ras Shamra) as prime movers in technical development. On this l ine of argument, the members of Type 5 represent a collection of s imilar material from a number of different s ites, hence their greater heterogeneity than the members of Type 2 which are a ll from Byblos. In this way, the pattern of excavation can be taken into account, when typologies are being constructed. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 7 2a) These are reported from Syria and northern Palestine. Examples come from ' Le poche aux bronzes' from Ras Shamra, dated to the M . B.I period by associated material and from Tell Mardikh from Hypogeum B , of the later M . B.I ( Matthiae 1 980a). Two more are reported from Hama Tomb GVI ( Fugmann 1 958, P l. X ), which are contemporary with early period ' H' on the tell. All date therefore to the M .B.I period which emphasises their connection with the spearheads of Type 2 . Two a lso come from Megiddo Tomb 8 4C, ( one of which i s not described in Guy 1 938 and i s therefore not l isted i n the Catalogue) associated with a fenestrated axe of Type 2 . As the published spearhead i s of M .B.I style, this suggests that the whole group from that tomb should be considered as of M . B.I rather than E .B.-M.B. date, as has been generally supposed ( see for example Kenyon 1 955, 1 7). Foreign Parallels A broadly s imilar weapon i s known from Chagar Bazar ( Mallowan 1 937, 9 9 f ig. 1 3.10), from Grave 1 54, dated by Mallowan ( 1937, 1 22) to the earlier second millennium. This suggests that local variations of such weapons, were i n use over a wide area during the M .B.I period. There are references from Mari ( Durand 1 983a, Nos. 2 70; 2 75; 2 76) to the production of batches o f spears in which each individual item weighs one and a half or two minas ( c6501 000g). These are therefore very heavy spears ( the heavy r ivetted spears found at ' Enan had a mean weight of only 2 00g, see E isenberg 1 985), and may well be long weapons of this or a s imilar form. Type 3 Spears with large blades and rather shorter sockets. The blades have incurved or straight-sloping shoulders, are straight-sided, tapering to a rounded point and have a Vshaped midrib. Many have a metal collar around the end of the socket ( fig. 2 2 l eft). Overall they show a striking degree of standardisation, suggesting that they represent production to a particular design. Chronology and Distribution These come from Ras Shamra

only, 9 0

from

tombs

dated

to

the

M .B.II period by a ssociated material. These spears show many morphological parallels with the Type 1 spears f rom Tell Mardikh, a lso dating to the M .B.II period ( see above). Type 1 and 3 weapons, a lthough sharing many typological f eatures, seem to conform to two d ifferent s ize patterns. Perhaps this represents the production at two d ifferent p laces, of an essentially s imilar weapon f orm. We seem to see, a s with Types 2 and 5 , a widely accepted general pattern produced w ith l ocal d ifferences at the various urban c entres. This may provide us with a c lue as to the way i n which the production o f weaponry was organised, within Syria, during the M .B. A. Foreign Parallels Little comparative this type.

material

i s

available

f or

weapons

of

Type 4 The spearheads a ssigned to Type 4 are medium-sized, with blades s lightly shorter but s imilar i n breadth to those of Type 3 weapons. I n terms of morphology, the blades are generally straight s ided, a lthough concave-edged examples occur, with a mix o f sharp and round points, and a variety o f s houlder shapes. The members o f this group are more heterogeneous than those of Type 3 . This may be of s ignificance. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 2b) Examples o f this type have not so f ar been reported f rom Palestine, but are known f rom Tell Mardikh, Tell et-Tin and the ' Dk Döts des O ffrandes' at Byblos, dating to the MB I period. That f rom Mardikh i s f rom a context which i s a ssigned a date l ate i n the period ( Matthiae 1 980a). I n v iew of the degree of s imilarity between this type and Type 3 , i t seems l ikely that the f act that the members are a ll f rom M . B.I contexts reflects the nature o f our s ample, r ather than a r eal chronological d ifference. The f act i s that we have f ew M .B.II tomb groups f rom Syria, other than those from Ras S hamra, and i t s eems l ikely that the type was widespread throughout Syria at that t ime. This suggests that Type 3 weapons represent a l ocalised, Ras S hamra, variant o f a general form Type 4 , produced over a w ide area to s atisfy a perceived need f or a medium s ized s pearhead. F oreign Parallels L ittle comparative material

exists

f or this

type.

Summary of Medium-Large Spearheads Most l arger spearheads found i n M .B.I contexts seem to have had long sockets. I t seems l ikely that i t was only l ate i n the M .B.I period that a short socket, sufficiently strong t o support a l arge bladed weapon became generally available. These weapons are probably a ll thrusting s pears, a s suggested by s ize, weight and socket d iameter. P erhaps we s ee h ere the standard weapons o f heavily armed 9 1

i nfantry, rather than the personal arms of i ndividual warriors. However this matter w ill be given fuller consideration e lsewhere ( see 3 .1.2). We seem to detect certain basic, widely a ccepted, patterns or designs, which were f ollowed over a l arge area, a lbeit subject to a degree o f variation both within and between d ifferent manufacturing centres. The implication of the f inds from Byblos and Ras Shamra i s that a l arge part of each c entre's spearheads were produced l ocally, implying that spears were not extensively traded or exchanged. This would a lso seem to be the case w ith regard to the earlier tanged spearheads which show c lear regionalism i n the d istribution o f types. The s ituation regarding axes and daggers may be rather d ifferent ( see 2 .1 and 2 .4). The f inal point to note i s that not one o f these l arger spears has yet been r eported f rom Palestine, despite the amount o f f ieldwork carried out there. This s eems l ikely to be s ignificant and w ill be considered l ater. INTERMEDIATE-SIZED SPEARHEADS Type 6 I n terms of absolute s ize these stand between the small spearheads described below and the l arger Types 1 -5. There i s a c lear break i n l ength of blade between Type 6 weapons and those o f Types 1 -5, suggesting that their functional l inks l ie with the smaller spears. The b lades have concave or straight-sloping shoulders, and can occur with e ither straight-tapering or curved s ides ( fig. 2 3 top left, from Baghouz now i n the Louvre, actual tomb group cannot be established). I t should be observed that the f ive i tems from Baghouz conform very c losely to a f ixed p attern, sharp, V-shaped midrib, straight-sided tapering blade and straight-sloping shoulders. This supports an i nterpretation o f these i tems a s l ocally produced weapons showing a h igh degree of standardisation, but f orming part of a general pattern. Although different f rom the Palestinian p ieces in terms of detailed morphology, Type 6 spearheads seem to belong to the same general c lass, small weapons, on metric grounds. This i s reinforced by the s imilar contexts i n which they appear, namely a s secondary weapons, i n s ingle burials equipped with f enestrated axes, or as s ole weapon i n o ther cases. Frequent co-occurence with a n axe s uggests that they were conceived o f a s j avelins. C learly a thrusting spear, requiring two hands f or effective use, would n ot be practical i f the warrior was a lso wielding a battle-axe. One or more j avelins could be thrown f rom a d istance prior to c lose combat, a s described i n the battle between S inuhe and the warrior champion of Retenu ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0). Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 3a) Examples are reported from the cemetery at Baghouz, D öpöt Beta at Byblos, a nd f rom Ras Shamra ( poor context). Others come from Tell et-Tin, and a possible example from the temple at Nahariyah i n northern Palestine. Those f rom 9 2

Baghouz show a high d egree of homogeneity, those from the other s ites l ess so. This is only to be expected given a s ituation of localised production. All of those for which associations are reported would be assigned to to the M . B.I. period, a lthough it i s possible that some of the tombs at Baghouz date to the earlier M .B.II period ( see 2 .1). The type in general is widely distributed throughout the L evant, occurring frequently in burials, suggesting that j avelins were considered appropriate as grave goods over a wide area at this time. As will be explained l ater, this s ituation does not continue long into the M .B.II period. ( There are additional examples from Baghouz which cannot be included i n the corpus as typological data i s not available from the publication.) Foreign Parallels The material from n eighbouring regions i s hard to assess. It i s of uneven distribution, coming frequently from old, or l argely unpublished excavations. However one thing i s clear. Many of the spearheads from early second millennium contexts are of s imilar size to weapons of Type 6 , l ending further support to our view of this type as representing a widely accepted s ize norm, underlying a superficially varied group of material. Several weapons from Kültepe conform to the general pattern. These are collected by Erkanal ( 1977, 4 3, Taf. 1 4. 6-8 and Taf. 1 5. 1 3-14). All have blades of l ength 1 00-120mm in length and breadth 2 53 1mm, providing general rather than detailed parallels. They come from tombs at the Karum s ite, ascribed to levels I II, I I or Ib, contemporary with the Syrian M .B.I period. Several north Syrian parallels come from Chagar Bazar. Three examples are reported from Grave 1 54 ( Mallowan 1 937, 1 22 f ig. 1 3.13) of early second millennium date. Another comes from Grave 2 00 where it i s associated with a shaft hole axe s imilar to our Type 4 . The date of this tomb is uncertain ( see recent discussion by Curtis 1 983) and could f all anywhere between the end of M . B.I and the beginning of the L . B. A. The presence of a spear of this type might be seen as supporting a date towards the beginning of this range. Mesopotamian examples are known from Assur Gr. 2 0, assigned to the ' Old Assyrian' period ( Haller 1 954, 1 0 Taf. 1 0d), Tell Asmar ' top l ayer' which should be dated not much earlier than the destruction of the city, one i llustrated s everal more cited, ( Frankfort, Lloyd and Jacobsen 1 940, 2 41 f ig. 1 06J) and two from a pit grave in ' Chantier V ' at Telloh ( de Genouillac 1 936, 9 2 Pl. 9 2.2 and 9 3.1e). The grave i s dated to the "Ur I II or Larsa" periods by the e xcavator. Both spears are very similar in s ize and shape a nd are probably f rom a local workshop. Type 6 spears then h ave a wide range of parallels outside the Levant. SMALL SPEARHEADS F irst-hand study of many they are a ll part of the

of these weapons has shown that same ' series'. They are smaller 9 3

a nd l ighter than examples of Types 1 -5. I t was c lear f rom the results o f c luster analysis ( fig. 6 1), that these weapons f ormed a f airly continuous s equence from small t o l arge, but that d istinct areas o f concentration e xisted. We m ight consider these as Transform Types, with absolute s ize providing the underlying dimension. Three s uch types were defined ( see details of procedure i n Catalogue). Type 7 This type i s composed of the smallest i tems ( fig. 2 4 top r ight, l eft and l ower l eft). Members are c learly d istinguished f rom those of other types by their s cores o n a ll f our metric variables, and these weapons are l ight a nd s lender, probably representing the h eads of thrown weapons. They are unlikely to be arrowheads, a s i t s eems f utile to go to the trouble of making socketted fastenings f or a n e ssentially d isposable weapon, and t he values for d iameter o f socket would r equire a haft of l arger d iameter t han that desirable f or arrows, a maximum of a round 8 mm ( R. Miller pers. comm. 1 987; s ee a lso 2 .5). Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 3b) Examples are r eported from a number o f Palestinian s ites, f rom Tell e l-Dab'a i n the Nile Delta, and a s ingle e xample f rom Hama i n Syria. Most therefore c ome from sites i n the southern Levant. Tell e l-Dab'a with i ts strongly L evantine a spect i s an e xtension of this p attern, a lthough the example f rom Hama suggests that this may be a result o f the pattern o f excavation, and that such weapons were a lso i n use i n Syria. Regarding chronology, some o f these come f rom M .B.I contexts, others from M .B.II or mixed M .B.I and I I contexts. Foreign P arallels No convincing parallels f or these weapons are known t o the writer. However, g iven their small s ize and fragility i t i s possible that they may have been overlooked i n both o lder excavations and publication. A s the best preserved examples are a ll f rom grave contexts, the apparent d istribution may s imply be a function o f the l imited f unerary evidence f rom second m illennium s ites i n Mesopotamia a nd Anatolia. TYPe 8 Types 8 and 9 a lso represent areas o f concentration w ithin a continuum. The s eparation i s made o n the basis o f l ength o f b lade a nd breadth of b lade, both o f which still s howed bimodal d istributions a fter removal o f those w eapons belonging to Type 7 . The members of Type 8 are larger than other f orms o f small spearhead, and h ave broad blades w ith very thin edges, a l ow V-shaped midrib, and deliberately angled points ( fig. 2 3 top r ight; 2 5 r ight). A number show traces o f a f ibrous b inding around t he outer end o f the socket. Chronology a nd D istribution ( fig. 7 4a) These weapons show a strong concentration 9 4

i n

north-central

Palestine, a lthough they a lso occur at s ites in coastal Lebanon. They are particularly common at Megiddo, which may s uggest local production. Most come from l arge, repeatedly used tombs, and are therefore hard to date securely. However two are from a s ingle grave from Tel Rehov near Beth Shan, dated early in the M .B.I period ( Yogev 1 985, 1 10) and were found in association with a f enestrated axe of Type 1 and a grooved dagger of Type 1 2, p lacing the appearance of such spearheads near the beginning of the period. Another comes from Ras e l-'Ain ( No 3 14) and i s well dated to the M .B.I period, while that from Ruweise Tomb 3 3 i s from a s ingle grave dated by Gerstenblith ( 1983, 4 2) to the end of M .B.I or the beginning of M . B.II. Although the type may have continued into the beginning of M . B.II, it did not last long i nto this period; note the complete absence of these weapons from the M .B.II tombs at sites such as Jericho, Tell Fara ( S) a nd Ras Shamra. The material from less well defined contexts such as that from Megiddo Tomb 1 100D ( Guy 1 938, 8 9, P 1.149: 4-7) and Ginosar ( Epstein 1 974) does not contradict these dates. Foreign Parallels Close parallels are few. Two spearheads from a level I I/Ib cist grave at Kültepe Kanesh ( Özgü9 1 954, Abb. 2 9), more clearly i llustrated by Erkanal ( 1977, Taf. 1 5.9-10), appear s imilar to Type 8 weapons. The blades measure 8 8mm by 3 0mm and 9 1mm by 2 9mm, well within the range for this type. It i s d ifficult to say what these represent on present evidence. It i s possible that this type i s not localised at a ll, and that the apparent ' gap' between southern and Anatolian examples, i s due to the l imited excavation of M .B.I deposits in Syria. The lack of good parallels for Type 8 weapons, among the large body of small spearheads found in M . B.I contexts at Ras Sha ma and Byblos, weighs against this view however. Furthermore, the wide occurrence and varied morphology of Type 6 spears, makes the production of highly standardised Type 8 weapons over such a wide area rather unlikely. That both occur in the same tomb, and at a site which has produced evidence for the manufacture of fenestrated axes, might suggest a Levantine connection, whether through trade, exchange or even a trading s ettlement i s not clear at present. The presence of an Anatolian-style s lotted spearhead of our Tanged Spearhead Type 1 5 at Megiddo, in a M . B.I context, ( see 2 .2) could be seen as supporting evidence for a connection between these two regions. Type 9 The weapons of Type 9 show very similar sockets to those of Type 8 , but the blades are generally shorter and s limmer, a nd are more heterogeneous, suggesting that Type 8 r epresents a parti cular variant, well represented in the known archaeological record, of a widely distributed g eneral form, Type 9 ( fig. 2 4 lower r ight). The l atter would therefore comprise a collection of different variants, which cannot be clearly distinguished at present. 9 5

Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 4b) Examples o f this type are widespread, i n contrast to the apparent concentration of Type 8 . They occur a t Tell e lDab'a i n Egypt, Byblos and Ruweise i n the Lebanon a nd at a number of Palestinian s ites. One e xample i s reported from a tomb i n the Golan, hinting at a d istribution extending to i nland Syria. I t must therefore be s tressed that Type 9 i s seen as a collection of several variants, which w ill be i dentified a s our knowledge of the a rchaeology of d ifferent regions develops. I t i s unfortunate that the material f rom Byblos i s not adequately documented, a s i t seems, l ooking at the i llustrations of small spearheads from the ' Döpöts', that we can detect several different f orms at that s ite a lone. S imilarities among the examples from Tell e l-Dab'a ( in particular the ' corkscrew' r ibbing on the s ockets), h int at a distinctive l ocal style at that s ite too, a lthough we cannot be certain until a l arger s ample i s available. Other such styles will doubtless be r ecognized a s the corpus grows. Another point concerning the d ifferentiation o f local f orms, i s that l ocal stylistic preferences s hould be expected to apply across the s ize boundaries s uggested here, resulting i n two cross-cutting d imensions of variation, one based on s ize, the other stylistic, r elating to l ocal manufacturing traditions, and incorporating particular design e lements. This would seem to be the case with the material from the M .B.I use o f the Shaft Tombs at Megiddo, and much of the material f rom the ' Depäts des Offrandes' at Byblos, where i ndividual morphological f orms occur i n a range of s izes. Were this material more f ully available, we might be able to s ay much more o n this matter, unfortunately no other s ingle s ite has produced a sufficiently l arge body of contemporary material to e nable development of this l ine of enquiry. Foreign Parallels Only one parallel has been i dentified i n the l iterature. This comes f rom Ur, Tomb 1 850 i n the Royal Cemetery, dated to the Ur I II Period by Nissen ( 1966, 1 91) and represents the sole socketted weapon from the s ite ( Woolley 1 934, 3 04, Type 7 , P l. 2 27, U .17914). It i s small and s lender ( blade 7 5mm by 2 2mm) but l ittle more can be e stablished f rom the i llustration. The appearance o f such an i tem in Mesopotamia, i n a l ate third millennium context, d oes not constitute secure evidence f or the e arlier appearance of such weapons i n southern Iraq, than i n Syria. Type 1 0 The weapons a ssigned to Type 1 0 are d ifferentiated f rom a ll the other types by virtue of the way i n which the socket i s formed. These f eature a socket which i s f ashioned by rolling up the shoulders o f the b lade ( fig. 2 3 lower; 2 5 l eft). The process i nvolves the smith beginning w ith a f lat metal sheet, and working up the two edges of one end, thus f orming the socket, while l eaving the other e nd to f orm the blade. The result i s that the b lade i s positioned 9 6

asymetrically, with respect i s viewed in profile.

to

the

socket

when

to

spearhead

The t echnique itself, occurs sporadically during the Late Bronze Age. Examples are published from Tell Fara ( S), Tombs 9 14 and 9 60, which date to this period ( Petrie 1 930, 2 3 and 2 6 P1 XLVIII.1 and LV.293), and even occasionally in later contexts e . g. f rom Tell Belt Mirsim silo 3 , ( Albright 1 941-43, 3 3 Pl. 6 2.10). It i s unlikely, on chronological grounds alone, that these are part of the same ' tradition' as the earlier objects. This should stand as a warning of the dangers of equating technology directly with chronology, when attempting to construct sequences of typological development. The rolled-up socket was a perfectly viable way of f ixing a shaft to a head, and continued in use over a long period as a means of hafting various tools, especially iron objects requiring forged sockets, as casting was not technically feasible until much later ( Tylecote 1 987, 3 25ff). On occasion this technique was applied to spearheads, although its f loruit seems to have been relatively short ( M.B.I period), and it was soon replaced by mould-made weapons, employing a different method of forming a socket. It should be observed that in the c luster analysis based on metric variables only, these objects were grouped with Type 9 , suggesting that the spearheads of this group represent a s imilar weapon, produced to a different pattern. This method of forming the socket was apparently most suitable for making small spearheads, as the sockets may not have been strong enough to mount a heavy point securely. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 75a) Examples of this type are known from the ' Depäts des Offrandes' at Byblos, in particular from Döpöt Beta, and f rom Tomb G . X at Hama dating to period ' H'. This would suggest a date in M . B.I, perhaps nearer the beginning than the end of the period. A spearhead from Tomb 1 101B, Lower at Megiddo ( No. 1 428) , which i s dated early in the the E .B.-M. B. period ( Prag 1 974, 9 3) i s a lso of this type ( Guy 1 938, P1.86.3), suggesting that such weapons appeared i n the l ate third millennium, and should perhaps be considered the earliest form of socketted spearhead, as we might infer o n technical grounds. It i s interesting that the initial application of this technique seems to have been in the production of small, l ightweight j avelins, which presumably r eflect a requirement for such a weapon. No examples are k nown from Palestinian M . B.I tombs, where other types of small spearhead are common. I f we are correct i n our belief that Palestinian M . B.I began rather l ater than that o f Syria, it may well be that these weapons had already been superseded by types with better sockets ( Types 6 -9 ) by the beginning o f the M .B.I period in the southern L evant. More importantly this type appears at exactly the s ame time as square-sectioned forms of tanged spearhead d isappear from the record. The obvious conclusion then, i s that these l ightweight socketted weapons were a direct r eplacement for the former. 9 7

An additional example with a rolled socket has been published by Dever ( 1975, 2 4, f ig. 1 .3) as coming f rom ' Ain es-Samiyeh. However, the details o f the socket, a s shown i n the i llustration suggest that i t i s rather d ifferent from the assymetric-bladed pieces d iscussed here. Further, i t comes from a collection of material of various dates from l ooted tombs, and cannot therefore be used to date other

objects.

Foreign Parallels A number of contemporary parallels are known from Anatolia. Several have been reported from tombs of Level I I at Kültepe Kanesh Cist Grave 2 ( Özgüg 1 950, 2 20 Abb 3 69) and C ist Grave 3 ( Özgüg 1 950, 2 00 Abb 3 73). An earlier example comes from a tomb belonging to Level IV ( Özgüg 1 959, 1 10 P l. L .4). Another i s known from Chagar Bazar Grave 9 1 dated to the early second millennium ( Mallowan 1 937, 1 18, f ig. 1 3.15), while an example from a l ate third millennium context at Tell Brak ( unpublished Reg. No. 2 942), bears a pair of crudely incised l ines on the blade, a motif encountered on certain dagger types ( see 2 .4). The chronological evidence therefore suggests that spearheads of Type 1 0 appear before the end of the third millennium, and continue in production for the earlier part of the the M . B.I period, reinforcing our suggestion ( see above) that the north and west does not l ag behind developments in Mesopotamia. Type 1 2 This type consists of weapons which are clearly ' small' spearheads, but for which the data i s insufficiently good to permit their assignment to one of the more t ightly defined types. Their main value i s i n providing additional data for analysis of distribution and context. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 7 5b) The examples assigned to this type are mostly from old excavations, and have been published i n such a way that the exact s izes cannot be established, although their morphology suggests that they represent small spearheads of one form or another. Examples come from M . B.I contexts at Ras Shamra, Baghouz, and Tell et-Tin, among other s ites. Those from Tomb 1 at Qatna, emphasise that the Baghouz material i s by no means unusual, and that such weapons were probably a regular feature of the burial repertoire of central Syria in the M . B.I period. These examples serve to amplify points regarding distribution made during discussion of Types 7-9. One example ( No 3 50) comes from Megiddo Tomb 4 052, which i s a s ingle burial and would seem to date to E . B.III. However, the problems with the stratigraphy of the s ite are well known to archaeologists ( see Kenyon 1 958, 1 969) and as the object is poorly preserved, and precedes all other examples by several centuries, i t seems best to follow Richard ( 1978, 2 36-7) and view i ts attribution to this period as suspect. However, were more examples to occur i n early contexts, we would be forced to reconsider our ideas regarding both the 9 8

initial appearance, weapons.

and

the

developmental

sequence

of

these

OTHER TYPES Type 1 3 This type consists of a group of weapons which can be easily seen to be related, but which cannot be defined on the basis of well preserved pieces, as no examples exist for which the data i s sufficiently reliable. Such data as can be established, does however, indicate that these objects are far more similar to each other, than to any of the c lasses described above. In terms of absolute dimensions, these rank as ' medium-sized' spearheads. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 7 6a) Examples are known from Byblos, Ruweise, Ras Shamra and Tell et-Tin, i .e. a Syrian distribution. As the type is f airly loosely defined, it would be unwise to attempt to draw detailed conclusions from its distribution. However, i ts Syrian basis i s emphasised by the l ack of examples from Palestinian contexts, and i s in l ine with the distribution of the better defined types of medium-large weapons. Type 1 1 A group of variants f itting none types ( see Catalogue for details).

of

the

established

DISCUSSION The d iscussion of l arge spearheads has indicated that such were still made with tanged, or r ivetted, mountings early i n M . B.I, being replaced by socketted versions as the period proceeded. The larger types show a d istinct concentration in Syria, rather than Palestine. Small spearheads are widespread throughout the Levant, occurring f requently in Palestinian contexts. These can be i dentified in the hands of ' Asiatics' in Egyptian reliefs dating to the Twelfth Dynasty i .e. 2 0th-19th C ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. XVI, XXXI; Gardiner et al 1 955, 2 06, f ig. 1 7), where the short blades are quite distinctive. However these disappear from the archaeological record early in the M .B.II period. In Syria they seem to be superseded by l arger socketted spearheads such as Types 1 and 3 , which may represent heavy infantry weapons, manufactured f or use by bodies of troops, rather than personal weapons of i ndividual members of an e lite, probably the case with many o f the j avelins found i n grave contexts. I f this i s so, i t i s i nteresting that no direct replacement f or the j avelin can be identified i n Palestine during the M .B.II period. It should be observed that these tend to o ccur i n graves, where they are associated with other weapons such as socketted axes and elaborate daggers, s uggesting that they represent part of a kit, associated w ith warrior status, essentially that described i n the Tale o f S inuhe ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0), which i s set i n a M . B.I c ontext. Therefore, their disappearance from the 9 9

archaeological record may be related to changes i n the way i n which status was expressed at burial, rather than to changes i n warfare ( see 3 .2.2). Whatever the c ase, the d ivergence between the Syrian and the P alestinian r epertoires during the M .B.II period, after their c lose s imilarity during M .B.I i s i nteresting. The development of socketted spearheads raises a number of questions. Although axes with sockets were in production by the Chalcolithic period ( Bar-Adon 1 980, Nos. 1 48; 1 49; 1 63), socketted spearheads do not seem to h ave been developed until the l ate third millennium. There are s everal possible reasons for this. The most obvious i s that the sockets of spearheads are much thinner, and therefore technically more difficult to cast than t hose o f axes. Certainly, the i nitial form, the f olded-up socket s een i n Type 1 0 spears, i s made f rom sheet metal, and i s therefore quite d ifferent, conceptually, f rom the c ast-in s ockets of axes. The f act that we are dealing w ith two very different techniques, sheet-working, and casting i n b ivalve moulds, may be important. I t i s l ikely that the r ealisation that spear sockets could be cast ( or partly cast) came l ater, and i nvolved their adaptation to a d ifferent technology. I n addition, a wide range o f tanged spearheads was a lready available, and had served adequately f or many centuries, while we might i nfer from their d esign, that the sockets of Type 1 0 spears, an early f orm, were r ather i nefficient. Their adoption, therefore, must have come about because the socketted hafting had some particular advantage to offer. An obvious reason i s that socketted weapons are l ighter than their tanged equivalents, and thus more economical as well as being easier to carry. We should bear in mind that the f irst weapons made w ith sockets seem to have been j avelins, which are i n essence ' thrown away', a lthough many were doubtless retrieved, suggesting that the saving of valuable metal may have been o f no l ittle concern. Once fully developed, the socket proved a more effective way of f ixing the head than d id the tapered or hooked tang. The l atter must a lways have presented problems regarding the s ecurity of the weapon head, and the splintering o f the shaft on impact, or under pressure. As these socketted weapons with their relatively broad b lades, appear a t the end o f the third millennium a s a replacement f or the square-section types, might we not i nterpret the development of tanged spears of Type 6 ( with a broad, s hort head and a l ong shank) i n southern Palestine during the E .B.-M.B. period, a s an attempt to produce a s imilar weapon using the basic l ocal hammer-based technology ? These weapons occur i n contexts which are generally believed to be l ate in the period ( see 2 .2), and are therefore l ikely to be contemporary with the appearance o f socketted weapons i n Syria, and perhaps northern Palestine too. This would provide a credible explanation for this morphological development, within what was an essentially conservative Palestinian i ndustry. 1 00

The earlier f orms o f heavy-bladed spear ( Types 2 and 5 ) have very long sockets. At the s ame t ime, we can s ee that both r ivets and tangs ( tanged spearhead Type 2 , which had a pronounced midrib g iving i t a cross-section resembling that o f a socketted weapon) continued i n f avour a s a means of f astening heavier weapon-heads during the M .B.I period. I n combination, these s uggest that there were problems i n developing a socket s ufficiently strong to hold a l ong, heavy b lade, without the socket i tself being o f great l ength. However, a s olution was f ound towards the end of the M .B.I period, w ith the appearance o f medium-large b laded weapons with s ockets o f a reasonable s ize ( Types 1 , 3 and 4 ). I t i s probably no coincidence that i t i s at this t ime, that tanged, r ivetted, and l ong-socketted, spearheads d isappear from the archaeological record.

1 01

2 .4.

DAGGERS

The d istinction between a dagger and a knife i s problematic. Many knives can function a s stabbing weapons, while many daggers are l ikely to have been used a s multipurpose i mplements, equally valuable at table or as s ide arms. Therefore, a s imple morphological d ivision has been chosen. D aggers are taken to be two-edged items, knives those with a s ingle edge. The result o f this i s to p lace a wide range o f material within the general category ' daggers'. 2 .4.1 WELL-DEFINED TYPES AND THEIR VARIANTS THE NARROW DAGGER SERIES This term refers to a d istinctive s eries of weapons showing a restricted chronological and geographical r ange, the E .B. A. and e specially the E .B.-M.B. periods in Palestine and south Syria. They represent one of the most d istinctive f eatures of the material culture of the E .B.M .B. period. I t i s c lear from even a cursory examination, that the d ifferent f orms i n which these weapons occur, represent variations on a common theme. The main d istinguishing f eatures of the series are the l ong narrow b lade, which generally has a l ength/breadth ratio l ying between 7 .0 and 9 .0, considerably h igher than i s the case f or most other dagger f orms, and the butt which usually comprises two or more pairs of r ivets. The combination of these f eatures makes examples o f the form easily recognizable. Various attempts have been made to s ubdivide this form o f dagger i nto separate types, a lthough these have met with only l imited success ( Kenyon 1 956; Stewart 1 974; R ichard 1 978). The r eason i s, that typologists have f ailed to appreciate that the s eries a s a whole r epresents what C larke ( 1978, 2 28) terms an I ndependent Type, while the i nternal groupings conform c losely to h is notion o f Transform Types. Briefly, the l atter are a reas of convergence, between the d ifferent trajectories of a number o f i ndependently changing variables, confined w ithin a s ingle ' artefact-type system'. Thus the types are multivariate, defined on the basis o f a polythetic set o f variable values. Hard and f ast d ivisions will not a lways be possible. The a im should be t o define types whose underlying basis can be f airly easily explained, and which seem to show genuine patterning i n t erms o f other a spects of the data. ( For a d iscussion of the concept of Transform Types and i ts value i n this s ituation see 1 .3, and at greater l ength Philip, i n press.) C luster analysis suggested a d ivision i nto ten groups. However, a fter consideration o f the basis on which these were defined, i t proved possible to c ombine some o f these ( see Catalogue f or details). This procedure l imits fragmentation o f the material and produces three major, three smaller groups, and a l oose collection o f ' odd' p ieces. The revised groups show c learly the chronological 1 02

and spatial trends i mplied by the original ten. ( These groups are indicated, in small and large print respectively, on f ig. 6 2.) The scheme i s s imilar to that presented earlier ( Philip, i n press), but represents a more refined version, i ncluding a quantity of new or unpublished material, and i s l ess reliant on that from the cemeteries at Tell el-'Ajjul and Jericho. Type 1 Daggers with a long hilt-plate ( fig. 2 6 left). This f eature should not d isguise their essential similarity to other types within the narrow dagger series. The large number of daggers excavated at Jericho which had ' extra' r ivets lying beyond the butt end, suggests that a continuation of the handle beyond the butt was quite common, a lthough this usually consisted of wooden plates a lone, rather than being composed of metal ( see reconstruction in Tubb 1 985b, f ig 1 25). Chronology and Distribution This type i s so far restricted to a s ingle s ite, ' Enan in northern Palestine ( Eisenberg 1 985), where several occur a longside a group of rivetted spearheads ( see 2 .2). Although the internal chronology of the E . B.-M. B. period i s not f ixed, owing to the lack of published stratified material, and the differing regional ceramic assemblages, which cannot easily be located relative to one another, this group can be p laced to some extent by the presence of r ivetted spearheads with parallels at Byblos. In Syrian terms, most of the metalwork from Byblos has its best p arallels in the e arlier part of the M . B.I period. Many s cholars would a ccept a date of c2000 B .C. for the beginning of this period in Syria ( Dever 1 980, Tubb 1 983, Gerstenblith 1 983), although Holland ( 1981, 1 30-131) has argued that the distinctive comb-incised pottery, characteristic of the period, may appear before the end of the third millennium. The Byblos parallels f or the r ivetted spearheads, would require the placing of the ' Enan tomb somewhere i n the l atter part of the E . B.-M.B. period. Type 2 This type is essentially that which was classed as the ' simple' form in the earlier survey ( Philip, in press). It consists of daggers which are generally smaller than those belonging to other types, and which show a s imple, l entoid or f lat l ozenge-shaped, cross-section, and a square or trapezoidal butt with four, or occasionally s ix, r ivets. A lthough a few e xamples of this type excavated at Jericho produced extra r ivets above the butt, this represents but a small part of the total sample from that s ite. While most daggers of this type came from tombs in Area A at Jericho, those examples which had extra r ivets came mostly from tombs i n areas B , L and M ( see Type 3 below). Only two Type 2 daggers came from contexts where they were s ecurely associated with a tanged spearhead; from Fureidis ( Hess 1 980) and Jericho Tomb M13 ( Kenyon 1 965, 1 51-3). 1 03

This i s a very small proportion o f the total number. The example from Megiddo Tomb 1 101B was, however, found with a socketted spearhead of Type 1 0. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 6b) This type alone includes narrow daggers from contexts which can be shown to predate the E . B.-M.B. period. A lthough many of these are from late E .B.III tombs, such as those from Jericho Tomb 3 51 ( Garstang 1 935, 1 63) and the f inal phase of use of the Bab edh-Dhra' Charnel Houses, c losed at the beginning of the E . B.-M. B. period ( Rast and Schaub 1 975, 2 4), several others come from contexts which could be earlier. That from Azor, i s f rom a tomb containing pottery of E .B.I types ( Ben Tor 1 975, 25), dated to the l ate fourth millennium. Another comes from Cave Tomb 7 at Tell en-Nasbeh ( McCown 1 947, 2 64, P l. 1 04.1). Although no c lear associations are published for this dagger, s imilar tombs from the s ite produced good E . B.I material ( see McCown 1 947, 6 7ff, P 1.24-27). This would suggest that Type 2 represents not only the s implest, but the earliest version of the narrow dagger series, which has implications f or the internal chronology of the tomb groups of the E .B.M .B. period. Additional support i s given by the fact that the daggers from contexts deemed e arly in the E .B.-M.B. period, such as Megiddo Tomb 1 101B Lower ( Prag 1 974, 7 9) and the tombs of Area A at Jericho ( Kenyon 1 960, 1 82), belong overwhelmingly to this type. Daggers of this type show a wide d istribution throughout Palestine, and into Transjordan. As this type i s the only one with exact parallels in the local E . B. A., and seems l ikely to represent an early phase o f the period, i ts wide d istribution throughout Palestine would seem to argue for a greater geographical spread of occupation during the i nitial phase of the period, than recent studies ( Dever 1 980, Richard 1 980), have allowed. Type 3 The key criteria for assigning objects to this particular type, i s the possession of a pair of incised l ines running down the centre of the blade ( fig. 2 8), although this i s supported by the patterning of metric variables. It argued elsewhere ( Philip, in press) that these l ines suggest a connection with a style o f decoration found on daggers of the M .B.I period in Syria, some examples of Type 3 0 i n particular Similar decoration i s found on several Syrian examples of the narrow dagger series, such as those from Qatna Tomb IV. F irst hand examination of a number of daggers o f this type brings two points to l ight. The l ines are generally incised, rather than cast-in. Furthermore, i n many cases they can be seen to run unevenly, often d iverging or converging and being of uneven depth. This seems to suggest that these daggers were made by a relatively simple technique, hammering out a roughly cast billet. There i s l ittle evidence here for the use of twopiece moulds of the sort required for casting the decorated daggers found in M .B.I contexts in Syria ( see below) 1 04

An example from Ma'ayan Barukh has traces of f langing along one s ide of each f ace of the butt. This would seem to represent a fairly advanced feature. The weapon came from a tomb producing pottery of Dever's ' family N ', and two r ivetted spearheads ( see 2 .2), as found at ' Enan where a Type 1 dagger w ith f langed butt a lso occurred. S ix of the examples from Jericho had extra r ivets lying above the butt, a s ignificant fraction of the total corpus of such daggers from that s ite. I f we infer that the presence of such r ivets implies a different, probably more e laborate handle, then i ts greater frequency with daggers of this type, as opposed to those of Type 2 , i s l ikely to be of s ome s ignificance i n terms of their original appearance. A number of tombs at Jericho produced traces of various s tudded straps a nd f ittings; many of these a lso contained daggers of Type 3 . Although one can consider the material from Jericho in detail, it i s d ifficult to generalise. The detection of extra r ivets i s dependent on a number of factors, i ncluding the degree of d isturbance and preservation of the tomb i tself, and the circumstances under which the tomb was excavated and recorded. It might therefore be misleading to compare the frequency of occurrence of extra r ivets at, s ay, Jericho, where excavation and recording were of a high s tandard, with their apparent absence from daggers recovered during o ld excavations such Tell e l-'Ajjul, or s alvage work, undertaken when tombs were a lready partly destroyed. The connection between methodology and comparability of data should not be ignored. Some evidence to suggest that e laborate handles were fairly common, is provided by the discovery of additional rivets with daggers f rom a tomb in Amman ( Zayadine 1 978, 6 1) and from Tiwal e sh-Sharqi on the Wadi Zarqa ( Tubb 1 985b, 1 25). Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 7 7a) E xamples of this f orm are frequent in northern and central Palestine, and several are published from Tomb IV at Qatna i n Syria. Only one such is known from southern Palestine; a poorly preserved p iece from Tell e l-' Ajjul. All examples o f this type are from E . B.-M. B. Palestinian contexts, except those from Qatna Tomb IV which belong to l ate E . B. . o f Syria, p lacing the f loruit of this type in the l ast few centuries of the third millennium. It therefore seems reasonable to infer that Type 3 daggers are generally l ater than those assigned to Type 2 . At Jericho it can be established that daggers of Type 3 tend to occur i n the tombs of Areas L a nd M , whilst those of Type 2 are more f requent in Areas A and B ( see Philip, in press). Daggers o f Type 3 are far more l ikely to occur in association with a spearhead of some form, than are those of Type 2 . These f actors combine to suggest that there is an underlying d ifference between these two types, most apparent in morphological terms. On the basis of the evidence outlined above, it seems most l ikely to be chronological d istinction, a lthough arguments could be put forward to support its being an expression of contemporary social 1 05

c lasses, or d ifferent cultural being argued by Kenyon ( 1966).

groups,

the

latter

view

A number of daggers of the Syrian M .B.I period show l inear decoration on their blades ( see Types 3 0 and 3 2), as do certain socketted spearheads, those of Type 2 in particular. The particular motif employed, a pair of incised l ines a long the blade centreline, i s known on Mesopotamian daggers and even at Susa ( Tallon 1 987, Nos. 1 29-30). Several examples are known from later E . D.III burials in ' Cemetery A ' at Kish ( Mackay 1 925, 4 0 P l. 1 11.5; 1 929, 1 62 P l. XXXIX.8 left). Others are known from Uruk, ( Finkbeiner 1 983, 3 0 Taf. 3c, survey f ind,) and from the Royal Cemetery at Ur ( Woolley 1 934, P1 1 52 left; Pl. 1 57b). I t i s worth observing that all Mesopotamian daggers with this motif are substantial weapons. In fact, Woolley remarks ( 1934, 3 08) that most of the daggers with gold blades are of this type ( his Type 3 ). This motif i s not known on any of the smaller, l ess well f inished Mesopotamian dagger types ( those which might be ' pocketknives'). It i s restricted to f ine weapons, suggesting that the very decoration of these daggers contributed to their prestigious quality. The Mesopotamian daggers date to c 2550-2400 B . C., which i s not much earlier than the l ikely appearance of this motif at Qatna Tomb IV. The discovery of a seal bearing a scene i ncluding a dagger with incised blade, in a late E .B. A. context at Tell Selenkahiye ( van Loon 1 979, fig. 1 1), suggests that the idea of decorating dagger blades was of wide currency in the later third millennium, and was partly responsible for the development of the elaborately decorated daggers of Types 1 2-16 i n the succeeding M . B.I period. I n summary then, the adoption of this motif, and i ts adaptation to the preferred narrow dagger form must be seen as a local aspect of a widespread phenomenon, the decorated ' prestige' dagger. The implication i s that notions of ' acceptable' prestige i tems were widespread, and that Palestine during the E .B.-M.B. period, despite its d istinctive material culture ( in f act this all too often means pottery), was by no means i solated from the wider social and political world, at l east not at higher social l evels ( see discussion of tin-bronze in Palestine at this period, 3 .3). We see the i ncorporation of this f eature i nto the traditional Palestinian design to suit local manufacturing techniques, rather than wholesale i ntroduction of new weapon types, as we see with the appearance of f enestrated axes. This suggests, as the archaeological data implies, that these weapons were made mostly f or consumption and exchange within Palestine-south Syria, but reflect styles acceptable in the wider world. Type 4 These daggers represent the l argest of the various types. They are long, with trapezoidal or concave-sided butts, i sually showing s ix or more rivets. Most have pronounced midribs ( fig. 2 9). 1 06

Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 7b) D aggers of this f orm are particularly common at s ites in southern Palestine. Although examples occur from sites f arther north such a s Khirbet Ibrekhtias in the coastal p lain and ' En Hanasiv near Beth Shan, these are sufficiently rare a s to serve only to highlight the e ssentially southern distribution of the type. I f daggers o f Type 4 can be s hown to represent a late form, as suggested by their morphology, then we would have evidence f or increasing regionalism within the metallurgical i ndustry, as the E .B-M. B. period progressed. This has a lready been suggested on the basis of the appearance of l ocal forms of tanged spearheads, in particular the south Palestinian Type 6 . All Type 4 daggers d ate to the E .B.-M.B. period. It i s d ifficult however, to assign them to a specific temporal phase within this period. Most of the published examples come from contexts producing pottery of the kind which Dever ( 1980, 4 8) would assign to his ' Family S ', apparently the latest of t he various regional ceramic groups. Although we should accept a greater degree of chronological overlap between the c eramic families than Dever has a llowed ( see Cohen and Dever 1981, 6 3ff), it does seem that the settlement material a t sites such as Jericho and Megiddo, which Dever ascribes to ' Family S ', represents a l ate stage i n t he overall E . B.-M. B. sequence ( Dever 1 980, 4 8, Kenyon 1 973, 578). Gerstenblith ( 1983, 1 16-119) and Tubb ( 1983, 5 7-59) both argue that the re-urbanisation of Palestine in the M . B.I period was not uniform across the country, and that the process took place rather later in the south. On these grounds the daggers of Type 4 can reasonably be p laced towards the end of the period, as unlike daggers of Type 2 which occur throughout Palestine, this Type i s l argely restricted to southern parts. The s imilarity between Type 4 daggers and the ' swords' from the ' Depöts des Offrandes' at Byblos ( Type 9 here) should a lso be noted. There seems to be no particular reason why the s outhern Type 4 d aggers should be so much longer, and possess such different midribs from other types of narrow dagger. However, i t makes more sense i f we are to accept that they are in some way influenced by a tradition of very l ong, high mid-ribbed weapons i n production elsewhere ( not necessarily at Byblos alone, evidence for early M . B.I metalwork from coastal Syria i s l imited) and we have a lready established ( see Type 3 ) that the metal industry of the E . B.-M.B. period was quite capable of absorbing ' acceptable' design e lements from other areas, and adapting them to suit l ocal c apabilities. ( See now Shalev 1 988, where the so called ' Philistine Sword', in the British Museum, is shown t o r epesent a very long example of our Type 4 . I ts length, a t 1 06.5 cm, places it much nearer to the l ong Type 9 weapons from Byblos, than any other Palestinian weapon) As most of the material from the ' Döpöts' has its best parallels in good M .B.I contexts, a connection between t he Byblos daggers and the south 1 07

Palestinian Palestinian

Type 4 , f orms are

i s a ll the more l ikely i f l ate within t he E .B.-M.B. period.

the

Type 5 Although there are f ew examples of t his type, it was f elt that it was o f sufficient value i n r evealing the connection between certain of the l arger g roups, to justify its retention as a separate unit. They generally possess the concave s ided butts common on e xamples of Type 4 but possess neither the h igh midribs o f that type, n or the incised l ines of Type 3 , and l ie b etween Types 3 a nd 4 i n absolute s ize ( Pl. lb). Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 8a) Examples are known from Dhahr M irzbaneh and Amman i n Palestine and Transjordan respectively. There are a lso two possible examples from farther north, a lbeit rather poorly i llustrated; from I DI Döt Gamma at B yblos and f rom Y abrud i n south Syria, the l atter from t ombs i ncluding material dating to the l ate third millennium, as well as the better known M .B.I material ( see Philip, i n press). The g eneral impression g iven by these contexts, i s a lso o f a d ate l ate i n the sequence, which i s i n agreement w ith the morphological evidence. These should represent a s tage on the way to the development o f Type 4 daggers ( see d iscussion of Type 7 below). Type 6

Variant forms

( see

Catalogue)

Type 7 The members o f this type are generally d istinguished by their possession o f a trapezoidal, or more r arely a shouldered butt, with s ix r ivets, c ombined with a s imple, f lat, l ozenge-shaped cross-section ( fig. 3 0). They can, l ike Type 5 , be i nterpreted as a s tep on the way to the development o f the e laborate daggers of Type 4 . Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 7 8b) The s ingle l argest group of such d aggers comes f rom Teil e lr -'Ajjul, and distribution i s confined to central, and i n particular southern, Palestine. T o j udge from s ize and morphology, these daggers would f it i n between t he s imple daggers of Type 2 and the e laborate Type 4 weapons, implying, on morphological grounds, stratigraphic data being l imited, a sequence running f rom Type 2 through Type 7 to Type 4 . I n general s ize t erms, this type r epresents an a lternative ' southern' equivalent o f Type 3 , s uggesting that Type 4 does i ndeed represent the l atest form o f the narrow dagger, not only i n the s outh, but i n Palestine as a whole. We l ack a northern equivalent to Type 4 f or the s imple reason that narrow d aggers were replaced by completely new forms in the north, a s Type 4 c ame i nto general currency f arther south. Discussion S everal points emerge from the f oregoing d iscussion. narrow dagger i s a l ong-lived f orm, remaining constant 1 08

The f or

many c enturies, prior to undergoing relatively rapid typological change i n the late third millennium. It i s a lso c lear that the form i s not confined solely to Palestine, a lthough t he examples from south Syria are, as yet, f ew in number. We must also ask why these daggers ( and the accompanying tanged spearheads) form such a striking feature of the grave repertoire of the E .B.-M. B. period, in contrast t o their rarity in the preceding E .B. A. Finally, we see that these weapons are closely connected to the d evelopment of regional metal industries, within Palestine, during the l ate third millennium, and that they may provide a chronological l ink between areas whose ceramic repertiores are not directly comparable. ( All these points will be treated in more detail in Part 3 ). TYPES FOUND IN THIRD MILLENNIUM PALESTINE Type 2 6 This type consists of a small group of weapons, which although occurring i n the same contexts as examples of the narrow dagger series, are different in terms of s ize and morphology. Type 2 6 daggers are defined as short, broad weapons, with a trapezoidal butt with three rivets arranged in a triangular pattern ( figs. 3 1 right; 3 2 top, r ight). It would be wrong to d ismiss these s imply as small examples of the narrow dagger series. Comparison of metric data shows that Type 2 6 and narrow daggers represent d ifferent design concepts. The differing circumstances under which the two forms occur seems to support this idea. When the context i s c lear, a s at ' Enan ( No. 1 231) and Menahemiyah ( No. 1229), Type 2 6 daggers occur in E . B.-M. B. graves as ' secondary' weapons, in addition to a narrow dagger. The example from the grave at ' Enan, was found at the opposite s ide of the waist of corpse H1 from two Type 1 narrow daggers ( Eisenberg 1 985, f ig. 2 ), suggesting that a clear d istinction was made between the two types. These seem to r epresent ' pocket-knives', as i s the case with certain S yrian E .B. A. daggers. C hronology and D istribution ( fig. 79a) A ll clearly associated examples come from graves dating to the E . B.-M.B. period, from sites in the north of Palestine, s uch as Enan, Menahemiyah and Barquai. Despite the l arge amount of E . B.-M.B. metalwork which has been excavated from s ites in the central hills and southern regions, no Type 2 6 d aggers have been reported from that area, emphasising t heir apparent connection with the three-rivetted daggers o f Syria ( see below). One example comes from Megiddo Tomb 9 11A ( No. 1 045), a nd cannot be clearly associated with any p articular phase o f tomb use. The tomb produced an amount o f E . B.-M. B. pottery, and the dagger may well have been a ssociated with this material, although this cannot now be p roved. Type 2 8 This type consists of a long, slender k nife rather than a dagger. The form i s 1 09

weapon, perhaps a quite distinctive,

and on this basis i t i s defined a s a separate type ( fig. 3 1 l eft). The two examples are f rom Jericho, from a tomb dated to the E .B.-M.B. period, a nd f rom Tell ed-Duwier T . 1 513, which produced a l arge quantity of E .B.III m aterial. These weapons are clearly d ifferent f rom the narrow dagger series and f rom a ll other weapons i n the present corpus. I t i s worth observing that the e xample from Jericho comes f rom a tomb which i s in Area P , a n area which d id not produce examples of Kenyon's Dagger Type tombs, while the tomb i tself i s of a d ifferent f orm, reinforcing the typological evidence, and suggesting that this object represents something ' different' f rom the narrow d aggers. They were made by a s imple hammering technique, probably to meet some particular l ocal requirement. Triangular-bladed daggers with sharp midribs Type 8 This type consists of two daggers with a three-rivet hafting system and a distinctive b lade. The rivets are arranged with one i n each shoulder a nd one i n a short tang. The b lades have straight, tapering s ides, with a s harp, Vshaped midrib ( fig. 3 3 r ight). Chronology and D istribution Both examples are from Palestine. That f rom A zor was c learly associated with E .B.I pottery. The other, from Megiddo Tomb 9 12A, i s probably associated with ceramics of the E .B.-M.B. period. These daggers h int at the existence of range of E .B. A. metalwork which e xisted a longside the better known narrow dagger s eries, but which i s at p resent poorly known. D iscussion The f ine midribs on these weapons m ight suggest that they were mould-made; metallurgical i nvestigation i s required. Whether this i s the case or not, there i s a marked contrast between the skill employed i n making d aggers o f this type, and that required for the manufacture of narrow d aggers. The presence o f sharp midribs on other E .B. A. daggers, in particular those of Type 2 5 ( which i ncludes those from Kfar Monash) should not be overlooked. There are apparently additional E .B.A. examples o f such daggers with s harp midribs f rom Tell e l-Far'ah ( de Vaux a nd Steve 1948, 5 55) and Jerusalem ( Vincent and Steve 1 956, 6 18) but t hese remain unpublished. It seems l ikely that these weapons were designed to receive a handle mounted by a bracket ( see d iscussion under Type 2 5 below). The f act that the r ivets were m issing f rom the dagger f ound a t Azor ( Ben Tor 1 975, 2 2), i n contrast to the s ituation with most narrow daggers, suggests that the handle may have been c omposed of precious materials, and hence removed prior to deposition. E .B. A. graves, i n contrast to those of l ater periods, contain remarkably f ew weapons. In the l ight of the quality of Late Chalcolithic metalwork ( see Bar-Adon 1 980), and the urbanised nature of E . B. A. Palestine, i t seems reasonable to i nfer that a sophisticated metallurgical i ndustry d id 1 10

exist i n the region a t this represent a small sample.

time,

of

which

these

daggers

Type 2 5 This type consists o f four daggers from the Kfar Monash hoard and a s imilar piece from Jericho. Those from Kfar Monash make a very homogeneous group, having straight, tapering blades with pronounced, sharp midribs, and a distinctive r ivet l ayout consisting of either one or two rivets placed at the very end of the butt ( fig. 3 4 right; Pl. 2 a). Perhaps these, l ike the daggers of Type 8 , represent a rare g limpse of a form of weapon common in E . B.A. Palestine, but which i s under-represented in the archaeological record, relative to M . B. A types, owing to the p aucity of metalwork from E .B. A. graves. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 7 9b) The chronology of the material from Kfar Monash has been the subject of much debate ( Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963; BenTor 1 971; Watkins 1 975). As the material i s not from a stratified context, and as our knowledge of E .B. A. metalworking is poor, we cannot at present provide a f irm answer. Watkins ( 1975) in particular, has stressed the danger of attempting to draw parallels on the grounds of s imple, and potentially long-lived ( and under-studied) types. The material i s clearly earlier than the E .B.-M. B. period, a s the c lassic dagger and spearhead forms, which s eem to have comprised so much of the output of the metal i ndustry o f that p eriod, are absent. Since the discovery o f the Type 8 dagger from Azor discussed above, Ben-Tor has revised h is dating for the Kfar Monash hoard, and would now be willing to accept an early date ( 1975, 2 7). This i s r einforced by the presence of s imilar carnelian beads w ithin the hoard and in the E .B.I tombs at Azor ( see under d iscussion of dagger Type 2 above). The item from Jericho, although unpublished, i s from Tomb A 100, according to the records of the Amman Museum. C onsultation of the excavation records in Cambridge r evealed this i tem to be the only f ind from a poorly p reserved shaft tomb which had cut into Tomb A94 of ProtoUrban A ( E. B.IA) date. Given that s imple shaft tombs occur a s early as E .B.IA at Bab edh-Dhra' ( Rast and Schaub 1 984, 3 6), the relative stratigraphy of the tombs is o f l ittle h elp i n dating the dagger, beyond indicating a date no e arlier than the late fourth millennium. Note should however be taken of the following comment from the s ite r ecords: " cannot be E .B.-M. B. as it produced three skulls". A s the tomb took the form of a ' dagger-type tomb', most of which d id indeed contain s ingle interments, it might be that the tomb r epresents an E . B. A. shaft tomb of the kind known f rom Bab edh-Dhra'. The Jericho dagger emphasises that the objects from Kfar Monash do not stand i n i solation. They must be seen as part of a poorly known E . B. A. tradition, which will emerge slowly through i ncreased f ieldwork.

1 11

Foreign Parallels There i s a rather s imilar dagger f rom Grave 8 36 a t Naqada ( Petrie and Quibbel 1 896, 4 8 P l. LXV.3). This t omb dates to the l ate predynastic period i .e. the l ate fourth millennium, which would seem to s upport an early date f or our daggers, and hence for the Kfar Monash hoard. D iscussion The r ivet l ayout on these daggers i s unusual, a nd would s eem o f questionable e ffectiveness, unless the r ivet d id not f ix the weapon d irectly to the handle, but r ather to a bracket or frame i nto which the handle was inserted. This bracket would have gripped the tapering s ides of t he butt, and been secured by one or two r ivets. The practice o f p lacing r ivets at the very edge o f the butt can be seen s ome Type 1 2 daggers, a form which we know to have used a bracket f itting ( see below). The l ack of traces o f such a f itting from the daggers f rom K far Monash, c ould be explained by the removal of the haft prior to deposition. As it would not therefore, have decayed in s itu, no corrosion pattern would remain on the dagger itself, as i s f requently the case when daggers are i nterred with handles i n p lace. Another example would be the Type 8 dagger from A zar, whose r ivets had been removed prior to d eposition ( see above). I f the bracket was attached to a decorative handle which was removed f or use e lsewhere, the daggers may be considered as ' prestige' i tems. In that c ase, the appearance of carnelian beads and s ilver fragments ( Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 85) i n what has b een taken as a ' scrap' hoard, might be more comprehensible, with the hoard representing a deliberate deposit o f some kind ( Philip 1 988b). TYPES FOUND IN SECOND MILLENNIUM CONTEXTS Type 9 This type consists of a group of d istinctive, very long daggers ( fig.56 l eft), called ' swords' by S andars ( 1961, 2 0). I n s ize, shape of butt, and t he presence of a high midrib, they resemble weapons o f Type 4 . The connection may not be f ortuitous, and i t i s possible that the s hape of Type 4 narrow daggers was i nfluenced by these S yrian weapons. Chronology and D istribution S o f ar Levantine examples of this type have been r eported only from Byblos, f rom the ' Däpöts des Offrandes' suggesting a date in the M . B.I period. As they occur in the ' Champs des Offrandes', the ' Temple des Obelisks' and i n ' Batiment I I' they cannot be dismissed a s an aberrant f orm, produced f or one particular deposit. A lthough there are no parallels f rom the Levant i tself, there i s a possible example f rom Kültepe. This d agger i s over 4 15mm l ong and 5 0mm i n max. breadth and has a l ong tapering butt with four r ivets, arranged as a pair at the f oot o f the tang and two i n-line i n the tang i tself ( Özgü9 1986, 7 5, P l. 1 29.3). The weapon comes f rom the c itadel on the main 1 12

tell, f rom a l evel contemporary with level I I of the Karum, M . B.I i n Syrian terms. I f this dagger i s ' the same' in conception as those f rom Byblos, we must regard these long daggers as having had wider currency than we might guess from the known archaeological record, and expect that additional examples w ill appear as work proceeds i n the northern Levant. Sandars ( 1961, 1 9) has observed the s imilarity between these weapons and certain weapons found i n E . B.-M.B. contexts at Tell e l-'Ajjul ( see discussion under Type 4 ). It s eems quite l ikely, given the evidence for the incorporation of Syrian stylistic features on other types of narrow dagger, such as the incised l ines of Type 3 , that there is a connection between Types 4 and 9 . I f the ' Döpöts' do cover a period equivalent to the early M . B.I period, and daggers of Type 4 are late in the E .B.-M.B. sequence, there i s a strong l ikelihood of a chronological overlap. Furthermore, i f, as suggested above, long daggers were quite common i n the north, the view that the Type 4 daggers of southern Palestine were produced as a local response to a new northern style seems a ll the more credible. Although Byblos and Tell el-' Ajjul are far apart, the l atter i s near the coast, and it seems possible that contact was v ia the Syrian seaborne trade with Egypt, which i s known to have resumed by the beginning of 1 2th Dynasty ( Posener 1 971, 5 4Off). LONG-TANGED DAGGERS These are defined a s a separate group on the basis of their d istinctive hafting, a straight, slender tang, generally w ithout r ivets, which must have been inserted directly into a channel cut i n the handle. This technique requires d ifferent working practices for fabrication of both the dagger, and presumably the handle. Therefore they have been defined as a separate group. Initial cross-tabulation o f variables revealed a homogeneous main group, Type 1 0, a nd a small number of clear outliers, grouped together as Type 1 1. Type 10 Most of these weapons have a square-shouldered blade ( mean l ength 1 58mm) with e ither straight-tapering, or more commonly concave s ides, probably the result of regular sharpening. Although a few examples with sharp points occur, most are rounded ( fig. 3 5). The fact that many of those b lades w ith straight s ides have rounded points implies that these were a deliberate design feature and cannot be explained away as the result of wear or repeated sharpening, suggesting that these were not primarily i ntended as stabbing weapons. In fact, the attention paid to the sharpness of the blade edges, suggests more frequent use as cutting tools than was so with daggers of Types 1 21 9. None of our examples seem to have had r ivetted tangs. A few occur with a pommel of the globular l imestone type generally noted with daggers of Types 1 3 and 1 7-19, but 1 13

these are mostly from disturbed groups containing a variety of dagger types, and the associations as reconstructed by the excavators may be erroneous. In most cases the long tang must have been inserted directly into the handle, and held by adhesive or pressure, a rather crude method. Traces of the haft, where any survive, are usually present as a horizontal l ine running a cross the blade a few millimetres below the shoulders, confirming the view that the entire tang was inserted i nto the handle, and would therefore have gone unseen. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 0a) All examples of this type come from Palestine, mostly from central and southern regions. Several examples have been published from northern sites such as Megiddo, Beth Shan and Ginosar, arguing against an attempt to view these as a purely southern style. No definite examples are yet reported from Syria ( but note No. 9 18 from Ras Shamra d iscussed under Type 1 1), although this may be due to the l ack of excavated M . B.II material from that area. None have yet been reported from Tell e l-Dab'a, which bearing in mind the l arge number of M . B.II daggers found at that site, might suggest that these weapons are an essentially Palestinian phenomenon. Examples from good contexts suggest a date in the M . B.II period; it i s not possible to be more precise. The type would seem to continue i nto the L .B. A. ( see Tubb 1 985a, 1 92-3) and seems to spawn a range of l ong-tanged dagger forms familiar from L .B. A. contexts, grouped together by Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1946, 2 9) under her Type 2 8. It is interesting to observe that it i s this s imple form which continues into the L .B. A., not the more aesthetically pleasing Types 1 3 and 1 7 ( see below). Despite adherence to a well defined basic shape, these daggers do not show the degree of attention to the appearance of the blade that i s seen in Types 1 2-19. Type 1 0 daggers are generally quite poorly f inished, and s eem to l ack the strength and rigidity of many other dagger f orms, perhaps i n an attempt to economize on metal. To the writer's knowledge, only one Type 1 0 weapon is c learly associated in a burial with a battleaxe ( from Tel Aviv Harbour, Tomb 6 , Kaplan 1 955,). I n other cases, a lthough daggers of Type 1 0 and axes occur together, the tombs were used for multiple successive internments, such as Jericho Tomb 9 ( Garstang 1 932, 4 3ff) and Ginosar Tomb 2 /3 ( Epstein 1 974, 4 *). Several other dagger types ( e. g. 1 3 and 1 7), despite being rarer in total than Type 1 0, can be seen to occur i n clear association with narrow-bladed axes, as part of groups relating to one particular burial. Perhaps Type 1 0 daggers were not considered an appropriate accompaniment for an axe. There may be a connection between these two points. Rather than attempt to discuss these daggers and contemporary types in terms of regional and chronological factors, we ought perhaps to consider the c ircumstances under which they were deposited, i .e. archaeological context and thus the possibility that different types had different ' meanings' in the users' value systems ( 3.2.2.). 1 14

Type 1 1 Variant forms This type contains a ll those objects showing a long, straight tang, which clearly did not belong to Type 1 0. Their d istribution i s markedly d ifferent from that of Type 1 0 daggers ( fig. 8 0b). ( For l ist of examples and full details see Catalogue.) DAGGERS WITH STYLED BLADES These daggers occur i n several variants of which two forms, Type 1 2 with a blade with two l arge r ibs f lanking a central groove, and Type 1 3 bearing multiple converging ribs are the most common ( both Type 2 5 in the typology of MaxwellHyslop 1946). It s eems to have been important that these weapons were both visually attractive, and easy to recognise. They occur in a wide range of s izes, a lthough it should be observed that the smaller examples are known only from the Byblos ' Döpöts' or from unknown contexts at Ras Shamra. The Byblos ' Döpöts' are clearly deliberate offerings of some sort, while it i s argued e lsewhere ( Philip 1 988b) that many of the ' unstratified' metal weapons from Ras Shamra come from similar deposits, unrecognised by the excavator. The small examples may represent a special form made for that purpose. The blades of these daggers are generally quite broad, most measuring between 4 0 and 5 5mm at the point of maximum breadth. The ratio length of blade/max breadth of blade i s generally between 3 .7 and 4 .3, showing that these weapons are broader i n proportion to their l ength, than most other dagger f orms, a fact which is fully exploited in the layout of the decoration on the blades ( for details see Philip 1 988a). I n contrast to most other dagger types, these weapons rarely show concave blade edges, suggesting that they were not heavily sharpened i .e. that it was important to keep the original shape of the blade, or that they were not i ntended for day to day use, where cutting would have been their main employment. They seem to represent prestige objects rather than everyday military equipment, a point r einforced by the handles found with these daggers, which were visually d istinctive but not especially robust. The weapons may of course have combined both roles i n a way which was deemed ' appropriate'. For example, they may have been employed only in prescribed styles of f ighting. I ndividual combat between ' champions' i s clearly described i n the ' Tale o f S inuhe' ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0), which should refer to the M .B.I period, while two warriors f ighting with daggers are depicted on a M . B. A. vessel from Tell e l-Far'ah ( Yadin 1 963, 7 2). Type 1 2 These weapons occur in two main varieties. One has two sharp r ibs separated by a central groove, the other two more rounded r ibs ( fig. 2 6 right, 3 6 right). As the second form i s known l argely from the ' Döpöts' at Byblos it i s not possible to expand on this difference at the present time, and the two f orms will be treated as one in the following 1 15

d iscussion. These weapons would r equire composite handles, probably attached by a collar or bracket ( fig 3 6 right), especially in the case of those daggers with r ivets r ight at the edge of the metal. A number of these weapons show groups of l ightly incised l ines, running longitudinally outside the main pair of ribs. When a pommel i s found it i s of crescentic shape. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 1a) Many examples come from Byblos, because of the nature of the deposits uncovered there ( large quantities of metalwork deliberately interred in j ars), and cannot be taken as implying that these daggers are necessarily ' Byblite' i n i nspiration. Identical weapons occur in Syria at inland s ites such as Hama and Tell et-Tin, on the coast, and i n northern Palestine. None have yet been reported from southern Palestine. Of the material from good contexts that from Hama Tomb G VI i s c learly associated with pottery equivalent to phase ' H' on the tell ( Fugmann 1 958, P1 X ). Another, from Lebea Tomb 1 , chamber C i s dated to the M .B.I period by associated material ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 4 3), while a third recently excavated at Tell Rehov near Beth Shan, i s associated with pottery assigned to an early phase in the local M .B.I sequence ( Yogev 1 985, 1 10). In summary then, these weapons are l ikely to be of M . B.I date, possibly going out of use prior to the end of the M . B.I period. Additional examples f rom Tell et-Tin, S in el-Fil, Byblos and Ras Shamra confirm a dating in the M .B.I period, while the evidence from the l ast two sites would support a date within the earlier part o f the period. There are at present no examples o f these weapons from Syrian E .B. A. contexts. Foreign Parallels There i s also an example from Kültepe, from a Level Ib grave on the Karum ( Özgüg 1 959, Abb. 7 2, fig. 71), s imilar to our examples in terms of size and stylistic detail. There are fragmentary remains of another from that site ( Özgüg 1 959, Abb 7 1). Note should a lso be taken of a seal f ound in a late third millennium context, Tell Selenkahiye phase IV ( van Loon 1 979, f ig.11), showing a dagger with a triangular blade bearing two incised l ines, suggesting that it might represent an example of our Type 1 2 daggers, with two grooves on the blade. The dagger has a crescentic pommel, confirming the identification. The practice of decorating dagger blades i s found i n Mesopotamia as early as the E . D.III period ( see under Type 3 above), as i s the use of a crescentic pommel, which appears in seals dating to the Early Dynastic period ( Crawford 1 962, 67). Two daggers of different shape, but employing the double-ribbed midrib occur at Susa ( Tallon 1 987, No. 1 31; 1 35). The dateable example probably belongs to the Ur I II period. In these instances, the decorative motif seems to have been adapted to suit a rather different, narrower dagger-blade . A gold dagger from PG 1 422 at Ur ( Woolley 1 934, P1 2 28.1) shows a motif s imilar to that of our Type 1 2 weapons. L ike 1 16

ours i t was worn at the waist of the deceased, and came from a rich tomb, which produced both socketted axes and sheep/goat remains. This tomb, dating to the Ur I II period ( Moorey 1984, 7-10) i s a classic Mesopotamian example of a ' warrior burial' and where details can be reconstructed, it is i n s imilar, i f poorer, burials, that Levantine decorated daggers occur. Type 1 3 These daggers have a straight-tapering, or s lightly convexsided blade ( sometimes described as triangular), with a broad, rounded midrib, decorated with a set of concentric ribs, cast in relief on the surface of the blade ( fig. 3 7; Pl. 3 a). One or two examples are different i n that the ribs are not cast but demarcated by shallow l ines cut-in on either side ( Pl. 3 b). The s ignificance of this will be considered e lsewhere ( 3.2.3). Like Type 1 2 daggers, many of these weapons must have been cast from two-piece moulds ( there is an unpublished example from Tell el-Dab'a). The daggers sometimes end in a sharp, rhomboidal-section point, l ike that of Type 1 7 daggers, although others have a more conventional point. Few show the concave blade edges familiar on many other dagger types. I n addition to the form of decoration, there i s a second main difference between the daggers of Types 1 2 and 1 3. The latter possess hammered-out tangs, as opposed to the butted arrangement more common with the former type. The tangs occur in several varieties but all are clearly tangs, separate from the blade. This presumably reflects a rather d ifferent hafting from that employed in the daggers of Type 1 2, and can be s een in the mould cited above which would produce only the dagger blade, l eaving the smith to hammerout the tang a fterwards. These occur with globular p ommels, rather than the crescentic variety found on Type 1 2 daggers. Several examples of Type 1 3 are hafted by means of a metal bracket ( fig. 3 7 r ight). A mould for casting such brackets i s known from Byblos ( Dunand 1 954, 1 1, Pl. CLXXXIV n . 6 794). Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 1b) D aggers of this type are reported from many s ites. In the north several are found at Byblos, a ll outwith the ' I DI Döts d es Offrandes', and a lso from a M . B.I tomb at Tell et-Tin, west of Homs. Others are reported from the Lebanon, a ll p arts o f Palestine and from Tell el-Dab'a in the eastern N ile Delta. As most known examples of this type are from P alestinian sites, there has been a tendency to view these a s a southern development ( e. g. Gerstenblith 1 983, 9 4). However, those from Byblos and Tell et-Tin ( P1.3a) warn that this is l ikely to reflect a bias in our data, rather than a genuine pattern, and the connection with Type 1 2, in terms o f design, is quite clear. There are several south Palestinian examples, in contrast to the absence in that region of the earlier Type 1 2 daggers. This may be s ignificant.

1 17

We must base our dating on the few closed deposits, essentially undisturbed tombs with a short life-span, and containing diagnostic material. Several such are known from Tell el-'Ajjul where three tombs produced daggers of this type. Tombs 1 417 and 1 015 a re clearly M .B.I in date ( Tufnell 1 962, Gerstenblith 1 983) while Tomb 1 015 belongs to the end of M . B.I or early in M .B.II. Dever ( 1975, 2 8), suggests that an example from Tomb 45 at el-Gib dates to the beginning of the M . B.II period, as does an unpublished example which he notes was found in a tomb near Beth Shemesh ( 1975, note 1 4). Additional examples are known from Tell el-Dab'a, from tombs dated to the end of M . B.I or early i n M . B.II, by their parallels with the Palestinian pottery sequence. Other tombs, generally used for multiple burials f rom sites such as Lebea, Tell et-Tin and Khirbet Kufin suggest dates broadly in l ine with the above. Two further points should a lso be considered. These daggers do not appear in the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos, a lthough examples are known from the site ( all from poor contexts). As the ' Döpöts' contained so many daggers, i t seems unlikely that they would omit examples of what seems to have been a very popular form, had they been available, suggesting that Type 1 3 daggers appeared only after the c losure of the ' Döpöts', which I have suggested elsewhere should date a l ittle before the end of M .B.I. ( Exactly the same situation was noted in the case of narrow-bladed axes of Type 1 , which often appear paired with these very daggers.) S econdly, the pottery found in association with these daggers i n tomb groups, i s generally of the red slipped and burnished form that was seen as diagnostic for the M .B.I period by Albright ( 1948) and Kenyon ( 1973). However, recent excavations have shown ( Beck 1 975, 1 985) that it belongs mainly phases 3 and 4 to of the M .B.I sequence a t Tell Aphek/Ras el-'Ain ( the Palace and Post-Palace phases), p lacing Type 1 3 daggers well i nto the M . B.I period. Foreign Parallels Daggers bearing multiple ribs on the blade are known from Ur ( Woolley 1 934, 3 08, Pl. 2 28.2), from PG 1 422, the Ur III period ' warrior grave' discussed above, and from Susa ( Tallon 1 987, No. 1 36), of unknown date. However, these daggers are of rather different design, neither showing the distinctive broad blade of the Levantine examples. Other Daggers with Decorated Blades Type 1 4 The daggers assigned to this group are best considered as a variation on Types 1 2 and 1 3. They share the same broad blade, but feature a sharp, beaded midrib rather than the grooves or multiple ribs of the previous types ( fig. 3 8 l eft). These weapons show a strong s imilarity to those of Type 1 2, and are best considered as a related variant of the former.

1 18

Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 2a) Examples are known from Hama and Tell et-Tin in inland Syria, Byblos and Ras Shamra on the coast, and Ras el-'Ain in P alestine, much the same area as daggers of Type 1 2. The examples from Hama Tomb GVI and Ras el-'Ain are well dated to the M . B.I period by associated material. Those from Tell et-Tin and Ras Shamra ( Necropole I II) are probably of similar date. Type 15 Variants ( see Catalogue for l isting) This heterogeneous type includes several daggers which do not f it i nto the types described above, but which c learly belong to the same general class, broad-bladed weapons with relief decoration ( figs. 3 6 centre, left; 3 8 right). None o f these daggers have the central groove which d istinguishes examples of Type 1 2, and as with Type 1 4, the most sensible interpretation of these items i s to view them a s e ither idiosyncratic pieces made by individual smiths, or as examples of forms which were produced in relatively small numbers, and which are correspondingly rare in the archaeological record. A case in point is a recently published dagger from Kültepe with a round-butted, triangular blade bearing two sets of l ightly incised l ines ( Özgüg 1 986, 7 5, P l. 1 28.10). I t seems quite l ikely that a r ange of such varied pieces were in circulation, as with the contemporary fenestrated axes, and that these will b ecome more apparent as our database grows. The very wide spatial spread of this group, from Amarna in north Syria to Tell e l-'Ajjul, suggests that this i s e xactly what the members of Type 1 5 represent. Those from good contexts seem to belong to the M . B. A. Their value i s to show the range of material in production, and to h ighlight the marked standardisation of the types discussed above. As a result, we must consider why the previous types are so homogeneous ( see 3 .2.3). Chronology and D istribution ( fig 8 2b) The distribution of these weapons corresponds to that of the more common Types 1 2 and 1 3. Those examples from known contexts belong to the M .B.I period. Type 1 6 Variants, ( see Catalogue for l isting). These daggers comprise a small group which seem to combine f eatures of both Types 1 2 and 1 3. The type i s best considered as a collection of ' variants' around the main types of decorated daggers. It i s l ikely that they were conceived of a s decorated weapons in the same way as the members of the major types; variants should be expected within a corpus such as this. It was felt best to separate these i tems from the two major groups so that the different chronological spans of Types 1 2 and 1 3 could be better appreciated. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 3a) Examples come mainly from Byblos, with one from Gezer. concentration at Byblos seems l ikely to reflect the 1 19

The very

l arge sample metallurgy.

from the s ite, rather than any pre-eminence They should date to the M . B.I period.

Daggers with Broad,

i n

Flat Midribs

Although these daggers are rather different in detail from those of Types 1 2-16, they show marked continuity with the l atter. This i s particularly clear in their emphasis on an aesthetically p leasing form, which i s both v isually d istinctive and attractive, and the continued use of the g lobular calcite pommels favoured on Type 1 3 daggers. A lthough the exact mode of styling the blade has changed, they seem to carry on the same basic tradition of standardised, attractive weapons. Type 17 These daggers are identified by their unusual blades, with broad-flat midribs ending i n a sharp, rhomboidal-section point, as in certain examples of Type 1 3 ( fig. 3 9). They share the distinctive globular pommel with daggers o f Type 1 3 and as before, blades are never concave, suggesting that they did not require regular resharpening, perhaps because they were intended to be used as stabbing weapons, or more l ikely that they were rarely actually used. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 3b) A number of daggers of this type are published from Tell e l-Dab'a and Jericho, and s ingle examples from s everal other central and south Palestinian s ites. The most northerly example yet published comes from Tell e l-Far'ah ( N). Two additional examples have recently been recovered f rom rescue excavations undertaken at tombs i n the v icinity o f Tell Belt Mirsim, also i n southern Palestine ( information courtesy of Mr E . Braun), further reinforcing the regional concentration. All examples date to the M .B.II period. Some, such as those f rom Jericho tombs J13 and D22, are from single burials, which can be assigned to a date early within the period. Others from Tell Far'ah ( N) Tomb A and from Tell e l-Dab'a can also be given an early M . B.II date, according to the associated pottery. However, several examples from Tell e l- Dab'a are f rom a tomb ( A/i-g/3 Gr.1) dated to a late stage i n the M .B.II sequence at the s ite, suggesting that the type be dated to M . B.II generally. A number come from reused tombs covering a ll of the M . B.II period, and do not therefore provide c lose dates. ( see Type 1 9 for weapons with s imilar b lades and f langed hilts) Foreign Parallels Exact foreign parallels are unknown outside the southern Levant. However, daggers with blades with a broad, f lat central zone are known from the Soli hoard ( Bittel 1 940, Taf I II) and from Bayindirköy in Anatolia ( Stronach 1 957, f ig. 3 .5). One example from Soli ( S 3 400), was found with a crescentic handle consisting of sheet metal over a wooden core, again emphasising the importance of the v isual appearance of many daggers. A dagger from Chagar Bazar 1 20

Grave 1 43, dated to ' early intermediate level I ', the early second millennium, a lso has a broad, f lat midrib ( Mallowan 1 937, 1 35, f ig.13.5), while a s imilar weapon is reported from an Old Babylonian period grave at Tell es-Seib in the Hamrin ( information kindly supplied by Dr Nail Hannoun), suggesting the existence of a distinct north Mesopotamian range of such daggers. However, there are many differences o f detail between a ll of these daggers and our Type 1 7, which should be considered a south Levantine form. Several daggers from tombs in upper Egypt and the Sudan, dating to the Second Intermediate Period, show a s imilar form of blade ( Petrie, 1 901, Pl. XXXII.16, 1 7; Brunton 1 937, 1 19, Pl. LXXVII.2; Dows Dunham 1 982, P1.1a), although these are equipped with a composite handle, topped by a crescentic pommel, reminiscent of those found on Type 1 2 daggers. These might be interpreted as an Egyptian r esponse to ' Levantine' dagger styles prominent in the e astern Delta. Unfortunately, l ittle work has been carried out on the Egyptian material itself, which makes its a ssessment by non-specialists rather difficult ( see 3 .4). Type 18 These daggers resemble those assigned to Type 1 7 but differ i n that the blades do not show the distinctive f lat medial thickening, having a more lentoid section. It seems clear f rom their general size and shape however, that they are sufficiently close to those of Type 1 7 to suggest that the s imilarity i s deliberate ( fig. 3 8 r ight). Both have r ivetted rectangular tangs. One of these, has a rhomboidal-section point, emphasising the close r elationship with Type 1 7. As with Type 1 6 above, these a re best considered as infrequently occurring variations on a well known type. Chronology and D istribution E xamples are known from Jericho and Gezer; i .e. the area w ithin which daggers of Type 1 7 are found. That from Jericho i s from Tomb B35 which dates to the earlier M . B.II, that from Gezer Tomb 1 can only be dated to the M . B.II period i n general. Type 19 Only two examples are known. The blade has a rhomboidalsection point, a nd broad f lat midrib, as on daggers of Type 1 7. However the butt i s f langed ( fig. 4 0). The possession of a globular pommel, as found on Type 1 7 daggers, stresses their connections with the latter, rather than with other forms of f lange-hilted weapon. Chronology and D istribution The s imilarity i n size and appearance of these two daggers, and the fact that they come from the nearby sites of el-Gib and Jericho, might suggest that they are the product of a s ingle, local workshop. Both are from M . B.II contexts. That from Jericho comes from Tomb D22 which should be assigned to the earlier part of this period according to 1 21

Kenyon ( 1965, 2 44), who placed this tomb at the beginning of her Group 2 . The presence o f a dagger with f langed tang, i s not in itself indicative o f a late M . B. A. date for the deposit in which it occurs ( see below). These examples show the adaptation of the new technique to suit a traditional weapon shape, that o f the Type 1 7 dagger, rather than a wholly new form such as Type 2 0. Their d istribution f its well with that outlined for Type 1 7 daggers. Discussion I t has been argued above that Types 1 7-19 continue a tradition of f inely-styled daggers which goes back at least to the beginning of the M . B. A.. However, the sequence of development i s not uniform throughout the area. Type 1 2 weapons occur widely in the Levant, and a few examples of Type 1 3 are known in Syria, despite our l imited knowledge of the period, but weapons of Types 1 7-19 are restricted solely to Palestine and the Nile Delta. While it i s true that we have l ittle archaeological material from M . B.II tomb groups in inland Syria, we have a large body of metalwork from tombs of this period at Ras Shamra ( summarised in Courtois 1 979, 1 204-1208), which have produced no examples of this type. Rather, we see a completely different range of daggers, Type 3 3 ( see below). Alongside this, we should note the frequent appearance of l arge spearheads in these same tombs, in contrast to the dearth of s imilar weapons from M .B.II contexts i n the southern Levant. It may be that what we are seeing is increasing regionalism, following the ' international' styles in metalwork which were prevalent during the M . B.I period. This problem will be investigated in greater depth e lsewhere ( see 3 .2.2). DAGGERS WITH FLANGED HILTS Type 2 0 Type 2 0 consists of a group of s ix short, s lender daggers. Their blades are f lat in section, have no midrib, and are convex rather than straight s ided. The hilts are f langed a long their full l ength, show distinctive ' horns' at the blade end, but are open at the upper end ( fig. 4 1 l eft). In contrast, most L . B. A. f lange-hilted weapons feature a hilt which i s fully enclosed by a continuous f lange. The f langes may be cast, rather than hammered into shape, and a variety of rivet l ayouts may appear. As the rivets served merely to secure the hilt plate within the f langed grip, the actual pattern i s probably of l ittle s ignificance. The s ize of these objects suggests that they were multi-purpose personal items, perhaps functioning more as knives/dress daggers than as weapons of war. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 4a) Examples are so far known only from sites in southern Palestine. That from Tell Fara ( S) Tomb 5 54 ( No 8 34) is from a M . B.II context ( Price-Williams 1 977, 151). Two 1 22

daggers ( Nos 8 29, 8 39) seem to come from Tomb 1 551 i n the City Area at Tell e l-'Ajjul, which produced a Cypriot White Painted vessel ( Petrie's Type 8 9A), and one from Tomb 1 231 ( No 8 40). Both tombs are l ikely to date to the M .B.II period, ( see Stewart 1 974, 5 6). It i s difficult to reconstruct tomb groups from ' Tell e l-' Ajjul from the published evidence ( Petrie 1 931-1934). The information on the human remains i s particularly l imited. However, it i s of i nterest to note that Tomb 1 551 seems to have been a child burial, suggesting that the presence of the dagger has a social, rather than an occupation-related significance. All other examples are from contexts which are o f l ittle value for dating. It i s l ikely that weapons of this, or a s imilar form, continued in use into the L .B.A. at these s ites ( Stewart 1 974, 5 6). Kenyon ( 1973, 1 03) has observed that the occupation on the tell at Tell e l-'Ajjul may belong to a late phase of the M . B.II period. Whether this also applies to the graves from the tell i s not c lear. Type 2 0 daggers have not yet been encountered at s ites in the Nile Delta, as i n the case of Type 1 0 daggers, a lso common in Palestine. Whether this indicates regional production, chronological differences or varied l ocal mortuary practices at the different sites i s not yet c lear. Type 21 A group of medium s ized daggers distinguished by their possession of a pair of short f langes at the lower end of the hilt, which i s not ' horned' and can be either l ong or s hort ( fig. 4 1 r ight). Hilt-plates would have been secured by r ivets, although the actual r ivet layout seems unlikely to be of great importance. The blades are of f lattish s ection, without midribs and have convex or straighttapering s ides. These weapons are quite large, and could h ave functioned a s military equipment, although they may be more realistically envisaged as personal items. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 4b) Reported examples of this type are known only from s ites in the northern Levant, Mersin and Ras Shamra, an interesting contrast to the distribution of Type 2 0 daggers. The examples from Mersin come from Str. XI ( No 8 38) and Str X ( No 8 37) and date to the M .B.I and M . B.II period r espectively, i f we accept the integrity of Garstang's s tratigraphic d ivisions. Those examples from Ras Shamra, which can be reliably dated ( Nos 8 41, 851), are from Tomb LVI, used throughout the M .B.II period. D iscussion An item with a s imilar f langed butt, though with a rather curved blade suggesting use as a cutting implement, has been published from a L . B. A. context from Boghazköy ( Boehmer 1 979, 1 1, Pl. VIIII. 2 644). This would seem to strengthen the northern affiliations of this kind of hafting. Earlier examples of daggers of a rather different shape, though having butts with short f langes, are known 1 23

f rom Syria, in particular from Chagar Bazar Gr. 1 86, i n a tomb dated to the early second millennium ( Mallowan 1 937, f ig.13.6 ) and from Alalakh ( here classed as Type 6 within the narrow dagger series). Several daggers with f langed hilts are known from Anatolian s ites and represent Erkanal's Type 1 0 ( 1977, 3 6 Taf. 1 3. 2 9-33). These are mostly from poor contexts and are dated no earlier than the Karum period at Boghazköy, or the ' Middle Hittite Period' at A1a9a Höyük. This would make them contemporary with the Levantine M . B. A. The Anatolian examples i llustrated by Erkanal are small, the l ongest i s 1 77mm in length, and seem to be very worn. None of these daggers are from grave contexts. This might suggest then, that the Levantine funerary material, which is usually i n better condition, was generally interred while it was still i n a relatively early stage of its useful l ife. I n other words, it was unacceptable, as a rule, to use badly worn, or damaged items, as grave offerings. Type 22 This group comprises two f lange-hilted weapons which are rather larger than the rest. They have straight-tapering, f lat-sectioned blades. One example has a fully f langed tang ( 850), the other a horned tang, which i s open at the upper end ( 847). The presence of l arge f langed daggers i n tombs i s generally taken as a L .B. A. feature. However, where datable imports are absent, or where material from both Middle and Late Bronze Ages are mixed, we should not automatically assume that a such weapons belong to the l ater phase of use. The well known ' Apophis' dagger from Saqqara in Egypt, ( Dawson 1 925, 2 16-217), which i s presumably dated to the reign of the l ast Hyksos king, late i n the Second Intermediate Period, has a fully-enclosed, f langed handle of the kind that was to become common in the L .B. A. and provides us with a chronological anchor-point f or the appearance of daggers with this kind of handle. C learly, f lange-hilted daggers were i n use relatively early in the M . B. A. ( see Type 2 1 above), allowing s everal centuries for their development prior to the L . B. A. Those examples with fully enclosed, cast, f langed handles ( Maxwell-Hyslop 1 946 Types 3 1-33), are certainly common in the L . B. A. ( Boehmer 1 983). ( For the Levant in particular see examples from a 1 4th C tomb near Akko, published by Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1 977, and further instances cited there.) However, the examples here assigned to Type 2 2 have hilts which are closer to those found on M . B. A. weapons, and may therefore represent a s lightly earlier form. Chronology and Distribution Both examples come from Ras Sha ma. One ( No 8 50) i s from Tomb LVI, which contained a number of M .B.II burials. Schaeffer ( 1938, 2 35) observes that this dagger lay separately from the rest of the material ( all M . B.II) found i n the chamber, and that the tomb i s connected to Tomb LVII 1 24

which produced material dating to the beginning of the L . B. A. ( 1936, f ig. 3 6) and suggests that objects may have been moved between the two tombs. Although possible, I would be more convinced were L .B. A. pottery also found in Tomb LVI, and therefore prefer to view this dagger as a genuine M . B.II piece. The other ( No 8 47), i s from an intact stone built chamber in ' Chantier A ' ( Schaeffer 1 936, 1 42 f igs. 1 6 and 1 7). The tomb i s securely dated by good M . B.II material. Type 2 3 These are small, r ather irregularly shaped weapons which may represent f langed variants of the more common Type 3 3 daggers ( see below). Only one example provides reliable metric data. They have s imple blades, f lat in section with round points and s traight tapering sides. Their s ize and form suggests that they were all-round ' pocket-knife' weapons. The f langes on the tang are asymmetric, as i s the case with the f langed examples of the narrow dagger series. Chronology and D istribution Both examples come from Ras Shamra. Only one ( No. 8 43) i s from a dateable context. This piece i s from a series of graves excavated on the acropolis, in an area referred to as Nöcropole I . I t i s not possible to identify individual tomb groups among the material published from this area, however most of the published material clearly belongs to Schaeffer's U . M.1 or 2 periods, broadly equivalent to the M .B.I period as understood at other Syrian sites. The i nteresting feature i s the use of the asymmetric arrangement of the f langes at the butt. Type 24 Variants, ( see Catalogue for details). This type comprises several f lange-hilted daggers not f it any of the groups described above. F lange-hilted Daggers:

which

do

Discussion

The first point to establish i s that f lange-hilted daggers are known as early as the M .B.I period at Mersin and Chagar B azar. At this point we ought to consider how this might bear on the appearance of f langed hilts on certain of the more e laborate narrow daggers of the E . B.-M. B. period ( Types 1 and 4 i n particular). This must surely suggest that the more developed forms of the narrow dagger reflect technical changes taking place in the northern Levant in the earlier s econd millennium, providing yet stronger evidence for the placing of the l ater part of the E . B.-M.B. period contemporary with Syrian M .B.I. A flanged hilt, with several rivets to secure the haft p late, would have provided an effective handle. This i s presumably why the technique was continually developed through the M .B. A., until the appearance of daggers with one-piece cast-hilts, such as the Apophis dagger mentioned above, at the very end of the M .B. A. This being so, we must surely a sk why daggers with conical butts or l ong 1 25

e laborate tangs, such as those utilised i n Types 1 2, 1 3 and 1 7 continued i n use at a ll ? The r eason must l ie less i n terms of technical f actors, t han i n tradition, i n particular the f orms of handle which were attached to these i tems. I t i s c lear that the association o f certain weapons with e ither crescentic or g lobular pommels, white and h ighly v isible, was common and well understood. Although these butt and tang forms were f ar f rom i deal, they could be improved by the f itting of a bracket-type mounting, which would a llow the attachment of a handle of the appropriate type. Few of these survive, as most were probably made of organic materials, but a sufficiently l arge number of daggers with metal brackets have survived to provide a good impression of the appearance of the rest of the material. I n addition to the above, i t i s c lear that the daggers with f langed butts required a rather d ifferent manufacturing procedure from that of other types. There was no need to use steatite moulds as these daggers do not h ave the e laborate surface decoration of Types 1 2 and 1 3. Nor could they have mounted handles topped with g lobular pommels without a specifically adapted h ilt arrangement, a s i s the case with Type 1 9 daggers. They could be cast from covered l imestone moulds and the f langes s imply hammered i nto the correct shape. The general impression given i s that these weapons, i n their c lassic f orm, spread only gradually into Palestine during the M .B.II period, where the f lange hilted dagger seems to have only gradually replaced traditional types, at l east a s f ar a s the grave repertoire was concerned. I t i s therefore doubly revealing to observe that the daggers o f Type 1 9, i nvolve the adaptation of a new technique to the manufacture of a dagger of traditional shape, even a s f ar a s adapting the weapons to c arry a handle topped by the c lassic l imestone pommel.

126

2 .4.2.

LESS TRACTABLE MATERIAL

Introduction The types d iscussed so f ar have been relatively easy to define. Obviously there i s s ome variation within each type, and i n some c ases several odd i tems have been grouped together a s a type which consists of a collection of variants on a more c learly defined, numerically l arger type, e . g. Types 1 8 and 1 9 are c learly variants on the Type 1 7 d esign. The i ntention here i s to emphasise the nature and homogeneity o f the main types, which I believe to r epresent culturally defined designs. That f orms such as those of Types 1 2 and 1 3 are so widely distributed, s uggests that smiths were producing daggers to widely understood, desirable patterns. The reasons for this will b e d iscussed at greater l ength e lsewhere ( see 3 .1.4), but s uch daggers a re a marked contrast to many o f those d iscussed below. B esides these well defined types, there exist a number of other daggers which can be shown to belong to Transform Types, such as the those defined within the narrow dagger s eries. A further part o f our material i s impossible to c lassify, on the grounds of e ither poor preservation or i nadequate published data. Apart f rom these three groups o f material, we s till have a l arge number of i tems, i n g ood condition, that are hard to deal with. I t i s this m aterial which presented the greatest problems for MaxwellHyslop ( 1946). A lthough complex, the data i s by no means u nstructured. I n order to extract as much i nformation a s p ossible f rom this material, a great deal of variable s orting and cross-classification was carried out. This would be tedious to repeat i n full, and so i s not d ocumented at l ength here. However, the types detailed b elow represent a d istillation o f the i nformation s o obtained. These types are best r egarded as devices to a id our understanding of the data, and to maximise the i nsights which i t can o ffer, and should not be considered as the ' final word' on the matter. They do reflect what we might t erm ' subject-generated patterning' but this i s l ikely to be of a general nature, rather than the deliberate a dherence to p articular overall designs, which we see i n many of the types described above. The existence o f such types suggests that there are at l east two distinct spheres o f production and exchange i n operation. The f irst i nvolves the manufacture of a l imited r ange o f ' special' weapons, which were quite widely d istributed, the s econd a much more l ocalised form o f production to meet more immediate l ocal needs. I t will not a lways be possible to draw hard and f ast boundaries between the two categories, i n f act a deliberate blurring o f the d ivision may constitute a n e lement i n human social s trategies, but the d istinction i s a valuable concept. S uch types are generally based on sets of two or three criteria ( or v ariable values) which show a more than a 1 27

random association. For example w e may f ind that within a particular period a preference i s shown f or one p articular hafting method, over s everal others. This may i n turn be a ssociated with s everal d ifferent b lade f orms, which may themselves display a degree of regionalism. None o f these need be hard and f ast d ivisions, but they do provide the basis of a means of d istinguishing regional a nd chronological groupings, a lbeit necessarily l oose. I t i s encouraging to observe that a number of these types show an underlying geographical, chronological or contextual unity, i mplying that we can indeed detect d istinctive l ocal practices. A lthough rather more heterogeneous than other types, this should not prevent their definition and use a s such ( see 1 .3 where these are defined as the third f orm of type), as this i s a genuine f eature of the data. I t i s hoped that this introduction w ill explain the shift i n approach which will become apparent as the types below are d iscussed, and help to e stablish their p lace i n the overall typology. After a ll, the point of the exercise i s not c lassification f or i ts own s ake, but the e lucidation and i nterpretation o f the patterns present. While some of these types occupy l imited geographical or chronological horizons, others show a wide range through t ime and space. I would suggest that this owes much to the nature of our sample. We have relatively l arge numbers o f objects from a restricted range o f s ites, often from particular chronological horizons a t those places. The r emainder of the data consists of small groups of material f rom a l arge number o f s ites, o ften covering a wide t imespan. Material d istributed i n this way cannot be e xpected to f all i nto neat c lasses, unless i t conforms to a r ange of w idely accepted f orms, a s i s the c ase with some o f the types discussed above, but i t s eems that the remainder of our daggers are the products o f industries organised on a d ifferent, more l ocalised, basis. As a result, when we have sufficiently l arge samples f rom restricted spatial and chronological z ones, we can spot underlying d imensions of s imilarity. Examples o f this s ituation are represented by Type 3 3 most o f which are from Ras Shamra, and Types 2 7 and 3 6 which are f ound at s everal North S yrian s ites during the E .B. A. SMALL DAGGERS OF THIRD MILLENNIUM DATE FROM SYRIA Type 2 7 A short, s imple f orm, with f lat o r f lat l ozenge-shaped blades, with tapering, or s lightly c oncave s ides, produced by hammering a casting o f approximate shape. The butt i s essentially triangular, a lthough i t c an appear in c onical or concave s ided f orms ( fig. 4 2). As a r esult o f the method of manufacture, there i s a degree of variation, most o f which i s not ' significant', a s hammered weapons will show a higher degree o f ' background n oise' than will those cast from two-piece moulds. The handles, o f which wood 1 28

traces frequently remain, were generally secured by three r ivets, set i n a triangular pattern. The morphological resemblance to Types 3 3 and 3 6 should be noted. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 5a) Most examples come from north Syria. Many of these are from grave groups from Amarna and Serrin, purchased by Woolley ( Woolley 1 914), the pottery from which i s assigned to the middle of the third millennium ( Prag 1 970 and pers. comm.). Others can be more accurately dated. One comes from the Hypogeum at Til Barsip, dated c 2 400-2250. Others are from Tomb 6 3 at Tawi and a tomb at Tell Bi'a ( Arne et a l 1 984, 6 2), broadly contemporary with that from Til Barsip. An example from Palestine i s a survey f ind from the coastal Marzeva north of Tel Aviv. Although it has no real context, the excavator ( Gophna 1 978, 4 0) has dated it to the E . B. A, which seems reasonable in the l ight of its typological connections with the Syrian E . B. A. material. Type 36 These daggers share the distinctive hafting method of one r ivet in each shoulder and one in a short tang with daggers of Type 3 2. However, it is immediately clear that there are substantial differences between the two groups. Those of Type 3 6 are shorter, narrower and are rather roughly made. The blades are either f lat or of f lat-lozenge shaped section ( fig. 4 3 top left, r ight, lower left). These daggers are quite s imilar to those of Type 2 7, and the two types might well be considered as versions of the same kind of weapon. In the case of Type 2 7, the butt i s triangular, trapezoidal or s lightly ' stepped', while in daggers of Type 3 6 the ' stepped' butt has given way to clearly d ifferentiated shoulders and a short tang. Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 5b) A ll examples of this type are from north Syrian contexts, a t sites such as Halawa, Habuba-Kabira, Til Barsip and Amarna. Those which are from reliable contexts such as Halawa Grave 7 0, Til Barsip Hypogeum and Habuba would suggest a date around the middle of the third millennium, a s with Type 2 7. They are variants on a common theme, a small dagger/pocket-knife. Discussion The most important point about these weapons is that they are too small to have functioned effectively as implements o f war. They may well have been useful as general purpose ' side arms' or even ' pocket-knives' but would have been of l ittle use against the warriors depicted in E .D.III representations. This must surely raise the question of the relationship between grave goods and military equipment, and the social factors which determine what i s, or i s not, deemed suitable as mortuary equipment in particular contexts. A number of small weapons with approximately triangular butts, with a three-rivet hafting, are known from third millennium contexts in Mesopotamia 1 29

( Tallon 1 987, 1 18 and references there). These, however, represent only a small proportion of the total corpus of Mesopotamian daggers of this period, with only ten in total known from Ur, only one of which actually comes from the ' Royal Cemetery' ( Woolley 1 934, Type 4 , U .8140), suggesting that these were not prestige items. There i s a clear resemblance in terms of shape and general s ize, with many of the daggers published from the tombs of the Enöolithique recent at Byblos ( Dunand 1 973, P 1 CLX). These are between 1 30 and 2 00mm in l ength, often have three r ivets in a trapezoidal tang and a s imple blade with a f lat lozenge-shaped section. The Syrian daggers can be seen therefore as part of a long l ived tradition of small simple weapons. They form a marked contrast to the contemporary narrow dagger series of Palestine, which are both larger and feature a rather differently arranged butt. This i s an interesting point, and should be considered as part of a wider range of differences between Palestine and northern Syria i n the E .B. A ( see 3 .2.2). They are however, much closer in typological terms to the small Type 26 daggers of Palestine, which may occur as ' secondary' items a long with a narrow dagger ( see above). Type 29 Both examples are from the cist graves at Carchemish, and are very s imilar i n s ize and shape. They are medium sized weapons with long, concave-sided tangs, and a broad blade of f lat section ( fig. 3 4 l eft). Neither is r ivetted, possibly these items were unfinished. They come graves in which unfinished objects are known to occur ( see tanged spearhead Type 1 0 for possibly unfinished spearheads). Chronology and D istribution The two examples from Carchemish are from the cist graves KCG 9 and 1 5. KCG 9 i s a s ingle burial which produced several Type 9 tanged spearheads, which may have been in production over a l arge part of the third millennium. Grave 1 5 i s l ess well documented, but seems to have produced two tanged spearheads of Type 1 , arguing for a date in the earlier third millennium. The daggers should be seen as a local product; they are much bigger than other north Syrian types, such as Types 2 7 and 3 6, suggesting that a distinction between large ' styled' daggers and the ubiquitous ' pocket-knives', may have already existed by this time. In connection with this we should note the daggers from a late fourth millennium hoard at Arslantepe ( Palmieri 1 981, 1 09-110), which are very much in the former category. BROAD-BLADED DAGGERS The following types, which are l argely confined to the M . B. A., have a feature in common, which they share with daggers of Types 1 2-16. The dagger blades are broad in relation to their l ength ( length/max. breadth c 3 .6-4.6). It was suggested above, that the widespread preference for 1 30

a broad blade i s connected the need f or a surface which could be decorated, at l east i n the case of types with ' styled' b lades. However, f ew of the f ollowing are decorated, and when present i t takes a s imple f orm ( see below). There are two important points behind this. The best explanation f or these daggers having broad b lades i s that they emulate the more exclusive forms ( Types 1 2 and 1 3 in particular). We should note that by the L .B. A., daggers return to relatively narrow-bladed f orms, as was generally the case i n the third millennium. Therefore the broadbladed dagger can be seen as a M .B. A. phenomenon, related to s tylistic concerns, rather than mechanical requirements. Secondly, the f act that occasional examples of the following types, which I believe to be ' substitutes' for the classic M .B. A. types, are decorated, i s a lso attributable to emulation. I f, as I suggest, weapons are deeply i nvolved i n the marking and perception o f the social world, then it i s l ikely that they w ill be manipulated within the strategies o f d ifferent i ndividuals and groups. As a result, there will be a degree of b lurring of our categories, as suggested above. Returning to a point raised earlier ( 1.2) we cannot assume that s imple, unproblematic, categories existed within the contemporary scheme of things, any more than we can identify such c lasses. We must attempt rather to draw the main outlines and i nterpret the rest a s best we can. Type 3 0 These daggers occur with e ither a trapezoidal or rounded butt, or a triangular tang with concave s ides ( fig. 4 4). E xamination of the material suggests that the concave-sided t ang, which occurs most often at Byblos, i s s imply a s tylistic variant on the trapezoidal butt; i t i s often d ifficult to decide at which point one merges i nto the o ther. A ll versions are f ixed to the handle by three r ivets i n a triangular l ayout, which would seem to be the f actor which would determine the mechanics o f hafting. A lthough a number o f small examples occur ( those l ess than c 150mm i n length), most such are f rom the ' Mpöts' at Byblos. Type 3 0 daggers a re generally quite l arge, i n particular they are broad i n relation to their l ength. The b lades can be f lat or lozenge-shaped i n s ection, measuring 3 -5 mm i n thickness, and occasionally bear very s imple incised d ecoration, usually a pair of i ncised l ines, a motif well known i n the E .B.-M.B. repertoire, and on certain daggers o f the E .D I II p eriod i n Mesopotamia ( see under Types 3 and 1 2 above). I t i s c lear from both general shape and s ize, that these daggers are s imilar to the decorated daggers o f Type 1 2, a point emphasised by their relatively broad b lades a nd the shape o f the butt. I t i s reasonable to i nterpret daggers of this type, a s a group w ithin a l oose g eneral category of ' broad-bladed' daggers, a f orm which appears i n a number o f guises during the M .B.A. The 1 31

occasional use of i ncised decoration, albeit of a s imple form, i s reminiscent of those daggers with styled blades, which form the widespread, standard forms. Chronology

and

Distribution

( fig.

8 6a)

Examples are known from Halawa Grave 7 0, ascribed to the "middle E . B. A." by Orthmann ( 1981a, 55), while one f rom Tawi Tomb 6 4, i s associated with hand-made pottery of a kind which should be dated quite early in the third millennium ( Kampschulte and Orthmann 1984, 82ff). Those from Qatna Tomb IV and Tell Selenkahiye ( unpublished) date to the later third millennium. These suggest a local, Syrian, background for the shapes which were to form the basis of the e laborate metalwork of the succeeding M .B.I period. As far as the third millennium is concerned, these daggers form a clear contrast to the narrow dagger series, which seems to have been preferred i n Palestine and perhaps i n southern parts of Syria. The type is very common in the M .B.I period, and a large number of these weapons come from the ' 1 1 )1 Döts' at Byblos, many more than were actually i llustrated i f Dunand's ( 1954) catalogue entries are correct. The only example from a c losed M . B. A. context i s from Tomb 6 2 at Ruweise, which contained no more than three burials ( Guiges 1 938, 3 6). However, examples from multiple successive burials at Ruweise, Khirbet Kufin and from Megiddo confirm a dating to the M .B.I period, or the beginning of M .B.II. I t seems therefore that this type had a relatively short f loruit i n Palestine, essentially the M .B.I period, but a longer history in Syria, where the form would seem to have originated. I would suggest that the initial appearance o f broad-bladed forms in Syria pre-dated their use as a medium for decoration, but that their widespread popularity came with the adoption of this shape as the basis of a set o f ' prestigious' dagger types. Few daggers with this sort o f butt are published from Mesopotamia ( these approximate to Woolley's 1 934, Type 4 ), where a straight rectangular, or small-concave s ided tang seems to have been preferred ( Wpolley's 1 934, Types 3 , 5 and 7 ). Type 3 1 These daggers are distinguished by their possession of a broad blade of s imple cross-section and short, broad tang ( fig. 4 5; 4 6 left). While longer straight tangs ( see Type 3 5) could be inserted directly i nto a socket in the handle, ( see example from Uruk, F inkbeiner 1 983, Taf. 3c), short tangs with their horizontally-arranged r ivets, c learly could not, implying a different mode of attaching the haft. The blades were cast, and the tang subsequently hammered out. They were not cast a s one piece as i s the case with the concave-sided, triangular tangs found on daggers of Type 3 0. As a result, we might reasonably expect a degree of variation in the actual shape of the tang, and both semi-circular and short, broad versions are known. The rivets of Type 3 1 daggers are usually l aid out as a horizontal pair, or in a tight triangular pattern. 1 32

Chronology and Distribution ( fig. 8 6b) Most examples come from sites in the southern Levant, in contexts of M . B.I, or more frequently M .B.II date. One comes from Tell e l-Dab'a tomb F/I i/1 Gr. 3 4, dating to the l ate M . B.I or early M . B.II period. It may be then, that we are seeing here a regional preference for a particular hafting method, which was applied to certain broad-bladed daggers. Type 3 2 These daggers are d istinguished by their rivet layout; one i n each shoulder of the blade and one in a short tang ( fig. 4 3 l ower l eft; 4 7 right). Although one or two small examples are known, these are e ither extensively sharpened or f rom the ' Döpöts' at Byblos, which has produced minature examples of many dagger types. The mean value for l ength/max. breadth, allowing for the short tang, is 4 .0, p lacing most of these daggers in the ' broad' category. With Types 3 0-32, we see a demand for a broad bladed dagger, that i s met in a number of different ways, using various hafting arrangements. There i s a connection between Type 3 2 daggers, and those examples of Type 3 0 with concave-sided butts and a triangular r ivet arrangement. It may be that there is a continuum from triangular butts, through concave s ided tangs, to the tang and shoulder arrangement. Perhaps all ' broad-bladed' daggers should be treated as a s eries l ike ' narrow-daggers', and the resulting sub-units recognised as Transform Types. However, this arrangement might mask the vital division between ' styled' and ' simple' forms. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 7a) A lthough an example from Tell Selenkahiye dates to the late E .B. A, most of those from the northern Levant are from the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos and of M .B.I date. Many o f those from good Palestinian contexts come from tombs such as Jericho Tomb 9 , Megiddo T 4 005 or Ginosar Tomb 2/3 which date to the M . B.II period. An example i s a lso known f rom a M .B.II tomb at Tell e l-Yahudiyeh in Egypt. It seems therefore that these weapons are a continuation of the basic form which was popular in the M . B.I period in the coastal Levant. The rarity of such daggers from M . B.I contexts in Palestine may simply be a quirk of the a rchaeological record. They are common at Byblos at that t ime, and in Palestine in M . B.II contexts. In fact it i s quite l ikely that some of the many Palestinian examples f rom mixed deposits, do in fact date to this period. There i s an example o f this type ( No. 1 044) from an E .B.-M. B. structure in the central Negev, which seems to add further weight to an argument which would place at least some of the material of Dever's " Family S " ( his southern-most r egional ceramic group, and the Negev domestic s ites), p eriod i n Syria. Foreign S everal

Parallels daggers adopting

the

that which i s contemporary

distinctive 1 33

associated with with the M . B.I

shoulder

and

tang

r ivet arrangement are known from the Karum at Kültepe. The earliest example i s from a Level I II grave ( Özgü9 1 959, f ig. 6 5), and others are known from tombs of Level Ib ( Özgü9 1 959, f igs. 7 0 and 7 4). S everal such daggers are published as coming from the Soli hoard ( Bittel 1 940, Taf I I). These occurrences emphasise the connection between the northern Levant and Anatolia around 2 000 B . C, and should be borne i n mind when considering the possibility of Syrian involvement in the trading networks of that period. Examples are rare in Mesopotamia, a lthough note should be taken of a recently published piece from Tell es-Seib i n the Hamrin Basin ( Hannoun 1 984, f ig.21). Little metalwork of the Ur I II through Old Babylonian periods, has yet been published from Mesopotamia, so a lthough it seems l ikely that these daggers are an essentially Levantine form, we cannot be certain. Type 3 4 These daggers are distinguished by having concave or straight butts, with handles secured either by a pair of horizontally-opposed rivets, or a small group arranged in a semi-circular pattern. Most examples fall i nto our ' broadbladed' group ( figs. 4 8; 5 0). Although a f ew small examples exist ( less than 1 20mm i n length), the present writer has not examined any of them at f irst hand, and so it i s not clear i f they are genuinely related to the fulls ize daggers, or represent a mix of damaged or heavily worn objects of various types ( fig. 4 9 l eft, bottom). These p ieces are therefore of uncertain s ignificance, and are excluded from statistical calculations. Some have concave blade edges, and most are either f lat i n section or of concave lozenge shape with a marked medial l ine. Some examples from Tell Fara ( S) have a proper rounded midrib, while one from Jericho shows a definite central thickening. Several examples from Tell Fara ( S) were found with the remains of a distinctive ' two-bar' handle ( fig. 4 8). However, there i s at present no evidence to suggest that this was generally the case with daggers of this form. I n many cases a s imple wooden handle would probably have sufficed. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 7b) Most of these daggers are from Palestinian s ites, f rom Tell Fara ( S) in particular, a lthough they occur at Jericho and at northern s ites such as Megiddo and Safad. When these weapons occur with dateable material as at Jericho, el Gib, Tell e l-Dab'a or Tell Fara ( S) they can be assigned to the M .B.II period. An example from Megiddo Tomb 9 11D may be of M .B.I date. The s ingle example from Byblos is from Depöt Omikron, but i s small, perhaps worn or repaired. Foreign Parallels The best such come from Anatolia and have been conveniently summarised by Erkanal ( 1977, 3 1ff), who l ists a number of daggers fastened by a pair of rivets. Most such have convex butts however, and are not therefore identical to 1 34

the s outhern form. An example with an incurved butt is known from from Ala9a Höyük ( Ko py 1 966, Taf. 4 7.133) from a ' Hittite' level. However, as with Type 2 1 daggers, all the Anatolian examples are small ( less than 1 30mm long by 3 5mm i n breadth). In this s ituation it may be that the visible form of the butt i s the result of damage and repair. As intermediate material from Syria i s l acking, it would be unwise to a ssume any direct connection between the Anatolian and Levantine forms. Broad-bladed daggers,

general

discussion

Where this could be assessed, it was observed that these daggers tend to have concave blade edges suggesting fairly frequent sharpening, ( in contrast to the ' styled' types) which might suggest that many been in use for some time. Although most examples are of s imple section, one or two from the ' Depöts' at Byblos show a s imple pair of i ncised l ines on the blade, a motif common on narrow daggers of Type 3 . This occurrence suggests that the development of the more e laborately decorated blades, which seem to f irst appear in the M .B.I period in Syria, i s a process based on the e laboration o f a local dagger shapes and motifs. Although the simple pair of incised l ines would not require an e laborate mould, as this could be cut in as was the case with most Type 3 daggers, the emphasis on such visual decoration would s eem to be a step in the direction of e laborately decorated, fairly broad, dagger blades. A s imilar process can also be seen in the development of the Type 3 narrow daggers in Palestine, where we seem to see the adoption of i ncised decoration, as one e lement i n the gradual e laboration of the basic Type 2 form, as the E . B.M .B. period progresses. However, the narrow dagger, by virtue of its s lim blade does not offer the same surface area for embellishment as do these broader Syrian weapons. Furthermore, as the former are generally hammer-worked, there is a l imit to the range and quality of the threedimensional detail which can be incorporated. The more elaborate forms require the use of two-piece moulds. OTHER TYPES Type 33 These daggers are of irregular appearance, would seem to have been made by hammering a cast billet, and are fairly roughly f inished. The blades which can have straighttapering or concave edges, are generally of f lat or l entoid section, often w ithout a recognizable midrib. Butt arrangements differ somewhat i n detail, but can be summed up a s of ' sinuous' or ' stepped' profile. Three rivets, in a triangular arrangement i s the norm. They are generally rather narrow i n relation to their l ength, which d istinguishes them from most other contemporary dagger types ( fig. 5 1). Chronology An example

and D istribution from Jar 2 132 at

( fig. 8 8a) Byblos i s l ikely to 1 35

date

to

the

M . B. I period, but most examples come from a series M . B.II tombs at Ras Shamra. These daggers seem to restricted to s ites on the northern l ittoral.

of be

Foreign Parallels The only good parallels for these daggers come from Cyprus, where they are known as ' knives' ( Catling 1964, 5 9-61 ) . These are known from tombs dated to the later Early Cypriot and e specially the Middle Cypriot periods, where they seem to accompany the better known hooked-tang weapons, presumably as side arms, or a s all-round implements. Catling ( 1964, 5 9-61) has attempted to divide the Cypriot form i nto a set of types on the basis of morphology. The nature of these daggers i s such that an internal typology i s l ikely to be hard to establish with any real degree o f consistency. The key point i s that when taken together they f orm a distinctive group. ( The Ras Shamra material contains examples which approximate to several of Catling's types.) We cannot say, on the available evidence, whether these daggers are imports at Ras Shamra, or locally made. However, they do come from tombs which have produced much Middle Cypriot pottery ( see Courtois 1 979, 1204-1208) and might therefore form part of a set o f imported ' novelties'. I t i s these rather undistinguished weapons, that substitute i n Ras Shamra for the rather grander Type 17-19 daggers found i n the southern Levant ( see 3 .2.2) Type 3 5 This group comprises medium-large s ized daggers, hafted by means of a straight, or tapering, rectangular tang with r ivets i n a l inear arrangement, unlike those of most other daggers ( figs. 3 3 left, 4 6 right, 5 2, 5 3 top left, right). The essential difference between this and other forms o f hafting would be that the tang would have sat in a hole cut l engthwise i nto in the wood of the handle. This channel could have been cut or drilled out of a s ingle p iece o f wood, which, as long as the rivets held, would result in a strong, solid handle. Those daggers with triangular shaped butts, f ixed by three rivets would have required a haft that was probably composed of two s eparate pieces of wood, which were f ixed to opposite s ides of the haft by the r ivets, and possibly bound in some organic wrapping. The a lternative would have been to use a s ingle piece of wood, with a s lot cut transversally into which the butt would have been pushed prior to being rivetted in position. Both of these techniques would run the risk of the haft splitting or coming apart under frequent use. There was probably some difference in the actual construction of the haft necessary to mount daggers of d ifferent tang or butt forms, a fact which i s unlikely to have escaped the smith. Examples with concave-sided blades are relatively rare. This may warrant further consideration as i t suggests that most were not employed as cutting implements, and that they may have been designed as ' real' daggers. The tangs are usually 3 0-45mm i n l ength.

1 36

Chronology and Distribution g ig. 8 8b) The f irst point to observe i s that daggers with straight rectangular tangs are more common in Syria than in Palestine. In fact, the only daggers which do feature such tangs with any regularity in Palestine, are a number of Type 1 7 daggers. However, the tanged variety have a much greater antiquity i n Syria ( see below). There, they are more common in relative terms, at inland s ites such as Baghouz and Tell Mumbaqat, than at coastal sites such as Byblos or Ras Shamra. Daggers with straight tangs occur in l ate third millennium contexts, in tombs from Tell Selenkahiye, and possibly rather earlier, from Carchemish KCG14 and Tawi Tomb 2 4. Another example was found in a domestic context at Hama, in level J4. An example with a metal sleeve for securing the handle i s known from a hoard at Tell Mumbaqat, dated to the later third millennium ( unpublished, Machule pers. comm.). Those from the cemetery at Baghouz should be dated to the earlier M . B. A. S everal examples from the ' Döpöts' at Byblos should a lso be a ssigned to this period. Those from the southern Levant are from M . B.II contexts; Megiddo Tomb 3 123, Tell e l-'Ajjul Tomb 1532 and Tell el Yahudiyeh Grave 4 07. The relatively l ate appearance of these weapons in the south should be noted. The straight rectangular tang was popular in Mesopotamia at l east as early as the E . D.III period, where it occurs in the Royal Cemetery at Ur ( Woolley 1 934, Types 3 , 5 and 7 ) a nd in graves of Cemetery ' A' at Kish ( Mackay 1 925, Pl. XVII.14). A number of M . B.I examples are known from sites i n north Syria such as Chagar Bazar and Tell Arbit ( Mallowan 1 937, f igs. 1 3.2-4), and from a Level Ib grave at Kültepe ( Özgü9 1 959, f ig. 6 9). In his discussion of this dagger, Erkanal ( 1977, 3 4) observes that it is very much a Mesopotamian form, a point in agreement with the Levantine d istribution, which i s heavily biased towards sites in the Euphrates Valley or inland Syria. The east-west division between tang and butted haftings is clearly seen among the r ecently published metalwork from Susa ( Tallon 1 987), where w ay one butted dagger occurs a longside twenty-four tanged examples. Type 37 E xamples of this type are small and narrow with concave s ided, or slender rectangular tangs. The blades are g enerally f lat i n section, without a midrib and may be s traight-tapering or concave-sided ( fig. 3 2 lower right, l ower l eft). They represent a group of small, tanged i mplements, probably ' pocket knives'. One of their most marked features i s their heterogeneity, and it seems l ikely that their morphology was prescribed only in as much as it was constrained by functional requirements. In other words they represent a rather varied group of items, whose common f actor i s their function as small pocket-knives, rather than any planned design. Their s ignificance i s that when t aken together they form a contrast to both ' real' daggers a nd curved knives ( see 2 .5). 1 37

Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 9a) Examples are known from third millennium contexts e . g. the Hypogeum at Til Barsip, and various M . B. A. groups such as the large built tombs at Ras Shamra. They occur over a w ide geographical range, are common in Syria but l ess so i n Palestine ( one example from Tell e l-' Ajjul, in a domestic context No. 1 345). Two important points should be underlined. These items do not occur in the ' Döpöts' at Byblos ( or i f they do they are unpublished), nor i n Palestinian M .B. A. tombs. It seems l ikely that we are seeing here a distinction based on notions of ' appropriateness', and that they were unsuitable f or many roles, an idea reinforced by the heterogeneity of the group, and their relatively low level of visual appeal. Type 3 8 Medium s ized daggers with long, concave-sided tangs and f lat-sectioned blades. In terms o f size and shape these objects rank with the main classes of dagger, but they have a rather different tang arrangement ( fig. 5 3 lower). The main reason for recognizing these daggers as a s eparate group, i s that the form of tang i s clearly different from the c lassic rectangular version, and it was felt that these pieces did not s imply represent a ' variation' on the former. It i s unlikely that these daggers actually represent deliberate adherence to any particular design or tradition. Rather, the type should be considered as a means of organising the data. Chronology and D istribution ( fig. 8 9b) These daggers occur at several northern sites. Late third millennium examples come from Tell Selenkahiye and Mumbaqat, while M .B. A. pieces come from Byblos a nd from Tomb LVI at Ras Shamra. None are reported from Palestine. Type 3 9 Variants This type comprises those items which are sufficiently well preserved for it to be established that they do not f it any of the types l isted above, ( see Catalogue for details). Poorly preserved items There are twelve items which are c learly identifiable as narrow daggers, but which cannot be further c lassified owing to their poor preservation, and two long-tanged daggers in a s imilar condition. S eventy-three additional daggers are insufficiently well preserved to be assigned to any particular type. However, it i s clear that they are neither narrow daggers nor long-tanged. GENERAL DISCUSSION There are several points concerning the typology outlined above, that require further discussion. The various types show different degrees of homogeneity. It seems to the writer, that those types which are most i nternally coherent, are the more e laborate dagger forms. These show a greater consistency of attainment than other types. I n essence these are Types 1 2, 1 3 and 1 7. The reason would 1 38

seem to be that these were produced to specific designs, l eading to the conclusion that their appearance was important. It i s this, the makers' desire to meet certain specifications, that make these types easy to recognize The key f actor i n a ll these types i s visual appearance, in particular in three dimensions; a ll these daggers have ' depth', whether attained by the means of grooves, raised r ibs or whatever, a s opposed to the generally f lat, s imple s ections of the b lades of most other dagger types. A lthough midribs are usually explained as a ids to mechanical strength ( see Yadin 1 963, 6 1) this i s not e ntirely convincing. The effective looking L .B. A. casth ilted daggers are mostly made without midribs, as are most M .B. A. weapons apart from those under consideration here. Were midribs a purely functional attribute, we should e xpect them to be used far more frequently. It i s more l ikely that their role was a decorative one. However, this s hould not be viewed as random stylistic variation, at the whim of the smith. Rather the forms employed were strictly defined, and give these daggers their distinctive visual appearance, making them recognizable over a wide area. Aesthetic appeal, combined with ease of recognition, forms a potent combination for a prestige weapon. When combined w ith white crescentic or globular handles, these weapons were recognizable even when sheathed. There i s a lso a technical aspect to this. Such weapons c ould only be conveniently produced i n closed moulds. Clay moulds would suffice for s ingle p ieces, but for more r egular production steatite would be better. I t has clear a dvantages over c lay as regards re-use, but i s still easy t o carve and thus suitable for cutting the necessary m atrices for these elaborate designs. This was not r estricted to daggers. Other contemporary weapon forms a lso benefited f rom the extra ' dimension' which could be i ncorporated i n well cut stone moulds ( see 3 .2.3). A far greater heterogeneity is found among the s impler f orms and these are less tightly defined. There i s less evidence that they were produced to particular s pecifications. Obviously there are practical and mechanical constraints on the shapes which they could take, but within these general l imits a wide range of variation could be accommodated, and still result i n the production o f a perfectly u seable item. However, a number of general r egional and chronological trends can be recognised. The n arrow daggers are a long standing tradition of the s outhern Levant, one which seems to have remained c onservative from E . B.I to the l ate E . B.III period ( Type 2 ), only to undergo a major diversification during the E . B.-M.B. period ( Types 1 , 3 -5 and 7 ), an era which has r ecently been s een ( Dever 1 980, Richard 1 980) as insular and conservative. Contemporary with narrow daggers in the south, we see a range of very different, small daggers from north Syrian s ites ( Types 2 7 and 3 6). These, it i s argued, are but one manifestation of a long standing tradition of 1 39

dagger manufacture dating well back into the fourth millennium, as exemplified by weapons from the tombs of the En & Aithique recent at Byblos, and phase ' F' in the ' Amuq. This must lead us to suspect the existence of a substantial metal i ndustry in the Levant during the Chalcolithic period, as indicated by f inds from southern Palestine ( Nahal Mishmar and s ites in the Beersheeba area). Towards the end of the third millennium we see the appearance of decorated daggers, which may combine the use of i ncised decoration as seen in third m illennium Mesopotamian daggers, with the broader-bladed forms appearing in the later Syrian E . B. A.. These seem to have f ormed an important element in a series of warrior burials found throughout the Levant during the M . B.I period. E laborate, f inely decorated weapons are known from Mesopotamian E .D. I II contexts, and similar i tems may f eature in l ists of tribute recently published f rom Tell Mardikh ( Archi 1 982, 3 51; 1 985, 2 83). Perhaps i t i s only a matter of time before examples occur in E . B. A. Levantine contexts. The f inal impetus l eading to large scale production of daggers with styled b lades, may have been the widespread adoption of steatite moulds. These types show a high degree of standardisation all the way from north Syria to the Nile Delta during this period, suggesting that they were i n some way involved in the world of ' meaning'. For the M . B.II period, our data from inland Syria i s very poor. Comparison of the daggers f rom Ras Shamra on the coast with those from the southern Levant, suggests that the two regions were using different ranges of material. The c lassic Palestinian M . B.II types ( 10, and 1 7) are absent from the M . B.II tombs at Ras Shamra. Whether this was a lso the case in inland Syria i s not clear at present, a lthough range of

I suspect that it was. daggers ( Type 3 3), not

resemble

Cypriot types,

1 40

At Ras Shamra, we found in the south,

see a which

2 .5. 2 .5.1.

CURVED-BLADED KNIVES AND CURVED SWORDS

Curved-Bladed Knives

This group consists o f a series of s ingle-edged knives with thin-section blades, showing a d istinct curved cutting edge, which may be turned up at the point ( Pl. 2b). The back o f the blade i s b lunt, occasionally f langed, and the handle is affixed t o e ither a r ivetted trapezoidal butt, or a s hort rectangular tang. Wood traces are frequently f ound adhering to the r ivets. These were designed f or cutting, rather than a s stabbing weapons. Although unlikely t o be weapons, the frequent occurrence of such knives i n tombs, where they form an important part of the metal repertoire, suggests that they ought to be i ncluded i n this s tudy. I t has been suggested ( see 2 .4) that some of our d aggers may i n f act have f unctioned more a s cutting implements or ' pocket knives'. As we wish to study the association of d ifferent types, to s earch f or patterns suggesting ' equivalence' or ' substitution' completeness demands that curved-bladed knives be considered. I n collecting this material i t was decided to a ssign a ll curved-bladed knives to one i nitial group. Afterwards, it was p lanned to explore the a ssociation between variables i n order to derive an i nternal typology f or the f orm. Unfortunately these weapons are made o f thin metal, and are o ften poorly preserved when f ound. As a result i t was necessary to exclude many i tems f rom the statistical analysis. Using the remaining i tems, l ess than f ifty-percent o f the known corpus, l ittle i nternal patterning was d etected. The only f eature which d id c learly stand out was the separation between those knives w ith trapezoidal butts ( fig. 5 4 l ower; 5 5) and those w ith r ectangular ( fig. 5 4 top) attachments for the handles. They have been c lassed a s Types 1 and 2 respectively. Chronology and D istribution ( figs. 9 0a, 9 0b) N o d ifference i n chronological spread or d istribution could be detected between the two forms. Curved-bladed knives a re most common a t s ites i n the southern Levant, and northe astern Egypt. E xamples from northern Palestine are known, but are l ess f requent i n proportion to the number of e xcavated tombs, than i n the south. Others come f rom c oastal s ites such a s Byblos and Ruweise i n the Lebanon. There i s one possible example from Ras Shamra, but i t i s r ather d ifferent f rom the standard f orm, and has no c ontext. So f ar none are reported f rom i nland Syria. The earliest definite examples are from the Royal Tombs at B yblos ( R.T.II), dating to the l ate M .B.I period, and f rom a l ate M .B.I tomb at Tell e l-Dab'a. The type therefore f irst appears l ate i n the M .B.I period. By f ar the bulk of the corpus comes f rom tombs of the M .B.II period, both e arly and l ate w ithin i t. Examples from Tomb 6 2 at Pella ( unpublished) and Megiddo Tomb 2 140 ( cut i nto S tr. X ) are f rom contexts verging on the L .B. A. Although this 1 41

particular form does not continue into the latter period, variants continue at l east as l ate as L . B.II ( see example f rom Tomb 9 11B at Megiddo, Guy 1 938, Pl. 1 22.3). The type i s unrepresented among the large quantity o f metalwork published from the M .B.II tombs at Ras Shamra, i n contrast to the great number of small Type 3 3 daggers present, suggesting some substitution between these two suggests that although used in the northern

types. This part of the

coastal z one during the M . B.I period, the type had ceased to be employed there by the later M . B. A., while continuing i n popularity farther south, implying i ncreasing d ifferentiation between northern and southern metal styles ( and grave equipment) as the M . B. A. proceeded. G iven that these knives are insufficiently robust to have f unctioned as weapons, and that they occur l argely i n tombs, we should probably treat them as being i nvolved i n some way in mortuary practices. A c lue as to the possible function of these knives, i s provided by the use o f curvedb laded tools by workmen in butchery scenes f rom Middle K ingdom tombs at Beni Hasan, ( Newberry 1 893, P l. XVII) a lthough the real knives may have required to be rather more robust, than those found i n tombs. However, as will be seen later, an association with meat offerings can be detected. ( see 3 .2.2) 2 .5.2.

Curved Swords

This type comprises a group of weapons with curved b lades ( Maxwell-Hyslop 1 946, Type 3 4), sometimes known a s ' sickleswords', an inappropriate title a s Bonnet ( 1926, 8 5) has observed; the cutting edge i s on the outer edge of the curve of the blade, rather than on the inside a s in true s ickles. There are three well provenanced examples, a ll f rom the Royal Tombs at Byblos. They are around 5 60mm l ong, bear relief decoration, generally of a snake motif, and have a short tang which was i nserted into a wooden handle, anchored i n some cases by a gold collar and bear decorative gold-covered nails. All are slightly d ifferent i n detail, and must have come from different moulds. They date to the l ater M . B.I period ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 3 9). The f ourth example comes from Shechem ( Bohl 1926, P l. V ) but has no real context, forming part of a group purchased by von Bissing in 1 908. It i s smaller than those from Byblos, length 4 52mm, but i s s imilar in general form. Maxwell-Hyslop ( 1946, 4 3) has emphasised the Asiatic origins of the type, although a llowing that those from Byblos and Shechem show a degree o f Egyptian influence i n the use of the ' Uraeus' and ' Lotus' motifs. There are no examples of this particular variant ( Maxwell-Hyslop's Type 3 4) f rom well dated contexts in Egypt. An example from Tell Rotab in the Wadi Tumilat ( Naville and Griffith 1 890, 5 7 P l. X IX.30) i s undated, and has a flange-hilt, suggesting a date in the New Kingdom or possibly at the very end of the Second Intermediate Period. Flange-hilted examples from the Levant date to the Late Bronze Age, 1 42

reflecting the i ncreasing use of f langed handles on daggers at that t ime; s ee examples from Gezer ( MacAlister 1 912 ( III) P l. 7 5.16) and Ras Shamra ( Schaeffer 1 936, 1 45 Pl. XVIII.2). Given the range o f metalwork found at Byblos, and its general sophistication, it seems quite l ikely that these swords were local products. The contexts in which these occur, royal burials, suggest that they should be seen as prestige i tems, probably a part of the paraphernalia of royalty. A slightly later example was found in a major public building at Kamid el-Loz , Lebanon ( Früh Phöniker im Libanon 1 983, No. 7 3). Both Bonnet ( 1926, 9 0) and MaxwellHyslop ( 1946, 4 2) comment on the frequent appearance of these weapons i n the hands of kings and gods, i n reliefs and s eals, and note that the type has a long association with deities and royalty in Western Asia, implying an important symbolic role ( see 3 .2.2). General parallels occur on reliefs from Mesopotamia; e .g. a relief from Telloh dated to the UrIII-Isin-Larsa period by the excavator ( Genouillac 1 936, P l. 1 20), or a s imilar weapon in the hands of the King Eannatum in the famous Vulture Stela o f Early Dynastic date ( which might however represent, rather, a crescentic axe of some form). In fact examples from Telloh ( Parrot 1 948, 2 68, f ig, 5 4b) and Susa ( Tallon 1 987, Nos. 1 00-1) allow us to distinguish an early ( Ur I II-Isin-Larsa), Mesopotamian version of these items, which predates the Levantine examples. These differ from the Byblos pieces on a number of stylistic details, and show the existence of local versions of a symbol which was both wide-ranging and l ong-lived.

1 43

2 .6.

PROJECTILES

I t i s c lear from various sources ( Yadin 1 963, Miller at al 1 986) that archery was important during our period. There i s good evidence of ' Asiatics' bearing bows from the Middle K ingdom tombs at Beni Hasan in Egypt ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. X IV), while in Mesopotamia, Naram-Sin is depicted as carrying a bow, probably a composite type, i n the f amous Victory Stela ( Strommenger 1 964, f ig. 1 22). From Mari, there are scenes dated to the E . D. I II period, showing men i n military gear using composite bows ( Parrot 1 971, P l. X IV). Archery i s mentioned i n the Tale of S inuhe ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0), set in M . B.I Palestine, while at the end of the third millennium we have a reference to the receipt at Drehem of 5 00 bows from Ebla ( Michaelowski 1 978, 3 6), i ndicating production in l arge numbers i n western Syria. References to the production of bows and arrowshafts are frequent in the Mari texts ( Rouault 1 977, Nos. 9 ; 2 1), and the term tilpanum is now translated as composite bow ( Durand 1 983a, 3 36ff), rather than the o ld translation of ' throwing-stick'. The emphasis on the decoration of these items, ( Durand 1 983a, 3 36ff) suggests that such bows were prestigious weapons at this point ( early 1 8th C ) and were unlikely to have been available to a ll. There are also references ( Rouault 1 977, No. 1 0) to the production of l arge numbers of l ightweight, bronze projectile heads ( c 1/4 of a sheckel in weight, say 2g), which must be understood as arrowheads. On one occasion Shamshi-Adad i s recorded as requesting 1 0000 bronze arrowheads from his son Yasmakh-Adad, clearly for military purposes. The archaeological evidence for the period prior to the Early Bronze Age has been summarised by Korfmann ( 1972). Subsequent developments have been reviewed recently by Miller et a l ( 1986), who i llustrate the considerable value o f the composite bow as a weapon. As archery was clearly important i n warfare, the rarity of equipment from archaeological sources prior to the L . B. A. requires comment. The most l ikely evidence in archaeological s ituations would be arrowheads. Although some arrows may have had hardened wood points, bone, metal, or stone arrowheads should have a fairly high survival rate. However, the evidence from tombs, which provides the bulk of our corpus of other ancient weapons, i s extremely l imited as far as archery i s concerned. Early Bronze Age The earliest appearance of metal would seem to be a group from

arrowheads in any quantity Grave 8 0 at Abu Salabikh

( Martin 1 985, 1 4), dating to the E .D. I II period. These are c lassic, tanged arrowheads, with lanceolate blades, weighing a l ittle over 8g ( c 1 Sheckel as understood at Mari), and their presence i s i n marked contrast to the i nfrequency of arrowheads i n the Royal Cemetery at Ur ( Moorey 1 982a, 3 2). In fact, the occurrence of such arrowheads, which are very s imilar the so-called ' L. B. A.' 1 44

tanged arrowheads, at such an early date, suggests that they are not L . B. A. at all, and have simply been called so because it is only then that they appear i n sufficient numbers to be noted. Chipped stone arrowheads are known from a late E . B. A. tomb at Halawa ( Orthmann 1 981a, 5 6), while others are reported from a late third millennium destruction at Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh, north Syria ( Van Loon 1 985, 9 6). As for the southern Levant, it has been argued recently ( Millar et al 1 986, 1 82) that the defensive systems employing towers and bastions, known at Palestinian E . B. A. sites, were designed to be defended by archery. Therefore, it is clear that such weapons were both widely produced, and used, during the E .B. A. The Middle Bronze Age A number of arrowheads are known from M . B. A. contexts. However, they are few in comparison to other contemporary weapon types, suggesting a difference in the pattern of deposition. In Mesopotamia, the composite bow was in use at l east as early as the third millennium ( Moorey 1 986, 2 09), and there i s good textual evidence ( see above) for its adoption in Syria by the period of the Mari texts ( if not well before). A recent study by Miller et a l ( 1986), has identified the production of chipped stone arrowheads from the M . B. A. occupation of Tell Hadidi in north Syria, which highlights the paucity of reported f inds e lsewhere. Although some are known from M . B. A. burials, many are from l oosely defined contexts in occupation areas, arguing that arrowheads were common, everyday objects. However, they were rarely included in burial contexts or in deliberate deposits. The l ack of arrowheads from the vast array of metalwork in the ' 1 2 11 3 ( 5ts' at Byblos i s an instructive case i n point. The rarity of arrowheads in both graves and deliberate deposits, suggests that they were not seen as ' suitable' in such circumstances. A l ist of bowmen ( two of whom also possessed chariots) i s known among the texts from Alalakh VII ( Moorey 1 986, 2 10), while arrowheads f irst appear in that l evel ( Woolley 1 955, 2 85), i ncluding one of the tanged, leaf-shaped variety ( Woolley's Type 4 ), common in L . B. A. contexts, demonstrating that these were in production i n Syria by the l ater M .B.II period. Perhaps arrowheads l isted in the Mari texts were of this kind. Yadin ( 1963, 8 0) suggests that composite bows ( which presumably made the use of metal tips worthwhile) are best suited for batch-production, i .e. that they could be most easily manufactured by l arge economic units, such as palaces. Presumably therefore, production a nd issue of these weapons would be most practicable for the larger centres. A similar situation i s described in the L . B. A. texts from Nuzi ( Kendall, 1 975, 7 2) where arrows held by soldiers between campaigns, remained the property o f the palace. The very fact that such weapons were i ssued from s ource, and did not belong to individuals or 1 45

a central corporate

groups, may have severely restricted their use as grave goods, s imply because they were not exclusive and hence l ow i n prestige value. Support for this view comes from the striking l ack of evidence for the use of the s ling as a grave item. This highly effective weapon has a long h istory in the area ( Korfmann 1 972). Slings appear i n s ignificant numbers in the Mari texts, under the term wapsum ( Dailey 1 984, 1 48 and references there), i ndicating their continued use in the M .B. A. Of course, neither the s ling, nor bolts which would stand a good chance of surviving i n tombs, are exclusive, controllable resources. As a result, their utility as grave goods may have been l imited. Unlike certain other weapon forms, which we might reasonably believe to have been confined to the upper echelons of M . B. A. society ( unless issued by the authorities for a specific occasion), slings and bows may have been available to many people, not only those of h igh rank. This surely bears on the ' status' of arrows and archery as opposed to other weapons, and should make us consider exactly what our ' warrior' burials mean. I f archery was an important part of waging war, then the weapons i n burials are not directly, or s imply, related to military practice. The i tems which tombs contain are socially determined. The nature of grave goods; daggers, j avelins, and axes implies that i t was close range weapons which were valued. Perhaps we see an echo of this, the great i ndividual warrior, i n the Tale of S inuhe, which features s ingle combat between S inuhe and a the ' Champion of Retenu' ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0). There i s however, no mention of such f ights i n the Mari texts, nor i n the records of Hittite campaigns i n Syria ( Houwink ten Cate 1 984), where warfare seems to have been real, and the armies l arge and well organised. This in turn might suggest that ' warrior' goods have more to do with an individual's social position, than with h is real occupation, a point made by Watkins ( 1983b) in connection with the E .D. I II ' warrior' burials i n the ' Royal Cemetery' at Ur. Comparison with the Late Bronze Age A f ar greater number of tanged arrowheads are f ound i n L .B. A grave contexts, occurring s ingly, in small groups, possible quiver-fulls. Ben-Arieh and Edelstein ( 1977, 3 5) report a number of bunches from the vicinity of a group of 1 4th C tombs near Akko. The L . B. A. burial deposits at Lachish produced many tanged metal arrowheads, i n contrast to the paucity of such from earlier deposits ( see Tufnell 1 958, P l. 2 5). At Megiddo, from the tell there are twentys ix examples from Strata IX-VIII, as against four f rom XIV X , a s f ar as can be j udged from the publication plates ( Loud 1 948), while a review of the tomb material ( Guy and Engberg 1 938) reveals that such arrowheads as do occur, are l argely i n L .B. A. groups. As we now know that such weapons were i n production in the M .B. A., we must a sk why the L .B. A. examples enter the archaeological record with greater frequency. 1 46

The key to this, l ies i n the emergence of the chariot as an important component of military practice towards the end of the M .B. A. Chariots were certainly in use prior to this date, and have a l ong history in the Near East ( Moorey 1 986, 2 03). The f irst textual evidence ( Houwink ten Cate 1 984, 5 9) for their military function, appears in connection with Hittite campaigns in north Syria in the l ater 1 7th century, where they appear to be used in combination with archers. It i s i n fact the new and potent combination of bow and chariot ( Moorey 1 986, 2 08) that i s of p articular interest to us, one which features regularly in the late 1 5th-early 1 4th C Nuzi texts ( Kendall 1 975, 6 7) and those from L .B. A. Ugarit ( Heltzer 1 982, 1 92). The second point to emerge from the Hittite texts, i s that chariots are not only the property of the major powers. Some belong to the smaller north-Syrian towns ( Houwink ten Cate 1 984, 5 9), implying that they had been widely adopted by this time. In P alestine, with its less suitable topography and smaller economic units ( see Sapin 1 982, 1 77), perhaps looking more to the Delta than to the north during the M . B.II period ( see 3 .4), the chariot might be expected to have appeared rather later as a weapon, than on the Syrian steppe. Chariot-teams were among the booty taken by Kamose during his f irst major attack on Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos, around the middle of the 1 6th C ( Smith and Smith 1 976, 6 0), providing a terminus ante quo for the appearance of the chariot i n the Delta, and by implication i n Palestine. The speed with which the chariot motif was adopted by the 1 8th Dynasty Pharaohs ( Schulmann 1 980, 1 27) i n their celebratory reliefs, would suggest that they too were well acquainted with these vehicles, prior to reconquest of the eastern Delta. The decline of ' personal' sets of hand-to-hand weapons in grave contexts ( most of the M . B. A. axe and dagger types d isappear by the L . B. A), may be connected to their replacement by the chariot as the preferred mark of warrior status. There i s l ikely to have been a period of overlap, a nd they would be expected to occur in graves for some time a fter their replacement by the bow and chariot as the a ctual military equipment of the e lite, so we should not expect a sudden change. The disappearance of these sets could be interpreted i n practical terms a s resulting from their unsuitability for use from a chariot ( Schulmann 1 980, 1 23-4). Alternatively, the increased usage of the chariot might imply that i t had become the f avoured mode of expression for personal prestige or standing, and the dagger-axe sets had declined f or ' symbolic' rather than purely practical reasons. Obviously, chariots themselves were, l ike the horses, too valuable to be w idely used as grave goods ( and were often the property of the king, see Kendall 1 975, 7 1, Heltzer 1 982, 1 15), but the bow, quiver and arrows may well have b een an acceptable offering, indicating much the same 1 47

thing, ' warrior' ( high) status, and so account f or the more frequent appearance of arrowheads i n L . B. A. tombs. Kendall ( 1975, 2 51) notes the possible symbolic importance of the quiver in certain L . B. A. texts from Nuzi. Certainly it i s the bow which features as the preferred weapon o f Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs, when they are depicted mounted i n a chariot ( Schulmann 1 980, 1 21), partly replacing the longe stablished mace, as the tool for ' smiting the Asiatics'. As Moorey combination

( 1986) has recently observed, the potent of composite bow and chariot, and the

i ncreasing use of scale armour, would have made substantial d ifferences to the nature of warfare, in particular to the practices of elite troops. Therefore the r ise of the chariot as a weapon, has important consequences f or social change. There i s a strong association between ' chariotry' and special troops, men whose status was dependent on their m ilitary skills, not on l and, office or family. Heltzer ( 1982, 1 1) observes the many Ugaritic Maryannu are classed as ' men of the King', i .e. royal dependents, not a lways of the nobility, and many do not seem to have possessed chariots of their own ( Reviv 1 972, 2 19). Not only do chariot warriors who are also proficient archers require a considerable degree of skill and training, they a lso require logistical support. Unlike daggers and axes ( or other precious objects) which can be passed along exchange networks, but which require no ' servicing', acquisition of a chariot demands that the recipient has regular access to a support network, in this case the palace. I t i s not a personal weapon, unlike the material which we see i n M . B. A. burials, which would seem to have been the individual's to d ispose of at death, or as an offering, as he saw f it. I t i s these changes which we are seeing reflected in the changing burial forms at the end of the M . B. A . G iven that the chariot seems to have become e stablished in the north prior to its general acceptance in the southern Levant ( see above), this might bear on the lack of ' prestige' weapons from i nland Syrian s ites of the M .B.II period. Although no such cemeteries have yet been published, one might believe that were such material present in any quantity, unprovenanced examples would have appeared in museums or on the antiquities market. The f act that this has not happened, in contrast to the l arge amount of l ate E .B. A. and M .B.I metalwork known, suggests that it simply may not have been deposited in any quantity, unless of course it i s typologically very s imilar to M .B.I material. A suggestion therefore, i s that prestige daggers and axes went out of use in inland Syria early in the M . B.II period, contemporary with the spread of the chariot/composite bow combination. In Palestine however, the dagger/axe combination continued in favour rather longer, and in fact was to form an important e lement in exchange and communication networks l inking southern Palestine with the Delta s ites ( see 3 .4). connections may represent

Coastal S yria, with i ts a rather special case. 1 48

Cypriot

PART

3 .1.

WEAPONS

3 .

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

IN THEIR CULTURAL CONTEXT:

INTRODUCTION

We have not produced a long and detailed c lassification s imply to aid the ' pigeon-holing' of individual items. Our stated a im i s to use our material to contribute to the understanding of past societies. behind the archaeological record. However, we must a llow for the nature of the material available, and deal with the problems inherent in the archaeological record, its formation and transformation. It i s not intended to carry out an investigation of metalworking generally. The questions asked should aim to extract the maximum information from our particular data, weapons. To s imply p lot points on a map and proceed to investigate distributions could be misleading. Taken at its most s imple, this approach could be seen to argue for the centralization of M . B.I metallurgy on Byblos, which i s highly improbable. Besides our poor knowledge of the loci of manufacture, a second problem, that of the contexts within which our material occurs must be considered ( Hodder 1 982b, 2 03). Investigation shows that the bulk of this comes from graves, most of the rest from deliberate deposits ( see below). We should also note that the material i s not necessarily a l iteral indicator of patterns of trade and exchange. Although the boundaries of d ifferent distributions should bear some relation to such networks ( Ellison 1 980), the archaeological record presents us not with direct view of the pattern of exchange, but with a transformed version, a pattern of deposition, of consumption ( Bradley 1 985, 2 2). I t i s archaeological context, the attribute of the material most frequently overlooked in previous studies, which will provide our best access to the underlying social processes. Material from contexts such as ours may not be representative of that which was in production, and must be treated carefully as its appearance in the archaeological record i s the result of structured human action. The pattern of archaeological f inds cannot be divorced from those social and cultural factors which influenced the deposition of those particular objects. For example, f actors bearing on the deposition of weapons, are l ikely to d iffer from those which affect the distribution of domestic ceramics. Any attempt to interpret our material without due regard for these points could be misleading. 3 .1.2. Weapons W ith 1 00)

WEAPONS,

WARFARE AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

and Warfare

regard to notes the

the Mesopotamian material, Watkins ( 1983b, d ifference between the equipment of troops 1 49

depicted on the ' Vulture Stela', and that of the occupants o f the graves from the contemporary Royal Cemetery at Ur. Moorey ( 1982a, 3 2) l ikewise observes the clear preponderance of daggers and axes, over spears and arrowheads, in both the Ur cemetery and Cemetery ' A' at Kish, suggesting that the former represent the personal weapons of an e lite, while the l atter were i ssued from the palace arsenal. The observation ( Moorey 1 982a, 3 3) that spearheads tend to occur with the bodies of attendants and guards, rather than with the main burials in the Royal Cemetery, highlights the importance of context and a ssociation. The l ong history of the bow as a weapon, has been discussed above ( 2.6), where attention was drawn its rarity i n funerary contexts, presumably because archery l acked ' status'. Spears are common in graves of the M .B.I, period but are generally of l ightweight types, rather than heavy i nfantry weapons, and tend to occur as components of a ' set' of weapons, not as a s ingle offering as one might expect in the grave of an infantryman. In this context, it i s i nteresting that we see much the same ' grave-sets' appearing in the northern Levant where regular armies existed ( see below), as in the south, where the settlements were smaller and the economy l ess highly developed. The implication then, i s that there i s a clear d ifference between burial equipment, which conforms to a ' panLevantine' pattern and that of the military establishment. A consideration of the status and numbers of soldiers referred to in the Mari texts suggests that many, often f rom tribal groups, ( Matthews 1 982, 9 8-100) were reluctant, unreliable warriors, often conscripted and s eemingly supplied with weapons by the central authorities ( Sasson 1 969, 1 1-15). Men so supplied were unlikely to have been able to take their weapons to the grave. Although l ightweight projectiles feature i n l arge numbers in the texts from Mari, up to 1 0000 occurring in one text dated to the time of Shamshi-Adad ( Dossin 1 950, No. 3 8), they are no more numerous than are battleaxes i n the actual grave i nventory. In Mesopotamia the material from graves i s r ich, yet Watkins ( 1983b, 1 01) has observed that the status of soldiers was low, and that they could be used for agricultural or construction work i f necessary. The evidence from Mari implies that a s imilar s ituation existed there ( Sasson 1 969, 5 ). Certain kinds of soldier, probably of rather higher status, such as Ba'irum troops seem to have carried axes ( Dossin 1 950, No. 3 1) although there i s no evidence that these were widely used. The G IR.SIG.GA and kisrum, elite groups of personal guards or retainers of the King ( Sasson 1 969, 1 6) might also have been well equipped, and possess ' status' i tems. Armies could be l arge, numbered i n thousands, and featured both l ight and heavy troops ( Sasson 1 969, 1 7). Complex operations such as s ieges were undertaken ( Dossin 1 950, Nos. 1 31, 1 35; Rouault 1 977, Nos. 1 7, 2 4), and considerable attention g iven to logistical problems ( Dailey 1 984, 1 45-50). 1 50

Operations were generally carefully planned, controlled and executed. Such practices cannot easily be reconciled with the material from contemporary graves, which seems to represent personal weapons, best suited for hand-to-hand combat. Spears of any kind are rare i n graves in the southern Levant in the M . B.II period, where the most common weapons would seem to be daggers ( see 3 .2.2). A dagger on its own is a poor substitute for a long spear in battle, especially in a co-ordinated a ction. Like the axe it is a weapon for close combat, most useful in one-to-one encounters. These must be seen as personal weapons, the tools of the warrior, rather than those of the soldier. In fact, the fenestrated axe, especially its Type 2 form with large holes in the blade, is an inefficient shape for a battleaxe ( see 2 .1). Many of the shaft-hole axes of Type 2 , found in the Euphrates Valley i n the E .B. A., would seem to be much more effective weapons, and f igures bearing such items appear in several Early Dynastic period i llustrations ( e.g. Parrot 1 956, figs. 7 7-78; 8 0). Thus we see that the styles of weapon in use were not determined solely by utilitarian considerations. Axes and spears f eature in the s ingle-combat between S inuhe and the ' Champion of Retenu' ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0). The tale celebrates a r itualised, or at least individualised, f ight, a mark of what i s termed ' heroic' society. There i s no hard evidence that burial with weapons necessarily implied that one was a professional soldier. To answer this question, we need more age-sex data on the occupants o f these ( and other) Levantine burials. We may be dealing w ith a s ituation where ' entitlement' to a warrior burial was determined by aspects of one's position in society, where status was expressed in a warrior idiom, or even by mere possession of such i tems, perhaps obtained through e xchange or as gifts ( see below). This might suggest an i deological connection between ' warrior' qualities and ' greatness'. Weapons

and Social

Status

Weaponry i s at a ll t imes a minority grave item. It i s e xclusive. Even among the l arge cemeteries of the E .B.M .B. period found in southern Palestine, burials with weapons represent only a small fraction of the total. P ossession of such items was at a ll times the prerogative o f a restricted group. That this group was essentially one o f high social status i s argued on the grounds of both the r epresentational evidence ( discussed below), and the clear a ssociation of weapons with deities, as seen a rchaeologically in groups of temple offerings such as the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos ( see Dunand 1 939, 1 954), i n the Mari texts ( see for example Limet 1 985, 5 19) and in c ontemporary glyptic ( Solyman 1 968, 1 01ff for metal weapons i n particular). The most obvious support for the role of weaponry, axes and daggers in particular, i n a 1 51

communicative function, i s the widespread standardisation of types seen i n the M . B. A., the M . B.I period i n particular. Fenestrated and Type 1 narrow-bladed axes, and Type 1 2 and 1 3 daggers, display a remarkable degree of stylistic s imilarity throughout the region, cutting across known ceramic, geographical and political boundaries. This cannot be accidental and implies deliberate adherence to well understood designs. The best reason for this, given that the mould evidence indicates manufacture at a number of different sites ( see 2 .1), i s that these weapons had a meaning for those who bore/saw them, a meaning that was embodied in their physical form. They presumably symbolized certain concepts connected with high status that were comprehensible throughout a l arge geographical area. The reliefs from Serabit e l-Khadim dated to the l ater 1 2th Dynasty ( Gardiner et al 1 955) depict groups of Asiatics employed in the local mines, and their leaders, i n particular one "Khebed, Brother of the Price o f Retenu" ( No. 4 05, Pl. LXXXV), who appears mounted on a donkey, with attendants on foot. The mounted f igure in one relief ( No. 1 12, P l. XXXVII) bears what seems to be a Type 1 fenestrated axe, while his attendants carry short bladed spears, probably of our Types 8 or 9 . It seems therefore that fenestrated axes were generally carried by high ranking individuals, in contrast to the more widely available spear. Wall paintings from Middle Kingdom tombs at Beni-Hasan a lso show more f igures armed with spears or bows, than there are carrying axes ( Newberry 1 893, P l. XXX). Although we cannot be sure exactly what the term ' Prince of Retenu' meant, and how extensive was h is sway, i t does seem that the possession of a fenestrated a xe i .e. the provision of a ' warrior' burial, implied a h igh rank. We should note that at Jericho and other similar sites, there i s no sign of any class of graves conspicuously r icher than ' warrior' burials, such as that of the i ndividual in Tomb J3 ( Kenyon 1 960, 3 13), suggesting that people so honoured occupied high positions within the local social system. Despite the frequent occurrence of ' Asiatic' figures armed with spears in Egyptian reliefs of Middle Kingdom date, graves containing spearheads a lone are practically unknown i n Palestine during the M . B. A. In fact, spearheads only appear in tombs where the occupant(s) were already equipped with other weapons, generally a dagger, an axe, or both. Spearheads then appear to have been conceived of a s supplementary items, borne by those a lready distinguished by other items. We might surmise that individuals s hown a s bearing only spears, in these reliefs, were not a llowed even those in their graves. Developing the point made above concerning the l ikelihood of spear manufacture and d istribution being at a local level ( see 2 .3), we might reasonably infer that they had l ittle role i n the transmission of the kind of information carried by certain other weapon types. This analysis i s best applied to the M . B.I period, where there i s a good body of material. 1 52

Weapons

in

Precious Materials

Such i tems are obviously non-utilitarian, and have a clear connection with matters of wealth, d isplay and status. Much of the evidence for these however, i s textual rather than archaeological, rendering study of this area rather difficult. As the present work i s not primarily concerned with the l inguistic evidence, we shall deal with this only briefly, i nsofar as it bears on that known from archaeology. The Textual

Evidence

The l inguistic evidence for ancient weaponry in Mesopotamia has been surveyed by Salonen ( 1965). However, it i s not clear exactly how f ar the Mesopotamian terminology can be applied to the Levant. We should a lso note the number of different terms i n use for particular categories of artefact; consider the eighteen words which have been rendered as ' spear' ( Salonen 1 965, 8 4-92), although the author does reject several of these translations. It i s clear from Salonen's work, that no s imple equation between the texts and the archaeological material is possible. While Salonen points out that many terms can only be understood in the most general way, as some kind of spear ( 1965, 85), as generic words such as hassinnu - axe ( 1965, 1 4), or GIR-GIR - dagger ( 1965, 4 9ff), the possibility of regional or chronological differences in the application of particular terms remains. H is study of l exical data has brought to attention the number of references to items designated by terms which should refer to weapons, which are made of precious metals ( see below). He thus confirms what the archaeological evidence from s ites such as Byblos and the Royal Cemetery have implied, namely that the production of common weapon f orms in precious metals was not infrequent. Actual grave f inds are l imited to certain rich burials in the Ur Cemetery, a lthough the late third millennium grave i nventory of B illala, Temple Administrator of Kish ( Foxvog 1 980), suggests that they were appropriate for senior p ersons generally. The man concerned received a silver s pear and knife and a copper axe, as well as a ' chariot' a nd harness donkey. Others occur as offerings in the ' Temple des Obelisks' at Byblos ( see Dunand 1 954, 6 94ff), and they are frequently cited in connection with gods ( Bottero 1 957, No. 9 ; Durand 1 983a, Nos 2 22 and 2 89, and d iscussion pp 3 45-6). At Mari we encounter "the axe of S in", a longside " the footstool of Shamash", and other precious objects such as tables, vessels and a chariot, pertaining to various deities ( Durand 1 983a, No. 2 49). There i s a particularly interesting reference to the use of gold " for plating the horns of the dagger of Shamash" ( Limet 1 985, 5 19). One might infer that this referred to a metal covering over a crescentic handle of the form seen i n the Ur cemetery ( Woolley 1 934, P l. 1 52, left). To j udge 1 53

from these descriptions and the actual examples from Byblos, these objects conform to c lassic weapon shapes, not f orms peculiar to such items. The use of alabaster, or ivory, crescentic pommels on our Type 1 2 daggers should be seen as related to the shape of such prized items. Weapons i n precious metals feature regularly in the third millennium texts from Ebla, where they seem to form part of a gift/obligation system, involving the ruler and senior f igures ( Archi 1 985c, 2 9). The tradition of such weapons i n Syria then, i s virtually contemporary with similar items i n the Royal Cemetery. Although the value of many of these i tems at Ebla could be reckoned as an equivalent weight of s ilver, suggesting that it was the amount of precious metal which the object contained that really mattered, it i s i nteresting to note that particular artefact forms were f avoured, and that these showed a clear sexual differentiation. For men, daggers and belts were preferred, for women j ewellery ( Archi 1 985c, 2 9-30). Many occur i n texts from Mari dealing with various kinds of valuables. There, as at Ebla several centuries earlier, axes i n gold or s ilver of a particular weight were a llocated to high court officials ( Bottero 1 957, No. 2 49), perhaps in connection with their offices or in reward for services. Other officials received s imilar weapons a longside valuables such as quantities of tin and s ilver r ings ( Birot 1 960, No. 4 6). Examples are mentioned with handles of lapis l azuli, ivory and so on ( Limet 1 985, 5 19), comparing closely to those known from the Döpöts at Byblos ( see above), and one i s depicted on a fresco f rom the Palace of Z imri-Lim ( Parrot 1 958, f ig. 3 5; see a lso Maxwell-Hyslop 1 970, 1 65). Archaeology We should note that these items occur in much the same contexts i .e. graves and deliberate deposits, as do their base-metal equivalents. The overlap between the material from the Byblos Döpöts and that of contemporary graves ( weapons, pins, vessels, j ewellery, imported i tems etc) implies a c lose connection between status/valuable items and material suitable as offerings/gifts to deities. Furthermore, the material from the Döpöts i s s imilar to that featured i n l ists of gifts/payments made to h igh court officials at Mari ( silver vessels, elaborate weapons, j ewellery etc, see details i n Munn-Rankin 1 956, 9 7ff). That being so, i t seems reasonable to infer that much of this material a lso f eatured within exchange networks existing between the l iving. I t i s suggested therefore that the difference between gold or s ilver and other weapons, i s merely one of degree. The former represent the upper end of a continuum of valuable items concerned with status and gifting. Perhaps the important point i n many graves was the offering of a weapon of the correct form, the f act that i t was made of gold can be seen as a bonus, a degree of ' added value'. 1 54

Such material, stored in temple or palace treasuries, is unlikely to have survived centuries of warfare, tributetaking and looting. Mellink ( 1963, Pl. XXVII) notes a stela found in southern Iraq, which she interprets as depicting the taking of booty, including valuable daggers, from a location in north Syria-Cilicia, during an Akkadian campaign. Another reason for the rarity of these items is frequent remelting of precious objects ( Durand 1 983b). Summary Yadin ( 1963) in h is valuable study of Ancient Near Eastern warfare, assumed a functional-efficiency dynamic, aiming to maximize effectiveness in battle, as the main engine of typological change in weapons. Objects are viewed as technical refinements on earlier types, evolving in a Darwinian fashion to meet new military challenges with greater efficiency, and hence conferring greater chances of survival. Although I would agree in part with this view, i t i s l ikely to apply most strongly to military equipment. The problem in applying this l ine of argument to our material i s the uncertain degree of correspondence between the weapons present in the archaeological record and actual m ilitary hardware. The textual evidence from Mari ( Sasson 1 969, Dalley 1 984, 1 39-150) and the Hittite sources ( Houwink ten Cate 1 984, 6 8-69) argue for a strong i nterest i n the effective pursuit of warfare, note the emphasis on l ogistics, siege techniques and equipment, patrols, b lockades and so on. However, as far as the material from f unerary contexts i s concerned, it i s felt that such deliberate planning applies only at a macroscopic l evel, s uch as the replacement of close-range weapons by the c ombination of chariot and the composite bow. Detailed typological change i s subject to different forces ( see 3 .2.3). We can see then, that much of our corpus of weaponry i s not t ypical of everyday military equipment, and may be a poor g uide to developments in that f ield. It should be c onsidered rather in terms of communication and message t ransmission ( Wobst 1 977), in the marking of male status a nd as an e lement in inter-group exchange networks. S upport for this view comes from the contexts in which t hese weapons occur, the standardised shapes of many items, a nd the use of non-utilitarian materials and decorated h andles. When we understand the nature of our material, a nd the contexts within which it was used, we can see the p roblems to which it can make the greatest contribution. 3 .1.3.

CULTURAL ATTITUDES TO WEAPONS

W eapons, especially those recovered from the archaeological r ecord, function as marks of distinction. Ceramic vessels a re found in many tombs, j ewellery and items in precious m etal i n relatively few. Until the later M . B. A., weapons c onstitute the s ingle most noticeable addition to the s tandard pottery repertoire i n burial contexts, a lthough at 1 55

a ll t imes remaining a minority attribute. The possession of arms in funerary contexts seems to be connected to male h igh status. Weapons have not yet been found i n c lear association with female interments. They a lso feature regularly as offerings at sacred s ites, ( See 3 .2.1 and Philip 1 988b). The contrast between the kind o f weapons found in graves and the equipment of military forces implies that certain weapons were endowed with a degree of symbolic significance, that they are examples of what B inford ( 1972a, 2 4) has termed ' sociotechnic' artefacts. I n order to deal with this we must consider the uniqueness of the schemes which give meaning to material culture, the ' non-arbitrary' nature of symbols ( Hodder 1986, 3 ). The reason why weapons should be considered an appropriate way i n which to express social concepts and statuses, must i nvolve factors deep within the value systems a nd world v iews of the societies concerned. It i s presumably f or these same reasons that weapons are considered suitable f or offering to the gods. I n a recent study of the role of copper i n African societies, Herbert raises a number of points of considerable relevance to the ancient Levant. I n both areas we have elaborate knives, axes and so on, which play an important part in the communication of group and personal roles, statuses and identities. Herbert's ( 1984, 2 41) explanation for the choice of weapons to perform this role, rather than other materials, rests on fairly obvious grounds. They are associated with power, victory, the ability to take l ife, with r isk taking and daring, violent action, in essence then with the pursuit of reputation, a notion equally applicable to the Bronze Age Levant ( Zaccagnini 1 983b, 2 13). We might a lso note the concept o f the ruler as ' guardian and defender' of the community, widespread throughout the region at this time. Weapons are a lso practical, many people would require them anyway, and of course portable. This may be especially significant as status-messaging may be most relevant when one is i n unfamiliar territory ( Wobst 1 977, 3 23). Naturally we are not dealing with a set of fully coincident boundaries for a ll weapon types; in one area weapon A may be stressed, and another in region B ( see 3 .2.2). However, the f act that what i s here termed ' weapon-symbolism' cuts across a range of ceramic, political and even l inguistic boundaries, i ndicates its widespread use and acceptance throughout the Levant. Though s imple, this does seem a reasonable hypothesis. Warrior qualities are frequently emphasised, and presented as desirable in ancient Near Eastern myths and l egends, such as the Gilgamesh epic, the King of Battle s tory and the Tale of S inuhe, and in historical records glorifying military campaigns and the taking of tribute. The connection between weaponry, power, wealth and prestige i s clear. This attitude can be detected in the Mari correspondence of Shamshi-Adad where the ' soft' Y asmakh1 56

Adad i s continually castigated for idleness and s loth, in contrast to h is active, manly, militarily successful, e lder brother ( Kupper 1 973, 3 ). It i s argued that the emphasis on weaponry as an indicator of social status i s no more than the tangible expression of widely held, culturally formed notions, concerning appropriate male behaviour. The fortune of the city god was believed closely bound up with success i n warfare ( Dossin and F inet 1 978; 8 ), while offerings were generally made to deities on victory. Myths, legends and seals frequently feature gods involved in a similar set of activities to that of their earthly subjects, often bearing axes, daggers and curved swords of types familiar f rom the better equipped burials ( see Solyman 1 968, 4 7-59). We need only add that it i s but short step from the expression of ' greatness' in man by weapons, to the celebration of s imilar qualities in the deity, through the same range of items. The origin of these concepts must be sought prior to the third millennium, as examples of elaborate weaponry are known from Arslantepe i n the later fourth millennium ( Palmieri 1 981, 109, f ig. 3 -4), while daggers appear as a minority i tem in fourth millennium graves at Byblos ( Prag 1 978, 3 2, note 2 2), arguing that the existence of these concepts was an important factor in shaping the subsequent archaeological record. The e laborate r itual items from Nahal Mishmar, show that in southern Palestine metal was considered suitable for religious/ritual i tems by the earlier fourth millennium. From this, and the hoard of elaborate weapons from Arslantepe cited above, we might infer that a s imilar s ituation existed elsewhere in the Near East at this time. Rosen ( 1984, 5 04) has observed that metal does not uniformly replace other materials. The change depends very much on the context of use of the particular objects, and copper appears relatively early as a medium for the production of r itual items. One might suggest that this a rose partly f rom its rarity value, but also from its ability to form complex shapes, and its attractive colour and polish. Metal then, was considered a medium suitable f or the carrying of symbolic messages by the fourth m illennium, apparently prior to its widespread use in the production of weapons. This point seems to run counter to the views of Renfrew ( 1972, 3 20), who has argued that metal becomes i ndispensable only after i ts adoption for weapons manufacture, and that arms production is the driving force b ehind the development of metal technology. Other c riticisms can be levelled at this view. Lechtmann's ( 1984) work on Pre-Hispanic Andean society, shows that the decision to produce ( or disregard) metal weapons i s d etermined by cultural, not technical factors. I n this c ase, the sling and club remained more important than e dged-weapons, despite the widespread use of metal in the production of r itual items. The Near Eastern evidence outlined above seems to support this view, and indicates 1 57

that metal had a special ' value' before its widespread use i n military gear. The early development of sophisticated metalwork a lso argues against a sudden ' explosion' in metallurgical knowledge around the mid-third millennium ( note the recent f inds of metal weapons in E . D.I graves at Kheit Qasim in the Hamrin basin, F orest 1 981, 1 87, Pl. 4 6. 1 0-11). We might conclude rather that metal becomes i ndispensable when people feel this to be so. Notions concerning the ' appropriateness' of materials are culturally determined. 3 .1.4.

THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF WEAPONS

Accepting that weapons played an important role in the value systems of the Bronze Age Levant, as well a s serving as implements of coercion, control of the means o f production and distribution of such items represents a vital source of power. Zaccagnini ( 1983a, 257) observes that there i s l ittle textual evidence from Mesopotamia f or free or itinerant craftsmen, nor for what we would recognize as a l arge-scale ' free-market' in manufactured goods. Many specialist workmen were t ightly bound to i nstitutional organisations ( Zaccagnini 1 983a, 2 45), their movements were controlled and they could be sent to work where required. There i s evidence from Mari i ndicating that circumstances were similar there ( Sasson 1 968), and new evidence from Ebla ( Archi 1 987, 127), shows metalworkers being sent from there to undertake work a t Kish. When the textual data is combined with recent archaeological evidence from Tell Mardikh/Ebla, i ndicating that the mid-third millennium palace there played a key role i n the acquisition and storage of precious materials ( Pinnock 1 985), a strong case can be made f or the concentration of much specialist craft activity under i nstitutional control, by the later third millennium. I n a ll l ikelihood a s imilar system operated i n other large centres such as Hama, Qatna and probably Byblos. Z accagnini ( 1983a, 2 47-248) observes that there was a shortage of skilled workmen in peripheral areas during the earlier second millennium, suggesting a concentration o f specialists in the l arger centres. I t i s not yet c lear how this would affect developments in the southern Levant. This has clear implications for the production of copper and bronze items, weapons in particular. Although it i s true that our evidence i s derived largely from i nstitutional archives, and the existence of small-scale v illage smiths dealing in agricultural tools and their repair, i s l ikely, there is l ittle reason to connect these with the production of the more highly standardised weapon types. The acquisition of the raw materials, i ncluding metals, was l argely in the hands of the main organisations and their distribution within a kingdom was likely to be subject to the control of the palace bureaucracy ( see Rouault 1 977, on the role of the high official MukanniMum 1 58

i n the supervision o f metalworking at Mari, a lso Heltzer 1 982, 9 4-100 for the L . B. A.). The only period which has produced good evidence of metal hoards l ikely to be associated directly with metalworking ( see 3 .4), i s the Palestinian E . B.-M.B. period, where groups of i ngots are found, sometimes i n association with broken or worn implements. The conclusion to be drawn is surely that it i s only during this period, when the major urban centres are l argely deserted, that s ignificant evidence for independent, small-scale metalworking at dispersed locations occurs. At times when control i s exercised from the main centres, such hoards do not occur, no doubt because metal stockpiles were confined to palace storerooms, or the largely unexplored industrial areas of tell s ites ( Philip 1 988b). A c lose l ink between arms manufacture and the palaces is argued by a simple consideration of needs. Only the l arge organisations required the bulk production of metal weapons, and could support the large numbers of specialists required. There are references in texts from both Mari ( Rouault 1 977, Nos 5 , 1 0) and now Ebla ( Pettinato 1 981, 1 73, Table VII.1; Waetzoldt and Bachmann 1 984), to the production of substantial quantities of arms, generally in bronze. Among these feature orders for 3 0 axes from 4 7 minas of bronze ( c 0 .75kg each) and 1 9 axes from 4 5 minas of bronze in different s izes, implying in average weight of c l kg ( Durand 1 983a, No. 2 58, 2 60), sufficiently heavy to have served as weapons. Large quantities of weaponry were therefore made i n palace complexes. Secondly, the high standardisation among many of the types and the use of twopiece steatite moulds, which were re-usable, as well as capable of e laborate decoration, suggests centralised production of objects conforming to ' international' styles. Such organisation best explains the way i n which certain styles spread so easily throughout the Levant. To d ate, most of the known steatite moulds come from the major sites, such as Ras Shamra, Hama and Byblos, which would seem to support the view that production of such weapons was concentrated on the major settlements. However, a cautionary note should be sounded here, in that l ittle or no work has been carried out on small village s ites of this period, in the northern Levant at l east. The s ituation in the smaller Palestinian centres may be rather d ifferent from that of the large Syrian s ites to which our texts refer. While the smaller Palestinian centres may have l acked the extensive palace workshops of Syria, it i s l ikely that at l east the larger among them undertook the manufacture of weapons. There i s a mould for a Type 1 narrow-bladed axe f rom Megiddo ( Lamon and Shipton 1 939, P l. 1 05.5) a lthough f ound in a secondary context, and the concentration of Type 8 spearheads i n northern Palestine, in particular around Megiddo ( see 2 .3), may imply manufacture at, or in the v icinity of, that s ite. Similarly the appearance of poor 1 59

copies of well known types at M .B.I Tell el-' Ajjul and of a range of less well defined dagger f orms ( especially Types 3 0-32) at many Palestinian M . B.A. sites ( see below) suggests a diverse manufacturing base, rather d ifferent f rom that of Syria, or similar but on a smaller s cale. G iven that weapons were associated with ' desirable' qualities, and that their production was largely controlled by the palaces, these items would form an ideal material f or g ifting, or s imply as reward or payment for services performed. Such a process i s important in building up systems or networks of indebtedness, not of a f inancial k ind, but debts of obligation. Therefore when i nstitutions such as palaces are concerned, we may suppose that they were l ess concerned about return gifts, than with building up and maintaining a constituency of loyal, reliable supporters, especially among the rulers of the many minor communities which dotted Syria and Palestine, and whose political cooperation, military a id and kinship or marriage t ies may have been of value. The importance of ' gifts' in Mesopotamia and the Euphrates valley during the Old Babylonian period, has been outlined i n a study of the textual sources by Zaccagnini ( 1983b). He observes a clear connection between gift g iving and prestige ( p 1 99) and the importance of the perceived return or ' gain' ( p. 2 10). The latter need not be a material gift as such, but could take the form of support or favour. Although we lack texts dealing specifically w ith metal weapons i n this context, Zaccagnini stresses the w idespread use of a gift metaphor in the l anguage of inter-personal, and political relationships, a s ituation which a rgues for an important role for transactions o f this sort ( p251-2). Of course we l ack such textual information for the Levant, but the s ituation described by Z accagnini would seem equally applicable there. Exchange systems are concerned with more than the acquisition of particular objects however. The networks thus established play important roles i n communication, i n the f ormation and maintenance of alliances and may a id the smooth c irculation of more mundane trade items. We should note the close connections between trade, warfare and d iplomacy seen in the Mari texts ( Munn Rankin 1956; Kupper 1 973, 1 6-19). From such groups, l eaders, especially i n h ighly competitive situations, build up bands o f supporters. The classic fenestrated and narrow-bladed axe forms, and the various kinds of decorated daggers, comprise an i deal body of material to have participated i n such networks. They are exclusive and physically attractive, easily recognisable, valuable but not too costly, and s ignify desirable male, warrior qualities. Such an explanation would also account for the development o f widespread ' standard' forms throughout the Levant. As Shennan ( 1986, 1 35) has observed, widespread stylistic s imilarity among particular items, cutting across s everal 1 60

different ceramic, or even political regions, should be associated with the message-carrying properties of these objects. Items communicating information concerning one's standing and reputation, especially during a period marked by l ong distance economic and political relationships, long clear for the M .B. A. and now seen to apply, i n Syria at l east, to the third millennium, ( see 3 .4) are l ikely to take f orms that are distinctive and widely recognised. Such weapons not only place one in ' debt', otherwise there would be l ittle point in receiving them. Possession and display of these items s ignifies one's own enviable, position in society, and the recognition of that position by others, hence the clear depiction of such items on reliefs, seals etc. These weapons show that one i s i nvolved in networks which are c losed to many, marking one as a person of account. I f accumulated, they may i n fact provide the opportunity to make s imilar gifts to others, thereby placing them in debt to yourself. However, i n such a s ystem there i s a contradiction between the need to produce material for exchange, and the requirement to maintain ' value' by restricting supply. There are several ways of dealing with this problem, at a non-discusive level ( they are only clear when the patterns of s everal centuries are viewed with the benefit of h indsight). One i s removal from circulation, for example through i nterment with the dead, or regular offerings to the gods, both common in the M .B. A. Levant. Another i s to have fairly frequent changes i n the currently ' correct' form, i .e. stylistic transformation. This too i s seen, e specially during the M . B. A., and forms an interesting contrast to E .B. A. weapon types, which seem to remain in c irculation, unchanged, for longer periods ( see 3 .2.3). A third option i s to change completely the nature of the material circulating through exchange-elite networks. We may see s igns of this too with the greater emphasis on a lternate prestige material such as faience, a labaster, cypriot pottery and so on that become more frequent in mortuary contexts as the M . B. A. progresses.

1 61

3 .2. 3 .2.1.

WEAPONS

IN THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

TYPES OF CONTEXT

Grave

Contexts

The l argest s ingle group of weapons i s those from graves. However, there are many problems pertaining to the use of tomb material; l ater disturbance, the practice o f multiple successive interment resulting in mixing of material, the l ack of good skeletal data, and often inadequate r ecording and publication. Analysis of the grave record has often been considered as a way i n which we may i nvestigate the nature of particular societies. Early attempts to ' read off' social s tructure from burials ( Binford 1 972b and work reviewed i n Chapman 1 977) have been much criticised. The connection between grave evidence and social structure i s more complex than was originally believed. Recent work ( Parker Pearson 1 982) has emphasised the way i n which mortuary practices can be used both to legitimate or conceal relations of power and dominance ( i.e. an egalitarian burial r ite does not necessarily imply a non-stratified society), while Bloch ( 1977) has shown that the categorization of the dead, even where some categories can be distinguished, i s not necessarily the same as that applied to the l iving. Therefore, we should avoid basing our interpretations of social structure on the evidence of graves alone. Other i nformation must also be considered. Archaeologists working i n the Bronze Ages of the Near East are f ortunate i n that additional data i s available, from archaeology, art and textual sources ( see above) which can help us i n this respect. On that basis therefore, I would argue that we are dealing with ranked societies i n which conspicuous consumption played an important role, with metal providing a major ' consumable' ( see Stech and P iggott 1 986, 4 1). Weapons and Consumption Parker Pearson ( 1984, 6 4) observes that in certain cases the occasion of burial can be used by social groups i n order to gain prestige and reputation by conspicuous consumption, a lmost akin to ' sacrifice' of the material. Such a procedure has a greater impact i f the material concerned i s ' valuable', or in l imited supply, perhaps only available through participation i n certain n etworks. Burial with weapons might therefore represent competition between l iving groups, as much as the marking out of particular individuals. There are cases when the objects i n a burial clearly represent more than one set of personal equipment. The young male occupant o f Jericho Tomb J3 had three axe-dagger sets ( Kenyon 1 960, 3 13), suggesting conspicuous consumption or display as a motive. It i s possible that these may represent the weapons of f allen enemies, as there i s a reference to S inuhe's despoiling his defeated opponent ( Pritchard 1 955, 2 0), but the c lose 1 62

s imilarity between the two of the three axes which I have handled, suggests that they may have been produced as a group. Similarly, a ll of the metalwork from Tomb D .22, was believed by Kenyon ( 1965, 2 84ff) to be associated with the f inal burial. A number of tombs showing the popular axe-dagger combination ( see 3 .2.2.) have also produced elaborate metal belts with a distinctive spring-clip fastening, probably originally consisting of a metal sheet sewn onto a leather backing. Warrior burials equipped with belts occur at Jericho ( Kenyon 1 960, 3 13), Tell Far'ah ( N) ( de Vaux 1 947, 4 32) and in several tombs from Tell el-Dab'a ( e. g. A/II m/15 Gr.9, Bietak 1 981, f ig.4; F/I d/23 Gr.1, Bietak 1 985a, Abb.12 and from A/II 1/16 Gr.4 unpublished). ( The present writer is preparing this material for publication). All are of l ate M .B.I-early M . B.II date. The spatial distribution of such belts i s wide. An example i s a lso known from Cyprus, where it occurred in association with a narrow-bladed axe of the local Cypriot variety ( Overbeck and Swiny 1 972, 8 , f igs 5 -8). Another, in silver, comes f rom Kültepe in a l evel Ib context ( Emre 1 971, Pl. XVIa-c). Metal fragments l ikely to be from s imilar belts come from a M .B.I grave at Tell et-Tin ( Gautier 1 895, 4 59). These are o f s heet metal, with concentric c ircle decoration which the excavator believed were from shield converings. Others are f rom the Döpöts at Byblos ( Dunand 1 954, Nos. 8 354-8358, 1 89-90, P l. LVII), circular discs with s imilar decoration, p ierced for attachment to a cloth or leather backing. The presence of these belts in M .B.I contexts, where they are in association with fenestrated axes, further s trengthens the argument for a structural unity beneath the obvious typological changes, and emphasises the derivation o f the warrior equipment of the Delta-southern Palestine f rom earlier generally Levantine traditions. The d istribution of s imilar belts over a wide area, emphasises the long range contacts between e lites in otherwise quite d ifferent regions, and suggests that we see, in the ' warrior' burial, a widely held concept, often expressed in terms of a local weapon set, to which the belts are an a ccessory. 3 .2.2.

WEAPON SETS:

REGIONAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES

A lthough the tradition of placing weapons in the graves of the dead was widespread in the ancient Near East, there are marked regional and chronological differences in the material employed. Not only do the actual types within one f orm o f weapon change. Completely different kinds of weapon can be employed in this role. I f we accept that the i tems chosen i n any society have a symbolic importance, then areas of common/different weapon sets should represent areas with shared/separate systems of representation, at l east a s regards male status. We must a lso consider changes i n the system within any one area through time. This process s hould provide i nsights into the relative 1 63

importance of local historical context, events/agencies, on the shaping of systems within that community.

and o f

external e liteness

The Early Bronze Age The initial emphasis on weapons as suitable burial goods dates at least to the fourth m illennium. Twenty-four daggers appear in graves of the tneolithique recent period at Byblos ( Prag 1 978, 3 7). In Palestine daggers occur occasionally in tombs throughout the E . B. A. The only real change in this pattern is the appearance of crescentic axes i n two graves of the E . B.III period. These axes and daggers do not appear in the same tombs, suggesting that we do not yet see the development of d istinctive weapon sets. We have no strong evidence for ' warrior' burials i n E . B.A. Palestine. Rather, we see a s ituation in which the occasional grave contains a weapon, but these are few in relation to the large number of burials in most E . B. A. tombs. The axe remains a minority i tem at this point. The most common E .B. A. item is a dagger, a pattern continued i n the E . B.-M. B. period. I n Syria, the situation is rather different and weapons occur far more frequently than in contemporary Palestinian graves. Too few closed groups exist for us to e stablish definite sets of items, but it is c lear that spears appear regularly in Syrian graves. All are of tanged varieties, and occur singly or in pairs, with or without daggers. Many of these spears are quite large weapons, as are M . B. A. Syrian forms such as tanged Type 2 and socketted Types 1 -5. A wide range of different spear forms were acceptable as grave offerings, including ' foreign' types such as Anatolian slotted forms ( Type 1 5 here), and spear and axe types with good Mesopotamian parallels ( Types 3 and 2 respectively), none of which appear in any number in Palestine. Syrian practices ( at l east those of urbanised northern and western areas) are quite close to those of contemporary Mesopotamia, a point which should be related to the socioeconomic structures of the different regions. By the second half of the third millennium, large bodies of weapons, including imports ( see 2 .1), appear in tombs i n the Euphrates Valley, such as the Hypogeum at Til Barsip ( Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1 936, 106-7, Pl. XXVIII-XXXI), suggesting that weapons were already conceived of as ' valuables' which could be ' gifted' or ' consumed' in a burial context, to gain prestige, a practice rare in contemporary Palestine, although evident in the rich E . D.III graves at Ur. The rapid urbanisation o f Syria during the third millennium had a major effect on the social and economic structure of the r egion, the effects of which can be seen in the differences between Syrian and Palestinian burial Large

spearheads,

practices of

the

at this

types 1 64

found

t ime. at

many

Syrian

s ites,

do not appear i n Palestinian graves, despite their frequency in the north. One possible reason for this might be their association, in both a symbolic and a practical sense, with disciplined infantry actions ( see Yadin 1 963, Watkins 1983b). The implication i s the appearance of organised military forces using ' standardised' centrally issued weapons. I t i s clear that by the M . B. A., Syrian cities had such f orces, and they were probably a lso employed by the major third millennium centres such as Ebla and Mari. Certainly any attack on a well fortified s ite would require careful planning and organisation. The s ituation in the l ess developed, smaller centres, of the southern

Levant was probably

rather

different.

Axes too appear, but in contrast to the pattern in Mesopotamia, and the local M . B. A., these do not form a large part of most grave groups, which are dominated by daggers and spearheads, as the evidence from Carchemish, ( Woolley and Barnett 1 952) the Sajur Valley s ites ( Woolley 1 914) and more recent work at Halawa ( Orthmann 1 981a) and Tawi ( Kampschulte and Orthmann 1 984) indicates. The ' Hypogeum' at Til Barsip, where axes are frequent, and where the weapons substantially outnumber the two occupants ( see Thureau Dangin 1 936) i s l ikely to represent a rather special deposit, and may take the form of an incident of conspicuous display, as seen in certain tombs of the Royal Cemetery at Ur. The other interesting point which we see here, apart from the increasing use of metal weapons as grave items, i s the regular appearance of small, rather poorly f inished daggers ( Types 2 7 and 3 6) in tombs. These are l ikely to represent personal items, rather than the weapons of war, and have possible counterparts in Mesopotamia, for example small daggers from Abu Salabikh ( Martin 1 985, 1 3), and Ur Types 4 , 5 and 7 ( Woolley 1 934, 3 04). More impressive daggers, probably resembling the h igher quality p ieces from the Royal Cemetery, are known f rom the Ebla texts ( Archi and Biqa 1 982, 3 82, Archi 1 985a, 2 83), and a l arge, tanged weapon is reported from the Hypogeum at Til Barsip ( Thureau-Dangin and Dunand 1 936, 1 05, Pl. XXVIII.4). However, as in Mesopotamia, we get the i mpression that the best daggers, the most prestigious f orms, appear i n palace or temple treasuries, or in the graves of very important persons. It is probably here that we should seek the origin of the ' styled' daggers which are s uch a f eature o f the M . B.I period. Weapons

in the E .B.-M. B.

period

The basic element of the weapon repertoire i s the narrow dagger. Although often ascribed to this period, the form has a l ong history in Palestine, and its survival into the E .B.-M. B. period must be seen as an element of continuity w ith the true E .B. A., supporting the more abundant ceramic l inks described by Richard ( 1980, 1 2-20). The other major component of the metalwork record i s the hooked-tang spearhead. These are generally quite small in comparison to many tanged spears from Syria and Mesopotamia, and are 1 65

l ikely to represent throwing weapons. These spearheads have been used, with the daggers, to argue for the appearance of new peoples at this time ( Dever 1 970, 1 38, Kenyon 1 971, 5 68). However, the Syrian equivalent, ( Type 9 i n particular, see 2 .2) appears there early i n the third millennium. The clear local E . B.A. ancestry of the daggers ( see 2 .1), separates them from the hooked-tang spearheads, which are first detected in Palestine in the E . B.-M.B. period. The two weapon forms must be therefore be treated separately. Their appearance together in E . B.-M.B. graves, results from changes in burial practices, rather than in metal styles. The most common funerary weapon i s the narrow dagger, sometimes accompanied by a single spearhead. However the l atter weapon occasionally occurs in tombs, without daggers; at Tiberias ( Tzaferis 1 968), Ma'abarot T .12 ( Dar 1 977, 6 6) and at Tell e l-'Ajjul T . 2 75 ( Kenyon 1 956, Tomb Register). The s ignificance of this i s not clear. As i n coastal Syria, the axe does not seem to feature strongly i n the grave repertoire. The reason may be that the shafthole axes in production in contemporary Syria, which were made from complex moulds, were beyond the capabilities of the local metal i ndustry. Certainly the demand f or Syrianstyle f enestrated axes in the l ater E .B.-M.B. period, suggests that there was no objection to the use o f axes as funerary items. In summary then the predominant grave weapon was the dagger, an element of continuity w ith the E . B. A. Accepting that the daggers are of local ancestry, we are still l eft with the problem of the i ntroduction o f hookedtang spearheads to the Palestinian repertoire. The weapons from Kfar Monash ( Type 1 4) are too d ifferent typologically, and too far separated chronologically, to be viewed as prototypes ( see 2 .1). Better parallels can be f ound i n E .B. A. Syria, where several types of square-section spearhead occur, often in contexts predating the appearance of such weapons i n the southern Levant. However, weapons rarely appear in Palestinian graves of the E . B. A. ( see above), and it i s possible that such spears were i n use there contemporary with their appearance in Syria, but only become archaeologically visible during the E .B.-M. B. period. This possibility should a lert us to the dangers inherent i n comparing periods when particular parts the artefactual record are rich, with those when it i s much poorer. The pattern

of

weapon

f inds

E . B.-M. B. metalwork falls into two main regional groups. This can be clearly demonstrated for both narrow daggers ( see 2 .4) and tanged spearheads ( 2.2). There i s a d istinct, possibly l ate, southern industry producing Type 6 spearheads and Type 4 daggers, while Type 3 daggers and Type 4 spearheads show a northern distribution. A s imilar pattern i s shown by tanged projectiles which occur at a 1 66

number of northern s ites ( Dever 1 980, 4 6, Eisenberg 1 985, 7 1, f ig.9: 4 9-51), and extend i nto Syria at least as far as the Golan ( Epstein 1 985, 4 4). Only one example i s known f rom central or southern Palestine, from a tomb at ' Ain esSamiyeh ( Shantur and Labadi 1 971, f ig. 4 .21), which a lso contained an unusual s ilver cup, probably an import ( Yeivin 1 971). Type 2 6 daggers are also confined to northern P alestine. These resemble the small Type 2 7 daggers of E .B. A. Syria, and may, l ike them, be considered as ' pocketknives', rather than true daggers in the sense of the l arger narrow dagger series. However, the fact that these types occur, a longside narrow daggers and hooked-tang weapons should not be ignored. A strong e lement of c ontinuity i s clearly present. The north-south d ivision seen in the local material i s r einforced by the pattern of imported metalwork types. The h eavy r ivetted spearheads so common at Byblos, are concentrated in northern Palestine, as are fenestrated axes ( 2.2; 2 .1). Both are conspicuously absent from the l arge s outhern cemeteries at Tell e l-'Ajjul, Lachish and Jebel Qa ' aqir. A fenestrated axe from Jericho came from a j ar d eposit on the tell ( Sellin and Watzinger 1 913, 1 16-119, Abb. 1 04-5), which should imply a date late in the period ( Kenyon 1 971, 5 78), as does the occurrence of an example built i nto the reconstructed walls of Temple 4 040 at Megiddo ( Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1 974, 1 74). A date in the later E . B.-M.B. period agrees with the Syrian evidence, a s none o f the securely dated examples can be placed much b efore the beginning of Syrian M . B.I. Socketted spears have occasionally been reported from E . B.-M. B. contexts. One i s published from the Golan in south Syria, ( Epstein 1 975 P 1.4.1) but i s not from a secure context. A Type 1 0 spearhead ( early type with rolled-up socket) comes from Megiddo T1101B ( Guy 1 938, P l. 8 6.3). Two l ong-socketted spearheads from Megiddo T 8 4C ( Guy 1 938, P l. 1 63.8) are sometimes dated to the E .B.-M.B. p eriod ( Tubb 1 985a, note 2 ). These come from a multichambered shaft tomb ( Guy 1 938, 1 36, Pl. 1 63. 8 ,9.), and were f ound in association with a Type 2 fenestrated axe. The spears were ascribed to M . B.II or L .B.I by Guy, but belong to our Type 5 . No pottery is recorded from the Megiddo tomb, and the association of the Type 5 ( or 2 ) spears with the Type 2 fenestrated axe i s reminiscent of groups from Hama ( Fugmann 1 958, Pl. X) and Ras Shamra ( Schaeffer 1 978, 4 75-6, f ig. 9 .1-2) which date to the Syrian M . B.I period. The f enestrated axe alone cannot be used to assign this group to the E . B.-M. B. period, as explained above. The Meggido tomb should be contemporary with the early M .B.I period in Syria. The importance of this group i s that with the types discussed above, it stresses the continuing contact between northern Palestine and Syria through the E .B.-M. B. period, into M .B.I. The most l ikely explanation for the presence of new metal types in northern P alestine i s that geographical proximity resulted in more frequent contacts with the Syrian urban 1 67

centres, and hence a material in circulation southerly communities. north-south fall-off i n 3 .3).

greater demand for the kind of there, than was the case for more This i s supported by the marked the occurrence of tin bronze ( see

Although typological change and development can be observed within the period, it is built on the e laboration of a l imited range of well established forms. Therefore, a dagger form ( Type 2 ) that had remained essentially constant s ince the E . B.I period, underwent a range of revisions and adaptations in the last few centuries of i ts l ife, in the course of which a range of Transform Types was created. This i nvolved changes in overall s ize and proportion, the adoption of the incised-line motif or a higher midrib, l onger hilt plates with more rivets, and general e laboration of weapon shape. A s imilar pattern can be seen i n the tanged spearheads. Only Type 5 has a close Syrian equivalent, Type 9 . The typological variants 4 , 6 and 1 3 are a ll essentially Palestinian. Besides the i ncreasing use of weapons as grave items in the E . B.-M. B. period, as compared to the E . B. A., we see the elaboration o f their forms. This seems odd, as the period is not generally seen a s one of innovation and development ( Richard 1980, l lff). The adoption of northern traits such as tanged spearheads, the appearance of tin-bronze and of ceramic and tomb types imitating those of Syria ( on the latter see Oren 1 973a, 2 33 0), are all contemporary with the greater diversity of dagger forms. These changes are bound up with the nature of the E . B.-M. B. period in Palestine, its relationship with the preceding local E . B. A., and with contemporary developments in central Syria, in particular the expansion of urbanism seen at Tell Mardikh I IB and Hama period J , i .e. around the mid-third millennium ( see 3 .4). The Middle Bronze Age M . B. I Oren ( 1971, 1 31) would see the axe-dagger-spear combination a s the " standard arsenal of a warrior in the M .B.I period", and correctly observes the difference between this ' set' and that of the Palestinian E . B.-M.B. period. However a detailed consideration of the pattern of association reveals that the picture i s more complex. There are regional differences in the weapon sets occurring i n graves of the M . B.I period. In the cemetery at Baghouz near Mari ( du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948) the spear is by far the most common metal item, occurring in 2 4 cases, o ften a s the sole weapon. Fenestrated axes are l ess frequent, and are generally accompanied by a spear, while daggers are relatively rare. ' Styled' daggers of Levantine types do not occur. Clearly the axe-dagger-spear rule does not hold at Baghouz. A s imilar picture emerges at several i nland Syrian s ites. Burials at Hama ( Fugmann 1 958, P l. X), Tell Mardikh and Tell et-Tin ( material partly unpublished) have 1 68

produced more fenestrated axes and spearheads than daggers. It s eems therefore that the main components of Syrian warrior burials were spears and fenestrated axes. Daggers, often in decorated forms, occur in various tombs on the Syrian coast. Fenestrated axes are also common here, at s ites such as Amrit, Byblos and Ras Shamra a lthough individual grave groups can rarely be i solated. Examples of the c lassic axe-dagger-small spear set are known from northern Palestine ( Tell Rehov, Beth Shan T .92), from the Lebanon ( Sin el-Fil), and from Tell el-Dab'a in the N ile Delta ( unpublished), while a group from Megiddo T 8 4C, with Type 2 f enestrated axe and long spearhead ( Type 5 ) resembles those from Syria. South Levantine tombs have produced more daggers than any other sort of weapon, sufficient to suggest that a s ingle dagger was considered an adequate offering in many cases. The rarity of f enestrated axes i n Palestine should be noted, especially i n the south. One might suggest that the preference for daggers i n the s outh Levant as opposed to the north, relates to the marked popularity of the dagger as a status weapon within the local E . B.-M. B. period. We see here a new mode of expression, adopted in such a way as to be compatible with e stablished local traditions, a preference f or daggers. I n contrast, third millennium s ites in Syria, such as Til Barsip and Hammam have produced a relatively l arger number of axes and tanged spearheads in proportion to daggers, especially i f we disregard the large number of small ' pocket knives' found in Syria ( generally of Types 2 7 a nd 3 6). Towards the end of the M .B.I period we see the f requent pairing of the Type 1 ( notched) narrow-bladed axe w ith the Type 1 3 ( ribbed) dagger, replacing the fenestrated axe-Type 1 2 dagger set ( see 3 .2.3). M . B.II The M . B.II period sees the virtual disappearance of the small spearhead ( i.e. throwing spear) from the tomb r epertoire ( see 2 .3). Perhaps this reflects the wider availability of the composite bow, a more effective weapon f or many purposes. However, the axe-dagger pair continues i n use i n the south a lthough the actual types change, and c learly identifiable warrior burials are reported from Jericho, Tell e l-Dab'a, Tell el-Far'ah ( N) and Tell el' Ajjul. Many more are probably contained within the mixed deposits of tombs used for multiple successive interments. As before there are few from any one s ite, emphasising that we are dealing with a very restricted segment of the population. However, it i s important to note that a number of these tombs produced daggers lacking ' styled' blades. Daggers of other forms, in particular Types 3 0-32 are often used i n place of the more clearly defined stylistic types such as 1 3 and 1 7. The former are s impler forms, were probably easier to make ( not requiring special moulds), and may be l ocal substitutes for the ideal forms, which may not a lways have been available. The s imilarity i s at times emphasised by the addition of a globular l imestone pommel, 1 69

a form particularly associated with classic Type 1 3 and 1 7 daggers, to these weapons. This process, substitution, may represent an expression of Miller's ( 1985, 202) notion of ' fuzzy' categories, classes with f lexible boundaries, their membership in part defined by the context within which the object was used. In this case we see objects made to resemble the c lassic types, and occurring i n similar contexts, which were perhaps considered ' the same' for most purposes. At Ras Shamra a different s ituation prevails. Not only are l arge spears common, but the tombs there contain a large number of small daggers, in relation to a l imited number of axes. None of these l ittle daggers can be singled out as ' different', and therefore l ikely to be paired with an axe. The narrow-bladed axes of the local Type 4 , are c loser to those of northern Mesopotamia and Cyprus than are the south Levantine forms, while the Type 3 3 daggers are very s imilar to the so-called ' knives' produced on Cyprus at this time, and may be imports. It seems that after the relatively homogeneous coastal styles of the M .B.I period, we see a greater differentiation between the weapon sets of the northern and southern Levant during M .B.II. Unfortunately we have l ittle i nformation on the material of contemporary i nland Syria. I n Palestine, axes rarely occur i n contexts without a dagger that is e ither clearly or potentially associated. However, daggers often occur without axes. We might believe therefore that the l atter represented the more exclusive items. Perhaps this was due to axes' need for more carefully cut moulds, rendering the production of acceptable ' substitutes' more difficult. In summary then, the axe-dagger combination certainly existed as part of the repertoire, but i s by no means ' standard'. A wide r ange of d ifferent combinations was in use, and there are important regional differences, perhaps partly determined by local cultural factors. However, it seems fair to suggest that on the coast, and perhaps in western Syria, the axe was the c lassic ' prestige' weapon, followed perhaps by certain types of dagger, with the spear and bow occupying a less exalted position. Knives

and Swords

In addition to the material described above, repertoire of the M . B. A. also includes a range and curved-swords.

the grave of knives

Curved-Swords Recent work has underlined the importance of the symbolic value of certain artefacts. We must a lso look out for patterns of equivalence and substitution. Attempts to assess the status of the dead must consider the various grave goods i n their social context ( Pader 1 982, 3 4-35; Hodder 1 986, 1 24ff). An example of the former can be seen 1 70

in the fact that the curved swords in the Byblos Royal Tombs are clearly marks of very high status, regardless of the f act that they are not made in precious metals. Support for this v iew comes from the fact that these weapons are found at Byblos only in the Royal Tombs, where the ubiquitous fenestrated axe does not occur. These tombs are probably the graves of the rulers of Byblos, rather than those of the elite generally, as is the case with burials featuring weapons such as decorated daggers and fenestrated axes. There is a c lear connection between kingship and these curved swords, at least in 1 8th century B .C. Byblos, in contrast to a more widespread holding of other ' prestige' weapon types. We should a lso note that these swords are absent from the ' 1 D pöts des Offrandes' despite the large number of other weapons reported from this context, surely no accident. Perhaps such a sword represented a symbol of kingship which should not be ' given away' but interred with the dead ruler. The association between curved swords and high status i s clearly i llustrated by a study of glyptic art. Old Syrian seals regularly show important f igures, generally rulers or gods holding these weapons ( Tessier 1 984, 7 6), see for example the seals of Mukannishum ( Amiet 1 960, 2 30 f ig.12), and AnaS in ( Porada 1 980, f ig.1.14) both high officials under Z imri-Lim of Mari ( see 2 .5. for farther discussion). Curved-Bladed Knives Only a minority of interments occur with these objects, suggesting that these knives formed part of the required f unerary ' package' for certain people, or in particular s ituations. The blades of these knives suggest that they were designed f or cutting, probably butchery. Several examples, from Dhahrat el-Humraiya and Tell el-Yahudiyeh were associated with animal bones, while a knife o f this f orm ( Reg. No. 6 144, not in catalogue) was recently d iscovered in a M .B.I tomb ( F/I m/18 Grave 3 ) at Tell elDab'a, l ying beneath the head of a s laughtered sheep. This suggests that they were connected with the meat offerings f ound i n many M . B. A. tombs. Others were found in a position by the waist as to suggest that they were worn at a belt, as a personal item, at l east on burial. The highly curved blades and elongated tips of certain examples, must be a deliberate exaggeration of the basic form. The i mplication i s that visual appearance was important, and that it was acceptable to embellish, but not to replace the basic shape. As with weapons, the essential form of these objects seems to have been accepted and understood as ' correct' over a considerable area during the later M .B. A. London's ( 1987, 7 2) tentative suggestion that sheep/goat o fferings tend to be associated with graves containing o lder i ndividuals in the E . B.-M.B. cemeteries at Jebel Qa'aqir and Jericho, might suggest a connection between meat o fferings and ' seniority' that can be seen to continue i nto the M . B.A. Support for this notion comes from the 1 71

presence of elaborately decorated knives, bearing gold or s ilver wrappings on the handle, in the Royal Tombs at Byblos ( see Catalogue). There i s a reference to " couteaux ä ' c jorger", apparently decorated with gold or s ilver, i n a recently published text from Mari ( Talon 1 985, 2 21), which may well refer to knives of this or similar form. Such decoration would be unnecessary for butchery or cutting meat in everyday circumstances, arguing strongly for a ceremonial role for these items. We might infer then, that the shape of the Palestinian examples owed as much to social as to functional factors. These knives appear in only a minority of tombs, suggesting that a degree of exclusivity i s involved. However it should be observed that they are not restricted to tombs containing warrior gear. In fact some examples of the l atter do not contain such knives ( e.g. Jericho Tomb J3, e l G ib Tomb 3 1-31A). None come from tombs which have produced decorated daggers of Type 1 2, probably for chronological reasons. Few occur in burials containing narrow-bladed axes, at least in relation to the total number of such axes ( only 1 0 of the total over 5 0 axes of Types 1 -3 come from graves containing knives). A knife from Dhrahat el-Humraiya Gr. 4 4 i s apparently from the grave of a woman ( Ory 1 947, 8 5), suggesting that these were not the preserve of men, as was the case with daggers and battleaxes. Although the sex of the burials at the former site was established on the basis of grave goods, rather than on anthropological grounds, more recent work on the human remains from Tell e l-Dab'a ( Winkler pers. comm.) i ndicates that curved knives occur there in both male and f emale graves, in contrast to daggers and axes which are c learly restricted to male burials. A number come from ( unpublished) tombs at Tell e l-Dab'a which have produced no weapons, and a s imilar situation can be seen at Pella T .62 and Tombs 2 140 and 3 090 at Megiddo. The implication i s that these knives are associated with high status ( warranting a meat-offering say) but not necessarily with ' male/warrior' qualities. A recently excavated example f rom Tell el-Dab'a ( not in catalogue) has a blade which i s curled right round at the end, in a manner that might be described as ' baroque'. The association of this i tem with a Type 1 3 ribbed dagger with elaborately curved r ibs and traces of a gold handle, provides a l ink between ' warrior' burials, and those of the very powerful, such as the Byblos Royal Tombs or the burials in Area Q at Tell Mardikh ( Matthiae 1 980a), confirming that the bulk of our material represents the ' lower' end of a continuum of e laborate grave goods, and that the knives form one element of this complex. The persistence of a knife variant i nto the L .B. A. ( see 2 .5), in contrast to the virtual cessation of warrior burials at the end of the M .B. A., reinforces the notion that curved-bladed knives had a meaning which was both different from and independent of that of genuine dagger types.

1 72

Daggers

and Knives

We have stated earlier ( 2.4) that the long tanged daggers of Type 1 0 are the most common dagger type in Palestinian M . B.II contexts. However there are only 6 cases where these occur in contexts producing curved knives, ( despite the existence of around s ixty examples of each form), and these are e ither from mixed deposits or tombs with a number of i nterments. I n particular Type 1 0 daggers do not occur at Tell e l-Dab'a, where curved knives are common. As both items are ubiquitous this seems rather unusual, unless there is a specific reason for the rarity of their cooccurrence. Type 1 0 daggers frequently have round points and show traces of marked longitudinal sharpening, suggesting frequent use as cutting implements thus implying that these two types may have been considered as ' alternatives'. The apparent absence of both types at Ras Shamra might be attributable to the fact that an equivalent function was performed by the small daggers of Type 3 3 which have been described earlier as ' pocket knives'. It i s also worth noting that while many daggers, especially those found in association with battleaxes, bear l imestone pommels, there are only two recorded instances of this in the case of daggers of Type 1 0. These are both from Jericho ( 911 and 9 14). The f irst comes from Garstang's Tomb 9 , which contained daggers of Type 1 7, to which the pommels may really belong. The second, from Tomb M11, seems to represent a genuine association. This is however, sufficiently rare as to warrant comment, and may support a view which would exclude these from the main class of prestige daggers. Type 1 0 daggers rarely feature in axedagger sets, one instance only, Tomb 6 from Tel Aviv Harbour ( Kaplan 1 955), providing additional evidence for the recognition of Type 1 0 daggers as something different. Maceheads

and metal

weapons

One of the most striking features of the repertoire of small f inds from the Chalcolithic and E . B. periods in the Levant, i s the large number of maceheads reported. These occur i n ground-stone, copper, and ivory ( Hennessey 1 967, 4 3, 8 2, Hanbury-Tenison 1 986, 1 64), materials which are e ither rare or at least require the investment of time and energy in production. Stone examples are often made of non-local materials such as basalt or haematite, suggesting as does their appearance in the Nahal Mishmar hoard ( Bar Adon 1 980, 1 16-131) and the wealthy E . B. A. tomb from Kinneret ( Mazar et al 1 973, Pl. 2 4.6), that they were valued i tems. Three are reported from the late Chalcolithic cemetery at Byblos ( Prag 1 978, 3 7), one of which has a handle decorated with s ilver wrappings. Another, from a brick-built tomb at Korucutepe ( van Loon 1 978, 6 0 Pl. 1 10.2), found in association with a dagger, a lso shows s ilver decoration. These items resemble weapons i n several respects; the energy i nvolved in manufacture, 1 73

the contexts in which they occur, and the use of precious metal decoration. Maces too represent valued items. They are rare in third millennium graves, and even more so in M .B. A. contexts. A metal example, probably dating to the earlier E .B. A. i s reported from Carchemish Cist Grave 1 3 ( Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22 P l. 6 1a), and examples in gold, s ilver and other metals f eature in the Mari texts ( Rouault 1 977, 1 65; Kupper 1 983, No. 2 25; Durand 1 983a, No. 2 31) a lthough these do not appear in the archaeological record. Despite their replacement by edged-weapons in a practical role, they seem to have retained some sort of symbolic function. The suggestion made here is that the crescentic and later fenestrated axe, superseded the macehead in the role of male ' status-object', hence the heavy emphasis on the decoration of axe handles. It i s of note that both axe and mace are s imilar i n s ize, and are wielded and carried in the same way, therefore having a c lear visual resemblance. Here we may have an important f actor relating to the apparent stress on the axe as a suitable prestige weapon ( as opposed to the spear say). An e lement of long-standing cultural preference may be involved. With axes too an e lement of continuity can be seen in shape. The common use of curved handles in both crescentic ( Tubb 1 982, 1 ) and fenestrated axes ( Newberry 1 893, Pl. XXXI; du Buisson 1 948, Pl. XLV), has been explained as giving better reach. There i s however no evidence for curved handles on either shaft-hole or narrow-bladed axes, which would a lso have benefited from such reach. In the case of crescentic axes, curved handles may have permitted a more secure f itting, especially i n the case of Type 1 examples, where the ends of the blades would have been set into the curve of the handle. However, there i s no real advantage i n doing so in the case of fenestrated axes, where the blade i s cast and mounted via a socket. One might infer then, that as was the case with the fenestrations themselves, the use of a curved handle was a deliberate stylistic device, emphasising the relationship to the earlier crescentic axe. The development of the fenestrated axe, an inherently unlikely shape for a weapon, i s best explained by the adaptation of an existing culturally-defined shape, to suit a new manufacturing method which enabled the casting-in of a hollow socket. Such a practice f its well with notions of these axes as having a particularly valued shape, and would go some way to explaining the lack of interest i n Type 2 shaft-hole axes i n western Syria and Palestine. 3 .2.3.

MECHANISMS OF TYPOLOGICAL CHANGE

I ntroduction There are Technical

many possible f actors, such

reasons why types might as the replacement of 1 74

change. tanged

spearheads by the s ocketted variety are c learly important, but there are many changes which cannot be understood w ithin such a ' functional' framework. The inadequacy of traditional explanations of typological change has been discussed e lsewhere ( see 1 .1). I t now remains to offer an a lternative view. Even when types h ave good external parallels, we must consider a whole range of f actors pertinent to their transmission and a doption e lsewhere. The uptake of new types or styles cannot be considered i n i solation from the contexts i n which they are both offered and accepted ( Renfrew 1 978, Davis 1 983, 5 8). A survey of the material reveals that our c orpus derives l argely f rom the graves of a r estricted section of society, and we are dealing by and l arge with status goods, whose designs will reflect s tylistic and symbolic factors a s much a s those concerned w ith mechanical e fficiency. D ifferent aspects of material culture e .g. pottery, metalwork, l ithics, change at d ifferent rates, even when we a re dealing with a period of apparent ' cultural homogeneity'. B inford's ( 1972c) arguments against attempts t o identify ' normative' cultural groups have considerable value, i n that he stresses the need to consider variation e xplicitly, rather than to define homogeneous a rchaeological cultures which may mask important f actors. I n our case we must contrast the steady development i n c eramics throughout the Palestinian M .B. A., with the sharp changes i n the morphology of metal weapons. The spatial patterning o f metal styles d iffers from the contemporary c eramic areas. C learly the processes responsible f or d evelopments i n metalwork d iffer f rom those pertinent to c eramic change. This i s i n i tself a worthwhile point, a s i t may i ndicate that more emphasis was p laced on the i mportance of metalwork styles, than on ceramic f orms. Steatite moulds

and relief

decoration

We have a lready a lluded ( see 2 .4.1) to a possible connection between the development o f steatite moulds and the appearance of e laborate relief decoration on certain M .B.I dagger types. However, such decoration a lso occurs at the same t ime on other weapon f orms; Type 2 tanged spearheads, f enestrated and narrow-bladed axes. Steatite moulds, by permitting a new emphasis on relief decoration, enabled the production of f orms which were hard to copy, and so contributed to the maintenance of exclusivity. This form of decoration does not endure beyond the end o f the M . B.I period, except i n the case o f axes, which may represent the most prestigious form of weapon. I t i s i nteresting then that the range o f narrow-bladed axes remains quite l imited throughout the M .B. A., and that i t i s restricted to f orms r equiring complex moulds. Unlike the contemporary dagger types, a r ange o f s impler ' substitute' axes does not appear. The only mass-produced weapon which l argely avoids relief decoration i s the socketted 1 75

spearhead. This i s presumably because it was made by a different method; casting, rolling and hammer shaping, and could not be produced straight f rom a steatite mould, at this time. The only such weapons which do show relief, a lbeit in a small way, are the very long spears of Types 2 the blades of which were probably mould made. Alongside the increasing use of steatite moulds for weapons, we see their value in the production of j ewellery and f igurines as revealed by moulds found at Byblos ( Dunand 1 954, P l. CLXXIII) and Kültepe ( Emre 1 971). I t i s a lso from the M . B.I period, that we see the appearance at coastal sites, of metal f igurines in large quantities ( see Seeden 1 980, 3 6-102). It seems l ikely then that the apparent explosion in fancy weaponry at the beginning of the second millennium in the Levant, is a product of developments in mould techniques, which enabled the repeat production of quite e laborate items. We might also suggest that the well-known swollen-headed toggle-pins which Schaeffer associates with the ' Porteurs de torcs' are probabli , also made from two-piece moulds, unlike the earlier globular and hemispherical-headed variety. It seems then, that we are seeing the same technology applied to a whole range of items. This being so, might it not be that the apparent boom in metalworking in coastal Syria at this time, often attributed to the arrival of new peoples ( Schaeffer 1 949, 4 9ff; Kenyon 1 973, 8 2-86) i s better explained by these new techniques, permitting the production of repeated complex castings ( see 3 .4). An Alternative View From a mechanical perspective there i s l ittle difference between a Type 1 2 dagger with a crescentic pommel and a grooved blade, and a Type 1 3 dagger with globular pommel and r ibbed blade. One i s no more effective as a weapon than the other. However, there is a marked difference in their appearance, a point emphasised by the shapes of their respective handles. At this point we must consider Wobst's ( 1977) stress on the communicative role of objects. In s uch s ituations messages are often transmitted by visual means. Therefore, a whole different perspective opens up on our material, especially when one remembers that the pommels would be visible even were the daggers sheathed. Yadin may be correct when he suggests that the development of narrow-bladed axes relates to a need for a weapon capable of piercing metal helmets. However the only archaeological evidence for the use o f such helmets i n the Levant during the M . B. A., comes from their appearance on seals, ( see for example Porada 1 984, P l. 65:1-2) and bronze f igurines ( Seeden 1 980, Pl. 8 6-87, 9 4-95). As both of these media tend to offer rather stylised depictions of deities, rather than accurate representations of the l iving, we cannot assume that they are a good guide to the headgear of ordinary people. We should note that the Asiatics depicted in Egyptian Middle Kingdom reliefs are 1 76

not shown wearing helmets, nor are examples known graves. Of course, it is possible that these axes meant to penetrate l eather helmets, or that helmets worn o nly in particular forms of combat, between ranking individuals for example.

from were were high

However, there may have been some functional reason, perhaps connected to the fact that fenestrated axes had a tendency to break at the j unction of blade and hilt, as indicated by the l arge number of extant examples found so, for the change from fenestrated to narrow-bladed axes, as the change in shape is quite marked. S imilarly, it seems l ikely that the conjunction of the chariot, the composite bow a nd the widespread adoption of scale armour had a major effect on military strategy ( Yadin 1 963, 8 4, Moorey 1 986, 2 10-211) and thus i ndirectly on the range of prestige goods interred with the dead. Although functional factors are important at a general level, they cannot explain why narrow-bladed axes of Types 1 , 2 and 3 which are very s imilar i n general shape, weight and breadth of cutting edge, in other words in terms of functional efficiency, show so many differences in stylistic detail, variations which emphasise the difference between, and s imilarity within, types. At this level of detail Yadin's ' functional-efficiency' model of typological change has l ittle explanatory power. An alternative view must be sought. The starting-point i s that particular weapon types are a ssociated with prestige, and of restricted access. The f irst problem i s the need to maintain exclusivity. Unlike gold, s ilver etc which had scarcity value, and could quite e asily be controlled, copper was relatively p lentiful and w idely used in the production of utilitarian items. As a r esult access to copper would be hard to control. A lthough the palace may have been able to regulate the c irculation and recycling of copper ( see Heltzer 1 982, 9 41 00, for L . B. A. Ugarit), it would be impossible to prevent a n amount of ' shrinkage', and copper would be able to leak out of the system. As the material would be available to vi llage smiths and to farmers ( in the form of tools were they to melt these down), exclusivity may have been maintained by e laboration of design, resulting in products which could not easily be copied without access to special two-piece moulds ( steatite, which can be easily carved is a n ideal medium for such work, see above). Other possibilities i nclude the addition of decorative handles in r are materials l ike alabaster, ivory, or lapis lazuli such a s appear frequently in the textual sources ( e. g. Limet 1 985, 5 19) and occasionally in graves ( Gautier 1 895, 4594 60, f ig.9; Guy 1938, P1 1 49:3,6 ) and the Döpöts at Byblos ( Dunand 1 954, 1 92, n .8451-8455, P l. LVII). O f course it i s possible that certain items may have been s ubject to s umptuary rules under which possession or d isplay of particular objects was restricted to certain i ndividuals, by virtue of birth, status or office. The 1 77

curved-swords found at Byblos may belong in this class, as i tems restricted to royalty ( see 3 .2.2). However, we cannot as yet ascertain to what extent possession of prestige arms was determined by such rules, or by other f actors. Most l ikely, the situation was quite f luid, and such sumptuary rules as existed were subject to frequent emendation as circumstances changed. As Miller ( 1982b, 9 7) has emphasised, emulation will tend to occur unless a high-status item i s fixed to some scarce or controllable resource. This would clearly be a problem with copper-alloy weapons ( see above). A solution might be that the i tems take shapes that are hard to copy without access to the correct moulds. It i s interesting therefore that a range of s impler, substitute dagger forms which can be made without using special moulds, emerges ( Types 3 0-34) retaining the essential s ize characteristics, in particular the relatively broad blade, of the ' styled' dagger types. Accepting that the white globular pommel was an integral part of Type 1 3 and 1 7 daggers in Palestine, it i s revealing that these also appear on many of the ' substitute' forms, in particular on examples of Types 3 03 2, stressing their ' identity' with the genuine article. Hence their frequent appearance in s imilar contexts, often a longside socketted axes. The importance of an item's conformity to the classic types is c learly i llustrated by attempts made to copy these. There are two Type 1 3 daggers from Tell el-'Ajjul ( Nos. 5 78,and 5 80) on which the incised l ines can be clearly seen to have been cut, rather than cast-in, as was usually the case ( see 2 .4), while a Type 1 narrow-bladed axe from Tomb 1 015 has an unusual rectangular cross-section ( fig. 1 , top). We seem to see here attempts to copy the ' real thing'. Patterns of Association between Weapon Types It i s clear from analysis of grave groups that there detectable associations between particular forms of axe dagger. This can be summarised as follows.

are and

Fenestrated axes are ' ideally' associated with Type 1 2 daggers, sometimes with Type 3 0 weapons, and date to M . B.I. Comparing the l ist of all graves producing fenestrated axes, with that of graves where these are associated with daggers, reveals that this i s so in nearly all cases. The best evidence ought to come from single graves. Baghouz apart ( which i s f ar inland and rather different i n many respects), fenestrated axes are seen to be associated with Type 1 2 daggers in s ingle graves from Beth Shan and Tel Rehov. Although most other groups represent tombs containing multiple interments, note s hould be taken o f the occurrence of two fenestrated axes and two daggers ( one Type 1 2 and one Type 1 4) in Hama Tomb GVI, and one axe and one Type 1 2 dagger at S in el-Fil. The l arger mixed groups from Amrit and Tell et-Tin also indicate a similar p attern. Type

1 narrow-bladed

axes,

tend 1 78

to

co-occur

with

Type

1 3

daggers. Three such pairs occur in s ingle graves ( fig. 9 5), and one axe i s associated with a Type 1 8 dagger. Although disturbed, Tomb 9 11 at Megiddo reveals a s imilar pattern, while axes from Ginosar and Khirbet Kufin occur with ' substitute' f orms of Type 3 0-32. This set, which overlaps the end o f M . B.I and early M .B.II succeeds that described above. Narrow-bladed axes of Types 2 and 3 occur in M . B.II contexts. In s ingle burials these axes are paired most often with daggers of Types 1 7 and 1 9 ( see f ig. 9 5). A tomb from Tell el-Dab'a with f ive interments ( A/I-g/3 Gr.1) has produced three each of Type 2 axes and Type 1 7 daggers, reinforcing this pattern, as does their frequent cooccurrence in larger, multiple occupancy tombs such as Tomb 9 at Jericho. Again however, substitute dagger forms a lso occur with these axes, as in Jericho Tomb J3. We might a lso note the pairing of a Type 5 narrow-bladed axe with an unusual ' styled' dagger ( assigned to our Type 4 0 variants) in Tomb 1 750 at Tell el-'Ajjul. Type 4 narrow-bladed axes, which are found at Ras Shamra, i n M .B.II tombs, generally co-occur with small Type 3 3 daggers, and medium-large s ized spearheads, reflecting the d ifferent material employed in M .B.II Syria. I n summary, although the situation i s complex, several ' ideal' pairings can be detected for dagger-axe sets. A lthough the north and south produce different material in the M . B.II period, the underlying dynamic of the changing weapon sets is chronological, with these replacing each other in succession. As there i s no great mechanical d ifference between many of these types ( see above), we must conclude that i t is the changing styles which are important. As Miller ( 1982b, 9 1) suggests, much observable artefact variation i s probably connected to the expressive a spects of society, and is therefore sensitive to such processes as emulation. It i s l ikely that the regularly changing styles which we see in the M .B. A. weaponry of the Levant are evidence of j ust this process. As copper was not itself a n exclusive medium, the physical d istinctiveness o f these objects was an important part in the maintenance o f their ' value'. Particular forms ( types) may have become too widely available to maintain their intended exclusive qualities, hence the need f or frequent shifts in the ' appropriate' styles. The successive sharp changes observed in the morphology of certain weapons f its this explanation well. I n fact, the desire to emulate or copy the behaviour of the powerful could well l ie at the root of the development of the range of ' substitute' types discussed above. Our explanation for detailed typological change then i s the need to maintain exclusivity of these objects, a difficulty compounded by the need to produce and distribute them in order to gain prestige, and the fact that they are made of a widely available material. In fact, we could even regard 1 79

such processes as burial and r eligious offerings which removed some of these items from circulation, as functioning as a means of controlling quantity and hence maintaining ' value', a problem raised elsewhere ( see 3 .1.4). This l ast point underlines the importance of i nvestigations using a long, regional perspective. Only thus can trends such as that outlined above be identified and i nterpreted. Another coherent f actor underlying typological change i s that of the spatial position o f items within tombs. Daggers tend to occur at the waist, as might be expected. Axes are generally positioned s o that the blade l ies behind, or near the skull, suggesting that they were carried resting on the shoulder. The evidence from undisturbed tombs shows that a ll axe types common in the Levant were so positioned. The use of identical spatial positioning argues strongly for continuity in i ntention, underlying obvious typological differences. Our d iscussion thus far has concentrated l argely on M . B. A. weapons. The third millennium material seems to change rather more s lowly. Type 1 tanged spearheads occur in a l ate fourth millennium context at Arslantepe ( Palmieri 1 981, 1 09, f ig. 3 -4) but are still in evidence i n Phase H o f the Amuq ( Braidwood and Braidwood 1 960, 3 76), suggesting a f loruit of around four or f ive centuries. The well known square-sectioned spearheads f irst occur in cist-graves from Carchemish dating to the earlier third millennium, but still appear in l ate third millennium contexts at Tell S elenkahiye in Syria and at many sites in Palestine. Crescentic axes too, seem to have remained in production f or much of the third millennium, while in Palestine production of narrow daggers continued from E . B.I until the end of the E . B.-M.B, approximately one thousand years. The d ifference between the rate of typological change during the E .B. A. and the M . B. A. i s quite clear, and should be related to the greater expressive role of weapons i n the l atter period. Most of the elaborate E . B. A., forms such as the developed E . B.-M. B. narrow dagger types, occur l ate in the period, and should be seen a s a transition to the better known M .B. A. pattern of frequent stylistic change. I would argue that it is only at this point, where the connection between weapons and h igh status males was c learly acknowledged, reinforced by increasing communication throughout the Levant, that emulation would become a major problem. Another problem i s the appearance of shaft-hole axes of Types 3 and 4 late in the M . B. A. These, which are related to the third millennium styles of Mesopotamia and north Syria are best viewed as a re-introduction from the north, where a local tradition of shaft-hole axes continued throughout the earlier second millennium, contemporary with the dominance of fenestrated and narrow-bladed forms in the Levant ( see 2 .1). The appearance of these weapons foreshadows the situation in the L .B. A., where axes derived 1 80

f rom northern types become the dominant form ( Deshayes 1 960, 1 86-9; Types F lc and d ). The best explanation would seem to be that the northern Levant underwent a degree of re-orientation towards the north as the M .B. A. progressed, foreshadowing the pattern of the L . B. A. ( see 3 ,5). The importance of weapon form i s emphasised by representations of the war god on Anatolian seals, where he i s occasionally depicted as wielding a fenestrated axe, but more often bears a l ocal shaft-hole form ( Özgüg, N . 1 965, 5 2). On the other hand, a recently discovered Syrian style seal from Tell el-Dab'a depicts Ba'al bearing what i s quite c learly a fenestrated axe ( Porada 1 984, 4 85, f ig. 1 ), the preferred type in the Levant at that time. The implication i s that the detailed iconography of seals i s closely related to local conceptions of ' appropriate' weapons. Thus axe forms are deeply bound up with cultural meanings and concepts. In this l ight, the replacement of Levantine by northern styles at the end of the M . B. A., j ust as northern powers such as the Hittites and Mittanni begin to play more active political roles in the region, i s i nteresting. I f the shape of the axes of the southern Levant relates to an old, local, cultural tradition, which s ees its f inal development in the M .B. A. cultures of the Delta and southern Palestine, then the appearance of northern types j ust as the existing political system i s collapsing, f its very neatly. Although a promising l ine o f enquiry, a new study of L .B. A. weapon types, in their archaeological contexts, is required before this can be thoroughly investigated.

1 81

3 .3.

COMMENTS ON THE ANALYTICAL DATA

There has been l ittle reliable data available on the composition of metal objects from the Levant until recently. The corpus i s still o f restricted s ize, and over dependent on old, or inadequately documented analyses ( summarised in Buchholz 1 967), the value of which i s questionable. Useful analyses carried out on groups of well contexted material have however appeared in recent years ( Moorey and Schweizer 1 972, Khalil 1 980, 1 984, Stech et a l 1 985). To these we can now add analytical work carried out the M .B. A. material f rom Tell e l-Dab'a ( part of which is cited here in advance of publication), and additional work carried out on material from Tell e l-' Ajjul and Hama ( Philip, forthcoming), a imed at answering specific questions arising from the published data. D iscussion here has been restricted to a consideration of the main a lloying e lements, tin, arsenic and l ead, trace element studies having been much criticised in recent years ( Craddock 1 976), although better results may come from the combination of such studies with Lead Isotope Analysis ( see Gale et al 1 986 and references there). However, this work i s still at a preliminary stage, a nd has as yet has paid l ittle attention to the material o f the mainland Levant, where the mixing of coppers of different origin through tribute-taking or the use of scrap, may be more of a problem than in the Cyprus or the Aegean. The information c ited i n the following discussion appears in Table 1 ( ai), and publication details for each result in Table 2 . The Early Bronze Age Although the Ebla texts indicate the use of tin-bronze in some quantity by the later third millennium ( Archi 1 982, 2 11), its rarity in Mesopotamia prior to the E .D. I II period ( Moorey 1 985, 1 27) suggests that tin was unlikely to have been widely used in Syria until around the mid-third millennium. This being so, the f act that the known metalwork from north Syrian s ites s uch as Amarna and Carchemish i s largely composed of arsenical-copper, despite the l ocation of these sites near the major Euphrates Valley trade route, supports the view that much of this material predates the large-scale use of t in-bronze in the urban centres of Syria, and therefore belongs to the early or middle phases of the third millennium. Such a conclusion i s i n agreement with both typology a nd the associated ceramics. This view i s reinforced by the presence of tinbronzes in l ate EBIII and E . B.-M. B. contexts in Palestine ( see below), and of an axe of Type 2 , made of tin-bronze belonging to phase ' J' at Tell Tayinat, i n the ' Amuq. In Palestine there i s only one example of a tin bronze prior to the E . B.-M. B. period, that from Bab edh-Dhra' ( Maddin et a l 1 980, 1 15; otherwise unpublished, not in present catalogue). However, there are c lose connections between typology and alloy patterns i n the E .B.-M. B. period. All examples of Type 2 narrow daggers, the 1 82

earliest form ( see 2 .4) are of unalloyed or arsenicalcopper. However, examples of Type 3 , with good parallels in a l ate E .B. A. tomb at Qatna appear at Jericho in both tin-bronze and arsenical-copper. The suggestion ( see 3 .4) that t in entered Palestine from the north, i s supported by the presence of a number of good tin-bronzes among the distinctive Type 1 daggers found at ' Enan, near Lake Huleh. These should represent a late phase of the E . B.-M. B. period in the region as they were found a longside material with good parallels in the ' Döpöts des Offrandes' at Byblos. However, new analyses of Type 4 daggers from Tell el' Ajjul, probably the latest type of narrow dagger, have shown all daggers tested to be composed of arsenicalcopper. Support i s provided by a Type 4 dagger of s imilar composition from Tell ed-Duweir. Tin was apparently not adopted in southern Palestine, a lthough it appears as far south as Jericho and Ma'abarot, l ending support for the division of Palestine into two main metalworking regions, north and south, at this time, as argued e lsewhere on typological grounds ( see 3 .2.2). Full analytical results and a more extensive discussion are presented elsewhere, ( Philip forthcoming). It has been suggested ( Stech et a l 1 985) that some selection of a lloy according to type can be detected in the E .B.-M. B. period. Unlike the daggers, no examples of the hooked-tang weapon series have been shown to be made from tin-bronze. Support comes from the analysis of a r ivetted spearhead from ' Enan, also an arsenical-copper. However most other spearheads analysed so far have been of types familiar in south and central Palestine, where tin-bronze i s rarer anyway. This idea cannot be proven until more examples of northern spearhead types are examined. I f true that tin-bronze was reserved for daggers, we might see an association of imported tin with high status and it is argued above ( 3.2.2) that the dagger was the ideal weapon of status in Palestine at this time. Stech and Piggott ( 1986, 5 8) have suggested that tin-bronze, had greater status value in third millennium Mesopotamia than had arsencial-copper, as tin was a rare, imported commodity, a concept which might apply equally well to parts of the Levant. Another explanation might be that scarce tin was specifically kept for use in edged weapons such as daggers, rather than spearheads, as tin-bronze does give a superior edge than arsencial copper, its only clear mechanical advantage over the l atter. Such a phenomenon has recently been reported from the Early and Middle Cypriot metal repertoire ( Balthazar 1 987, 3 22). More analytical and metallographic work i s required. Middle

Bronze Age

D iscussion of the pattern of alloy use at this period i s l imited by the available analyses, which are by no means evenly spread across types and regions. The l imited data available indicates that tin-bronze was widely used at this t ime. I t seems e specially prevalent in the more elaborate 1 83

shapes such as Type 1 2 and 1 3 daggers, fenestrated and narrow-bladed axes ( Table 1 ), supported by analyses of unprovenanced items ( Oren 1 971, 1 28, Branigan et al 1 975, 1 7, B irmingham 1 977, 1 18). Recent work on the metal objects from Susa, far to the east of our area, ( Malfoy and Menu 1 987, 3 62; Table E ), indicates that selection of alloy by type was practised there during the early second millennium, suggesting that we may have two fragments of a l arger picture. This is hardly surprising in view of the evidence from Mari ( Dossin 1 970) for the importation of l arge quantities of tin from the east. This may reflect the greater value of tin in complex castings, although this has been disputed in recent studies of the Mesopotamian material ( see Moorey 1 985, 1 6-19), suggesting the use of arsenical copper causes no major decline in properties. In fact, analysis of axeheads from Tell el-Dab'a ( see below) has shown that these could be cast equally well using unalloyed copper, suggesting that casting properties alone do not explain the preference for t in-bronze. Recent evidence from Hama, M . B.I period, ( Philip, forthcoming) indicates the use of genuine leaded-bronzes for the manufacture of fenestrated and Type 1 narrow-bladed axes, providing support for the high lead levels detected in several unprovenanced fenestrated axes ( Oren 1 971, 1 28) and examples from Tel Rehov and Kurduneh in northern Palestine ( Table 1 ). Their advantages are described by Northover ( 1982, 9 1). That most pertinent here would be the improvement in the f illing of complex moulds. Although l ead contents of up to 1 0% have l ittle effect on tensile strength ( Northover 1 982, 9 1) they do alter yield stress and hardness, particularly on a worked edge ( Tylecote 1 986, 3 5). Craddock et al ( 1986, 5 6), observe that a lead content of 0-3% i s the optimum for a cast and wrought object such as a dagger. In other words, excessive lead content would impair the effectiveness of the cutting edge of a weapon. This might indicate that more attention was given to shape and f inish i .e. appearance, than to mechanical efficiency, which would strengthen the argument that these items were as important as status objects, as they were as real weapons. Analyses of M . B.II material from Palestine and the Delta ( see below) do not indicate l ead addition, suggesting that its occurrence at lama may be a temporary phenomenon, although we lack analyses from M .B.II Syrian examples ( on possible reasons for this phenomenon see Philip, forthcoming). The other major point to emerge, this time affecting the M . B.II period, i s the difference in the alloys used at Palestinian sites and Tell el-Dab'a. Material from Megiddo and Jericho of ' classic' dagger and axe types is generally composed of tin-bronze, although arsenical copper still remained in regular usage, in particular for the less easily classifiable types ( see below). At Tell el-Dab'a the equivalent metalwork occurs in a mix of bronze, arsenical copper and unalloyed copper. Objects composed of different alloys occur even in the same tomb. It i s 1 84

possible that the Delta lay at the very end of the tin routes, and that the material was not available in sufficient quantities. However, the strongest argument against this is the use of t in-bronze for utilitarian objects at the s ite ( unpublished results, Cowell pers. comm.). Although the use of arsenical copper for weapons is understandable, that of unalloyed copper, whose properties are considerably inferior, especially in the formation of hardened cutting edges, i s not. Perhaps this provides additional support for the view that much of this weaponry was designed more for display and exchange than for c ombat. On the other hand, we should note that in Egypt proper tinbronze did not become the dominant alloy until New Kingdom times ( Garenne-Marot 1 984, 1 08-112). We should be wary therefore of attempting to read too much into the a lloying pattern occurring at Tell el-Dab'a. Although different from that seen at Jericho, it i s more in l ine with that of Middle Kingdom Egypt, suggesting that we may have an essentially ' Egyptian' industry producing a range of objects to Levantine styles. Given the l imited nature of our s ample, we might do better to accept this more cautious explanation of the Dab'a metalwork for the time being. The other Palestinian types show, as indicated above, a mixture of compositions. A provisional assessment suggests that much of this material was the result of small scale production of ' substitute' items in local workshops, perhaps those of the small Palestinian centres. Unfortunately the total corpus i s too small to enable us to draw firm conclusions. Possible trends do emerge however. Both analysed Type 1 0 ( long-tanged) daggers from Jericho show low l evels of both tin and arsenic, suggesting the use of s crap metal i n their fabrication. Both tested daggers from Tomb J3 at Jericho, a ' warrior burial' with three axedagger sets and a metal belt, are good tin bronzes, i ndicating a connection between the use of tin and the more l avish burials, supporting the suggestion that this particular tomb represents a case of conspicuous consumption of high status materials. Naturally, no exact correspondence will be found, given the role of specific c ircumstances i n determining a lloying patterns, but it i s argued that the evidence indicates that most examples of ' elite' weapon types, and the more e laborate ' substitute' f orms, or those in the most prestigious burials, are composed of tin-bronze ( Dab'a being a possible exception) a nd that the bulk of the less well defined material, which g enerally has a l ess of a ' quality' feel, tends to occur in arsenical-copper. However, more data i s needed in order to t est this theory properly. Spearheads A ll examples of E . B. A. spearheads are copper or arsenicalcopper ( Table l e), excepting the minature Type 1 5 weapon f rom Ras Shamra, which i s apparently a low tin-bronze, 1 85

suggesting deliberate adherence to arsenical-copper for spearheads. With the advent of the socketted spear, there was a rapid adoption of tin-bronze ( Table 1g). Although the actual percentage of tin is variable, its s election i s quite c lear. One might infer that the properties of t inbronze were preferable for the f abrication of socketted spearheads, which would require rather thinner castings, and a considerable amount of rolling and hammering of sheet metal, in the formation of the socket and the b lade edges. This i s in contrast to the method of forming a tanged spearhead, which involved hammering a rough billet as in the case of E . B.-M. B. types, or the f inishing of f orms cast i n two piece moulds as with certain north Syrian types ( Watkins 1 974, 1 90-192; Palmieri et a l 1985, 98).

1 86

3 .4.

THE WIDER PERSEPCTIVE

The Background The material of the E . B. A. did not appear in a vacuum. A brief consideration of the preceding periods, i s thus required. The background to this system i s provided by exchange networks posited for the preceding Halaf and Ubaid phases ( Mellaart 1 982; Marfoe 1 987, 2 8). Uncalibrated carbon-14 dates f or Halaf/Ubaid s ites in Anatolia l ie in the fourth and f ifth millennia b .c. ( Esin 1 982,13). We should note the metal workshops and rich collection of Ubaid period sealings recovered from Degirmentepe, on the Euphrates near Malatya, which have good parallels at Tepe Gawra in northern Iraq ( Esin 1 985, 1 88). Therefore i nterregional contact predates the fourth millennium, a lthough it may then for the f irst time have involved large scale commercial-type trade ( Marfoe 1 987, 2 8-9). Given the existence of substantial settlements producing western Halaf and Ubaid-type pottery at north Syrian s ites ( Mellaart 1 981, 1 43-151), we should probably envisage a considerable degree of social complexity at l east as early as the f ifth millennium. The ' Uruk' settlements of the mid-fourth millennium are generally seen as Sumerian ' colonies' connected with commercial activities, and are l ikely to have played a major role in the formation of the infrastructure which permitted the development of a substantial, unified north Syrian-Anatolian metal industry. Marfoe ( 1987, 2 8) observes the highly directional nature of Mesopotamian trade with the north at at this time, noting the very l imited connections with areas outwith the Euphrates Valley. The presence of a defensive wall at the settlement of Dakermann in the Lebanon ( Saidah 1 979), and the appearance o f weapons, s ilver and imported items in contemporary graves at Byblos ( Prag 1978; 1 986, 6 6-71), indicate that the the f ourth millennium saw the rise of an increasingly s ophisticated society in the southern Levant as well as in north Syria, perhaps involving a degree of contact with E gypt. This point is underlined by the sophisticated techniques employed in the production of the Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar in southern Palestine ( Bar- Adon 1 980). The Eneolithique graves at Byblos produced very few daggers i n relation to the total number of burials, as i s the case in E .B. A. Palestine, suggesting that the a ssociation between burial with weapons and high social s tatus, was a f eature of Levantine society by the fourth m illennium. Byblos provides an early example of this ' motif', supporting the evidence for social d ifferentiation c ited above. This predates the generally a ccepted appearance of warfare, militarism and rule by e lites i n mid-third millennium Mesopotamia, but does not i mply that the L evant i s in any way ' ahead' at this time, r ather that our evidence for contemporary Mesopotamia i s 1 87

deficient. We should not overstress the suddeness of social change in the third millennium. Rather, we should see the major changes clearly detectable f rom the archaeological record in the third millennium, as the culmination of a long period o f social and economic development. Early Bronze Age Syria I ntroduction Any investigation of Levantine weapons must consider the material in a broader context. For many scholars ( Stronach 1 957, Deshayes 1 960), the Royal Cemetery at Ur provides the key typological parallels for relating Syrian and Mesopotamian metalwork, and the conventional w isdom of p lacing the Syrian material later, implies a degree of dependency on Mesopotamia. It has been argued e lsewhere ( see 2 .1, 2 .2) that much of the Syrian material dated to the l ate third millennium by Watson ( 1965, 81), in fact belongs to the mid-third millennium, which has i mportant implications for the autonomy of the Syrian metal industry vis-a-vis that of Mesopotamia. It i s therefore a lso the case, as Watkins ( 1983a) has emphasised, that the appearance of ' warrior' burials in Syria ( e. g. Carchemish, Til Barsip) i s a social phenomenon, contemporary w ith, and not necessarily derived from, the Mesopotamian equivalent. I f therefore, we dismiss Akkadian military campaigns, the preferred explanation of Stronach ( 1957) and Deshayes ( 1960), as the motive force in the development o f Syrian weaponry, we must seek alternative explanations, preferably at a l ocal l evel. It has already been shown ( 2.1; 2 .2) that the early third millennium metalwork found in Syria, has good parallels i n the l ate fourth millennium material from the ' Amuq, Byblos and Arslantepe. The poor quality o f the l ithics reported from the large Uruk-type site of Jebel Aruda ( HanburyTenison 1 983), and the rich repertiore of Uruk period metalwork from Mesopotamia ( Moorey 1 982a, 21), seem to indicate a substantial use of metal throughout the Near East by this time. In addition, there now exists a substantial, i f scattered, body of metalwork of l ate fourth millennium date, ( see below) which puts in doubt the notion of a widespread ' explosion' in metallurgy around the middle of the third millennium, as advocated by some writers. These c ite as evidence the rich material from sites such a s Ur, Troy and Ala9a Höyük. Yakar ( 1985b, 3 0) observes that the Alaca tombs are very special, and a s imilar case has been made by Watkins ( 1983b) for the Royal Cemetery. These s ites should not be taken as a standard against which to compare metalwork from other contexts. The quality of the Syrian material of the mid-third millennium compares quite well with that of many less spectacular Mesopotamian cemeteries such as Kish, al-Ubaid, the Diyala sites ( Moorey 1 982a, 2 5-26) and the recently excavated material from Abu 1 88

Salabikh

( Martin

1 985,

1 0-16).

We currently lack well stratified material from the f irst half of the third millennium, although to j udge from that recovered from contemporary Anatolian s ites ( Palmieri 1 981; Hauptmann 1 982; Behm Blancke 1 984), it seems reasonable to expect a fair degree of urbanism in the Euphrates basin and areas to the east. This process, succeeding the phase of widespread ' Uruk-type' material, has been interpreted as marking the appearance of independent Syrian polities ( Marfoe 1 987, 2 9). The tomb evidence from Carchemish ( Woolley 1 952 and Barnett) and from the Sajur Valley sites ( Woolley 1 914) f its this interpretation. Western Syria should probably be seen as urbanised during the earlier third millennium, but at a level similar to that of northern Palestine, while Byblos was a lready a ' protourban' centre, i nvolved in external trade or exchange networks, by the mid-fourth millennium ( Prag 1 978; 1 986), and was in regular contact with Egypt by the mid-third millennium ( Sagieh 1 983, 1 05-6). Our knowledge of the socio-economic structure of third millennium Syria i s sketchy. It i s clear that by the middle of the third millennium, substantial urban sites existed throughout the country from Tell Brak ( Mallowan 1 947) and Tell Leilan ( Weiss 1 983) in the north-east, to Tell Mardikh ( Matthiae 1 980b), Hama ( Fugmann 1 958) and Byblos ( Sagieh 1 983) in the west. Texts are few, a lthough new material from Ebla ( Archi 1 980, 2 -3; 1 981, 3 ) i ndicates that we are dealing with one of several independent urban centres with tributary villages, existing in the region. There is textual evidence to suggest that a Mari-Ebla axis may have formed the core of Syrian trade relationships at the t ime of Palace G ( Archi 1 985b, 6 7), which foreshadows the dominance of Mari and Yamkhad in the early second millennium. More westerly sites such as Byblos ( Ward 1 971; S agieh 1 983, 1 04-106) and Tell Mardikh itself ( Scandone Matthiae 1 982) show evidence for contacts with Egypt. There is a lso evidence for military campaigns by the rulers o f Mari, in north Syria, at this time ( Archi 1 985c). We should therefore expect all the attributes of a complex, urbanised society; social stratification, centralised production, long distance trade, and a complex pattern of political and economic relationships. The situation is not s o d ifferent from the better known M . B.I period, which should be borne in mind when trying to interpret the a rchaeological

record.

This implies that metal goods and weapons were in production at various urban centres. The texts from Ebla r efer to the local production of bronze for the manufacture o f various items ( Pettinato 1 981, 1 73, Table VII.1). P innock ( 1985, 9 2), has recently proposed that Ebla be seen a s the heart of a local commercial ' net', extending from the Euphrates to the Hauran, although this may be rather t oo large an area. However, it seems that merchants from Mari and had a presence at Ebla, and vice versa ( Archi 1 89

1 985b, 6 7), and there was apparently some movement of craftsmen between these centres, and between Ebla and Kish ( Archi 1 987, 1 27). That being so, the degree of standardisation shown throughout Syria is rather l ess surprising than would otherwise have been the case. A common idea of what was appropriate was shared over quite a wide geographical area, despite some regional d ifferences. This stands in marked contrast to the highly regionalised metalwork of the E . B.-M.B. period of Palestine ( see below). One should also note that the classic Palestinian E .B.A. f orms, are rather rare in Syria, suggesting that the former region was following a parallel, but distinct, l ine of development. The

evidence

of

weapons

A number of types ( Type 1 tanged spearheads, Type 2 shafthole axes with cut down sockets) show clear connections with the contemporary material of the Upper Euphrates region, and distinct northern practices, rare among the Mesopotamian material, can be observed. These i nclude cutaway sockets and parallel-sided blades on axes, the hooked tang, the triangular rivet-system as a dagger hafting, and the use of a broad-bladed spearhead. The appearance of Anatolian style spearheads with s lotted blades in this area, further reinforces the l inks between this area and north-western Syria. This local i ndustry then, seems to have been substantially developed by the early third millennium, and cannot be attributed to direct Mesopotamian i nspiration ( Yakar 1 985a, 3 48). Metalwork parallels between northern Syria and Anatolia should not come as a surprise, bearing in mind the wide spread of so called ' Simple-Ware' and Syrian ceramic forms c lassed as ' Amuq G ', into the latter region, the Euphrates valley in particular, during the l ate fourth and early third millennia ( Mellaart 1 982, 9 ). This material succeeds a phase marked by the presence of ' Uruk'-type material at s ites well up the Euphrates Valley, doubtless related to the l arge Uruk sites in north Syria Habuba-Kabira ( Strommenger 1 979), Tell Qannas ( Finet 1 975, 1 981) and Jebel Aruda ( Van Driel 1 981). Therefore, it seems l ikely that the earlier third millennium saw extensive contacts between Syria and Anatolia, continuing the pattern set by Mesopotamian traders, but under different, local control. Syrian control of the trans-shipment of raw materials to Mesopotamia, should be connected to the development of i ndependent urban centres in north-western Syria, and the Euphrates Valley in particular ( e. g. Carchemish, T il Barsip) and the development of a distinct, northern, ceramic style in the third millennium ( Mazzoni 1 985a, 5 62). This control seems to have continued with some l evel of stability. S ilver, presumably coming from Anatolian sources, which was sufficiently well established i n Mesopotamian by the later third millennium to constitute a basic means of payment ( Limet 1 972), features regularly i n the texts from Ebla ( Pettinato 1 979, 1 82). We a re only 1 90

gradually coming to realise the scope of these contacts, as our understanding of the archaeological record in these areas deepens. Other types ( shaft-hole axes with lobate blades and Type 3 tanged spearheads) show a closer relationship to the Mesopotamian material of the E . D.III period, while a number o f parallels for axes of Type 1 come from Iran, a lthough these are unprovenanced ( Deshayes 1 960, Type A5c, 1 65-168; Calmeyer 1 969, Group 1 5, 3 4-35). At f irst glance this m ight suggest that a phase of Mesopotamian ' influence' can be detected, coincident with the increased militarism which s ome would infer from E . D.III cemeteries, and with the f irst documentary evidence for military campaigns i n this d irection ( see below). However, this material i s no more s ophisticated than that of the earlier third millennium known from Carchemish and contemporary Anatolian s ites. Furthermore, it should be stressed that our knowledge of Mesopotamian metalwork prior to the E . D.III period i s l imited, while the presence of Uruk material on the upper E uphrates, suggests that Mesopotamian interest in that region had a long history prior to the documented military campaigns of Lugalzagissi, Sargon and Naram-sin. It seems more l ikely that a commercial, rather than a military explanation, should be sought for the detectable ' foreign' i nfluence on the metalwork of the Euphrates Valley. Given the importance of the river as a means of moving goods and people ( Finet 1 969), references to Mari and Dilmun ' weights' for metal assay ( Steiglitz 1 987), and the use of t in at Ebla ( see above), the route must have been well e stablished by the mid-third millennium. We cannot ignore the different ceramic regions within Syria during the E .B. A., as these might bear on the distribution o f metal types. The Red and Black Burnished Ware found in the ' Amuq and in western Syria ( Watson 1 965, 7 7), and the Brittle Orange Ware of the ' Amuq and Cilicia ( Mellink 1 962, 2 24) are different from the contemporary materials of the Euphrates Valley, and even more so from that of northe astern Syria ( Mazzoni 1 985a, 5 68). At Tell Mardikh, P alace G which produced ' caliciform' pottery, succeeds l evels producing Khirbet Kerak wares ( Mazzoni 1 985a, 5 64), a nd a s imilar sequence can be detected in the transition between levels K and J at Hama ( Fugmann 1 958). The appearance of substantial urban centres, producing massproduced wheel-made wares of the widespread ' caliciform' s tyles, dates to the middle of the third millennium in western Syria. The sequence of development in the westcentral region o f Syria, i s therefore different from that o f the Euphrates valley, as the local Hama J pottery, which combines elements of local Levantine E . B. A. and urban Euphrates Valley traditions ( Prag 1 974, 8 7) might suggest. I t i s unfortunate that we have so l ittle metalwork from the urban s ites of the l ater third millennium in this area. However, the occasional appearance of examples of the narrow dagger s eries, and of square-section spearheads, suggest l inks with northern Palestine as well as with s ites 1 91

to

the

north

and

east.

The third millennium material of Byblos and the coast is d ifferent again, rather closer to that of Palestine ( Hennesey 1 967, 6 2; de Vaux 1 971, 2 30; Mazzoni 1 985a, 5 66). Sagieh ( 1983, 1 08-109), has however indicated particular types from Byblos Phase K , which have better parallels in Syria, than in Palestine. The material of Phase J , dated to the late third millennium has strong l inks with inland Syria ( Sagieh 1 983, 1 14-116). This phase, which i s surely still an urban one, ( note Ur I II period references to the presence of an ' Ensi' at Byblos ( Gadd 1 973, 6 04) and the l ikely role of Byblos as the intermediary between Egypt and inland Syrian cities), is partly contemporary w ith the E . B.-M.B. period in Palestine. When this i s understood, the appearance of a range of sophisticated new metal types i n the early second millennium, often ascribed to the arrival of ' Amorite' newcomers ( see below) becomes less surprising, and can be seen in the context of continuing contact with inland polities. The exact pattern of contact between the coast and i nland regions during the third millennium i s not yet clear. De Contenson ( 1979), on the basis of the material f rom Ras Shamra ( the pattern at Byblos might be rather different), argues for a period of relative i solation in the coastal z one, during the second half of the third millennium. Prag ( 1974, 87) observes that material akin to that of Hama ' J' i s lacking in the Beq'a Valley of Lebanon, where the local E . B. A. ceramics are succeeded by material akin to that of Hama ' H'. Perhaps the interests of inland Syria at this period, as exemplified by s ites such as Tell Mardikh, were turned towards the Euphrates and l ands to the north and east, rather than the coast. As socio-economic developments proceeded, the l ittoral was brought increasingly into the Syrian cultural mainstream, centred on the Euphrates Valley and the steppe zone. Evidence to support such a view can be adduced from the metalwork, as there i s an indication that distinctive coastal styles existed for much of the E . B. A.; crescentic axe Type 1 , rarity of shaft-hole axes, tanged spearhead Type 7 . That this material i s replaced in the M .B.I period by types also found in inland regions ( fenestrated axes, daggers with styled blades, socketted spearheads) supports the view that coastal isolation declined around the end of the third millennium. The different regional widespread basic types

forms are essentially variants on such as crescentic axes and tanged

spearheads, which i llustrates the underlying unity in the range of material in production throughout the Levant. Among the simpler types, this fundamental homogeneity is more striking. The abundance and wide distribution o f Type 9 spearheads and the very basic daggers of Types 2 7 and 3 6 i llustrates that Syria also produced a range of relatively s imple weapons, requiring no great technical skill. These are in fact rather similar to the small Type 2 6 daggers, 1 92

which occur i n northern Palestine a longside the larger narrow daggers during the E .B.-M.B. period, stressing connections between the two areas at this time. The production of such basic, simple, copper weapons occurs as early a s the fourth millennium as seen by f inds from phase F i n the ' Amuq ( Braidwood and Braidwood 1 960, 2 45, f ig. 1 85.5) and in the graves of the tneolithique recent at Byblos ( Dunand 1 939, Pl. CLXXXIX; 1 973, 3 13, f ig. 1 86, Pl. CLX). I n Syria we have an industry producing material cast in two p iece moulds ( see 2 .1, 2 .2), of a more sophisticated, perhaps more ' international' character than that found in contemporary Palestine. However, the apparent coastal d istribution of Type 7 tanged spearheads, the concentration of shaft-hole axes in the Euphrates Valley, with its r iverine connections with both Mesopotamia and Anatolia, and the moulds for different crescentic axe types found at Byblos ( Type 1 as found in Palestine) and Halawa ( Type 2 , as found locally in the Euphrates valley) hint at possible regional variation in metalwork styles, as seen in the ceramics ( Mazzoni 1 985a, 1 985b). The presence of examples of the narrow dagger series at south Syrian s ites, ( see 2 .4) combined with the local occurrence of square-sectioned spearheads ( 2.2) and the common crescentic axe types found at Byblos and in Palestine ( 2.1), emphasises that this region may have had stronger connections with Palestine than did the rest of Syria. With the absorption of Syria into the Near Eastern cultural mainstream following a general north-south gradient, south Syria and Palestine seem to have remained on the periphery until the end of the third millennium, perhaps even later in the far south. Such a mechanism will go a long way to explaining the different regional developments within the Levant during the third millennium ( see below), and is in marked contrast to the more homogeneous styles which dominate during the earlier M . B. A. by which time the process was largely complete. However, g iven the very uneven nature of the sample, this must remain a suggestion at present. Additional material from southern and western Syria is badly needed to clarify SyroPalestinian relationships at this time. Palestine As the total Palestinian corpus for this period i s l imited, we can only touch briefly on the possibility of changes in the weapons in production during the E .B. A., nor can we d iscuss regional variation. It i s clear from the nature of our sample from sites such as Tell el-Hesi, Jericho, Bab edh-Dhra' and Kfar Monash that a vigorous, thriving, metal i ndustry existed during the E . B. A., producing a wide range of products i ncluding a number of weapon forms; hooked-tang spearheads, crescentic axes and various dagger types. Although s imilar in general terms, this material differs in detail from that of contemporary Syria. However, we are 1 93

currently comparing the Palestinian corpus with material l argely from the Euphrates Valley. We have l ittle knowledge of that of south and west Syria, which might be c loser to that of the southern Levant. More i nformation i s needed. Considering the availability of copper ores in southern Palestine some of which are l ikely to have been exploited during the Chalcolithic period ( Hauptmann 1 985) the existence of a thriving E . B. A. metal industry is to be expected. It i s, however, difficult to assess the exact contribution of the local Chalcolithic industry to that of the E .B. A. The r ich repertoire of objects known from the preceding period ( Hanbury-Tenison 1 986, 1 51 and references there), provides the technical background for a sophisticated E .B. A. industry. However this consists of material which i s l argely of a ceremonial nature, such as that of the hoard from Nahal Mishmar ( Bar-Adon 1 980). S imilar material, a lbeit in smaller quantities, has been reported from other locations, suggesting that the hoard should be considered as part of a ' tradition', not as an i solated event. Connections with E .B. A. metalwork can be seen i n more mundane types such as copper maceheads, chisels and f lat axes ( Hanbury-Tenison 1 986, 1 56) arguing for a degree of continuity between the Chalcolithic and E .B. A. We should not be surprised to see substantial changes in the overall repertoire, in particular the disappearance of the more elaborate ' ritual' items, which may in the course of social changes, have lost their original role. Maces and such l ike do appear in graves of the Chalcolithic period, so we are not s imply comparing material from different contexts. The late fourth millennium was a period of growing international contact, presumably connected to the appearance of Uruk-type s ites both to the north-west and east of Mesopotamia, events in which the southern Levant played a small part. S imilarities between designs on E .B. A. sealings, from storage jars found in Palestine, Syria and regions to the east, have been observed by Ben-Tor ( 1978, 1 01ff), and the wider connections of Palestine in the fourth millennium have been outlined recently by Helms ( 1987). We ought perhaps to consider the Palestinian E . B. A. metal industry within such a context, receiving a degree of spin-off contact from the large-scale trade carried out over the Euphrates route, thus accounting for the general parallels between the E . B. A. metalwork of Palestine and that of the Levant at l arge. The E .B.II and I II periods saw the development of defended urban centres throughout Palestine ( de Vaux 1 971 , 215-218), some such as Arad ( Amiran et al 1 980) with a system of ' daughter' villages, probably acting as organisational centres for an increasingly complex economy ( Richard 1 987, 2 9-31). These s ites were involved in some way i n the collection and distribution of agricultural produce ( Stager 1 94

1 985), and i n foreign trade, perhaps in commodities such as o live o il, wine and honey, some of which may have been shipped to Egypt ( Ben-Tor 1986, 4 ff). The evidence for s ite h ierarchies ( Broshi and Gophna 1 984) suggests the existence of a degree of centralised political and economic control. We should a lso note the close l inks between south Palestinian s ites such as Arad and sites in the S inai peninsula during the E .B.II period ( Beit Arieh 1 981, 1 982, 1 984), which seem to have been connected with the extraction of copper, much of it no doubt going north to the urban centres of Palestine. There i s therefore no reason to suggest that either technical factors, nor the availability of raw materials, are responsible for the relatively l imited evidence at our disposal for the metalwork of this period. It may be that as in Mesopotamia ( Moorey 1 982a, 3 2) t ight administrative control was maintained over metal supplies and recycling by the main urban centres, thus restricting the quantities entering the archaeological record. The existence of f ortified urban centres ( Broshi and Gophna 1 984, 49), suggests that weapons would be of some importance. There i s a small but significant body of evidence from the Old Kingdom, relating to campaigns, probably directed against southern Palestine e .g. the Campaigns l ed by Weni ( de Vaux 1 971, 2 35-6) and a depiction of a n assault on a walled town defended by ' Asiatics' found in the Tomb of I nti at Deshasheh ( Petrie 1 898, P l. IV), showing that warfare was not unknown at that time. Several skulls from E .B.IB tombs at Bab edh-Dhra' show s igns of axe wounds ( Ortner 1 982,94) indicating violent action, but l ittle of the hardware has survived because weapons were r arely employed a s grave offerings. This being so, the l imited amount of weaponry found in graves in comparison to l ater periods must be considered a social, rather than a technical or economic phenomenon. The l imited evidence for the expression o f social status via weaponry i n E . B. A. P alestine, as opposed to the later E . B.-M.B. period, or contemporary Syria, despite the clear evidence for site h ierarchies, and central control over production and d istribution ( see above) i s striking. D e Vaux ( 1971, 2 25) observes that a lthough E . B. I II graves are relatively f ew i n number, they often contain many i nterments. Offerings other than ceramic vessels or beads, are few, thus burials are essentially undifferentiated ( as f ar as we can tell from the data available to us). When this i s added to the l imited evidence for ' palace' buildings ( Wright 1 985, 2 72), the whole nature of E .B. A. urbanism in P alestine comes into question. We have evidence for concentration of population and for defence, but l ittle f or social stratification. Thus we might s uggest that the nature of Palestinian urbanism was d ifferent from that of contemporary Syria, or Mesopotamia, where palaces and c learly differentiated burials are well known. Perhaps that of Palestine was more ' community' c entred, placing l ess emphasis on a ruling elite, than was 1 95

the case in the north. Although the evidence of weapons implies that south and north Levantine urbanism may have represented rather different phenomena, a broader consideration of the nature of the E . B. A. in Palestine i s required, in order to examine this problem f ully. This task l ies outwith the scope of the present survey. Foreign trade during the E . B.I and I I periods seems to have been largely with Egypt ( Weinstein 1 984b, Ben-Tor 1 986), goods being transported overland, the route marked by a string of s ites found across the northern edge o f the S inai Peninsula, showing both Palestinian and Egyptian pottery ( Oren 1 973c). Egyptian contacts seem to have ceased by the E .B.III period, which is marked by a greater orientation towards Syria ( Ben-Tor 1 986, 2 3ff). The clearest i ndication of this is the presence of Khirbet Kerak ware at a number of Palestinian sites. This material generally occurs in bowl forms, which are unlikely to represent trade vessels, and has been shown ( Esse 1 982, 3 72) to be produced l ocally. Although parallels can be drawn between this material and Anatolian Black Burnished Wares (Amiran 1 969, 7 4), the significance of the appearance of this ware in Palestine i s still uncertain ( compare views of Hennessey 1 967, Lapp 1 970 with Kenyon 1 979, Esse 1982). More important for our purposes than its Anatolian connections, i s i ts occurrence at west Syrian s ites ( Watson 1 965, 7 8). I t i s perhaps within this context that we ought to consider the appearance of new types such a s the barbed spearhead ( Type 1 7) and the crescentic axe ( Type 1 ), whose l inks with Syria are clear. The former, three of which occur at Tell e l-Hesi, in what i s l ikely to be an E . B.III context ( see 2 .2) have a good parallel from the ' Amuq, assigned to Phase ' H', the phase i n which Khirbet Kerak Ware f irst appears. The latter would seem to form a local variant of a weapon occurring, i n a number of forms, throughout western Asia, during the earlier third millennium. It i s important to note here that a ll the Palestinian examples are of Type 1 , which shows a clear regional concentration. The mould from Byblos ( see 2 .1) opens the possibility of the Palestinian p ieces being imports from the north, although there seems to be no reason why these axes could not have been made at the local urban centres. Axes known from the Euphrates Valley and the mould from Halawa are of Type 2 , a rather different form, suggesting that the southern Levant was producing local variations on more widespread types, as with the heavy Type 1 7 tanged spearheads. The Palestinian i ndustry of the E . B.III period has its strongest connections with south and west Syria, as might be expected. To j udge from their archaeological contexts which are e ither graves or deliberate deposits, ( see Philip 1 988b), crescentic axes, and perhaps the barbed spearheads too, may represent prestige objects, although used less extensively than i n the north. It i s therefore i nteresting to s ee that 196

Palestine adopts a s imilar set of symbols to those in use i n the northern Levant at this period, suggesting, as does the evidence of both Khirbet Kerak and Pattern Combed vessels, that Palestine was involved in external socioeconomic networks ( see Esse 1 982, 2 72-285). How far these stretched i s another question. Despite the number of E . B.III graves excavated at s ites such as Bab edh-Dhra' and Jericho, shaft-hole axes have not been found in Palestine, a lthough several Type 1 crescentic examples are known, suggesting that these networks were mostly with southern Syria, Byblos and the Beq'a, rather than with the larger north Syrian cities ( see above). One further type deserves mention, the narrow dagger. These are confined to Palestine and western Syria, reinforcing the Syrian connections suggested by the presence of crescentic axes and barbed spearheads. Daggers of this form occur in tombs of the E . B.I period, are still i n use at the end of E . B.III and continue into the subsequent E . B.-M.B. period, where they become the major metal component of the archaeological record ( see 3 .2.2). The important point i s that all published examples from contexts pre-dating the E . B.-M. B. period seem are of Type 2 , which remains l argely unchanged throughout the E .B. A. The origins of this type remain obscure. A rough s imilarity exists to certain daggers from the tombs of the tneolithique recent at Byblos, a point emphasised by R ichard ( 1978, 2 28-9), but these are very general ( simple designs, with tapering or trapezoidal butts, and lentoid or l ozenge-shaped cross-section; some are quite long in relation to their breadth), and may result from the basic s implicity of the material ( see Philip, in press). Most early daggers f rom northern sites ( see 2 .4) show a d ifferent hafting, generally with a triangular, as opposed to a paired rivet system, and are rather broader in relation to their l ength. Palestine E . B.-M.B.

Period

This period is generally characterised as one of economic d islocation, sometimes ascribed to invasion by nomadic p eoples ( Kenyon 1 971, 5 94), and sees a shift from urban s ites to a more dispersed settlement pattern ( Prag 1 974), perhaps with a pastoral nomadic economy in southern areas ( Dever 1 980, 5 7). However, Esse ( 1982, 3 73) has emphasised that a degree of pastoral nomadism was probably present in Palestine throughout the E .B. A., as part of a complex, i nterconnected economy. A more recent view ( Richard 1 987), would ascribe these changes to increasing nucleation of s ettlements during the E . B.III period, leading to a loss of control in the outer districts, and thus greater autonomy f or the more peripheral parts of society. Such a process might eventually lead to a complete breakdown of the e stablished networks of social and political control. Although larger E .B.-M.B. settlement s ites are now being d iscovered, especially in the Jordan Valley ( Rast and Schaub 1 978; 1 981; Richard and Boraas 1 984; Helms 1 986; 1 97

1 987), E .B. A. period

these are still considerably smaller than sites, implying that the ' de-urbanised' view i s generally correct

nearby of the

Metalwork, in particular the marked increase i n burials equipped with weapons, has been important to various writers' interpretations of this period, and has often been seen as arguing for a marked break with the preceding E . B. A. ( Lapp 1 966, Dever 1 970, Kenyon 1 973). Although it has often been associated with ' newcomers', the evidence of metalwork would equally well support a different explanation, namely a breakdown in E .B. A. political structures. The increase in weapon deposits i n tombs, might result simply from the cessation of administrative control over metals, especially over their procurement and recycling, associated with the disappearance of the E .B. A. urban centres. These were probably replaced by a more f luid, competitive, social system, placing emphasis on the attainment of power through prestige, gained perhaps via personal consumption or one's connections within exchange systems, rather than on one's position in a pre-existing centralised hierarchy. No population movements would then be required. The expression of these notions through weapons i s probably related to s imilar changes which took place in Syria in the early third millennium ( see above), and are reflected in Palestine rather l ater. There are clear differences between the make-up of E .B.A. graves with their ' collective' nature, and the l ack of any obvious differentiation between individuals, and those of the E .B.M .B. period, where single burials are common and differences are more visibly expressed. Following the decline of the E . B.III centres, we may see a more f luid society, offering more opportunity for individuals and groups to promote their own interests. The style zones detectable in the metalwork suggest rather restricted regional networks, presumably corresponding to z ones of human interaction; the north, and the south, with some overlap in central Palestine. Support for this view comes from the existence of ceramic style zones and possible regional differences in socio-economic structure ( Dever 1 980, 4 5-49, 5 5-58). The frequencies of both imported metal artefacts, and of the use of tin-bronze, show a distinct decline from north to south ( see 3 .2.2, 3 .3). Fragments of mother of pearl and ostrich egg from domestic s ites in S inai ( Clamer and Sass 1 977, 2 47), and other rare materials from settlements in the Negev ( Dever 1 985b, 1 17) provide further evidence for the circulation of valuables. It i s l ikely that the copper i ngots found at several l ocations in southern Palestine, should also be interpreted i n this l ight ( Philip 1 988b). Although they may be seen as ' commodities' it i s unlikely that they passed from hand to hand without being involved i n inter-group social relations. We may in fact have a prestige goods system, c losely tied to imports/rare/prestige items, which operated 1 98

on the fringes of the more the n orth and south-west.

highly

developed

societies

to

Although daggers are occasionally found in E . B. A. tombs, it i s d ifficult because of the large number of interments in most such graves, to establish how the grave goods actually relate to the i ndividual burials. Even when we have an example of a rich E .B. A. burial, such as that from Kinneret ( Mazar et al 1 973), the contents do not include weapons. I t s eems therefore, that status was not necessarily expressed ( as far as the burial record is concerned) i n a military idiom during the E .B. A. The distinction of i ndividuals by such means has however good parallels in the l ater M . B.I period ( see Oren 1 971; Dever 1 975a; 3 .2.2 here). The crucial change in the pattern of deposition comes not in the M .B. A. but during the E . B.-M.B. period, a lthough this continuity has been masked both by typological changes, and even more so by interpretations which insist on a clear break between these two phases ( Dever 1 980; Gerstenblith 1 983). We must therefore consider the evidence for continuity between the periods. G iven the frequent references to e laborate daggers in the third millennium texts from Ebla ( see 3 .1.2), we might i nfer that the emphasis on weapons as suitable grave items i n E .B. -M.B. Palestine, echoes developments in contemporary Syria, where urban centres such as Ebla and Qatna were c learly developing strongly. We have also seen ( above) that burials with weapons are known in some numbers, from at l east the early third millennium in the central Euphrates region, where a range of tomb types occurs, many with good E . B.-M.B. parallels ( Prag 1 974, 1 00-101) i ncluding both s ingle and multiple forms, cists and built chambers ( Orthmann 1 981b). Given connections between northern Palestine and urban Syria ( see Prag ( 1984) on possible transhumance patterns connecting northern Palestine and Syria/Lebanon), it i s reasonable to expect that these developments would have repercussions in Palestine. Although Prag ( 1974, 1 05-7), who observes the s imilarities between Palestinian E . B.-M. B. material and that of l ate third millennium Syria, attributes these to l imited population movements, the view taken here i s that socioe conomic changes occurring on the central Euphrates in the early third millennium, ( see above) and in western Syria in the mid-third millennium ( Hama J , Tell Mardikh I IB) have c lear repercussions i n the southern Levant in the E . B.-M.B. period. These social changes are crucial in that they lay the f oundations for developments in the subsequent M .B.I. Northern

Palestine

The metalwork of this period in Palestine shows distinct regionalism. However, the metalwork regions are not exactly co-terminus with those which Dever ( 1971; 1 980) has defined i n ceramic terms. The underlying structure seems 1 99

to be Oren's

a simple ( 1973a)

north-south split, E .B.IV A and B .

roughly equivalent to The northern region

( hooked-tang spearhead Types 4 and 5 , dagger Types 2 and 3 , and Syrian imports), extends as far south as the Esdraelon, encompassing Dever's ceramic groups N and NC, the southern region ( hooked-tang spearhead Type 6 , dagger Type 4 ) which may well continue l ater than the northern material, i s roughly equivalent to ceramic family S . The i ntervening area, the Jordan Valley and northern parts of the Central Hills, as represented by sites such as S injil and Jericho would seem to combine elements of both regional styles, as i s the case with the ceramics from the recently excavated settlement at Umm Hamad esh-Sharqia in the Jordan Valley, which exhibit connections with both northern and southern forms ( Helms 1 986, 4 2-47). The mingling of both traditions in the Jordan Valley, stresses its importance as a means of communication ( Prag 1 974, 7 3), and as an important focus of sedentary communities of this period ( see above). Northern metalwork, may in fact represent the southern part of a l argely unknown south Syrian industry ( see discussion of ' imports' below). This seems reasonable as the ceramics of f amilies N and NC ( Amiran's 1 969 groups B and C ) are those with the strongest connections to the Syrian E . B. A. ( Dever 1 971, 2 01), although family N may represent a localised south Lebanon/Upper Galillee tradition, rather than having contacts with the major settlements of Syria ( Lapp 1 966, 8 9; Dever 1 980, 4 6). The E .B.-M. B. ' recession' was less severe, and of shorter duration in the north, where a more sedentary agricultural economy prevailed ( Prag 1 974, 7 2ff). The local E .B.-M.B. pottery can be shown to develop into that of M . B.I, without undergoing the typological developments of that found on southern sites ( Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984, 5 7-58). The evidence now suggests that there may even be a degree of continuity at some of the larger tells ( Dever 1 980, 4 4), where a more sophisticated metal industry might have survived. More work i s needed on the poorly known E . B.M .B. occupations at the major northern sites, and we should be wary of applying socio-economic reconstructions based on the southern evidence, which i s rather different, to the north. The material culture of northern Palestine during the E . B.-M. B. period shows both the strongest l inks with the preceding local E . B.III period, and with burial customs and ceramics ( Hama J ) of west-central Syria ( Oren 1 973a, 2 4-25), suggesting a date in the l ater third millennium for the E . B.-M. B. occupation in this region. Southern

Palestine

The south shows a different range of metal types, a ll developed versions of the traditional local forms ( see above). The Syrian imports found i n the north are absent. Dever ( 1973) has detailed the c lose ceramic connections between the Jordan Valley, the Central Hills and the South, the areas where our southern metal types occur. It i s generally

held

( Oren

1 973a;

3 1, 2 00

Prag

1 974,

81;

Dever

1 980,

4 3) that the band-combed ceramics of southern Palestine occur relatively l ate in the period. There i s certainly a possibility of some chronological overlap with the ceramics of other regions ( Helms 1 986, 4 2-48), but the E . B.-M. B. period in the south, largely represented by this ceramic form, may well continue longer than in other areas ( see Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1 984, 5 7). This would suggest that part of Dever's family S ( his E .B.IVC) runs contemporaneously with the true M .B.I period in Syria, and perhaps with M .B.I in the north-coastal and Esdraelon regions ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 1 05). White washed, incised pottery, a lthough in different shapes from that of ' Family S ', is now known from the earliest M .B.I l evels at Aphek/Ras el-'Ain ( Beck 1 985, 1 81-194) and coastal sites in the northern P lain of Sharon ( Kochavi et al 1 979, 1 51, 1 61). Although our types cannot in themselves offer f irm proof that the southern material is late, time must surely be a llowed for the very regional diversity of the E .B.-M. B. period to develop. As the available evidence suggests that most of the typological variation took place within this period ( only the earliest forms, Type 2 daggers and Type 5 spearheads occur throughout Palestine), and the southern types seem to l ie at the very end of this development, we might reasonably argue that they are the latest forms. We could view the appearance of short-bladed ( Type 6 ) hooked-tang weapons as a local response to that of genuine socketted spearheads in the north. In the same way, the long Type 4 narrow daggers, with their accentuated midribs might be a similar response to the early ' decorated' Type 1 2, or l ong Type 9 daggers which begin to appear in ' warrior' graves i n M . B.I contexts at s ites such as, Beth Shan and Tell Rehov. Therefore we see a southern industry which is producing an equivalent weapon, but within the traditional idiom, and of a form compatible with local metallurgical practices. It is worth stressing that the virtual absence o f southern forms from north Palestinian sites, like the l ack of imports in the south, argues for only l imited contacts between the two regions. This is also indicated by the highly regionalised ceramics, which are i n marked contrast to the homogeneity seen i n both the foregoing and succeeding periods. Within these areas however, we should note that both are divided into smaller units in ceramic terms. No equivalent for these can be reconstructed on the basis of the distribution of metal types, suggesting that the patterning of metalwork ( or the spread of metallurgical knowledge) operated on a different scale from that of ceramics. Narrow Daggers

outwith the

Levant

Although foreign parallels for these daggers are rare, one instance is s ignificant, their presence in a collection of material from tombs of the Umm en-Nar culture in the United Arab Emirates ( Cleuziou 1 977-78, 4 3 top right - the group as i llustrated represents a mixed context). The daggers are c losest to our Types 2 and 3 . One can be seen to bear 2 01

a double incised l ine down the centre of the b lade, a northern feature. The other metal weapons in this group are not of types familiar from the Levant, suggesting that they may represent a group collected from several sources, prior to their deposition in the tombs. The full associations of these weapons have not yet been published, a lthough Cleuziou ( 1980, 3 48) would date the Umm en-Nar culture to the second half of the third millennium. It i s unlikely, given the amount of weaponry recovered from third millennium contexts in Mesopotamia, that these were made there; there are no known Mesopotamian parallels. Neither are they l ikely to be local to the Gulf, a s no good parallels are known from sites in that area. These daggers are not however restricted to Palestine alone. Several examples are known from south Syria. The use o f the the term ' Dilmun' in connection with weights of precious metals at Tell Mardikh ( Steiglitz 1 987), suggests that the larger Syrian s ites were part of a wide ranging international trade network, which may well have i nvolved dealings with the Gulf area, perhaps mediated through Mesopotamian sites, a lthough direct contact must a lso be considered. Certainly, tin, which must have come from the east, probably up the Euphrates i s frequently mentioned in the Ebla texts ( see 3 .3) and was reaching Palestine during the E .B.-M. B. period. Nor was Ebla alone. We have no textual information about the role of more southerly sites such as Hama and Qatna in the l ater third millennium, although the archaeological evidence ( Fugmann 1 958; du Mesnil du Buisson 1 935, 1 45ff) suggests that both were already s ignificant urban centres by this time. Qatna in particular was well positioned to conduct direct overland trade with s ites on the Euphrates such as Mari; the direct desert route i s known to have been used in the early second millennium, and may have been in use earlier. Qatna has of course produced Type 3 narrow daggers from late third millennium Tomb IV ( see 2 .4). We seem to have here, a glimpse of the wide ranging contacts of the major Syrian centres by the l ater third millennium. I t i s within this context that we must also view the appearance of tin-bronze in northern Palestine. Middle Bronze Age Syria Middle Bronze

I

Although having general parallels in Mesopotamia the weaponry of the M . B.I period forms a distinctly ' Levantine' corpus. In contrast to the E .B. A, shaft-hole axes are not f ound i n M . B.I contexts in the Levant, a lthough they occur at northern s ites such as Chagar B azar ( Mallowan 1 947, f ig. 1 5:12, 1 5) and in Anatolia ( Erkanal 1 977, 15). I nstead we see a preference for the local fenestrated and narrowb laded forms of axe. The former occur in some number as f ar east as Mari and Baghouz, in forms typical o f the west rather than the distinctive ' eastern' variants known from 2 02

Mesopotamia and the Hamrin ( see 2 .1). In the l ight of this, we might consider whether axes from Baghouz provide evidence for east-west exchange networks. These could well have involved tribal groups such as the Suteans, who exploited the steppe between Homs and Deir e z-Zor, and who had regular contact with the settled communities at each end of their territory ( Kupper 1 957, 8 3). The dating of i nland Syrian/Euphrates Valley fenestrated axe f inds remains imprecise, owing to our poor knowledge of the ceramic chronology of those areas and the problems of relating this to the better documented western sequences ( Lebeau 1 983, 1 67). The lower dates for Baghouz proposed by some recent writers ( see 2 .1) might imply that f enestrated axes remained in production longer in inland areas than on the l ittoral. This would be supported by the presence of such axes in a mid-eighteenth century tomb at Tell Mardikh ( Matthiae 1 980c). We may therefore have a s ituation in which fenestrated axes were replaced on the coast by Type 1 narrow-bladed axes, while remaining i n use at i nland sites. This would also account for the absence of Type 1 , the earliest form of narrow-bladed axe, from inland Syria ( but for a broken example from lama), despite the existence of various Mesopotamian axe types related the l ater Type 2 -4 narrow-bladed axes ( see 2 .1). Connections

with Anatolia

Fenestrated axes f rom Anatolia ( see 2 .1) are contemporary with those of the Levant, and would probably be considered as ' imports', were it not for the presence of moulds at Kültepe ( Özgüg 1 986, 4 3-46). However, we know that more traditional northern styles of axe ( see Erkanal 1 977, 1 5) were a lso in use here, in contrast to the exclusive use of fenestrated weapons in the Levant. There are a lso examples of small Levantine spearheads from this site ( see 2 .3). The axes and small spearheads found at Kültepe are from burials, resembling the ' warrior' burials of the Levantine M .B.I. Unfortunately the Kültepe material has not been published by grave group so we cannot go beyond typological parallels. Given that the f inds and moulds are from the Karum, we might suspect that they were made for the use of foreign merchants resident there. This would seem to indicate the presence of Syrian smiths, resident at the Karum, producing their traditional products. Although the texts from the Karum, concern Assyrian merchants, it i s generally held, that it would have been impossible to identify the presence of these merchants on the grounds of their material remains alone. Therefore, we may well imagine other resident ' foreigners' would be equally invisible. There are however elements i n the archaeological material which suggest strong connections with the Levant, such as the presence of seals of ' Old Syrian' style ( Özgüg, N . 1 968, 5 9), and Levantine pottery ( Gerstenblith 1 983, 6 5 and references there), as well as the weapons themselves. There i s a lso textual evidence for 2 03

Syrian trading activities; merchants from Ebla buying copper with ' Amorite silver' and a reference to a man of Tadmor ( Lewy 1 961). A sealing of Aplahanda of Carchemish was found at Acemhöyük, where a fenestrated axe was also f ound ( see 2 .1), and seals of ' Syrian' styles are second in frequency there only to the local varieties ( Özgü9, N . 1 980, 6 2-67). Perhaps the role of the Syrian towns in the Cappadocian trade is overshadowed by the written documents o f the Assyrian network. The

' Porteurs

de

torcs'

I n the northern Levant much has made of the appearance of a new range of metalwork at the beginning of the M .B. A. This has even been associated with a new group of people, the ' Porteurs de torcs' whom Schaeffer ( 1949, 5 5) has i dentified as a group of new settlers, highly skilled i n metalworking, arriving at Ras Shamra at the beginning of Ugarit Moyen I . It i s important to note that it i s mainly the distinctive metal types, found at several early M . B.I s ites ( Schaeffer 1948, 4 0ff), which provided the main evidence for the newcomers. Kenyon ( 1966, 3 6) observed that the metalwork of U . M.I was strongly related to that of the ' full M . B. A.'. In fact, the dagger and axe types have good parallels in M . B.I tombs at Hama, in the Dö 'pöts at Byblos and at a number of other Syrian sites of this period; material of this kind i s not restricted to the coast. Kenyon ( 1966, 3 9) equates this material, most of which s eems to come from tombs excavated in the region of the M . B. A. temples, with the E . B.-M.B. period in Palestine, and v iews i t as representing a nomadic interlude, as she had suggested for Palestine. Admittedly no settlement material contemporary with these graves has been published from the s ite, but neither has M . B. A. settlement material of any kind, a lthough it must be present. In fact there are a lso good ceramic l inks with the incised material of the Syrian M . B.I period, as found at the main urban s ites ( de Contenson 1 979, 8 62), making a ' nomadic interlude' rather unlikely. What therefore does this phenomenon represent ? There is l ittle pottery reported from these tombs, i n contrast to a large amount of metalwork. Although a s imilar pattern occurs in E .B.-M.B. tombs, pottery is a lso rare i n early M . B.I ' warrior' graves at s ites such as Tell Rehov ( Yogev 1 985) and Beth Shan ( Oren 1 971), where the typological parallels of the weapons themselves are close ( in contrast to the M . B.I tombs of inland Syria such as Qatna Tomb 1 , or those at Hama, where much larger quantities of ceramics are interred). Much of the material of Ugarit Moyen I is the product of two-piece moulds, an unlikely attribute of nomadic groups ( see 3 .2.3). In f act, the data often taken as evidence for the ' Porteurs de torcs', can be better explained as resulting from the adoption in coastal areas, of metal types developed in inland Syria, and a simultaneous increase in the deposition 2 04

o f such material in grave contexts. In this sense then, t he changes at Ras Shamra are simply a local manifestation o f those taking p lace throughout peripheral regions of the L evant at the beginning of the M . B. A., changes which had a ffected inland Syria several centuries before. A comparison o f the distributions of contemporary metal t ypes, reveals that it i s hard to speak of one overall, u nified set of types, a standard ' warrior' set throughout S yria-Palestine. In particular, the material from Baghouz s hows greater emphasis on spears as grave goods, and on an a xe-spear, rather than an axe-dagger set. We may have s everal independent, spatially overlapping patterns. The d istinctive ribbed and grooved Type 1 2 and 1 3 dagger forms a re not reported from sites east of Tell Mardikh and Hama, t hus they are confined to the Levant proper. The same a pplies to Type 1 narrow-bladed axes, suggesting that both f orms have a Syro-Palestinian origin. Although Type 1 2 d aggers are known from Kültepe and the Nile Delta ( see 2 .4), both areas may have had Levantine residents. On the other hand, they are not yet known from the middle Euphrates area, where as in North Mesopotamia, straight tanged daggers with plain blades are preferred ( Mallowan 1 937,fig 1 3.2-5, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, Pl. LX). Many types show l ittle evidence of regional patterning w ithin the Levant itself, suggesting that their shapes had a w idely understood ' meaning' ( see 3 .1.3). The patterning o f socketted spearheads i s different. A range of small spearheads Types 6 -10, are found in early second millennium c ontexts, in an area extending from Mesopotamia and the P ersian Gulf to North Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, and throughout the Levant south into the Nile Delta. However these weapons seem to show localised stylistic traits ( see 2 .3). A s imilar pattern i s seen in the long-socketted Type 2 a nd 5 spears. Type 2 represents a form found only at B yblos, presumably therefore made locally, while Type 5 is a d isparate group of items of comparable dimensions, but p robably made at several different locations. This is s upported by references in the Mari texts to the production o n royal demand, of spear or j avelin heads of various weights ( Rouault 1 977, No.10, No. 2 1; Kupper 1 983, No. 2 04). Such localised styles are only gradually becoming apparent, and more work i s needed before we can assess this f ully. However, i t i s clear that the existence of regional s tyles within the Levant, cannot be detected in the M . B.I axe repertoire, nor in the decorated daggers, suggesting that the mechanism for production and distribution of these l atter artefacts was more complex than that of socketted spearheads, which were probably made for local use ( see 2 .3 ) A p art of the reason for this wide ranging similarity among axe and dagger types, can be explained by the political s ituation. The M .B.I period i s that of the so-called ' Amorite' kingdoms ( Kupper 1 973). By the period of the Mari texts, the political structure consisted of several 2 05

major ' Great Kings', ( Kupper 1 973, 1 0) with a fluctuating set of smaller vassal rulers. Although f luid in d etail, the basic structure of the system s eems to have r emained constant until the late 1 7th C , when the powerful K ingdom of Yamkhad was destroyed by the Hittite ruler Mursilis. It i s l ikely that this system extends back into the l ater third millennium, as texts dated to the Ur I II period refer to dealings with Ebla ( Michaelowksi 1978 38-39), and mention the presence of an Ensi at Byblos ( Bottero 1 971, 5 60), implying an urban community. After the campaigns of the earlier Akkadian rulers, there i s l ittle evidence for d irect Mesopotamian intervention in Syria ( Gadd 1973, 5978 ), and the form of the M .B.I states was probably l argely determined by the structure of the pre-existing third millennium communities ( Archi 1 980, 3 ). There i s good evidence for diplomatic contacts between major Syrian centres and Middle Kingdom Egypt ( Weinstein 1 975, 1 1; Ward 1 979; Scandone-Matthiae 1 979). Helck ( 1976) ascribes the presence of Middle Kingdom statuary in Syria to p lundering during the period of Hyksos rule, but this i s at variance with evidence indicating that the Hyksos were an essentially south Palestinian phenomenon, having only tenuous connections with Syria ( see below). Virtually all of Syria, at least as f ar south as Q atna, was i ncluded in this system, and the period is characterised by l arge scale international trade ( Sasson 1 966; Dailey 1984, 1 69), frequent diplomatic contact and gift-giving ( MunnRankin 1 956, esp. 9 6-99), constantly shifting a lliances, and regular outbreaks of open warfare. In archaeological terms, this manifests itself i n the form o f palace complexes ( Parrot 1 958; Matthiae 1 980b), rich royal burials ( Montet 1 928, 1 43ff; Matthiae 1 980), massive ramparts ( Parr 1 968) and substantial gateways ( Gregori 1 986). As far as our material i s concerned, one of the most i mportant, a lthough l ittle known aspects, must be the role of the rulers and e lites of the smaller kingdoms, who rarely f eature in the documentary evidence ( Bunnens 1982). Little i s known of the relationship between the state and its various vassal rulers, and even l ess the higher social groups within these units, yet it is surely j ust such people that received ' warrior' burials. Commerce, trade and manufacture was vital to many SyroPalestinian urban centres ( Sapin 1 981, 2 3), and the major i nstitutions of these centres, in particular palace workshops, played a significant role in weapons p roduction. These institutions must therefore have distributed both ' military' and ' prestige/personal' weaponry, which thereby became involved in matters of political policy, and may have been subject to certain constraints. The well made, standarised items of this period are l ikely to represent the work of specialist smiths, probably palace employees. Even i f the objects were not made in the palace, i t seems unlikely, given the variable supply and relatively high price of tin ( Talon 1 985, 2 17), that bronze was available to local smiths, without some degree of central control 2 06

over its o fficial Mari

use. Note MukanniMum

( Rouault

the for example, the role of the high in the supervision of metalworking at

1 977).

Palestine M . B.I A lthough there i s much overlap between the types found in S yria and Palestine during the M .B.I period, the closest r esemblances are those between northern Palestine and western, especially coastal, Syria. A s imilar uniformity i s seen i n the distribution of ceramics, in contrast to the s ubstantially different repertoire found in inland and n orthern areas ( Kenyon 1 966, 5 3, Tubb 1 983). A lthough some writers have argued for a complete break between the E .B.-M.B. and M . B.I periods in Palestine ( Dever 1 973, 5 9; Gerstenblith 1 983, 1 23), others have emphasised the degree of continuity ( Kenyon 1 973, 7 7; Prag 1 974; Tubb 1 983), and that i s the view favoured here ( see above and 3 .2.2). The contrast between the pottery of the two periods i s striking. However, as Tubb ( 1983, 5 6-58) points out, the wheel-made, red slipped and burnished material of ' classic' M . B.I f orm represents the f ine table and funerary wares of the revived urban centres, and i s not therefore directly comparable to that of the E . B.-M. B. period. A better comparison is that of the smaller M . B I settlements ( Gophna 1 979, Falconer and Magness Gardiner 1 984). It i s a lso becoming clear that this material in fact represents not the beginning, but an advanced stage of the M .B.I period ( Kochavi 1 975; Beck 1 975, 1 985), and it seems increasingly l ikely that we must see the re-urbanisation of Palestine proceeding at different rates throughout the country, with northern and coastal areas, which maintained their Syrian contacts throughout the E .B.-M. B. period ( see Oren 1 973a and above), recovering ahead of the south. The appearance of new weapon forms in the north and the f inal e laboration of E .B.-M. B. types in the south, make most sense within such a scheme. The s ituation in Palestine i s difficult to assess. Some have argued that Palestine had only l imited political contacts with Egypt until a late stage of the M . B.I period ( Weinstein 1 975), while the known centres rarely feature in the Mari texts. The implication i s that Palestine was a rather peripheral, though by no means i solated, region. However, in addition to metalwork, there is further evidence for wider Palestinian contacts at this time. Cypriot pottery i s reported in M .B.I contexts at Akko ( Johnson 1 982, 5 0), A Type 1 5 ( Anatolian) spearhead was found in Megiddo Stratum XIII, and there are a number of Palestinian-Anatolian ceramic parallels ( summarised by Gerstenblith 1 983, 7 6-85), while Kochavi et al ( 1979, 1 64) observe that northern sites such as Hazor, Tell Dan and Ginosar, show definite ceramic l inks with i nland Syria. The a ctual pattern of contacts seems complex and varied. Although

the

textual

evidence

for

2 07

direct

connections

with

Mari i s l imited, a s imilar archive from Qatna, much nearer to Palestine might be more revealing. The archaeological evidence, defended s ites, palaces and warrior burials indicates a society s imilar to, and in contact with, that of contemporary Syria, presumably through exchange networks, trade, diplomacy, marriage and so on. Recent excavations at Ras e l-' Ain/Aphek ( Kochavi 1 975; Beck 1975; 1 985) have revealed substantial public buildings o f M .B.I date, identified as ' palaces'. It i s within such a context that the use of ' elite' weaponry identical to that of Syria should be understood. It seems unlikely that Palestinian towns could have existed in isolation from contemporary events in the north, but their involvement was probably at a distance. The existence of ' great kingships' i n Palestine i s unlikely. A group of independent petty states, a scaled down version of contemporary Syria, minus the top stratum, seems a more realistic view. The settlement landscape should be interpreted as one of small, defended urban centres, with networks of ' daughter' villages at l east in the northern, coastal and Jordan Valley areas ( Kochavi et al 1979; Gophna 1 979). The l ists of Palestinian names i n the execration texts should be treated with caution; firstly on the grounds of the difficulty of s ite identification in general ( see Miller, J . M. 1 985), secondly on the grounds that neither the date, the meaning, nor context of production of these texts is adequately understood ( Weinstein 1 975, 1 3; B ienkowski 1 986, 1 30). They cannot be used as a means to reconstruct the history of the region during the M .B.I period. However, there is no recognisable hierarchy among the toponyms l isted, lending support for the political reconstruction outlined above. The ' Tale o f Sinuhe' ( Pritchard 1 955, 1 8ff) which should refer to an early stage of the M . B.I period, provides an account suggesting that the country was still in part tribally organised, with a considerable emphasis on warrior leaders or ' champions', seemingly reflected in the number of warrior burials of the period. Such individual combats are unknown i n the Mari texts, a comparison that might be thought to encapsulate neatly the contrast between the petty kingdoms o f Palestine and the l arge centralised states of Syria. However, we must be aware that we are dealing with two different kinds of document. Those from Mari are the daily correspondence of the Royal Administration, and deal with current events. The S inuhe story i s intended to glorify the hero, i s of uncertain date, and represents an Egyptian v iew of the Levantine world. We cannot compare such evidence directly with that of the Mari texts. Although the society described in the S inuhe tale might be classed a s ' tribal', the Mari texts reveal that the political organisation and socio-economic structures of such groups was complex and multi-facetted, and not incompatible with the existence of urban principalities ( Matthews 1 982) . As f ar as the M . B. A. i s concerned ' warrior' burials are largely found on, or near, permanent settlements, not in open country, i llustrating that the ' warrior' concept was by no means 2 08

r estricted

to mobile

groups.

The range of Palestinian material i s virtually identical w ith that of coastal Syria, suggesting a closer r elationship between the two areas than i n the E .B. A. The homogeneity of the metal assemblage throughout Palestine contrasts with the ceramic regionalism which can be detected during this period ( Kochavi et al 1 979, 1 63-4; B eck 1 985, 1 95-200). As before, the distribution of metalwork covers a wider area than that of ceramics, implying that d ifferent mechanisms are responsible. Kenyon ( 1973, 8 2ff) would derive the material culture of M . B.I Palestine directly from Byblos, while Dever ( 1976, 1 3) has correctly emphasised the role of Syria at large. Tubb ( 1983, 4 9-55) has clarified the different regional ceramic a ssemblages of Syrian M . B.I, and it i s clear that although some types ( narrow-bladed axes and decorated daggers) seem to be restricted to the coast/Orontes Valley zone, several key weapon types, and the notion of warrior burials in general, cut across the ceramic areas. Therefore, we might reasonably believe that the two regions were connected by exchange networks, and that the particular objects had an understood ' extralocal' significance. Palestine in the M .B.I period can be seen as forming part of a Levant-wide network of political relationships, despite its absence from the written records pertaining to the ' Great Powers' of the period. The

Delta

Besides Syrian contacts, we should also, consider the evidence for Palestinian relations with the south. Archaeological evidence for Levantine settlement in the Delta begins towards the end of M . B.I ( Bietak 1 984, Tab. 1 ), and continues through the M . B.II period. In its turn, Egyptian pottery has recently been reported in a M . B.I deposit at Tell Hefer in the coastal plain, contemporary with the ' Palace' phase at ' Aphek ( Paley et a l 1 985, 3 01). Bietak ( 1984, 4 74) has suggested that the initial impetus for the major, urban, settlement at Tell el-Dab'a came from the northern Levant, in particular Byblos, rather than from the s outh. The test of this claim will come when the ceramics from the earlier levels of the s ite are fully published. However, the distribution of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware forms ( Bietak 1 985b), and the clear Syrian nature of the Levantine pottery found in 1 2th Dynasty contexts ( Merrillees 1973) supports this view. The evidence of the metalwork gives additional weight to this argument. Many of the Type 1 2 daggers from Byblos are described by Dunand as bearing sets of l ightly incised l ines, running down the blade outside the main r ibs. This rarely occurs on Type 1 3 daggers, but i s known on an example from Tell et-Tin in Syria, and on two from Tell el-Dab'a ( Nos 5 84 and 5 86), perhaps suggesting that the latter site had, at least in i ts early phases, d irect l inks with Syria, rather than with Palestine. This does not of course imply that the ' Asiatics' c ited in 2 09

1 2th Dynasty texts are Syrians. The urban settlement at Dab'a may represent a completely different entity from the mobile ' Amu. The archaeological evidence for connections between southern Palestine and the Delta ( see below) suggests that these were strongest i n the M . B.II period. Given that early M . B.I material ( fenestrated axes, Type 1 2 daggers, see above) is scarce in southern Palestine, but occurs at Tell el-Dab'a, it is not unreasonable to believe that the initial connections were with coastal Syria, or north Palestinian sites such as Akko and Megiddo. This would follow logically from the known diplomatic contacts between Middle Kingdom Egypt and the cities of Syria, i n particular Byblos ( Weinstein 1 975; Ward 1 979; Scandone Matthiae 1 979). Syria Middle Bronze

II

The l imited archaeological and textual evidence from M .B.II Syria i s not indicative of major changes in political structure. Egyptian objects from Tell Mardikh ( Matthiae 1 980a) continue the pattern set by f inds of the M .B.I period at Ras Shamra, Byblos and Qatna, namely high level diplomatic exchange ( Weinstein 1 975, 1 1-12). Although there may be a break in occupation at Hama around 1 750B.C., the evidence from periods I IIA and B at Tell Mardikh ( Matthiae 1 980b), level VII at Alalakh ( Woolley 1 955) and Ras Shamra ( Courtois 1 979, 1 204ff) argues against this being other than a localised event. Textual evidence from l evel VII at Alalakh, reveals the continuing hegemony o f the Great Kingdom of Yamkhad, described a s a ' Pax Yambadica' by Sasson ( 1966, 1 61), prior to the attacks o f the Hittites in the later 1 7th C . The eventual overthrow of Yamkhad by Murgilig may be connected with the destruction of certain vassal towns, such as A lalakh VII and Mardikh I IIB. Unfortunately, as there are f ew excavated burials from this period, apart from those f rom Ras Shamra, there are few weapons to compare with those of M .B.I. However, a point l ikely to bear on the military a ffairs of the M .B.II period, i s the growing importance of the chariot and the composite bow, which might e ffect not only warfare, but also the composition of the archaeological record ( see 2 .6). Our only major body of material f rom Syria at this t ime, the chamber tombs of Ras Shamra, contain numerous burials, preventing the elucidation of specific associated groups of material. Although two Type 1 spearheads from a M .B.II context at Tell Mardikh, are rather s imilar to the Type 3 weapons from Ras Shamra, hinting at a possible widespread basic f orm, we are largely ignorant of the archaeology of northern and inland Syria during M . B.II. However, g iven that there seem to be some d ifferences between this material and that of the coast in the M . B.I period, we might suppose the s ituation to have been s imilar in M .B.II. The l arge Type 3 spearheads, which seem to replace both small and the long-socketted M .B.I types, are entirely absent from Palestinian burials. These large weapons, 2 10

u nlike the M .B.I burial goods, seem more akin to standard i nfantry spears, and may represent a change in the a ppropriate form of prestige weapons. Alternatively we m ight be seeing new emphasis on disciplined infantry a ction, and less on the individual warrior as exemplified by the dagger-axe sets so common in the M .B.I period, p erhaps reflecting the increased sophistication, or growing i nstitutional control of warfare in the coastal region at this time. The presence of spears in Syria, where s ites a re no l ess well fortified than in Palestine, suggests that the decline of the spearhead in Palestine has l ittle to do w ith the appearance of large glacis defences, as Tubb ( 1985a, 1 93) has implied. In Palestine, they were either not adopted, or were not considered appropriate for use in graves. It i s important to note however, that the l ightweight spearheads of the M .B.I period go out of favour a s grave goods i n the M .B.II period in Palestine, as they do i n Syria. Narrow-bladed axes still occur at Ras Shamra, but now appear as a distinct northern variant ( Type 4 ), rather s imilar to examples found in Cyprus in the later Middle Cypriot period ( Buchholz 1 979). Most daggers from Ras Shamra are of Type 3 3, which are very close to a range of Cypriot types ( see Äström 1 957, 2 46), a lthough there i s no f irm way of telling whether they are imports, locally made i n the Cypriot style, or j ust reflect the close ties between the two areas at this time. Cypriot pottery i s a lso common in those tombs ( Courtois 1 979, 1 204-1208). This is not surprising given the s ite's close l inks with Cyprus i n the M .B.II period, and leads into the strong connections of the L .B. A. ( Gittlen 1 981, 4 9). Those daggers which do not fall into Type 3 3 show no close relationship to any well known southern types. They may in f act represent l ocal products. There i s no clear successor, at Ras Shamra at least, to the ' styled' daggers of the M .B.I period, which feature as part of the M .B.I ' warrior' set. Palestine M .B.II I n metalwork, the period sees a mixture of continuity and change ( see 3 .2.2). The homogeneous coastal styles of the M .B.I seem to break up, and are replaced by increasingly distinct industries in the northern and southern Levant. The most striking point i s the close parallels between the material of the Delta, and that of southern Palestine, in particular the continuation of ' warrior' burials featuring the c lassic axe-dagger combination, a lbeit employing new types. Thus structural continuity underlies typological change. It is i n the Delta and southern Palestine that the M .B.I representation of e liteness survives, while in the north it seems to be transformed. Perhaps this reflects the different political forces operating in Syria, particularly with the growth of major power blocks to the north, the Hittites and Mittanni, disrupting the earlier political structure, or simply the earlier adoption of the 2 11

chariot

in

the

north.

Although a number of northern and coastal s ites were fortified in the M . B.I period ( Kochavi et a l 1979), those of the uplands and the south were not so until M . B.II, perhaps well into the period ( Parr 1 968, 22-24; Dever 1 985a, 7 1-72). Alongside the defensive evidence we see an i ncreasing amount of luxury material entering the grave record as the M .B.II period progresses. This i ncludes a labaster ( Ben-Dor 1 946), faience ( Sagona 1 980, 1 02) Cypriot pottery ( Johnson 1 982), and various f orms of metalwork, including occasional items of imported gold and s ilver. Apart from weaponry, such material i s rare i n M .B.I Palestinian tombs. It seems that while the the M .B.I. saw a concentration of settlement along the major coastal route, in the M . B.II period, there was a rapid revival and expansion of settlement in the hill country, and on the l ittoral south of the Carmel ( Gophna a nd Broshi 1 986). This expansion of settlement and i ncreasing prosperity should relate to increasing trade, and perhaps to political changes taking place in the Nile D elta ( see below). However, as Kenyon ( 1973, 1 15-6) points out, M .B.II material culture is essentially a regionalised, Palestinian phenomenon, in which local elements far outweigh the international. Dever ( 1985a, 7 3) considers that the apparent prosperity and generally homogeneous material culture of the M . B.II period, argues against local endemic warfare, as an explanation for the massive fortifications. Admittedly there i s l ittle evidence for major changes i n material culture, but such consistency i s not necessarily an i ndicator of peaceful times, as shown by the city-states of Renaissance Italy, or those of Early Dynastic Sumer. Surely the material which we see could as easily represent a competitive society, one where the ruling groups of the various small towns were involved in a constant struggle, centring on the attainment of prestige through conspicuous consumption or largesse, most easily detectable through the grave record. Such competitive emulation would b e all too p i-one to break out into open warfare, hence the f ortifications. Dever ( 1985a, 7 3) prefers s ees these defences representing a precaution against Egypt. The strongest argument against this view is that many pre-date the consolidation of power in Luxor under the l ate 1 7th Dynasty. Prior to this, Egypt proper, would represent no threat. Historically, the M .B.II period i s that of the rule of the ' Hyksos' dynasties in the eastern Delta, rulers o f Asiatic origin who established independent principalities there during the Second Intermediate Period, following the d isintegration of Egyptian control during the 1 3th Dynasty ( Hayes 1 973, 5 2). However the presence of Asiatics in the Delta goes well back into the Middle Kingdom ( Posener 1 957, 1 45-163; Van Seters 1 966, 8 7-93), and the first ' warrior' burials at Tell el-Dab'a date to the M .B.I period ( Stratum 2 12

H , The

B ietak pers. material

comm.).

from

this

site

emphasises

the

s ize

and

the

d istinct Levantine nature of this, and other settlements in the eastern Delta ( Petrie 1 906, Holladay 1 982), although the weapons from Tell el-Dabia, the major Second I ntermediate Period site in the Nile Delta, are of types of s outh Palestinian distribution ( narrow-bladed axes Types 2 and 3 , dagger Type 1 7). Some of these s ites are very l arge. The original extent of the M . B. A. occupation at Tell el-Dab'a has been estimated at c 2 00 Ha ( Bietak 1 985a, 3 17), while the area of Tell el-Yahudiyeh within the ramparts should be over 2 0 Ha., itself large by Palestinian standards. ( Compare the areas of Palestinian s ites given by Broshi and Gophna 1986). Levantine material has been reported from many sites in the area, but l ittle has been published as yet ( see van den Brink 1 982, 5 5ff). The r ichness of the Delta lands in comparison with the settlements of southern Palestine and the long history of contact ( Van Seters 1 966, 1 18), suggest that this area should be ascribed a major role in the political and economic development of Palestine in the M .B.II period. In particular the ' cultural explosion' of the later M .B.II ( Dever 1976, 2 0), with its rich graves and massive rampart f ortifications, may be related to economic prosperity set i n motion by the developing Asiatic Delta kingdoms. I would view the Palestinian metalwork ( and other rich grave goods) as a symptom of competition between elites and the f ortifications as indicating ever-shifting a lliances and endemic warfare between the various l ittle towns. From the presence of similar material at Tell el-Dab'a, and other Delta s ites, we might infer political connections between the Delta and Palestinian centres. A s imilar s ituation may have endured within the Delta itself, accounting for the large number of poorly documented f igures with Semitic names, who occur both in the Egyptian dynastic records and on ' Hyksos' scarabs ( Hayes 1 973, 5 8). The two areas were clearly controlled by people of s imilar background, using a standard set of symbols to define power and nobility, although the 1 5th Dynasty, ' Great' Hyksos, rulers appear to have adopted a mode of expression more akin to that of Middle Kingdom rulers ( Hayes 1 973, 5 6). It i s interesting to observe that the connections seen in weaponry, in warrior gear, seem to cut across the more regionalised distributions detectable in both standard and luxury ceramic types, such as Cypriot ( Johnson 1 982) and Tell e l-Yahudiyeh wares ( Kaplan 1 980, Bietak 1 985b). One might infer from this that the information conveyed by prestige metalwork, was at a level transcending that of most other luxury goods. In the l ight of the geographical position of Jericho, as reflected by the rarity of Cypriot pottery there compared with s ites nearer the coast ( see Johnson 1 982, 5 0-60), the strength of the metalwork parallels between that site and Dab'a, must be attributed to p atterned contact, and deliberate interaction, 2 13

presumably through long range or networks of communication.

alliances,

exchange

systems

Although the Delta towns were rich, they may, aware of their place as ' interlopers' in Egypt, have maintained regular relationships such as marriage alliances or defensive pacts with the towns of southern Palestine. Perhaps the anti-Hyksos polemic common in l ater times ( Hayes 1 973, 5 4-5), referred to a genuine situation, i n some places at least, where the rulers were unpopular, and c learly categorised as ' foreign', deliberately maintaining t ies with Asiatic princes outside the Delta. Such connections might leave l ittle archaeological evidence, other than certain shared upper class symbols. This explanation f its the material better than does the idea of a ' Hyksos empire', ruling Palestine from the Delta. Such relationships could well form the basis for the occurrence of ' Egyptianising', rather than genuine Egyptian goods i n Palestine. It i s probably no coincidence that the M .B.II period sees a high level of economic development in the region. One might even suggest that the large centres of the Delta might have acted as the ' locomotive' f or economic developments throughout the southern Levant. There are a number of weapon types common i n Palestine which are unknown at Tell e l-Dab'a ( though not the reverse). Type 1 0 daggers ( long tanged) have not yet been reported from the Delta, nor f lange-hilted daggers, or daggers with incurved butt ( Type 3 4). Many of these types are common at late M .B. A. sites i n the south, such as Tell e l-'Ajjul, Tell ed-Duwier and Tell Fara ( S), where battleaxes and Type 1 7 daggers are conspicuously rare. However the exact significance of these items i s not yet c lear, and we cannot make definite j udgements until f ull details of the graves at Dab'a are published. It i s possible that at certain sites we are dealing w ith graves of s lightly different sections o f society, or that the systems of social categorization a s expressed i n burial are different. The frequency of Type 1 7 daggers at Dab'a and the rarity there of the various ' substitute' f orms, might suggest that we can see in the latter, less prestigious k inds of weapon which may have functioned at a l ocal l evel within Palestine, and which were not in use i n the r ich burials of Tell el-Dab'a. However, there may be a chronological factor involved. There are differences between the chronology proposed by B ietak for the M . B. A. at Tell e l-Dab'a, and that accepted by many Palestinian archaeologists ( e.g. Dever 1 985a, 7 4ff). It should be noted however, that the l ater Second I ntermediate Period levels at Dab'a are damaged by Ramesside building operations and sebakh-digging, and i t i s possible that we are lacking metalwork from the l atest phases at this s ite.. However, it will remain impossible to tackle this problem until full publication of the ceramics from Tell el-Dab'a. For the purposes of our d iscussion we will accept that B ietak's correlation between 2 14

s trata E 3-D3 and M .B.IIB and correct, in relative terms.

D2

with

M .B.IIC

i s

broadly

I have suggested e lsewhere ( see 2 .6) that the adoption of the chariot towards the end of the M . B. A., was a s ignificant factor in the decreasing use of an axe-dagger status set. Such a view might be supported by the paucity o f narrow-bladed axes and Type 1 7 daggers from deposits a ssigned to the l ater M . B.II period by Kenyon ( 1973, 1 021 04), in particular from graves excavated at Tell e l-' Ajjul ( Petrie 1 931-34), Tell ed-Duwier ( Tufnell 1 958) and Tell Fara ( S) ( MacDonald et al 1 930, Price-Williams 1 977). Tell e l-Yahudiyeh ware i s rare at all of these s ites, a point that B ietak observes as characteristic of stratum D/2 at Dab'a ( Bietak 1 984, 4 77), and which should indicate a l ate M .B.II date. As the graves of Stratum D2 at Dab'a were substantially robbed ( Bietak 1 981, 2 68), we cannot tell whether these contained burials with axe-dagger sets, or whether their material was more akin to that of Tell el-'Ajjul and Tell Fara ( S). Tell e l-'Ajjul has produced one axe-dagger set, from Tomb 1 750, but neither weapon belongs to any of the well defined types, and they may represent l ate, atypical examples. On the basis of the evidence from ' Ajjul, Duwier and Fara ( S), it seems that axe-dagger sets were becoming l ess common as grave goods late in the M .B.II period, but i t seems unlikely that they had been completely abandoned prior to the end of the period. However, a decline in the use of these items on Palestinian s ites need not preclude their use in the Delta, let alone the existence of ' stockpiles' ( Smith and Smith 1 976, 60) at Avaris. We might argue then, that although this weapon set was a lready being replaced by material indicating ' charioteer' status as a burial set, these weapons maintained some symbolic importance in the Delta. The obvious conclusion must be that Palestine and the Nile Delta were in closer contact with each other in M .B.II, than was either area with Syria. This seems l ikely on the basis of the l ocal ceramic repertiores, as well as geographical factors. We can detect several distinct metalwork regions i n the Levant, one i n the north, presently known from Ras Shamra a lone, featuring strong Cypriot contacts and related to inland Syria, and one i n the south involving Palestine and the sites of the eastern Nile Delta, covering several of Kempinski's ( 1983, 1 91ff) ceramic regions. That in the south shows a greater unity i n metal goods, than i n ceramics, even special pottery ( see above), which suggests that this unity was at a high sociopolitical level. The exact position of northern Palestine i n relation to this entity i s unclear. In ceramic terms i t i s r ather different from the south, looking rather towards Syria ( Kempinski 1 983, 1 81-189; 1 91ff), and there are few examples of the classic southern M . B.II metal types from northern s ites. The existing large political centres, such a s Hazor and Megiddo ( Broshi and Gophna 1 986), may have 2 15

remained more distant from the i n the Delta, than did southern

216

i nfluence s ites.

of

the

new

power

3 .5.

THE LATE BRONZE AGE

Although this study deals mainly with the preceding periods i t i s important to consider L .B. A. weapons in order to perceive the changes which took place at the end of the M .B. A., changes which may be and political disruptions. burials and the

related In the

to contemporary social f irst place, a lthough

with weapons occur in the L . B. A., they are fewer classic ' warrior' burials of the M . B. A. cease.

Daggers continue to appear in grave contexts, a lthough more rarely than in the M .B. A. and no longer in axe-dagger sets. Examples of Type 1 0 and variants upon this form are still to be found ( see 2 .4). Long daggers with fully f langed hilts ( Maxwell-Hyslop Types 3 1-32) become the standard form i n L .B. A. tombs, replacing the various M . B. A. forms, in particular the decorated daggers with special pommels, which are no longer found. These f lange-hilted daggers stand at the head of a widespread tradition, examples of which occur in L .B. A. Mesopotamia at Nippur ( McCown and Haines 1 967, 2 2 P l. 3 0. 4-5), Ur ( Woolley and Mallowan 1 976, 1 19, n1.184), Agar Quf ( Curtis 1 983) and Subeidi ( Boehmer 1 983) and which continues, albeit with many variants, into the Iron Age. An impressionistic view suggests that stylistic change in these daggers, happens more s lowly than with the major M .B. A. forms, implying that they had a l esser communicative function. In view of the role of the chariot in the L . B. A, ( see 2 .6) this i s hardly surprising. Although axes decline sharply as a component of the grave record, occasional examples still occur ( see Deshayes 1 960, 1 86ff). However, these are no longer of the traditional Levantine narrow-bladed forms, but shaft-hole axes of Types 3 and 4 , which f irst appear very late in the M . B.II period, and are typologically related to north Mesopotamian styles of the second millennium ( see 2 .1). As with the daggers, the axe styles of the L .B. A. show a more ' international' cast. The essentially Levantine character of the M . B. A. weapons, i s replaced in the L .B. A. by more widespread styles. This may s imply reflect changes in their patterns of use and meaning, a decline in their communicative functions. However, that such widespread weapon forms should appear contemporary with a shift towards domination of the region by l arger political units i s suggestive. The argument that a decline in the number of weapons in graves indicates a period of peace and prosperity, i s contradicted by the evidence for Egyptian military action i n Palestine during the earlier part of the period ( Redford 1 979; Weinstein 1 981). The archaeological evidence i ndicates that the earlier phases of the L .B. A. were markedly poorer than the M .B.II period ( Gonen 1 984, B ienkowski 1 986, 1 5Off). In addition to the physical and economic damage detectable on the sites themselves, we also see a decline in the quality of grave goods. The metalwork and the a labasters, found in L .B. A. contexts are of a 2 17

d ifferent kind from those which are found in M .B. A. tombs ( see Ben-Dor 1 946), and a greater role is a llowed for imported Cypriot pottery as a luxury item ( Gittlen 1 981). Accepting that southern Palestine and the Nile Delta were l inked by a network of social relationships, style zones and exchange networks, built around the ' Hyksos Kingdom' as suggested above, then the destruction of this entity by Ahmose and his predecessor, would very l ikely have i nflicted severe damage on these networks, and hence affected the deposition of the valuables associated with i t. The Egyptian campaigns of the early 1 8th Dynasty seem to have been directed specifically at those southern Palestinian cities wherein most of the classic M .B.II metal weapons and the ' Hyksos' royal name scarabs occur ( Weinstein 1 981). This implies two things. F irstly that the Egyptians were only too aware of the nature and scope of the Hyksos sphere, of influence and directed their retribution at those areas, roughly Palestine south of the Esdraelon Valley, where many s ites show evidence of destruction or occupational gaps at the at the end of the M .B. A. ( see Gonen 1 984, Table 1 ). Secondly, the whole network of relationships and responsibilities was severely disrupted by these campaigns ( and therefore may have formed a genuine ' entity' in Egyptian eyes), leading to the d isappearance of the warrior gear, the mark of male status from the grave repertoire at the end of the M . B. A. I nteresting though this possibility is, we need more precise data on the point at which the axe-dagger sets go out of use, before we can decide whether their disappearance i s connected with the chariot alone, or was hastened by political events. Afterthought Small s ites such as Jericho, Khirbet Kufin and e l-Gib have produced only a few warrior graves each. Larger s ites such a s Tell et-Tin, Ras Shamra, Tell e l-Dab'a and Megiddo have produced more. Throughout our period, warrior burials frequently comprise the best equipped, male burials at a s ite. No consistently richer series of graves can be identified, at l east in Palestine. In Syria, we have those taken to represent individuals of very high status ( probably ' royal') such as Byblos Royal Graves I -III, the Hypogeum at Til Barsip and the Tombs of the ' Princess' and the ' Lord of the Goats' at Tell Mardikh. These i ndividuals, though still a l evel below ' Great Kings' such a s the M .B. A. rulers of Yamkhad, Mari or Qatna were clearly important personages within their respective communities. The material from these tombs comprises the richest sector o f the grave spectrum. The warrior burials form the next i dentifiable ' level' of r ichness, and the quality of their contents compares quite well to those of many Early Dynastic period graves from Mesopotamia, such as those from a l ' Ubaid, Cemetery ' A' at Kish ( Moorey 1 982a), and Abu 2 18

Salabikh ( Postgate et al 1 985). ( The Royal Cemetery i s e xcepted on account of its atypical r ichness.)

at

Ur

The implication i s that at many smaller s ites, the warrior burials represent the interments of i ndividuals at, or very near, the top of the social structure, emphasising the c lose connections between these axe-dagger sets and high status, and strengthening the argument put forward earlier that possession o f these items was exclusive and highly desired. However, weapons are only one e lement of a complex and varied grave repertoire. A full-scale study of the social aspects of burial would need to consider the overall patterning of tomb material, not only metalwork, but a ll contents, as well as tomb architecture and skeletal remains. It is a lso significant that nearly all such tomb groups are from the vicinity of tells, which i f not l arge, were l ikely to have been l ocal centres during the period in question, a point not always clear from reports of i ndividual tomb d iscoveries. We do not f ind many such burials around the numerous small village settlements that are being discovered by new survey work ( see Broshi and Gophna 1 986). Although this seems a promising l ine of i nquiry, considerably more work i s required. I n order to ' contextualize' the burial evidence, we need to consider its relationships to settlement data, local land potential, trade routes and textual information, noting that the pattern i s l ikely to differ through time, with the f luctuating fortunes of particular families, s ites or regions. In such a way we might attempt a reconstruction of the socio-political world of the Bronze Age Levant. By then undertaking regional and chronological comparisons, we would gain new i nsights into the processes behind the v isible patterns. Hopefully, the present study, by the presentation and analysis of a rather neglected aspect of this material, represents a step towards these goals.

2 19

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

A . A. A. S.

Annales

A . A. S. O. R.

Annual of Research

A . A. T.

Ägypten

A . D. A. J.

Annual Jordan

of

A .f. O.

Archiv

für

A . J. A.

American

A . J. B. A.

Australian

Alt. Or. For.

Alt -Orientalische

Am. Ant.

American

Antiquity

A . R. M.

Archives

royal

A .S.

Anatolian

A . S. A. t.

Annales

Bag. Mitt.

Baghdader Mitteilungen

B . A. R.

British

B . A. S. O. R.

Bulletin Research

Bi. Or.

Bibliotheca

B . M. B.

Bulletin Annual

archöologiques the

American

und Altes the

syriennes

Schools

of

Oriental

Testament

Department

of

Antiquities

of

Orientforschung

Journal

of

Journal

de

Archaeology of

Biblical

Archaeology

Forschungen

Mari

Studies

du

Service

des

Archaeological of

the

Antiquites

de

l ' tgypt

Reports

American

Schools

of

Oriental

Orientalis

du Musee

of

arabes

the

School

de

Beyrouth

British of

School

British

C . A. H.

Cambridge

C . R. A.I. B. L.

Comptes rendues des seances de l 'Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres

Curr. Anth.

Current Anthropology

E . E. F.

Egypt

I . E. J.

Israel

Exploration Journal

Isr. Mus. Jnl.

Israel

Museum Journal

Exploration

220

in

Athens

B . S. A. E.

Ancient

Archaeology

at

Egypt

History

Fund

Ist. Mitt.

Istanbuler

Mitteilungen

J . A. A.

Journal

of

Anthropological

J . A. O. S.

Journal

of

the

J . A.S.

Journal

of

Archaeological

J . E. A.

Journal

of

Egyptian Archaeology

J .E.S. H. O.

Journal of the of the Orient

Economic

J . H. M. S.

Journal

of

the

Historical

J .N.E. S.

Journal

of

Near

L . A. A. A.

Liverpool

M . A. R. I.

Mari: annales de röcherches interdisciplinaire

M .Ä .S .

Müncher

M .D.I. K.

Mitteilungen

American

Eastern

Annals

of

Ägyptologische des

Mitteilungen

der

Gesellschaft

zu

Society

Science

and

Social

History

Metallurgy

Society

Studies and Archaeology

Studien

Kairo

Deutschen

Orient -

Berlin

M .E.T. U.

Middle

O .I.P.

Oriental

0 . M. R. O.

Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum von oudheden te Leiden

Op. Ath.

Opuscula

Or .. Ant

Oriens

P . A.C. T.

Journal of the European Study Group Physical, Chemical and Mathematical Techniques Applied to Archaeology

Pal. M. J. Bul.

Palestine

P .B.F.

Prähistorische

P .E. O.

Palestine

P .P.S.

Proceedings

of

the

Prehistoric

Proc. Brit. Ac.

Proceedings

of

the

British Academy

Q .D. A. P.

Quarterly of

East

Oriental

Deutschen Archäologischen

Institut Abteilung, M .D.O. G.

Art

Archaeology

Technical

Institute

University

Publications

Athiensia

antiquus

Museum Jerusalem,

Bulletin

Bronzefunde

Exploration

of

on

the

Palestine 2 21

Quarterly

Department

of

Society

Antiquities

R . A.

Revue d ' Assyriologie orientale

R . B.

Revue

R . D. A. C.

et

d 'archeologie

Biblique

Report

of

the

Department

of

Antiquities,

Cyprus R . d. S. O.

Rivista

St. Ebl.

Studi

S .I. M. A.

Studies

T . A.

Tel

T . A. D.

Türk Arkeoliji

T . T. K.

Türk

U . A. V. A.

Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie vorderasiatischen Archäologie

U .F .

Ugarit-Forschungen

W . A.

World Archaeology

W . V. D. O. G.

Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft

Z . A.

Zeitschrift

für

Archäologie

Z . A. S.

Zeitschrift für Altertumskunde

Ägyptisches

Z . D. P. V.

Zeitschrift

des

Deutschen

Zeitschrfit

für Assyriologie

Z .f. A.

degli

studi

orientali

eblaiti in Mediterranean Archaeology

Aviv

Tarih

Dergisi

Kurumu

Vorderasiatiche

Sprache

der

und

Palästina Vereins

Archäologie

222

und

und

REFERENCES Albright, I I:

W . F.

The

1 938.

The

Bronze Age,

Excavations

A . A. S. O. R.

at

17,

Tell

Beit Mirsim,

12ff,

New Haven.

Albright, W . F. 1 941-43. The Excavations at Tell Beit I II: The Iron Age, A . A. S. O. R. 21-22, New Haven. Albright,

W . F.

1 949.

The Archaeology

of

Palestine,

Mirsim

Penguin

Books. Albright, W . F. 1 966. Bronze IV-Middle Palestine',

' Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and Syria-

B . A. S. O. R.,

184,

26-35.

Algaze, G . 1983-84 ' Private Houses and Graves at Inghara, reconsideration', Mesopotamia XVIII-XIX, 1 35-194. Amiet, P . 1960. ' Notes sur la repertoire iconographique Mari ä l 'epoque du palais', Syria 3 7, 2 15-232. Amiran,

R .

1961.

Barukh' Amiran,

R .

' Tombs

Atiqot 1969a.

3 ,

of

the

Middle

Bronze

a

de

I at Ma'ayan

84-92.

Ancient

Pottery

of

the

Holy

Land,

Jerusalem Amiran , R. 1969b. The Oadmoniot, 4 5-49.

Pottery

of

Amiran, R . 1974. ' A Tomb Group 7 , ( H. S.) 1-12. Amiran R . Alon D ., Amiran, D . H. K. 2 2-29. Archi,

the Middle

from Geva'

Bronze

Carmel',

Age

I ',

Atiqot

Arnon, D ., Goethert, R ., Gavish, D . 1980 ' The Arad countryside' Levant

A .

1980.

' Notes

on

Eblaite

Geography',

Archi, A . 1-16.

1 981.

' Notes

on

Eblaite

Geography

St. Ebl.

& 1 2,

2 ,

1-

1 6.

Archi, A . 1 982. ' About State', St. Ebl. V ,

the Organisation 2 01-220.

of

Ebla

Archi, A . 1985a. Archiv! Reali di Ebla Vol. Archaeologica Italian° in Siria, Rome. Archi,

A .

Mari', Archi. A . poids

1985b.

' Les

M . A. R.I.

4 ,

rapports

politiques

I I'

I ,

entre

St. Ebl.

and

4 ,

its

Missione

Ebla

et

6 3-84.

1985c. ' Circulation d 'objets en metal pröcieus standardise ä Ebla', in J .-M. Durand and J . -R.

Kupper, ( eds) Miscellanea Babylonica. ä Maurice Birot, Paris, 25-34.

223

Melanges

de

offerts

Archi, A . 1987. ' More on Ebla Rendsburg and N . H. Winter the Ebla Archives and Winona lake, 1 25-140. Archi,

A .

I II,

and

Biqa,

Missione

M . G.

and Kish' in C . H. Gordon, G . A. ( eds) Eblaitica: Essays on

Eblaite

1982.

Language

Archivi

Archaeologica

Assaf, A . A. 55-68. Äström,

P .

1967.

1957.

' Der

The

Freidhof

Middle

Reali

Italiano

Arns, R . et al, 1984. ' Ausgrabungen 1983' M . D. O. G. 116, 15-64.

I ,

in

in

Tall

di

Bi' a

Bronze

I Tomb-Cave

Bahat, D . 1976. ' A Middle Bronze Age Menahemiya', Atigot 11, 27-33. Balthazar, J . W . 1987. Rivetted Daggers: 3 21-322.

Vol.

Rome

1 981

und

A. A. A.S.

17,

Bronze Age

Bagatti, P . B. 1967. Gli Scavi di Nazaret Vol. Origini al Secolo Xii, Publicazioni dello Biblicum Franciscanum. Bahat, D . 1975. ' A Middle E .I. 12, 18-22.

Ebla

Siria,

von Yabrud',

Cypriote

Eisenbrauns,

, Lund.

I . Delle studium

at

I Cemetery

Motza',

at

' Cypriot Hook-Tang Spearheads Manufacture and Use', A. J. A.

and 91,

Bar-Adon, P . 1980. The Cave of the Treasure, the f inds the caves at Nahal Mishmar, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration

from

Society.

Barrett, J . and Bradley, R . 1980. ' The later Bronze Age in the Thames Valley', In J . Barrett and R . Bradley ( eds), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, B . A. R., British Series 83, Oxford, 2 47-70. Beck,

P .

Tell Beck,

P .

1975.

' The

Aphek', 1985.

1 972-1984. Behm-Blancke, 1981',

Pottery

T . A.

' The

M . R.

Bronze

Summary',

3 4,

I IA

T . A.

1983.

' Hassek

XXVI-2,

65-78.

Behm-Blancke, M . R. et al 1984. Bericht über die Grabungen Ist. Mitt.

the Middle

Bronze Age

IIA

45-80.

Middle

First

T . A. D.

2 ,

of

Pottery 1 2,

Höyük.

from Aphek

181-203. Die

Grabungen

' Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger in den Jahren 1981-1983',

3 1-65.

Beit Arieh, I . 1 974. ' An Early Bronze Salah in Southern Sinai', T . A. 1 ,

Age I I Site 1 44-156.

at

Nabi

Beit Arieh, I . 1 981. ' A Pattern of Settlement in Southern Sinai and Southern Canaan in the Third Millennium 2 24

at

B . C.',

B . A. S. O. R.

Beit Arieh, Feiran

I .

1982.

Oasis

in

Ben-Dor, I . 1946. 1 2, 93-112.

243, ' An

3 1-55.

Early

Southern

Bronze

Sinai',

' Palestinian

I I

Ben-Tor,

A .

1975.

Two

of

Burial

near

9 ,

the

Caves

Temple

the

Q . D. A. P.

at

Kfar Monash

of

the

146-156.

Alabaster Vessels',

Ben-Dor, I . 1950. ' A Middle Bronze-Age Nahariyah.' Q . D. A. P. 1 4, 1-41. Ben-Tor, A . 1971. ' The Date I . E. J. 2 1, 201-206.

site

T . A.

Hoard',

Proto-Urban

Period at Azor, 1971: The First Season of Excavations at Tel Yarmuth 1970 . Qedem 1 . Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Ben-Tor, A . 1978. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Palestine, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Series 22. Ben-Tor, A . 1982. ' Relations between Egypt and the Land of Canaan during the Third Millennium B . C.', Journal of Jewish Studies 3 3, 3-18. Ben-Tor, A . 1986. ' The Trade Relations of Palestine Early Bronze Age', J . E. S. H. O. 2 9, 1-27.

in

the

Bienkowski, P . 1984. The Late Bronze Age at Jericho, unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Liverpool. Bienkowski,

P .

1986.

Warminster, Bietak, M. zweite

An s

Jericho

in

the

Late

Bronze Age,

& Phillips.

1968. ' Vorläufiger Bericht über die erst u . Kampagne der Österreichisches Ausgrabungen auf

Tell el-Dab'a in Ostdelta M . D. I. K. 2 3, 7 9-114.

Ägypten,

1966,

1967',

Bietak, M . 1970. ' Vorläufiger Bericht über die dritte Kampagne der Österreichisches Ausgrabungen auf Tell elDab' a in Ostdelta Ägypten, 1968, M . D.I. K. 26, 1 5-47. Bietak, M . 1981. ' Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta', Proc. Brit. Ac. LXV Bietak, New

( 1979) M .

2 25-290.

1984.

Evidence

' Problems from

of

Middle

Bronze

Egypt',

A . J. A.

88,

Age

Chronology:

471-485.

Bietak, M. 1985a. ' Eine Palastanlage der Zeit des später Mittleren Reiches und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem ostlichen Nildelta ( Tell el-Dab'a 1979-1984), Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie

der

Wissenschaften 2 25

121,

3 13-349.

Bietak, M . and W .

1985b. ' Tell el-Jahudiyeh-Keramik', I n W . Eberhardt ( eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie,

Weisbaden, Bietak, M . Pharos

Otto

Harrassowitz,

and Strouhal, Seqenenre ( 17

Naturhistorisches Binford,

L .

1 972a.

3 35-348.

E . 1974. ' Die Todesumstande Dynastie)', Annalen

Museum Wein

' Archaeology

7 8,

as

L . R.

1972b

' Mortuary

des

29-52.

Anthropology',

Binford ( ed.) An Archaeological Perspective, New York, reprinted from Am. Ant. 2 8, 2 17-225 Binford,

Helck,

Practices:

Their

In

L . R.

2 0-32, ( 1962).

Study

and

Their Potential', In R . L. Binford ( ed.) An Archaeological Perspective, 208-243, New York, reprinted from J . A. Brown ( ed.) Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices ‚Memoirs of Society for American Archaeology, Am. Ant. 3 6, 6-29 ( 1971). Binford, R . L. 1972c ' Archaeological Systematics and Study of Culture Process' R . L. Binford ( ed.) An

the

the

Archaeological Perspective , 195-207, New York, reprinted from Am. Ant. 3 1, 2 03-210 ( 1965). Binford, R . L. 1977. For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis and Systemic Modelling, New York. Biran,

A .

1973.

' Tell

Dan'

I . E. J.

2 3,

110-112.

Birmingham, J . 1977. ' Spectrographic Analyses of some Middle Bronze Age Metal Objects from Palestine', Levant 9 ,

1 15-120.

Birot, M . salle

1960. A . R. M. 5 du Palais,

IX Testes Paris.

administratifs

Birot, M . 1974. A . R. M. XIV Lettres gouverneur de Sagaratum, Paris. Birot, M . rägne Bittel, 1 2,

1978. ' Donnäes de Z imri-Lim',

K . 1940 ' Der 181-205.

Blalock, H . M. 1972. McGraw-Hill.

nouvelles Syria 55,

Depotfund

Social

von

de

de

Yaqqim-Addu

sur la chronologie 3 33-343.

du

Soli-Pompeiopolis',

statistics

2nd

ed.

New

Z . A.

York,

Bliss, F . J. 1 894. A Mound of Many Cities or Tell el Excavated, London, Committee of the Palestine Exploration

la

Hesy

Fund.

Bloch, M . 1 977. ' The Man 12, 2 78-292.

past

and

the

2 26

present

in

the

present',

Boehmer, R . M. 1972. Die Kleinfunde von Bogazköy aus die Grabungskampagnen 1931-1939 und 1952-1969, Berlin. Boehmer, R . M. Bogazköy.

1979. Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt Grabungskampagnen 1970-1978, Berlin.

Boehmer, R . M. Mitt. 14,

1983 ' Dolche 1 01-108.

Bonnet,

H .

1926,

Die

vom

Waffen

Tell

der

Subedi

Volker

des

( Hamrin)'

Alten

von

Bag.

Orient,

Leipzig. Bottero,

J .

1 957.

A . R. M.

administratives,

VII,

Textes

öconomiques

et

Paris.

Bradley, R . 1985. Consumption and Change in the Archaeological Record. The Archaeology of Monuments and Deliberate Deposits, University of Edinburgh, Department of Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 1 3. Braidwood, R . J. and Braidwood, L . S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I . The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A-J., Chicago: University of Chicago, O .I. P. No. 61. Brandl, B . 1 984. ' The Small Finds from the Middle Bronze Age Strata', In E . Stern, Excavations at Tell Mevorakh Part Two: The Bronze Age , Qedem 18 Jerusalem. Branigan, K ., McKerrel, examination of some 10.1,

H . and Tylecote, F . R. Palestinian Bronzes',

1976. ' An J . H. M. S.

15-23.

Brew, J . O. 1 946. ' The use and abuse of taxonomy' In Archaeology of Alkali Ridge Southeastern Utah, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, No. 2 1, Cambridge Mass, Harvard

University

Press,

44-66.

Brewer, C . W. 1977. ' Metallurgical artefacts', Atic lot 12, 75-80. Broshi,

M .

and

Gophna,

R .

1984.

study

' The

Population of Palestine During III' B . A. S. O. R. 2 53, 41-53. Broshi,

M .

and

Gophna,

Palestine: Its 2 61, 7 3-90.

R .

1986.

Settlements

Palestinian

Settlements

the

' Middle and

of

Early

Bronze

Population

Age

Brunton, G . London,

Archaeological

1 937. Mostagedda Quartich.

Typology,

and

2 27

the

Evanston,

Tasian

Age

I I-

I I

B . A. S. O. R.

Brown, J . A. 1 982. ' On the Structure of Artefact Typologies', In R . Whallon, and J . A. Brown, Essays in 1 76-187.

and

Bronze

( eds) I llinois,

Culture,

Buchanan, B . 1966. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum Volume 1 : Cylinder Seals, Oxford Buchholz, H . G. 1967. ' Analysen prähistorischer Metallfunde aus Zypern und den Nachbarlandern', Berliner Jahrbuch 7 , 189-256. Buchholz, H . G. 1979. ' Bronzen Schaftrohäxte aus Tamassos und Umgebung', Studies Presented to Porphyros Dikaios Nicosia Lions Club, 76-88.

,

Buhl, M . L. 1983. Sukas VII The Ancient Near Eastern Pottery and Objects of Other materials from the Upper Strata, Copenhagen, Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia No. 9 . Bunnens, G . 1982. ' Pouvoirs locaux dans le royaume de Mari' In A . Finet ( ed.) Les Pouvoirs Locaux en Mäsopotamie et dans les Regions Adjacentes, Bruxelles, 43-55. Calmeyer,

P .

1969

Kirmanshah, Caneva, C ., metalli

Datierbare

U . A. V. A.

5 ,

Bronzen

aus

Luristan

und

Berlin.

Frangipane, M . and Palmieri, di Arslantepe nel quadro dei

A . M. 1985. ' I piu antichi

sviluppi della metallurgicia vicino-orientale', Quaderni de 'La ricerca scientifica n . 112. Scavi ricerche archeologiche degli anni 1976-1979, Rome: Consiglia Nazionale dell ricerche, 115-134. Catling,

H .

World, Chang,

W .

1964.

Oxford,

K . C.

1967.

Cypriot

Clarendon Rethinking

Bronzework

in

the

e

Mycenean

Press. Archaeology,

New

York,

Random

House. Chapman, R . W. 1977. ' Burial Practices: an area interest', In M . Spriggs ( ed.) Archaeology . Anthropology,

Oxford,

B . A. R.

Supplementary

of mutual and Series

19,

1 9-34. Chehab, M . 1939. ' Tombe phänicienne de Sin el-Fil' In Mélanges Syriens offert a R . Dussaud, I I Paris, 803-10. Chehab, 4 , Childe,

M .

1940

' Tombes

phäniciennes,

Majdalouna',

B . M. B.

3 7-53. V . G.

1942.

Childe, V . G. 1956. Interpretation Routledge Clamer, C . Yosef, Gebel

What

Happened

in History,

Pelican

Books.

Piecing Together the Past. The of Archaeological Data, London,

& Kegan

Paul.

and Sass, B . 1977. ' Middle Bronze I ', In 0 . Bar and J . A. Phillips Prehistoric Investigations in Maghara

Northern

Sinai, 2 28

Qedem

7 ,

245-254.

Clark,

G .

1957.

Archaeology

Clarke, D . L. Press

1978.

Cleuziou,

1977-78

S .

de fouilles Uni, Vol

and

Analytical

' Les

Society,

Archaeology,

deuxiöme

ä Hili 8 ' In 3 0-42.

London,

et

London,

troisiäme

Archäologie

Methuen.

aux

Academic

campagnes

Emirats

Arabs

Cleuziou, S . 1980. ' Economie et sociötö de la peninsule d 'Oman au 3e millennaire. Le role des analogies interculturelles In L 'archeologie de l 'Iraq du debut de l ' epoque nöolithique C . N. R. S., 3 43-360.

ä 3 33

avant

notre

äre,

Cohen, R . 1985. 2 02-204.

' Negev

Emergency

Project

1984',

Cohen,

' Negev

Emergency

Project

1984-85',

3 6,

R .

1986.

Paris,

I . E. J.,

35,

I . E. J.,

111-115.

Cohen, R . and Dever, W . E. 1979. ' Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Central Negev Highlands Project', B . A. S. O. R. 2 36, 4 1-60. Conen, R . and never. 3 0, 2 28-231. Cohen, R . Third

W . G.

1980,

and Dever, W . E. 1981. Season of the Central

B . A. S. O. R.

2 43,

' Be'er

Resisim

1980'

I . E. J.

' Preliminary Report of the Negev Highlands Project',

57-77.

Cole, D . P. 1984. Shechem I : The Middle Bronze Age IIB Pottery, Excavation Reports of the American Schools Oriental de

Contenson, ä l ' ouest Ugaritica

of

Research. H . du

1 962. ' Poursuite Temple de Baal',

IV,

Paris,

Paul

des recherches du sondage In C . F. A. Schaeffer ( ed.)

Geuthner,

447-521.

de

Contenson, H . 1 972. ' Rapport pröliminaire sur campagne de fouilles ä Ras Shamra', A . A. A.S.

la XXXIIe 2 2, 2 5-43.

de

Contenson, H . 1 979. ' Nouvelles donnäes sur la chronologie du Bronze Ancien de Ras Shamra', U . F.

11,

857-862. Coombs, D . 1975. ' Bronze Age Weapon Hoards Archaeologica Atlantica 1 , 49-82. Courtois, II et

Britain'

J . -C. 1 962a. ' Contribution ä l 'etude des niveaux I II ä Ras Shamra', In C . F. A. Schaeffer ( ed.)

Ugaritica Courtois,

in

IV.

J . -C.

Paris,

1 962b.

Paul

Geuthner,

' Contribution

3 29-414.

ä l ' etude

des

civilizations du Bronze Ancien ä Ras Shamra - Ugarit' In C . F. A. Schaeffer ( ed.) Ugaritica IV, Paris, Paul 2 29

Geuthner,

4 15-475.

Courtois, J .-C. and L . 1978. ' Corpus c ramique de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, niveau historique. Deuxieme partie, C . F. A. Schaeffer ( ed.) Ugaritica VII, Paris, Paul Geuthner,

In

1 91-370.

Courtois, J .-C. 1979 ' Ras Shamra: Archäologie' In H . Cazelles and A . Feuillet ( eds) Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, Fasc. 5 2, Paris, Letouzey

et

Ane. Cowgill, G . L. 1 982 ' Clusters of Objects and Associations between Variables, Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification', In R . Whallon and J . A. Brown, ( eds) Essays in Archaeological Typology, Evanston I llinois, 30-55. Craddock, P . T. 1976. ' The Composition of the Copper Alloys used by the Greeks, Etruscans and Roman Civilisations. 1 , The Greeks before the Archaic Period', J . A.S. 3 , 93113. Craddock, 1986.

P . T., Leese, M ., ' The Composition

O 'Connel

( ed.)

Matthews, K . and Needham, of the Metalwork', In M .

Petters

Sports

F ield,

Egham.

S . P.

Excavation

of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Site, Research Volumes of the Surrey Archaeological Society No.10,

56-

57. Crawford, H . Dynastic

1962. The Archaeology and History of the Early Period, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis Universtiy of

London. Cross, J . R. 1983. ' We Can't See the Forest for Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological

the Trees:

Distributions', in J . A. Moore and A . S. Keene ( eds) Archaeological Hammers and Theories, New York, Academic Press, Curtis,

38-85.

J . E.

Nimrud', Dalley,

S .

cities, Dar,

1983. Iraq

1984.

' Some XLV,

Mari

London,

Axe-Heads

from

Chagar

Bazar

and

7 3-81. and

Karana:

two

Old

Babylonian

Longmann.

S . 1977. Ancient Settlements of ' Emeq Hefer. The Sites of Tell Nurit, Nahal Alexander and the Rockcut Tombs of Ma'abarot,

Davey, the

C . J.

Kibbutz

1 977.

Levant,

D . D.

Casting Moulds

Unpublished

Archaeology, Davis,

Ma' abarot.

1983.

University

M . A. of

Report,

and Weapons

Institute

from

of

London

' Investigating

Innovations', In M . B. archaeological method

for Tools

the

Diffusion

of

Shiffer ( ed.), Advances and theory 6 , New York, 2 30

Stylistic in Academic

Press, Dawson,

53-89. W . R.

J .E. A.

1925

1 1,

' A Bronze

Dagger

of

the

Hyksos

Period'

2 16-17.

Deshayes, J . 1960. Les outils Danube, I-II, Paris.

de

bronze

de

l 'Indus

au

Dever, W. G. 1970, ' The Middle Bronze I Period in Syria and Palestine', In J . A. Sanders ( ed.) Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in honor of Nelson Glueck, Garden City, Doubleday, 1 32-163. Dever, W. G. 1971a. ' The peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I period', Harvard Theological Review

64,

2 17-26. Dever W. G. 1971b. ' A M . B.I B . A. S. O. R. 2 04, 3 1-37. Dever W. G. 1972a. ' Middle and ' Ain es-Samiyeh', Dever W. G. of the

Tomb group

Bronze I . E. J.

from

Sinjil',

I Cemeteries 2 2, 95-112.

1972b. ' A Middle Bronze I Site on Jordan', Archaeology 25, 2 31-33.

Dever W. G. 1973 ' T1 EBIv-MBI Horizon in Southern Palestine', B . A. S. O. R. 2 10, Dever W. G. 1975a ' Middle Samiyeh and Sinjil', Dever W . G. 1975b Kirmil' E .I.

Bronze I Ia B . A. S. O. R.

' A Middle Bronze 1 2, 1 8*-33*.

at

Mirzbaneh

the

West

Transjordan 3 7 -bi.

Cemeteries at 2 17, 2 3-36.

I Cemetery

at

Bank

and

' Ain

es-

Khirbet

el-

Dever, W . G. 1976. ' The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine', In F . M. Cross, W . E. Lemke and P . D. Miller ( eds) Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G . Ernest Wright, Garden City, 3-38. Dever W . G. 1980. ' New Vistas on the EBIV ( "MBI") Syria-Palestine', B . A. S. O. R., 2 37, 35-64.

Horizon

Dever, W . G. 1 985a. ' Relations between Syria-Palestine Egypt in the ' Hyksos' Period', In J . N. Tubb ( ed.) Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, London. Institute 87.

of

Archaeology,

Occasional

Paper

No.

and

1 1,

Dever W . G. 1 985b ' Village Planning at Be'er Resisim and Socio-Economic Structure in E . B.IV Palestine', E .I. 18*-28*. Dever,

W . G.

and Tadmor,

M .

1 976.

2 31

' A

Copper

Hoard

of

in

the

69-

1 8,

Middle Doran, in

Bronze

J . R.

and

I ',

Hodson,

Archaeology,

Dornemann,

R . H.

I . E. J., F .

26,

1 975.

1 63-169. Mathematics

and Computers

Edinburgh.

1979.

' Tell

Hadidi:

A Millennium

of

Bronze

Age City Occupation', In D . N. Freedman and J . M. Lundquist Excavation Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project - Euphrates Valley, Syria A . A.S. O. R. 4 4, ( 1977), Cambridge, Mass, 1 13-51. Dornemann, R . H. 1988. Among Many in the 2 70, 1 3-42.

' Tell Tabqa

Hadidi. One Bronze Age Site Dam Salavge Area', B . A. S. O. R.

Dossin, G . 1970. ' La route de temps de Z imri-Lim', R . A.

l 'ötain en Mösopotamie 6 4, 9 7-106.

Dossin, G . and Finet A . 1978. analytic des tomes I ä V ,

A . R. M. Paris.

Dothan, M . Report Dothan, the

au

XV Röpertiore

1956. ' The Excavations at Nahariyah; ( Seasons 1954/55)', I . E. J. 6 , 1 4-25.

Preliminary

M . 1981. ' Sanctuaries along the Coast of Canaan M . B. Period: Nahariyah'. In Temples and High

in

Places in Biblical Times, Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1 977. Jerusalem, Hebrew Union College, 74-80, Dunand, M . Paris,

1939. Fouilles Paul Geuthner.

Dunand, M . Paris,

1954-58. Fouilles Paul Geuthner.

de

Dunand,

1973.

Byblos,

M .

Fouilles

de

Byblos

de

1 926-1932,

Byblos

Tome

1933-1938,

Tome

V ,

I .

Tome

Paris,

I I.

Paul

Geuthner. Dunand, M ., Saliby, N . and Khirichian, A . 1955. ' Les fouilles d ' Amrith en 1954', A . A. A. S. 4-5, 189-204. Dunayevsky, I . and Kempinski, A . 1974. Temples', Z . D. P. V., 89, 1 61-87. Dunham, D . 1982. Excavations Museum of Fine Arts. Dunnel,

R . C.

1 978.

dichotomy', Dunnel, R . C. artifact method Durand,

and

43,

Kerma

Part

Function;

theory 1 983a.

9 ,

New

A . R. M.

Megiddo

6 ,

Boston,

a fundamental

192-202.

1986. ' Methodological i ssues classification', Advances in

and

J .-M.

' Style

Am. Ant.

at

' The

York, XXI 2 32

in Americanist archaeological

Academic

Textes

Press,

1 49-207.

administratifs

des

salles

1 34

et

1 60

du

Palais

du Mari,

Paris.

Durand, J. -M, 1983b ' Rölectures d ' A . R. M. T. VIII, I I: A . R. M. T. VIII.89 et la travail du metal ä Mari', M . A. R.I. 4 , 1 23-139. Edelstein, 1 1-20.

G .

1971.

Eisenberg, E . 1985. IV (M. B.I) near Ellis, R. S 1968. Mesopotamia,

' Khirbet

Ibrekhtias',

' A burial Cave of the ' Enan', . 1 7, 59-74.

Azor Menashe

1 ,

Early

Age

Bronze

Foundation Deposits in Ancient Yale University Press.

Ellison A . 1980 ' Settlements and regional exchange: a case study', In J . Barrett and R . Bradley ( eds), The British Later Bronze Age, B . A. R., British Series 83, Oxford, 1 27-140. Emre, K. 1971. Anatolian Lead Figurines and their Stone Moulds, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Vi Seri, No. 1 4. Epstein, E . I.

C . 1973. ' The 1 1, 54-57.

Epstein, C . 1974. and Ginosar',

Sacred Area

of

Megiddo

' Middlc Zron7e A c me Tombs Atic lot ( H. S.) 7 , 1 3-39.

at

Stratum

Kefar

Epstein, C . 1975 ' The Dolmen Problem Excavations', E .I. 12, 1-8.

in

the

Light

Epstein,

in

the

Golan'

17,

C .

1985.

' Dolmens

excavated

XIX'

Szold

of

Recent

Atic lot

2 0-58.

Erkanal, H . 1977. Die Äxte und Beile des 2 Jahrtausends Zentralanatolien, München, P . B. F. Abt. IX, Bd. 8 .

in

E sin, U . 1969. Kuantatif Spektral Analiz Yardimiyla Anadolu' da Baslangicindan Asur Kolonileri Vagina Kadar Bakir ye Tun9 Madenciligi, Istanbul, University of Istanbul. E sin, U . 1982. ' Die kulturelle Beziehungen zwischen Ostanatolien und Mesopotamien sowie Syrien anhand einiger Grabung und Oberflächenfunde aus dem oberen Euphrattal im 4 Jt. V . Chr.', in H . J. Nissen and J . Renger Mesopotamien und seine Nachbaren, Berlin, 1 3-21. E sin,

U .

1985.

' Degirmentepe

( Malatya)

1 984'

A . S.

E sse, D . L. 1982. Beyond Subsistence: Beth Yerah Northern Palestine in the Early Bronze Age, dissertation,

The

Oriental

Institute,

35,

188-9

and Doctoral

Universi ty

of

Reflections

on

Chicago. Esse,

D . L.

1984

' A

Chronological 2 33

Mirage:

Early Everitt,

Bronze B .

IC

1 974

Research

in

Palestine'

J . N. E. S.

Cluster Analysis,

43,

London,

3 17-330.

Social

Science

Council.

Falconer, S . E. and Magness-Gardiner, B . 1984 'Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell el-Hayyat Project', Finet,

A .

B . A. S. O. R.

1969.

' L'Euphrate,

Mösopotamie', Finet, A . Syria

255,

A . A. A. S.

49-74. route

19,

1975. ' Les temples 5 2, 1 57-174.

commercial

de

l a

3 7-48.

Sumeriennes

du

Tell

Kannas'

Finet, A . 1981. ' L'apport du Tell Kannas ä l ' histoire proche-orientale, de la fin du 4e millönaire ä la moitiö du 2e, in J . -Cl. Margueron ( ed) Le Moyen Euphrate,

Stasbourg,

107-116.

Finkbeiner, Ü . 1983. ' Uruk-Warka 3 5. Survey des Stadtgebiete von Uruk. Vorläufiger Bericht über die erst Campagne 1982' Bag. Mitt. 1 4, 15-31. Finkelstein, Objects

I .

and

from

Brandl,

Shiloh',

B .

1985

Finkelstein, J . J. 1970. ' On Some Cuneiform Law', J . A. O. S., 90, Fiorina, P . ' Excavations at Tell Report', Sumer 40, 2 77-289. Fitzgerald,

G . M.

P . E. Q.,

1 932.

' A Group

Isr. Mus. Jnl.

4 ,

of

Metal

1 7-26.

Recent Studies 2 43-56. Hassan:

' Excavations

at

i n

Preliminary

Beth

Shan

1 931',

1 38-148.

Fletcher, M . and Lock, G . 1985. ' Investigating relationships within large-scale data sets as precursor to the application of multivariate techniques',

P . A. C. T.

1 1,

a

160-179.

Forest, J . D. 1 981 ' Premiöre Campagne de Fouilles ä Kheit Qasim', In L ' Archöologie de l 'Iraq du debut de r öpoque nöolithique ä 3 33 avant notre öre, Paris, C . N. R.S., 1 80-192. Foxvog, D . A. Sumerian

1980. ' Funerary furnishings in an Early text from Adab', In B . Astler ( ed.) Death

Mesopotamia, Frankfort,

H .,

Gimlisin Asmar,

Mesopotamia

Lloyd,

Temple

O .I. P.

S .

and

No.

and

8 ,

Jacobsen,

Palace

4 3,

in

Copenhagen.

of

the

T .

1942.

Governors

The at

Tell

Chicago.

Fugmann, E . 1958 Hama: Fouilles et röcherches, 1931-1938 I I,1: l 'architecture des pöriodes pre-hellenistiques, Copenhagen. 2 34

Gadd, C . J. 1 971. ' Babylonia 2120-1800 B . C.' In C . A. H., ed., Vol I , Part 2 . London, Cambridge University Press, pp. 595-643. Gale,

N . H.

and

Stos-Gale,

Z . A.

1986.

' The

the South-East Mediterranean Region. Scientific Evidence', R . D. A. C. 1986, Gardiner, A . H., Peet, T . E. Inscriptions of Sinai, Society Memoir No. 45, Garänne-Marot, Sources et

3rd

Copper Trade

in

Preliminary 122-144.

and Czerny, J . 1955. The Part 2 , Egypt Exploration London.

L . 1 984. ' Le cuivre en ügypte pharonique. mötallurgie', Palöorient 10/1, 97-126.

Garstang, J . 1932. ' Jericho: 1 9, 3-22, 35-54.

City

and

Necropolis',

L . A. A. A

Garstang, J . 1935. 2 2, 143-184.

City

and

Necropolis',

L . A. A. A.

Garstang, J . Southern

1953. Prehistoric Mersin: Yümük Turkey, Oxford, Clarendon.

de Genouillac, Gautier,

' Jericho:

J . E.

H .

1 934

1 895.

Fouilles

' Notes

le haute Valläe de ( 1895), 441-464. Gerstenblith, P . 1 983. Middle Bronze Age,

sur

de les

l 'Oronte'

Tello,

Tepe

Vol.1,

Fouilles

in

Paris

entrepris

C . R. A.I. B. L.

2 3,

4th

dans ser.

The Levant at the Beginning of the A . S. O. R., Dissertation Series, No. 5

Gittlen, B . 1981. ' The Cultural and Chronological Implications of the Cypro - Palestinian Trade the Late Bronze Age', B . A. S. O. R., 2 41, 49-60.

During

G jerstad,

Uppsala.

E .

1926.

Studies

in

Prehistoric

Cyprus,

Goldman, H . 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II: From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, Princeton. Gonen, R . 1984. B . A.S. O. R. Gophna, R . I . E. J.

' Urban Canaan 2 53, 61-73.

in

1968. ' A Crescentic 18, 4 7-9.

the

Axe

Late

Bronze

Vol.

Period',

from Kfar Monash',

Gophna, R . 1978. ' Archaeological Survey of the Central Coastal Plain 1 977. Preliminary Report', T . A. 5 , 1 36147. Gophna, R . Jordan Gophna,

1979. ' A Middle Bronze Age Valley', T . A. 6 , 2 8-33.

. and

Sussman,

V .

1969 2 35

II

' A Middle

Village

Bronze

in

Age

the

Tomb

at

Barquai',

Atiqot

( H. S.)

5 ,

1-13.

Gophna, R . and Beck, P . 1981. ' The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II' T . A. 8 , 45-80. Gower,

J . C.

some

1971

of

its

' A general properties'

Grant, E . 1929. Haverford.

Beth

coefficient Biometrics

Shemesh,

Biblical

of

similarity

27,

857-872.

and

Kindred

Green, H . S. 1980. The Flint Arrowheads of the Isles, B . A. R., British Series 7 5, Oxford. Gregori, B . 1986. Middle Bronze

and

Studies,

British

' "Three-entrance "City-Gates Age in Syria and Palestine',

of the Levant

18,

8 3-102. Gregory, C . A. 1982. Gifts and Commodities, Press, Studies in Political Economy.

London:

Academic

Griffith, F . L. 1890, ' The Antiquities of Tell el-Yahudiyeh and Miscellaneous work in Lower Egypt during the years 1887-1888', In Griffith, F .1. and Naville, E . Mound of the Jew and City of Onias, London E . E. F. Guiges, P . E. 1937 ' Lebeia, Kafer-Garra, de la region Sidonienne', B . M. B. 1 ,

Qrayö: 35-76.

necropoles

Guiges, P . E. 1938 ' Löbö'a, Kafer-Garra, de la region Sidonienne', B . M. B. 2 ,

Qrayö: 27-72.

necropoles

Guy,

33.

P . L. O.

Haerinck,

1938.

Megiddo

Tombs.

and

Overlaet,

B . J.

E .

O .I. P. 1985.

' Armes

miniatures en Afghanistan et en Iran et ä l ' Age du Fer', In J . L. Huot, M . ( eds) De l 'Indus aux Balkans, Paris. Haller,

A .

1954.

W . V. D. O. G.

Die

Gräber

und

Grüfte

Chicago. et

outils

ä l ' Age Yon, 0.

du Bronze Calvet,

von Assur,

Berlin,

65.

Hanbury-Tenison, J . W. 1983. ' The 1982 Flaked Stone Assemblage at Jebel Aruda, Syria', Akkadica 3 3, Hanbury-Tenison, Bronze B . A. R.

J . W.

1986.

The

Late

Chalcolithic

2 7-33.

- Early

I Transition in Palestine and Transjordan, International Series 3 11, Oxford.

Hartwig, F . W. with Dearing, B . E. 1979. Exploratory Data Analysis Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications Hills

and

in

the

London:

Social

Sage

Sciences

No.

1 6,

Beverley

Publications.

Hasan, F . A and Robinson, S . W. 1987. ' High-precision radiocarbon chronometry of ancient Egypt, and 2 36

comparisions with Nubia, Antiquity 6 1, 1 19-131.

Palestine

Hauptmann, H . 1982 ' Die Grabungen auf Keban Project 1 974-75 Activities,

and

Mesopotamia',

dem No uuntepe', 4 1-94, Ankara.

Hauptmann, A ., Weisgerber, G. and Knauf, E . A. 1985. ' Archäometallurgische und bergbauarchäologische Untersuchungen im Gebeit von Fenan, Wadi Arabah ( Jordanien)' Der Anschnitt 5-6, 163-195. Hayes, W . C. 1973. to Sequenenre 7 6.

' Egypt: from the death of I I' C . A. H. 3rd. ed., Vol

Ammenemes I II II Part 1 , 42-

Heinrich, E . et al 1 973 ' Dritte vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira 1971, 1972 und in Mumbaqat 1971 unternommen archäologischen Untersuchungen', M . D. O. G. 105, 5-52. Heinrich, die der

E .

et

al

1974.

' Vierter vorläufiger

Bericht

unternommen 1 06, 5 3-97.

archäologischen

Untersuchungen.

Helck, W . ( 1976) ' Ägyptisches Statuen Chronologisches Problem', U . F. 8 , Helms, S . W. 1986. ' Excavations Levant 18, 2 5-50.

at

M .

1977

' The

Metal

Tell

Trade

at

M . D. O. G.

in Ausland 101-115. Um

Hamad

Helms, S . W. 1987. ' Jawa, Tell um Hamad and the Chalcolithic Landscape', Levant 19, 49-81. Heltzer,

über

von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln Stiftung Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira 1 973

Ugarit',

- ein

1984',

E . B.I/late

Iraq

3 9,

203-

211. Hgltzer, M . 1982. The Internal Organisation of of Ugarit. Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert. Hennessey, during

the

Kingdom

J . B. 1 967. The Foreign Relations of Palestine the Early Bronze Age, Colt Archaeological

Institute

Publications,

London.

Henschel-Simon, E . 1938. ' The ' Toggle-Pins' in the Palestine Archaeological Museum', Q . D. A. P. 6 , 169-209. Herbert,

E . W.

1 984.

Precolonial Wisconsin

Red

History

Gold and

of

Africa:

Culture,

R .

in of

Press.

Hess, 0 . 1980 ' A Middle Bronze Age Fureidis', Atiqot 14, 3 4-36. Hestrin,

Copper

University

and

Tadmor,

M .

1963. 2 37

I Burial

' A Hoard

of

Cave

at

Tools

and

Weapons

from Kfar Monash',

I .E. J.

1 3,

265-88.

Hill, J . N. and Evans, R . R. 1972. ' A Model for classification and typology', In D . L. Clarke, Models Hillen, 10, Hodder,

in Archaeology,

C .

1953.

' A Note

London,

on

two

( ed.)

2 31-273.

Shaft

Hole

Axes',

Bi. Or.

211-215. I . A.

Culture

1979.

' Economic

Patterning',

and

Am. Ant.

Hodder,

I . A.

1982a.

Symbols

Hodder,

I . A.

1982b.

' Towards

Social 4 4,

Stress

and Material

4 46-454.

in Action,

Cambridge.

a Contextual

Approach to

Prehistoric Exchange', In J . E. Ericson and T . K. Earle ( eds) Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, New York, Academic Press, 199-212. Hodder,

I . A.

1986,

Reading

the

Past,

Cambridge.

Hodson, F . R. 1982. ' Some Aspects of Archaeological Classification', In R . Whallon and J . A. Brown ( eds) Essays in Archaeological Typology, Evanston, I llinois, 2 1-29. Holladay, J . S. 1982. Tell el-Maskhuta. Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978-79 part 3 : C ities of the Delta, American Centre in Egypt Reports 6 , Malibu. Holland, T . A. 1981. ' Incised Pottery from Tell Sweyhat, Syria and its Foreign Connections', In J . C1. Margueron ( ed.) Le Moyen Euphrate, Strasbourg, 127-157. Houwink ten Cate, P . HJ. 1984. ' The history of warfare according to the Hittite Sources: the Annals of Hatusilis I ( part I I)', Anatolica XI, 47-83. Huber, P . J. et al, 1 982. Astronomical Dating of Babylon and Ur III, Occasional Papers on the Near East 1/4, Malibu. Hughes, de

M . J.

Jesus,

1974.

P . S.

' Notes

1 980.

The

and

News'

Development of

and Metallurgy in Anatolia, Series 74, Oxford. Joannes, F ., Kepinski, C . Babylonienne dans les J . C.

1

, R . A.

P . E. O.

B . A. R.,

1974,

2 -3.

Prehistoric Mining International

Lecomte, 0 . 1983. ' Presence pays de Suhu au XVIIe siècle

1 19-142.

Johnson, P . 1982. ' The Middle Cypriote Palestine', Op. Ath. 1 4, 49-72.

Pottery

found

Kampschulte, I . and Orthmann, W . 1984 Gräber des 3 Jahrtausends v Chr im Syrischen Euphrattal. Teil 2 38

I

in

1

ay.

Ausgrabungen Kantor, its

H. J.

bei

1965.

Foreign

Tawi

' The

1975

und

Relative

Correlations

1978,

Bonn.

Chronology

before

In R . Ehrich ( ed.) Chronologies Archaeology, Chicago, 1-46.

the in

of

Late

Egypt

Bronze

and

Age',

Old World

Kaplan, J. 1955 ' A Cemetery of the Bronze Age Near Tel Aviv Harbour', Atiqot 1 , 1-12.

Discovered

Kaplan, M. F. 1980. The Origin and Distribution Yahudiyeh ware, S .I. M. A. 62 Goteborg.

of

Tell

el-

Kelly-Buccellati, M . and Mount-Williams, L . 1 977 Terqa Preliminary Reports No.3. Object Typology of the Second Season. The Third and Second Millennia, Mesopotamian Studies 1/5, Malibu. Kempinski, l etzen Chr.),

Syro-

A . 1983. Syrien und Palästina ( Kanaan) in der Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-zeit ( 1650-1570 v . A . A. T. Bd 4 Weisbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.

Kendall, T . 1974. Warfare and Military Matters in the Nuzi Tablets, Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Brandeis University. Kenyon, K . M. Group of

1955. ' A Crescentic Axehead from Jericho and Copper Weapons from Tell el-Hesi', Annual

Report of the University Archaeology 1 1, 1 0-18.

of

London,

Institute

Kenyon, K . M. 1956 ' Tombs of the Intermediate Early Middle Bronze Age at Tell el-' Ajjul', A . D. A. J. 55. Kenyon, K . M. 1958. ' Some notes on the Early Bronze Age Strata at Megiddo', E .I. 5 , Kenyon, K . M. 1960. of Archaeology

Excavations at Jericho in Jerusalem. London.

a

of

Bronze3 , 4 1-

and Middle 5 1*-60*.

I .

British

School

Kenyon, K . M. 1965. Excavations at Jericho II. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. London. Kenyon K . M. 1966. Amorites and Canaanites., The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy. London, Oxford University

Press.

Kenyon K . M. 1969. ' The Middle and Megiddo', Levant, 1 , 26-60. Kenyon,

K . M.

1 971.

' Syria

and

Late

Palestine

Bronze

Age

c2160-1780

Strata

B . C.

Archaeological Sites'. In C . A. H., 3rd ed., Vol I , 2 . London: Cambridge University Press, 567-94.

The

Part

Kenyon, K . M. 1 973. ' Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age' C . A. H. 3rd ed. Vol I I, Part 1 , London, Cambridge University Press, 7 7-116. 239

at

Kenyon, K . M. 1 979. London, Benn.

Archaeology

in the

Holy

Land,

4th.

ed.

Keyon, K . M. and Holland, T . A. 1 983, Excavations at Jericho V : The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other F inds, London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Key,

C . A. 1 963. ' Notes on the trace element content of the artefacts from the Kfar Monash Hoard', I . E.J. 1 3, 2 899 0.

Khalil, L . A. H. 1 980. The composition and technology of ancient copper alloy artefacts from Jericho and related s ites, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Institute o f Archaeology, London. Khalil, L . 1 984 ' Metallurgical analyses of some weapons from Tell el-' Ajjul', Levant 1 6, 1 67-170. K lejn, L .S. 1 982. I nternational

Archaeological Typology, Series 1 53, Oxford.

B . A. R.

Klengel, H . 1 979. ' Die Palastwirtschaft in Alalah', In E . L ipinski ( ed.) State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, Vols. I-II. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 5 -6. Leuven: Departement Orientalistik, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 4 35-457. Kochavi, M . 1 973 ' A Built Shaft Tomb of the Middle Age I at Degania A ', Quadmoniot 6/2, 50-53.

Bronze

Kochavi, M . 1 975. ' The First Two Seasons at AphekAntipatris. Preliminary Report T . A. 2 , 1 7-42. Kochavi, M ., Beck, P . and Gophna, R . 1 979. ' Aphek Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burqa. Fortified S ites of Middle Bronze Age I IA in the P lain', Z .D.P. V. 95, 1 21-165.

Four Sharon

Kohlmeyer, K , 1 986a, ' Euphrat -Survey 1 984. Zweiter Vorbericht über die mit Mittlen der Gerda Henkel Stiftung durchgefuhrte archäologische Geländebegehung im Syrischen Euphrattal', M . D.O.G. 1 18, 5 1-65. Kohlmeyer, K . 1 986b ' review of Kampschulte and Orthmann Gräber des 3 Jahrtausend V . Chr im Syrien Euphrattal: Ausgrabungen bei Tawi 1 975 und 1 978, Z .f. A. 76, 1 461 51. Korfmann, M . 1 972. Schleuder und Bogen in Sudwestasien von der frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der historischen Stadtstaaten. Abhandlung zur vor und frühgeschicht , z ur Klassichen und provinzel-römischen archäologie und z ur Geschichte des altertums Bd. 1 3, Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Ko py,

H .Z.

1 951

Les

Fouilles

d 'Alaga Höyük: 2 40

Rapport

1

pröliminaire Y-V Seri

sur 5 .

les

travaux

en

1 937-1939,

Ankara,

T . T. K.

Ko py, H . Z. 1976. ' Keban Projesi Pulur Kazisi 1968-1970', M .E. T. U. Keban Project Publications Series I II, No.1 Ankara. Koiay, H . Z. and Akok, M . 1966. Alaya Ankara T . T. K. Y- V Seri, Sary 6 .

Höyük

Kreiger, A . D. 2 17-288.

Concept'

1944.

' The

Typological

Kazisi

1940-48,

Am. Ant.

9 ,

Kühne, H . 1976. Die Keramik vom Tell Chuera und ihne Beziehungen zu f inden aus Syrien - Palästina, der Turkel und dem Iraq, Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung Bd.1, Berlin, Gebr. Mann Verlag. Kühnert-Eggebrecht, E . 1969. Die Äxte als Waffe und Werkzeugen in alten Ägypten, M . Ä. S. 15 Munchen. Kupper, J .-R. 1957. Les nomades en Mösopotamie au temp rois de Mari, Paris, Biblioth que de la Facultö de philosophie

et

lettres

de

l ' Universtitö

de

Liege,

des fasc.

1 42. Kupper, J .-R. 1973. ' Northern Mesopotamia and Syria' C . A. H. 3rd. ed. Vol. I I, Part 1 , London, Cambridge University Press, Kupper,

1-41.

J-R.

1982.

' L' usage

de

l 'argent

ä Mari',

In

G . G.

van Driel et al ( eds), Zikir Sumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F . R. Krauss on the Ocassion of his Seventieth Birthday, Leiden, E . J. Brill, pp.163-172. Kupper, J . -R. 1983. la salle 1 35 du Kuschke, A . 1962 von Ugarit', Paris, The

Paul

A . R. M. Palais

XXII Documents administratifs du Mari, Vols 1 and 2 , Paris.

' Bericht über eine Sondage im palastgarten In C . F. A. Schaeffer ( ed.) Ugaritica IV, Geuthner,

252-300.

Land Between Two Rivers, Archaeology 1 985. Turin, e Scavi di Torino per i l

Lamon, R . S. and Shipton, 1925-1934. Strata ILangdon, Lange,

K .

S . H. and

sculpture

de

1 924.

G . M. 1939. Megiddo I : Seasons V , O .I. P. 42, Chicago.

Excavations

Hirmer M . and

Twenty Years of Italian Centro Richerche Archeologiche Medio Oriente e l ' Asia

1978.

painting,

at

Kish,

Egypt:

London.

2 41

Vol.I.

Paris

architecture,

of

Lapp, P . W. 1966a. The Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs: Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemetries in Jordan, American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven. Lapp,

P . W.

1966b.

Archaeology

' The

19,

Cemetery

at

Bab

edh-Dhral,

Jordan',

104-111.

Larsen, M . T. 1976. The Old Assyrian City State and its Colonies, Mesopotamia 4 , Copenhagen, Akademsk Forlag. Lebeau, M . 1983. cöramique du

' Mari 1979. Rapport pröliminaire sur chantier A', M . A. R.I. 2 , 165-193.

la

Lechtmann, H . 1984. ' Andean Value Systems and the Development of Prehistoric Metallurgy', Technology Culture

25,

and

1-36.

Levy, J . E. 1982. Social and Religious Organisation in Bronze Age Denmark: an analysis of ritual hoard finds, B . A. R., International Series 1 24, Oxford. Lewy,

H .

3 2,

1961.

' Amurritica',

Hebrew Union

College Annual

3 1-74.

Lewis, B . R. 1986. ' The Analysis of Contingency Tables in Archaeology', In M . B. Schiffer ( ed.) Advances in archaeological method and theory 9 , New York, Academic Press, Limet, H . temps

2 77-310. 1960. de la

Limet, H . 1972 15, 3-34. Limet, 4 ,

H . 1985. 509-522.

London,

G . A.

Le travail du metal au pays I IIe dynastie d ' Ur, Paris ' Les

Mötaux

ä l 'öpoque

' Bijouterie

1987.

Archaeologist.

' Homage 50:

et

to

d ' Agade',

orfevrerie

the

Elders',

Cluster Analysis for Social Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Loud,

Megiddo

G .

1948. No.

MacAlister, London,

D . E.

au

J .E.S. H. O.

ä Mari',

M . A. R.I.

Biblical

I I:

Seasons

of

Scientists,

1935-39,

San

Chicago:

62.

R . A. S.

1912.

Palestine

& Haines,

Enlil, Scribal Chicago.

The

Excavation

Exploration

McCown, D . E. 1947. Tell Historical Results, McCown,

Sumer

70-4.

Lorr, M . 1983. Francisco,

O .I. P.

de

of

Gezer,

3 vols,

Fund.

en-Nasbeh I Archaeological New Haven. R .

Quarter

C .

1967.

and

Nippur

I .

Temple

Surroundings,. 0.I. P.

2 42

and

of 7 8,

MacDonald, E , Starkey, J . L. and Pelet II London, B . S. A. E.

Harding,

G . L.

1932.

Beth

Mackay, E . 1 925. Report on the Excavation of the ' A' Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia, Pt.1., Chicago. McNicoll, A ., in Jordan

Smith, R . H. and Hennessey, J . B. 1982. Pella I , Canberra, Australian National Gallery.

Machule, D . 1986. M . D. O. G. 1 18, Maddin,

R . A.,

' Ausgrabungen 6 7-146.

Muhly,

J , D.

and

' Research at the Centre Paleorient 6 , 1 11-119.

in

Tall

Munbaqa

Stech-Wheeler,

for Ancient

T .

Maigret, A . 1976a. dell bronzo Rome, Universita

di

1980.

Metallurgy',

Magen, I . 1982 The Archaeological Discoveries Samaria, Qedumim Museum, Samaria. de

1 984,

at

Oedumim

-

Le lance nell' Asia anteriore nell'eta Istituto di Studi del vicino oriente,

Roma.

de Maigret, A . 1976b. - Ebla', R . d.S.O.

' Due lance 50, 2 2-35.

inscritti

du

Tell

Mardikh

Malfoy, J .-M. and Menu, M . ' La metallurgie du cuivre ä Suse aux IVe et IIIe millönaires: analyses en laboratoire', in Tallon, F . Metallurgie Susienne I et II, Paris, Editions de la Reunion des musöes nationaux, Notes et Documents de musöes de France, 15, 355-373. Mallowan,

M . E. L.

1 937.

' The

Excavations

Bazar and an Archaeological Survey Second Campaign', Iraq 4 , 91-154. Mallowan, M . E. L. Bazar', Iraa

1 947. ' Excavations 9 , 1-259.

at

at of

Tall the

Brak

Chagar

Habur

and

Region,

Chagar

Mansfeld, G . 1970. ' Ein bronzeitliches Steinkammergrab bei Rafid im Wadi et-Taym', In Hachmann, R . ( ed), Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz (Libanon) im des Jahres 1966 und 1967, Bonn. Marfoe, L . et al 1 986. ' The Chicago Archaeological Project 1980-84: Anatolica Marfoe, L . change

1 3,

Euphrates An Interim Report',

3 7-148.

1987. ' Cedar forest to and the development of

silver mountain: social long-distance trade in

early Near Eastern societies', In M . Rowlands, M . Larsen and K . Kristiansen ( eds) Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 1 17-128. Martin, H . P. 1 985. ' The Metalwork', In Marti n, H . P., Moon, J . & Postgate, J . N. Abu Salabikh Excavations Volume 2 : Graves 1 to 9 9, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2 43

1 0-19. Matthews, V . H. 1982. Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari ca 1830-1760 B . C., A . S. O. R. D isseration Series Cambridge, Mass.

Kingdom No. 3 ,

Matthiae,

1978:

P .

1980a.

Bätiment Q et I I', Akkadica

' Fouilles

ä Tell

la Necropole 17, 1-51.

Matthiae, P . 1980b. Ebla: Hodder and Stoughton.

an

Mardikh-Ebla;

princiöre

du

Empire Rediscovered,

Matthiae, P . 1980c. ' Sulle asce capridil, St. Ebl. 3 , 53-62.

fenestrata

del

Maxwell-Hyslop, K . R. 1946. Asia' Iraq 8 , 1-65.

' Daggers

Maxwell-Hyslop, axes', Iraa

' Western Asiatic

K . R. 1949. 1 1, 90-129

Maxwell-Hyslop, K . R. inventory' Iraq, Maxwell-Hyslop, c .3000-612 Mazzoni,

S .

Euphrat Mazzoni,

S .

Early

1985a.

1971

Ancien

' Elements

Ebla

in

B . A. S. O. R.

Memoires 2 37.

R . de

1934, la

Asiatic

cöramiques

IV' of

M . A. R.I. the

shaft-hole

to

a Mari

de

la

4 ,

561-578.

Haut

Culture

of

Syro-Palestinian

1-18.

' Fouilles

Dölegation

Western

Jewellery,

Ceramic

Comparison with 257,

of

dei

Methuen.

' Frontieres

1985b.

Mecquenem,

Western

London,

Bronze

Syrian

E . B.IV', de

K . R.

London,

" Signore

swords

1970, ' An I llustration 3 2, 165-166.

B . C.,

au

and

La

Bronze Moyen

en

de

Suse

Perse

1 929-1933',

XXIV,

Paris,

Mein, M . M. 1974. Ancient Tombs in the Vicinity Ga'led, Kibbutz Ga'led, Ga'led Museum.

of

1 77-

Kibbutz

Mellaart, J . 1981. ' The Prehistoric Pottery from the Neolithic to the beginning of E . B.IV', In J . M. Matthers ( ed.), The Catchment,

River 0oueiq j Northern Syria, and its B . A. R. International Series 98, Oxford.

Mellaart, J . 1982. ' Mesopotamian Relations with the West, Including Anatolia', In H . J. Nissen and J . Renger ( eds) Mesopotamien Mellink, 19,

1962.

Seine

' The

Nachbaren,

Prehistory

of

Berlin,

7-12.

Syro-Cilicia',

Bi. Or.

219-226.

Mellink, in

M .

und

M . J.

1963.

Cilicia',

' An

Akkadian

Anatolia

7 ,

I llustration

101-115.

2 44

of

a Campaign

Mellink, M. J. 1965. ' Anatolian Chronology', In R . W. Ehrich ( ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 101-132. Merrillees, Egypt',

R . S. 1 973, ' Syrian A . J. B. A. 2 , 51-59.

pottery

du Mesnil du Buisson, R . 1927, nord-est de Hor ns ( tmöse)',

from Middle

Kingdom

' Les ruines d 'el-Mishrifä Syria 8 , 1 3-33.

du Mesnil du Buisson, R 1935. Le site archöologique Mishrifä-Qatna, Paris, Paul Geuthner. du Mesnil du Buisson, Leiden, Brill.

R .

1948.

Baghouz,

Michalowski, P . 1978. ' Foreign tribute Ur III period' Z . f. A. 68, 3 4-49.

L ' Ancienne

to

Sumer

au

de

Corsötö,

during

the

Miller, D . 1982a. ' Explanation and Social Theory in Archaeological Practice', in A . C. Renfrew, M . J. Rowlands and B . A. Seagrave ( eds.) Theory and explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, New York, Academic Press, 83-94. Miller, D . 1982b. ' Structures and Strategies: the relationship between social hierarchy change' In I . A. Hodder ( ed.) Symbolic and Archaeology, Miller,

D .

1985.

variability

Cambridge, Artefacts

89-98. as

in Central

an aspect of and cultural Structural

Categories:

India,

Study

of

Ceramic

Cambridge.

Miller, J . M. 1985. ' Site Identification: A Problem Area in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship', Z . D. P. V. 99, 1 191 29. Miller, R ., McEwan, E . and Bergman, C . approaches to ancient Near Eastern

1986. ' Experimental archery, W . A. 1 8,

-1 78-195. Montet, Moore,

P .

1928.

J . A.

Byblos

& Keene,

et

A . S.

l ' 2aypte, 1983.

the Hammer', In J . A. Moore Archaeological Hammers and Press, Moorey,

Moorey,

Paul

' Archaeology

and

Geuthner. the

Law of

and A . S. Keene ( eds) Theories, New York, Academic

4-13.

P . R. S.

Tools

Paris,

1 971.

from Tell

P . R. S.

Clarendon

' The Sifr

1 978.

Loftus in

Kish

Hoard

Iraq',

of

Iraq

Excavations

Old 3 3,

Babylonian 61-86.

1923-1933,

Oxford,

Press.

Moorey, P . R. S. metallurgy c . 5500-2100

1 982a. ' The archaeological evidence for and related technologies in Mesopotamia B . C.'

Iraq

44,

1 3-38.

2 45

Moorey,

P . R.S.

1982b.

Metalworking Iran

2 0,

in

and

A Fifteen

Pre-Achaemeneid

Year

Retrospective'

8 1-101.

Moorey, P . R.S. 1984. Third Dynasty of Moorey,

' Archaeology

Iran:

P . R. S.

1985.

Mesopotamia: The

'Where Ur ? ',

did they Iraq 4 6,

Materials evidence

bury the 1-18.

and Manufacture

of

Archaeology

and metalwork, glazed material and International Series 2 37, Oxford. Moorey, P . R. S. 1986. drawn chariot in 18, 196-215.

of

in Ancient

and Art.

glass,

the

Metals

B . A. R.,

' The emergence of the light horsethe Near East c .2000-1500 B . C.', W . A.,

Moorey P . R. S. 1988. The Mishmar, Israel, in

Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal context, W . A. 20, 1 71-189.

Moorey, P . R. S. and Schweizer, F . 1 972 alloys in ancient Iraq, Syria and analyses',

kings

Archaeometry

14,

' Copper and Copper Palestine: some new

177-198.

Moortgat, A . 1 960. Tell Chuera in Nord-Ost Syrien. Bericht über die erst Grabungskampagne 1 958, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen fur Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Köln. Muhly, J . D. 1985. ' Beyond Typology: Aegean Metallurgy in its Historical Context', In N . C. Wilkie and W . D. E. Coulson ( eds.) Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: studies presented to William A . McDonald, Minneapolis: Centre for Ancient Studies, University of Minnesota, 109-141. Muller, bis

U . IX

1 974. ' Kritische Bemerkungen zu den in Megiddo', Z . D. P. V. 90, 5 0-86.

Straten

XIII

Munn-Rankin, M . 1956. ' Diplomacy in western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B . C.' Iraq 18, 68-110. Najim, 1 984. 122-129.

' The

excavations

at

Tell

Halawa',

Sumer

40,

Needham, S . P. 1 983. The Early Bronze Age Axeheads of Central and Southern England, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University

of

Wales

( University

Negbi, 0 . 1968. Canaanite Museum monograph. Negbi, O . study

Burial

College

Caves

at

Cardiff).

Hanita,

Hanita

1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal, an archaeological of ancient Syro-Palestinian f igurines, Tel Aviv,

University of Tel Aviv, of Archaeology No. 5 .

Publications

Negbi, O . and Moskowitz, O . 1966. ' The Deposits" or "Offering Deposits" of 2 46

of

the

Institute

"Foundation Byblos',

B . A. S. O. R., Newberry,

P . E.

184, 1 893,

21-26. Beni

Hasan

Part

I ,

London,

E . E. F.

Nissen, H. 1 966. Zur Datierung des Königsfreidhofes von Ur unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Stratigraphie, Bonn Northern, T . 1981. The Ornate Implement, Dartmouth Museum and Galleries, Hanover New Hampshire. Northover, P . J. metalwork', the Bronze Cardiff.

College

1980.' The analysis of Welsh Bronze Age Appendix to H . N. Savory Guide catalogue Age

Collection,

Northover, P . J. 1 982. ' The Hoards' Oxford Journal Oates, D . 1972. ' The I raq 3 4, 77-86.

National

Museum

metallurgy of the of Archaeology 1 ,

Excavations

at

Tell

of

of

Wales,

Wilburton 69-109.

al-Rimah

1971',

Oates, D . 1982. ' Tell Brak' In J . E. Curtis ( ed.), Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery, London: British Museum. Oates, D . 1985. ' Excavations 4 7, 159-173. 0 '

Connor, Scarab

D . B. 1 983. Seals Vol.

at

Tell

Brak

1983-84',

review of Ward, W . A., 1 , Chronique d i taypte

Omerod, H . A. 1912. ' Prehistoric Remains Minor II', B .S. A. 18, 80-94. Oren, E . D. 1971. ' A Middle Bronze Age Beth Shan', Z . D. P. V. 87, 109-139. Oren, E . D. 1973a. The Northern Leiden, C . J. Brill.

in

Studies on 58, 1 63-72. south-west Asia

I Warrior

Cemetery

of

Iraa

Beth

Tomb

at

Shan,

Oren, E . D. 1973b. ' The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine in its Cultural and Chronological Setting', B . A. S. O. R. 2 10, 20-37. Oren, E . D. Canaan

1973c. in the

' The Overland Route between Egypt and Early Bronze Age', I . E. J. 2 3, 1 98-205.

Orthmann, W . 1975. Bericht über die 1973 in Tell Mumbaqat. A . A. A. S. Orthmann 1981a. Halawa 1977-79. die 1 . -3. Grabungskampagne, zur

Altertumskunde

No.

dritte Grabungskampagne 25, 1 29-36.

Verläufiger Bericht über Bonn, Säarbrucker Beitrage

3 1.

Orthmann, W . 1 981b. ' Burial Customs of the 3rd Millennium B . C. in the Euphrates Valley', In J . C1. Margueron 2 47

( ed.),

Le Moyen

Euphrate,

Strasbourg,

97-105.

Ortner,D. J. ' The Skeletal Biology of an EBIB Charnel House at Bab edh-Dhra', Jordan', in A . Hadidi ( ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I , 9 3-95. Ory,

J . 1 926. ' Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age and Bronze Objects from Ness-Ziona', Pal. M. J. Bul., No. 2 , 10-11.

Ory,

J . 1 937. 9 9-120.

Ory,

J . 1 946 Q . D. A. P.

Ory,

J . 1 948 ' A Bronze Age Cemetery at Humraiya', Q . D. A. P. 1 3, 75-89.

' Excavations

at Ras el-'Ain

' A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at 1 2, 3 1-42.

I I'

Q .D.A. P.

El-Jisr',

Dhahrat

e l-

O 'Shea, J . M. 1 985. ' Cluster analysis and mortuary patterning: An experimental assessment' P . A.C.T. 9 1-110. Overbeck, J .C. and Swiny, at Kafkallia ( Dhali),

6 ,

S . Two Cypriot Bronze Age S .I. M. A. 3 3, Goteborg.

1 1,

Sites

Özgüg, N . 1 965. Impressions

The Anatolian Group of Cylinder S eal from Kültepe, Ankara T . T. K. Publications.

Özgüg, N . 5 2.

' Excavations

1 966.

at Acemhöyük',

Anadolu X ,

Özgüg, N . 1 968. Seals and Seal Impressions of Karum Kanish, Ankara T . T. K. Publications.

Level

Ib

1 -

from

Özgüg, N . 1 980 ' Seal Impressions from the palaces at Acemhöyük', In E . Porada, P . Amiet, N . Özgüg and J . Boardman Ancient Art in Seals, Princeton, 61- 1 01. Özgüg,

T .

1 950.

Kültepe Kazisi

Raporu

Öigüg, T . 1 954. ' Die Grabungen von Belleten 1 8, 3 73-390. Özgüg, T . l evel

1 948,

1 953

1 955. ' Excavations at Kültepe Ib', Belleten 1 9, 6 4-72.

Ankara.

T . T. K..

in Kültepe'

1954.

Finds on

Ö zgüg, T . 1 955b. ' Report on a workshop belonging to the l ate phase of the Colony Period ( Ib)', Belleten 1 9,

7 7-

8 0. Özgüg, of

T . 1 959. Kültepe-Kanis: New Researches at the Centre the Assyrian Trade Colonies, Ankara, T . T. K.

Özgüg, T . 1 980. D istrict of Özgüg,

T .

1 986

' Some Early Bronze Age Objects f orum', Belleten 4 4, 4 67-474. Kültepe

Kanis

I I: 2 48

New Researches

from the

at the

Trading

Centre

of

the

Ancient

Near

East,

Özgü9, T . and Akok, M . 1958. Settlement and Cemetery,

Horortepe, an Ankara T . T. K.

Pader,

Social

E . J.

1982.

Symbolism,

S . M.

and

Porath

Archaeological 3 01.

J .

1985.

Regional

' The

Project

Early

Relations

Interpretation of Mortuary Practices, International Series 1 30, Oxford. Paley,

Ankara

Bronze

and

Age

the

B . A. R.

' Emeq

1 985'

T . T. K.

Hefer

I . E. J.

35,

299-

Parker-Pearson, M . 1982. ' Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study', In I . A. Hodder ( ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 91-113. Parker-Pearson, M . 1984. ' Economic and ideological change: Cyclical growth in the pre-state societies of Jutland', In D . Miller and C . Tilley ( eds), Ideology, Power and Prehistory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 699 2. Palmieri, A . 1973. ' Scavi nell' area Arslantepe', Origini 7 , 55-228. Palmieri, A . A .S. 3 1,

1981. ' Excavations 101-119.

at

Sud-Occidentale

Arslantepe

di

( Malatya)',

Palmieri, A . 1985. ' Scavi di Arslantepe ( Malatya) 1 9761979', Ouaderni de ' La ricerca scientifica' n .112, Scavi Roma,

et ricerche archeologiche degli anni Consiglia Nazionale delle ricerche,

1976-1979, 75-114.

Parr, P . J. 1968. ' The Origin of the Rampart Fortifications of Middle Bronze Age Palestine and Syria', Z . D. P. V. 84, 1 8-45. Parrot, A . 1939. ' Les fouilles de Mari, ( automne 1937)', Syria 20, 1-22.

cinquiöme

Parrot, A . 1940. ' Les fouilles ( automne 1938) 1 , Syria 2 1,

sixiöme

Parrot,

A .

Temple Parrot,

A .

Palais.

1956.

Mission Archöologique

d 'Ishtar, 1958.

de Mari, 1-28.

Paris,

Mission

Architecture,

Paul

campagne

Mari

Vol.

I Le

Mari

Vol.

I I

Geuthner.

Archöologique Paris,

de

campagne

Paul

de

Le

Geuthner.

Parrot, A . 1959. Mission Archöologique de Mari Vol. I I Le Palais. Documents et Monuments, Paris, Paul Geuthner. Parrot, A . 1971, ' Les fouilles de Mari, dix-neuviäme campagne ( printemps 1971)', Syria 48, 253-270.

2 49

Peebles, C . 1971. ' Moundville and surrounding sites: some structural considerations of mortuary practices, In J . A. Brown ( ed.) Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary

Practices,

Archaeology

2 5,

Memoirs

of

the

Society

for

American

69-91.

Petrie,

W . M. F.

1898.

Deshahseh,

London,

Petrie,

W . M. F.

1906.

Hyksos

Israelite

Cities,

London,

and Weapons,

London,

B .S. A. E.

and

E . E. F.

B . S. A. E. Petrie,

W .

M .

Petrie,

W . M. F.

London,

F .

1917.

1 925.

Tools

Tombs

of

the

Courtiers

and

Oxyrhynhos,

B .S. A. E.

Petrie,

W . M. F.

1930.

Beth

Petrie,

W . M. F.

1931-34.

Pelet

Ancient

I ,

London,

B . S. A. E.

Gaza,

Vols.

1896.

Naqada

I-IV,

London,

B . S. A. E. Petrie, W . M. F. London.

and

Petrie, W . M. F., V , London. Pettinato, G . economica

Quibbel

MacKay

D .

J . E.

and Murray,

M .

and

1952.

Ballas,

Ancient Gaza

1979. ' Il commercio internazionale di Ebla, statiale e privati', In E . Lipinski ( ed.)

State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, Vols. I-II, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 5-6. Leuven, Departement Orientalistik, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, pp. 171-233. Pettinato, G . Inscribed

1981. The Archives in Clay, New York,

of Ebla: An Doubleday.

Empire

Philip, G . 1988a. Metal Weapons of the Early Bronze Ages in the Levant, Ph. D. Thesis,

and Middle Edinburgh

University. Philip, G . 1988b. ' Hoards of Ages in the Levant' W . A.

the 20,

Early and Middle 190-208.

Bronze

Philip, G . in press. ' E. B. -M. B. Metalwork: the view from Jericho', In P . J. Parr ( ed.) Jericho, Problems of Interpretation and Publication, Papers read at a Symposium on Jericho, held at the Institute of Archaeology, London in April 1985. Philip, G . ( forthcoming) ' Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Practices in Bronze Age Syria-Palestine',

Alloying Levant.

Philip,

cluster

G .

and

analysis: weapons',

Ottaway,

B . S.

1983

' Mixed

data

an i llustration using cypriot Archaeometry 25, 119-133.

250

hooked-tang

Piccirillo, Liber Piggott,

M .

1 978.

Annuus S .

1959.

2 8,

' Una

tomba

del

Bronzo Medio

ad Amman',

7 3-86.

Approach

to

Archaeology,

London.

Pinnock, F . 1985. ' About the Trade of Early Syrian Ebla', M . A. R.I. 4 , Actes du colloque internationale du C . N. R. S. 620. ' A propos d ' un cinqantenaire: Mari, bilan et perspectives', Paris: les civilisations, 85-92. Pollock, Iraq Porada, 4 3,

S . 1985. ' Chronology 47, 129-158. E . 1966. 243-58.

Porada, E . Özgü9,

' Les

of

cylindres

Editions

the

de

Royal

la

Röcherches

Cemetery

jarre

Montet',

1980. ' Introduction' In E . Porada, P . and J . Boardman Ancient Art in Seals,

sur

at Ur'

Syria

Amiet, N . Princeton,

1-28. Porada,

E .

1984.

A . J. A. Posener, XIIIe

88,

G .

' The

Cylinder

Seal

from

Tell

el-Dab'a',

4 85-488.

1957

' Les

dynasties',

asiatiques Syria

3 4,

en

Egypte

sous

les

XIIe

et

1 45-63.

Posener, G . 1971. ' Syria and Palestine 2160-1780 B . C.: relations with Egypt', In C . A. H., 3rd ed., Vol I , Part 2 .

London,

Cambridge

University

Prag, K . 1970. ' The 1 959 Levant 2 , 6 3-94.

Deep

Press,

Sounding

at

5 32-58. Harran

in Turkey'

Prag, K . 1974. ' The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon', Levant 6 , 69-116. Prag,

K .

1978.

' Silver

in

the

Levant

Millennium B .C.' In P . R. S. Archaeology i n the Levant: Warminster, 3 6-45.

in

Moorey Essays

the

and for

Fourth

P . J. Parr ( eds) Kathleen Kenyon,

Prag, K . 1984. ' Continuity and Migration in the south Levant in the Late Third Millennium. A review of T . L. Thompson's and some other views', P . E. Q. 58-68. Prag, K .. 1985. ' Ancient and Modern the Levant', Levant 17, 81-88.

Pastoral

Prag, K , 1986. ' Byblos and Egypt B . C.' Levant 1 8, 59-74.

the

in

Migration

in

Fourth Millennium

Price-Williams, D . 1 977. The Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age II Period from the ' 500' Cemetery at Tell Fara ( S), London, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 1 . 251

Pritchard, to the

J . B. 1955. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Old Testament, 2nd ed. Princeton.

relating

Pritchard, J . B. 1963. The Bronze Age Cemetery at G ibeon, Philadelphia, University Museum Monographs, University of Pennsylvania. Randall-MacIver, M . A. Abydos 1899-1901,

and Mace, A .C. London, E . E.F.

Rast, W . E. and Schaub, the Excavations at 1-32.

1902.

El

Amrah

and

R . T. 1978 ' A Preliminary Report of Bab edh-Dhra 1975', A . A. S.O. R. 44,

Rast, W . E. and Schaub, R . T. 1981. ' The South Eastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition: An Interim Report of the 1977 Season', A . A. S. O. R. 46. Rast, W . E. and Schaub, R . T. 1984. ' Preliminary Report of the 1981 Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan' B . A. S. O. R. 254, 35-60. Redford, D . 1970. ' The Hyksos invasion tradition', Orientalia 39, 1-51.

in

history

and

Redford, D . B. 1979. ' A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia During the Early 1 8th

Dynasty',

J . A. O. S.

99,

270-287.

Redman, C . L. 1978. ' Multivariate Artifact Analysis: A Basis for Multidimensional Interpretations', In C . L. Redman, et. al. Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating,

Academic

Press,

New

York,

159-192.

Renfrew, A . C. 1972. The Emergence o f Civilization i n Cyclades and the Aegean in the third millennium, London,

the

Methuen.

Renfrew, A . C. 1978. ' The Anatomy of Innovation', In D , • Green, C . Haselgrove and M . Spriggs, Social Organisation and Settlement, B .A. R. International Series

47(i),

Oxford,

89-117.

Renger, J . 1984. ' Patterns of Non-Institutional Trade and Non-Commercial Exchange in Ancient Mesopotamia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium B . C.', In A . Archi ( ed.), Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Contexts in the Ancient Near East, Incunabula Graeca 82. Rome, 3 11 23. Reviv,

H .

1972.

' Some

Comments

on

the Maryannu'

I .E. J.

2 2,

2 18-228. Rice, P . M. and Saffer, M . E. 1982. ' Cluster Analysis of Mixed-level Data: Pottery Provenience as an Example', J . A.S.

9 ,

3 95-409.

252

Richard, S . L. 1978. The end of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine - Transjordan: A Study in the Post - E . B.III Cultural Complex, Ph. D. Thesis, John Hopkins University,

Ann Arbor,

University Microfilms.

Richard, S . L. 1980. ' Towards a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan', B . A. S. O. R. 2 37, 5-34. Richard, S . L. 1987. ' The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism', Biblical Archaeologist 50.1, 2 2-43. Richard, S . L. and Boraas, R . S. 1984. ' Preliminary Report the 1981-82 Season of the Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and its Vicinity', B . A. S. O. R. 254, 63-87. Rosen, S . A. Levant.

1984. ' The Adoption of Metallurgy in the A Lithic Perspective', Curr. Anth. 25, 504.

Rouault,

1977.

et Rouse,

0 .

l 'öconomie I .

1960.

' The

archaeology', Rowe, A . 3 3.

1935.

A . R. M.

XVIII

palatiales

classification

Am. Ant.

' The

Mukannigum,

ä Mari,

1934

25,

l 'administration

Paris, of

Paul

Geuthner.

artefacts

in

3 13-323.

excavations

at

Gezer',

P . E. F.,

Rowe, A. 1940. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth 1 The Temples and Cult Objects, Philadelphia. Rowlands, M . J. prehistoric

Shan

3 1,

at

Tell

Sleima',

J . R.

General Sagieh,

M .

1977.

Model', 1983.

Warminster, Sagona,

of

Age

Sumer

Joiner, B . K., Ryan, T . A. 1985. Minitab Handbook P . W. S. Publishers. Boston, Mass.

Saad, Z . Y. 1947. ' Royal Excavations at Saqqara 1941-45', Supp. au A . S. A. E " Cahier No. 3 , Sackett,

Part

Oxford.

Rumeidiyeh, S . S. 1 984. ' Excavations 40, 4 3-54 ( arabic section). Ryan, B . F., 2nd ed,

19-

1 971. ' The archaeological interpretation metalworking', W . A. 3 , 210-24.

Rowlands, M . J. 1976. The Organisation of Middle Bronze Metalworking in Southern Britain, B . A. R., British Series

of

A . G.

Byblos An s

1 980.

Palestine',

' The

Meaning

Am. Ant.

and

in

42, the

Style

in

Archaeology:

369-80. Third Millennium,

Phillips.

' Middle

Z . D. P. V.

of

and Helwan Cairo.

96,

Bronze

Faience

101-120.

253

Vessels

from

A

Saidah, R . 1979. ' Fouilles de Sidon-Dakermann. L 'agglomeration chalcolithique', Berytus 27, Sailer,

S . J.

1964.

The

Excavations

at

Dominus

2 9-47.

Flevit

( Mount

of Olives Jerusalem) Part I I The Jebusite Burial Jerusalem, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum No. 1 3 Salonen, A . 1965. Helsinki.

Die

Waffen

der

a lten

Sandars, N . K. 1961. ' The First Aegean Ancestors', A . J. A. 65, 1 7-29. Sapin,

J .

1981.

' La

göographie

Place,

Mesopotamien,

Swords

humaine

de

la

and their

Syrie

Palestine au deuxiöme millönaire avant J . C. de recherche historique', partl, J . E.S. H. O.

-

comme voie 2 4, 1-62.

Sapin, J . 1982. ' La gäographie humaine de la Syrie Palestine au deuxiäme millönaire avant J . C. comme de recherche 1 13-186.

historique',

part2,

J . E. S. H. O.

2 5,

vole

1-49;

Sasson, J . M. 1966. ' A Sketch of North Syrian economic relations in the Middle Bronze Age', J . E. S. H. O. 9 , 161-181. Sasson, J . M . 1968. ' Instances Artisans', B . A. S. O. R. 190,

of Mobility Among Mari 46-54.

Sasson, J . M. 1969. The Military Establishment Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute. Sasson, J . M. 1980. Malibu, Undena

Dated texts from Mari: Publications.

Save-Söderbergh, T . 1951. J . E. A. 57, 5 3-71. Scandone-Matthiae, dinastia dalla 1 , 119-128.

' The

Hyksos

at Mari,

a tabulation,

Rule

in

Egypt',

G . 1979. ' Un oggetto faronica della XIII Tomba del Signore dei Capridi', St. Ebl.

Schaeffer, C . F. A. 1932. ' Les fouilles de Minet el-Beidha de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, troisiöme campagne ( printemps 1 931)', Syria 1 3, 1-27.

et

Schaeffer, C . F. A. 1936. ' Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, septiöme campagne ( printemps 1935), Syria 17, 1 05-149. Schaeffer,

C . F. A.

neuviöme Schaeffer,

1938.

campagne

C . F. A.

1939.

Ugarit', dixiöme 1 938-39)', Syria

' Les

fouilles

( Printemps ' Les

de

1937)'

fouilles

Ras Syria

de

et onziöme campagnes 20, 277-292.

2 54

Ras

Shamra-Ugarit, 19,

1 93-255.

Shamra-

( automne

et

hiver

Schaeffer, C . F. A. 1 945. ' La contribution de la Syrie ancienne ä l 'invention du bronze', J . E. A. 3 1, 92-95. Schaeffer, C . F. A. 1 948. Stratigraphie comparäe et chronologie de l ' Asie occidentale ( IIIe et I le millönaires), London, Oxford University Press. Schaeffer,

C . F. A.

1 949.

Ugaritica

I I.

Paris,

Paul

Geuthner.

Schaeffer, C . F . A . et al. 1962. ' Les fondements prähistoriques d ' Ugarit' In Ugaritica IV, Paris, Geuthner,

Paul

151-251.

Schaeffer, Ugarit

C . F. A. 1 963. ' Neue Entdeckungen ( 1960-1961)', A .f. 0., 2 08-215

and

funde

in

Schaeffer, Ugarit

C . F. A. 1 966. ' Neue Entdeckungen ( 1962-1964)', A .f. 0., 1 31-133.

and

funde

in

Schaeffer, Paris,

C . F. A. 1 978, 475-551.

Ugaritica VII,

' Ex

Occidente Ars'

Schenberg, C . 1985. 'Analysis of Weapons F luorescence Method' Atiqot 1 7, 1 12.

by

X-Ray

Schulmann, A . R. 1 980. ' Chariots, Chariotry and the Hyksos', Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 1 0, 105-153. Schumacher, G . 1 889. P . E. F. O., 68-78.

'Recent

Schumacher,

Tell

G .

1 908.

Sebelein, J . 1924. Egypt, 6-15.

Discoveries

el-Mutsellim,

' Early

Copper

and

in

Galillee',

Leipzig.

its

Alloys',

Ancient

Seeden, H . 1980. The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant, P . B. F., Abt.1 Bd. 1 . München: C . H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Sellin, der

E . and Watzinger, C . 1 913. Jericho: Die Ausgrabungen, Leipzig, W . V. D. O. G. 2 2.

Shalev, S . 1988. ' Redating British Museum: A case technology', Shanks,

M .

and

Tilley,

and

Practice,

Shantur,

B .

and

Samiyeh',

the ' Philistine Sword' study in typology and

Oxford Journal

Theory

C .

Labadi,

I . E. J.

21,

Ergebnisse

1 987.

of

Archaeology

7 ,

at

the

3 03-11.

Reconstructing Archaeology:

Cambridge. Y .

1971.

' Tomb

2 04

at

' Ain-

78-81.

Shennan, S . 1 986. ' Central Europe in the Third Millennium B . C.: An Evolutionary Trajectory for the Bronze Age', J . A. A. 5 (2), 1 15-146. 255

Shepard, A . O. 1 956. Ceramics Carnegie Institute.

for

the

SIR Users

SIR

Inc.

Manual

1980,

1984.

Smith, H . S. and Smith, A . Kamose Texts', Z . Ä. S.

1976 104,

Archaeologist,

Evanston,

I llinois.

' A Reconsideration 46-78.

of

the

Smith, R . S. 1 962. Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirbet Kufin, Palestine, Colt Archaeological Institute, Monograph Series No. 1 ., London. Sneath, P . H. A. and Sokal R . 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification, San Francisco, W . H. Freeman. Solyman,

T .

1 968.

Die

Entstehung

Gotterwaffen im alten Beruit, Abdelnour.

und

Entwicklung der

Mesopotamien

und

ihre

Spaulding, A . C. 1953. ' Statistical Techniques Discovery of Artifact Types', Am. Ant. 1 8, 3 93.

Bedeutung,

for the 305-313;

391-

Spaulding, A . C. 1 982. ' Structure in Archaeological Data: Nominal Variables', In R . Whallon and J . A. Brown, ( eds.), Essays in I llinois, 1 -20.

Archaeological

Speiser, Jnl.

E . A. 1 933. ' The 2 3, 2 49-283.

Speiser,

E . A.

1 935.

Pottery

Excavations

Typology,

from Tell

at

Tepe

Evanston,

Billa',

Gawra

Vol

Mus.

I ,

Philadelphia. Spycket, A . 1 981. La Statuaire du Proche-Orient Ancien, Handbuch der Orientalistik Abt 7 , Bd.1 Leiden, E . J. Brill. Stager, L . E. 1 985. ' The Firstfruits of Civilization', In J . N. Tubb ( ed.) Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Essays in Honour of Olga Tufnell London, Institute Archaeology, University of London, Occasional Publications

No.

1 1,

172-88.

Stech, T , Muhly, J . D. and Maddin, Studies on Artefacts from the 17, 75-82. Stech,

T .

& Piggot,

southwest

Asia

V . C. in

the

of

1986

' The

R . 1 985, ' Metallurgical Tomb near ' Enan', Atiqot

metals

trade

third millennium

B . C.'

in I raq

48,

3 9-65 Steiglitz, R . R., 1 987. G . A. Rendsburg and

' Ebla and Dilmun' N . H. Winter ( eds)

on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, 4 3-46. 256

in C . H. Gordon, Eblaitica: Essays

Language

I ,

Stewart, J . R 1962. ' The Early Bronze Age', In P . Dikaios and J. R. Stewart, The Stone Age and the Early Bronze Age in Cyprus, Part 1A.

Lund:

Swedish

Cyprus

Stewart, J . R. 1974. Tell el-' Ajjul: Remains, Goteborg, S .I. M. A. 3 8. Strommenger, E . Mesopotamia,

and Hirmer, London.

M .

The

1964.

Expedition Vol

Middle

The

Art

Bronze

IV

Age

of

Strommenger, E . 1 979. ' Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft in Habauba Kabira', in D . N. Freedman and J . M. Lundquist Excavation Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project - Euphrates Valley, Syria A . A. S. O. R. 4 4, ( 1977), Cambridge, Mass, 63-78. Stronach, Metal 1 25.

D . B. 1957. ' The Development and Diffusion of Types in Early Bronze Age Anatolia', A . S. 7 , 89-

Suleiman, A . and Gretco, ä Saraqqeb' A . A. A. S.

A . 1983. ' Decouverte 3 3, 93-104 ( Arabic).

Surenhagen, D . 1973. ' Friedhof M . D. O. G. 105, 3 3-38. Sussman, V . 1966. Atiqot ( H. S.)

in

' Middle Bronze 3 , 40-43.

Habuba

Age

Kabira

Burials

Sussman, V . and Ben Arieh, S . 1966. ' Ancient Giv' atayim', Atiqot ( H. S.) 4 , 27-39. Talon, P . 1985. salles Y et

d 'un

hypogee

Sud'

at

Moza',

Burials

A . R. M. XXIV, Textes administratifs Z du Palais de Mari, Paris.

at

des

Tallon, F . 1987. Metallurgie susienne I et II. De la fondation de Suse au XVIIIe siècle avant J .-C., Paris, Editions de la Reunion des musöes nationaux, Notes et . Documents Taylor,

W . W.

American Teissier, the

B .

de musöes 1948.

de

A Study

France, of

Anthropological 1984.

Marcopoli

Ancient

15.

Archaeology, Association

Near

Collection,

Eastern

Memoirs

No.

Cylinder

University

of

of

the

69. Seals

from

California

Press. Teissier, B . 1987 Between Iran, and Thrane,

Third Millennia', H .

Grave

1978. at

Sukas

Tell

Thureau-Dangin, Paul

' Glyptic Evidence for a Connection Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourth

F .

IV.

Sukas, and

Iran

25,

27-53.

A Middle

Bronze

Age

Collective

Copenhagen.

Dunand,

M .

Geuthner. 257

1936.

Til-Barsip,

Paris,

Tsaferis, V . 1968. ' A Middle Bronze Age Tiberias' I . E. J. 18, 15-19. Tsori, N . Aviv

1 971.

Tell

Trump, D . H. 1962. Middle Bronze Tubb, J . N. Second at

in

Antiquity,

in

Geographica,

Tel

' The Origin and Development of British Age Rapiers', P . P.S. 28, 80-102.

1980. ' A Reconsideration of Millennium Pottery from the

Terqa',

Tubb, J . N. and an East',

Yosef

I Cemetery

Levant

12,

the Date of the Recent Excavations

61-68.

1982 ' A Crescentic Axehead from Amarna ( Syria) Examination of Similar Axeheads from the Near Iraq 44, 1-12.

Tubb, J . N. 1983 ' The M . B.IIA Period in Palestine: Relations with Syria and its Origins', Levant 62.

Its 15,

49-

Tubb, J . N. 1985a. ' Some Observations on Spearheads in Palestine in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages' In J . N. Tubb ( ed.) Palestine London, Institute of 1 1, 189-196.

in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Archaeology, Occasional Paper

No.

Tubb, J . N. 1985b. ' Excavations on the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal Esh-Sharqiya: A Preliminary Report', A . D. A. J.

29,

115-130.

Tufnell, 0 . 1958. Age London. Tufnell, O . Berytus

Lachish

1975-76. ' Tomb 24, 5-25.

IV

( Tell

66

at

ed-Duweir):

Ruweise,

near

Tufnell, O . 1978. ' Graves at Tell e l-Yahudiyeh: after a l ifetime' In P . R. S. Moorey and P . J. Archaeology

in

the

Levant,

Warminster,

The

Sidon',

Reviewed Parr ( eds)

76-101

Tufnell, Tell

O . 1980. ' A Review of the contents el-' Ajjul', Atiqot 1 4, 3 7-48.

of

Tufnell,

O .

between

and Ward,

W . A.

1966.

Bronze

' Relations

Cave

303

at

Byblos,

Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millennium B . C. A Study of the Montet Jar', Syria

4 3,

1 65-241. Turville-Petre Galillee',

1931. ' Dolmen Necroplois P . E. F. O. S., 155-166.

near

Kerazeh

Tylecote, R . F. 1986. The prehistory of metallurgy in British Isles, London, The Institute of Metals.

the

Tylecote, R . F. 1987. The early Europe, London, Longmann.

in

history

258

of

metallurgy

Ussishkin, D . 1980. T . A. 7 , 1-44.

' The

Ghassulian

Shrine

at

En-Gedi',

van den Boom , G . P.F. 1983. ' Recent Aquisitions Ancient Near East', 0 . M. R. O. 64, 1 23-141.

from the

van den Brink, E . C. M. 1982. Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab'a, Veröffentlichungen der Institüt für Afrikanisti1 ( t ikd ) : ,g tolo ie c _versität Wein, Beitrage zur Ägyptologie Bd 4 Wein. van

Driel, G . 1981. ' The Preliminary Report',

Uruk Settlement on In J . C1. Margueron

Euphrate

75-93.

Strasbourg,

Jebel ( ed.)

2 3.

Aruda: a Le Mayen

van

Loon, M . 1968. ' First results of the 1967 at Tell Selenkahiye', A . A. A. S. 1 8, 21-32.

van

Loon,

van

Loon, M . 1979. ' First Results of the 1974 and 1975 Excavations at Selenkahiye Near Meskene, Syria', in D . N. Freedman and J . M. Lundquist Excavation Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project - Euphrates Valley, Syria

M .

1978

A . A. S. O. R.

44,

Korucutepe

( 1977),

2 ,

excavations

Amsterdam.

97-112,

Cambridge,

Mass.

van

Loon, M . 1985. ' Recent Discoveries in Syria: The Excavations at Hammam et-Turkmann' Proc. Brit. Ac. 7 1, 9 1-102.

van

Seters,

J .

1 966.

The

Hyksos:

a new

investigation,

de Vaux, R . 1951. ' La troisiöme campagne de fouilles el-Far'ah, prös Naplouse' R . B. 58, 393ff. de Vaux,

R .

1971.

' Palestine

in

C . A. H., 3rd ed, Vol.1 Part University Press, 208-237.

the 2 .

Early

London,

Bronze

Yale ä Tell

Age',

In

Cambridge

de Vaux, R . and Steve, A . M. 1947. ' La premiere campagne fouilles ä Tell el-Far'ah, prös Naplouse.' R . B. 54, 3 94ff.

de

de Vaux, R . and Steve, A . M. 1948. ' La seconde campagne de fouilles ä Tell el-Far'ah, präs Naplouse.' R . B. 55, 5 44-580. de Vaux, R . and Steve, A . M. 1949. ' La seconde campagne de fouilles ä Tell el-Far' ah, prös Naplouse ( suite).' R . B. 5 6, 1 02-136. Vincent, L . H. 1947. ' Une Grotte Funöraire l ' Ouady et-Tin', R . B. 5 4, 269-282.

Antique

dans

Vincent, L . H. and Steve, A . M. 1956. Jerusalem de l ' Ancien Testament: Röcherches d 'archäologie et d ' Histoire, Paris. 259

Virolleaud, C . 1922. ' Decouverte ä Byblos d ' un hypogee de la douzi & le dynastie W yptienne', Syria 11, 2 73-290. Waetzoldt,

H .

and

Bachmann,

Arsenbronzen

in

Mesopotamien

des

Wäfler, M . 798.

1979.

den

H . G.

Texten

1 984.

aus

3 Jahrtausends',

' Zur

Datierung von

Ward, W . A. 1971. Egypt and the 2 200-1900 B . C., Beirut.

' Zinn

Ebla

und

und aus

Or. Ant.

Hama J ',

dem

2 3, U . F.

1-18. 11,

7 83-

East Mediterranean World,

Ward. W . A. 1979. ' Remarks on some Middle found at Ugarit', U . F., 799-806. Ward, W . A. 1987. ' Scarab Typology Context', A . J. A. 91, 507-532.

Kingdom Statuary

and Archaeological

Watkins, T . 1974. ' Two unfinished spearheads in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford', Levant 6 , 1 88-92. Watkins, T . F. 1975. ' The Date Again', P . E. Q. 5 3-63.

of

the

Kfar Monash Hoard

Watkins, T . F. 1976. ' Wessex without Cyprus: ' Cypriot Daggers' in Europe', In J . V. S. Megaw ( ed.) To I llustrate the Monuments: Essays on presented to Stuart Piggot, London, Watkins, T . F. 1981. ' Levantine bronzes of the Rev. William Greenwell, now Museum'

Levant

1 3,

archaeology 1 35-144. from the Collection in the British

119-155.

Watkins, T . F. 1983a. ' Cultural Parallels in the Metalwork of Sumer and Northern Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium', Watkins, T . F. . warriors' Watson,

P . J.

Ehrich

Watson.

P . J.,

45

18-23.

1983b. ' Sumerian weapons, Sumer 39, 100-102. 1965.

( ed.)

Chicago,

Iraq

' North Mesopotamia

Chronologies

in

C .

and

and

Syria'

In

R . W.

Old World Archaeology,

61-100. Leblanc,

S . A.

and Redman,

Archaeological Explanation: archaeology, New York. Watzinger,

warfare

1933.

Denkmäler

the

C . L.

1984.

scientific

Palästinas,

260

in

Leipzig.

Weinstein, J . M. 1975. ' Egyptian Relations with the Middle Kingdom', B . A. S. O. R. 2 17, 1-16. Weinstein, J . M. 1981. ' The Egyptian Empire Reassesment', B . A. S. O. R. 241, 1-28.

method

in

Palestine

Palestine:

in

a

Weinstein, J . M. Radiocarbon

1 984a ' Radiocarbon 2 6, 2 97-366.

dating

in

the

Levant'

Weinstein, J . M. 1 984b. ' The Significance of Tell Arieni for Egyptian-Palestinian Relations at the Beginning of the Bronze

Age' .„ B . A. S. O. R.

256,

61-69.

Weiss, H . 1983. ' Excavations at Tell Leilan and the Origin of North Mesopotamian cities in the third millennium' Palöorient 9/2, 3 9-52. Weiss, H . 1985 ( ed.) of Ancient Syria, Institute.

Ebla to Damascus. Art and Archaeology Washington, The Smithsonian

Whallon, R . G. 1972. ' A Am. Ant. 3 7, 1 3-33.

new

approach

to

pottery

typology'

Wishart, D . 1982. CLUSTAN User Manual, Unit, Edinburgh University.

Program

Library

Wobst, H . M. 1977. ' Stylistic behaviour and information exchange', In C . E. Cleland ( ed.), For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B . Griffin, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Paper 61, Ann Arbor, 3 17-342. Woolley, C . 87-98.

L .

1 914.

' Hittite

Woolley,

L .

1 934.

Ur

Excavations

II:

The Royal

Cemetery,

L .

1 956.

Ur

Excavations

IV:

The

Periods,

C .

Burial

Customs',

L . A. A. A.

6 ,

London. Woolley,

C .

Early

London. Woolley, C . L. and Barnett, R . D. 1952. Carchemish I II The Excavation in the Inner Town, London, The British Museum. Woolley, VII:

C . L. The

Wright, G . E. earliest

and Mallowan, Old

M . E. L.

Babylonian

1937. times

Period,

1976.

Ur

Excavations

London.

The pottery of Palestine from the to the end of the Early Bronze Age,

Ann

Arbor. Wright, G . R. H. Palestine, Leiden, Yadin,

Y .

Light Yadin,

Y .

E . J.

1963. of

1 985. Ancient Building in South Syria Handbuch der Orientalistik Bd.1, Abt. Brill. The

Art

of

Warfare

Archaeological

1964.

and 2 ,

Hazor

III-IV

in

Discovery, ( Plates),

Hebrew University.

261

Biblical

Lands

London. Jerusalem,

The

in

the

Yakar, in

J . 1984. ' Regional and Local Styles of Metalworking Early Bronze Age Anatolia', A . S. 3 4, 59-86.

Yakar,

J .

1985a

The

Chalcolithic Series 2 68., Yakar, in

J .

1985b.

Early

Yeivin, SH. between Yeivin, Z . Samiya

later

prehistory

Bronze Age,

' Regional

and

Bronze

Age

Local

Anatolia'

1968. ' Additional Canaan and Egypt,

i

of

and Early Oxford.

Anatolia: B . A. R.

Schools

Part

II

the

late

International

of

A . S.

Metalwork 35,

25-38.

notes on early relations J . N.E.S., 27, 3 7-50.

1971, ' A Silver Cup I . E. J. 21, 78-81.

from Tomb

Yogev, 0 . 1985. ' A Middle Bronze Rehovi, Atigot 17, 90-114.

Age

204a

Cemetery

at

' Ain-

South

of

Tell

Zaccagnini, C . 1983a. ' Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen', J . N. E.S. 4 2, 2 45-64. Zaccagnini, C . Babylonian Franco

1983b. ' On Gift Exchange in the Old Period', Studia Orientalistica in Ricardo

Pintore,

Pavia,

di

189-253.

Zayadine, F . 1978 ' An EB-MB Bilobate Tomb at Amman', in P . R. S. Moorey and P . J. Parr ( eds.), Archaeology in the Levant, Warminster, 59-66.

262

Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine

Graham Philip

Part II

BAR lnternational Series 526 (II) 1989

B .A .R . B.A.R.

5 ,C en t remead , O sney Mead , Oxfo rd OX2 ODQ , E ng land .

122 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7BP, UK

GENERAL ED ITORS

GENERAL EDITORS

A .R . Hand s , B .Sc . , M .A . , D .Ph i l .

A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D .R . Wa lke r , M .A . D.R. Walker, M.A.

B AR S526 , 1 989 : ' Metal V eapons o f t he E arly a nd M iddle B ronze A ges i n S yria-Palestine '

BAR -S526(II), 1989: 'J(etal Yeapons of tbe Early and X iddle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine' , Part II

P r ice@ £ 38 . 0 0 p o s t f r ee t h ro ughou t t he w o r ld . P aymen t s made i n d ola r s mu s t b e Grabam Philip, 1989

c a lcu la ted a t t he c u r ren t r a te o f e xchange a nd $ 8 .00 a dded t o c ove r e xchange c ha rge s . C heque s s hou ld b e made p ayab le t o B .A .R . a nd s en t t o t he a bove a dd re s s .

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. rightsPhreserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, © GrAll aham ilip , 1 989

distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form

I SBNdigitally, 0 8 605without 4 6 69 the 1 written permission of the Publisher.

F o r d e ta i l s 9781407358666 o f a l l n ew B .A .R . p ub l a t ion s i n p r in t p l ea se w r i te t o t he a bove a dd re s s . ISBN (Volume I)icpaperback

I n fo rm a t ion o n n ew t i le s(Volume i ss en t II) r e gu la r ly o n r eque s t , w i th n o o bl iga t ion t o p u rcha se . ISBN 9781407358673 paperback

ISBN 9780860546696 (Volume set) paperback ISBN 9781407348193 (Volume set) e-format s u rface ma l a nywhe re i n t he w o r ld . DOI i https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860546696

V o lume s a re d i s tr ibu ted f r om t h e p ub l i she r . A l l B .A .R . p r ice s a r e i n c lu s ive o f p o s tage b y

A catalogue record for this bookP istavailable from the British Library r in ed i n G rea t B r i ta in This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

CATALOGUE

Introduction

Details supplied in the Catalogue concentrate on those variables which genuinely vary within a type. Characteristics which are restricted to one particular type, and occur on all examples of that type, are not listed separately for each item in the catalogue as they are discussed in the initial type-description. For example all Type 1 narrow-bladed axes have a notch under the blade, a feature restricted to this type only. Therefore this variable is not listed in the catalogue. Internal Order of the catalogue

The Catalogue is ordered as follows; l. Major groups of material (axes, tanged spearheads etc) 2. Interna! groupings within these (Narrow-bladed axes, Crescentic axes etc) 3. By numerical order of type within each group, with unclassified items coming at the end 4. By Site within each Type 5. By Context within each Site Individual Entries

Abbreviations used in the Catalogue CONDN and MEASMT are abbreviated terms used in all entries. Those peculiar to one particular group of objects are dealt with at the beginning of the relevant section of the Catalogue. CONDN

Condition of object, six categories recognized;

'Good' 'Slight damage' 'Broken but adequate' 'Substantial damage' 'Very poor' 'Cannot assess' Quality of metric data, six categories recognized;

MEASMT

'Absolute' (absolute dimensions) 'Accurately restored' (slightly damaged, but original dimensions clear) 'From publication' (scaled up from published drawing) 'Relative dimensions' (from measured directly from published drawing with no indication of actual size) 'For comparison only' (measurements unreliable, a general guide to size only) 'Cannot assess' (e.g. seen in a museum case) In most cases the descriptive information provided in the 263

Catalogue i s self explanatory. Where there is any doubt as to the exact meaning of particular terms, these can be checked by reference to the i llustrations. The appearance of a * in any entry means that the information i s e ither unavailable ( usually because of poor preservation) or not applicable in that particular case. Standard catalogue entries are sometimes followed by short remarks, noting points of particular interest concerning fabrication, hafting or context. A number of examples from the ' Döpöts at Byblos are followed by an entry such as ' 531 i s 1 of 6 such from this group'. This is s imply a reminder of the fact the whole batches of material from that site were published by reference to single i llustrated examples, and that there are many additional items which have never been fully published. For ease of access, the results of chemical analysis are presented separately in Table 1 , grouped according to the same scheme. There i s no l isting o f material by Catalogue Number for the s imple reason that these numbers were assigned on an arbitrary basis and have no archaeological s ignificance. Museum entries The locations of objects are accurate to the best of the writer's knowledge. Where these or uncertain or unknown the author, they are omitted. Key to Museum Names

and Abbreviations

used

in

Catalogue

The l ist is l argely self-explanatory. Where only a c ity name i s l isted in the Catalogue, the museum concerned i s l isted below under the city name. Less obvious abbreviations appear in parentheses a fter museum titles. Aberdeen, University Anthropological Museum Aleppo Archaeological Museum Amman, National Museum ( N. M.) Amman, University Museum ( Univ. Mus.) Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum Ankara, Museum of Anatolian Civilisations Antakya Museum Atlanta, Emory University, Museum of Art and Archaeology B irmingham City Museum Cairo, Egypt Museum Cambridge, University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Copenhagen, National Museum Damascus, Nationalmuseet Deir e z-Zor Museum Dublin, Weingreen Museum of Biblical Antiquities, Durham, University, Oriental Museum Edinburgh, Royal Museums of Scotland Glasgow, University, Hunterian Museum The Hague Museum Hazor, S ite Museum 2 64

to

Homs Museum Israel, Department of Antiquities ( I.D. A.) Istanbul, Ancient Orient Museum ( Ist. Anc. Or.) I stanbul, Archaeological Museum ( Ist. Arch. Mus.) Jerusalem, Convent of the F lagellation ( C. of Flag.) Jerusalem, Hebrew Union College ( H. U.C.) Jerusalem, I srael Museum ( I. M.) Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum Kerak Museum Kibbutz Hanita Kibbutz Hazorea Kibbutz Ma'abarot Kibbutz Tel Yosef Leeds, University, Department of Semitic Studies Leiden, Rijksuniversiteit, Archeologisch Centrum L iverpool University, School of Oriental and Ancient. Semitic Languages London, British Museum ( B. M.) London, Institute of Archaeology ( Inst. of Arch.) London, Palestine Exploration Fund ( P.E.F.) Manchester, The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester Melbourne, The Australian Institute of Archaeology N ewcastle upon Tyne, Hancock Museum Oxford, Ashmolean Museum ( Ashm) P aris, Musäe du Louvre ( Louvre) Philadelphia, University Museum ( Univ. Mus. Penn.) S ydney, The University of Sydney, Nicholson Museum Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum ( R. O. M.) V ienna, Kunsthistorische Museum

2 65

AXES NARROW-BLADED AXES SURVLEN ' Surviving length' LENGTH ' Overall Length' I n a cases where the object i s virtually complete, an estimate of the original l ength i s given, rather than the true surviving l ength. This f igure appears under Length. BLADE ' Length of Blade' SOCKLEN ' Internal length of socket' SOCKBR ' Internal breadth of socket' SOCKHT ' Minimum height of socket' EDGEHT ' Height of cutting edge' MOULDING ' Moulding round socket' SECTION ' Section of blade' FLANGE ' Flange round notch' HOOK ' Presence absence of hook' PROFILE ' Profile of blade' STOPS ' Stop at top of socket' CUTTEDGE ' Profile of cutting edge' Type

1

Axes with notches cast i nto the lower edge of the b lade, immediately ahead of the socket. Notched blades are peculiar to axes of Type 1 . Other d istinguishing f actors of this type are the absence of moulded decoration r ound the outside of the socket, the fact that the cutting edge o f the blade i s never concave, which might have implications for mode of utilisation, and the crosssections which the blade takes, square and trapezoidal. The patterning of categorical variables within the various types of narrow-bladed axe i s quite c lear from the i llustrations. However, metric variables too play an important part i n distinguishing between types. Type 1 axes are generally shorter than the other forms of narrowb laded axe, have narrower cutting edges and more ovoid sockets. Cat. No 3 91, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, F ig.1.7, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 25, Blade 8 7, Socklen 2 8, Sockbr 1 2, Sockht 2 0, Edgeht 2 0, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 1 Cutting edge damaged. L ip at base of socket. Cat. No 4 00, E l-Gib T 3 1-31A, B 306 Pritchard 1 963, 1 26, F ig.34.4, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 27, Blade 9 4, Socklen 3 1, Sockbr 1 4, Sockht 1 9, Edgeht 1 8, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, F lange S light, 2 66

Hook Absent, Edge Convex,

Profile Type 1 ,

Flaring, Fig. 1

Stops

Absent,

Cat. No 399, Ginosar T 1 , Epstein 1974, 4*, Fig.7.15, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 136, Blade 9 9, Socklen 2 8, Sockbr

17,

Sockht

18,

Edgeht 18, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge

Straight,

Type

1

Cat. No 397, Ginosar T 2/3, A Epstein 1974, 5*, Fig.12.2, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 116, Blade 85, Socklen 2 8,

Sockbr

12,

Sockht

16,

Edgeht 15, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Single, Edge

Convex,

Type

Cat.

No

Ginosar

398,

1 T 2/3,

B

Epstein 1974, 5 *, Fig.12.1, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 118, Blade 84, Socklen 2 8,

Sockbr

1 2,

Sockht

18,

Edgeht 1 3, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Tapering, Stops Absent, Edge

Convex,

Type

1

Cat. No 403, Hama G Q 15-17, 5E802 Fugmann 1958, * , Fig.161, Copenhagen National, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Blade 9 1, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 1 7, Edgeht 1 7, Moulding Absent, Section Flattd circular, Flange Slight, Hook Edge

Absent, Convex,

Profile Type 1

Flaring,

Stops

* ,

Cat. No 3 95, Khirbet Kufin T 3 Ch 3-4 upper str, Smith 1962, * , Pl. XIII.7, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 16, Blade 86, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht

15,

Edgeht 16, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge

Convex,

Type

1

Cat. No 3 96, Khirbet Kufin T 3 Ch 3-4 upper str, Smith 1962, * , Pl. XIII.6, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 40, Blade 1 06, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht Edgeht 10, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Tapering, Stops Absent, Edge

Straight,

Type

1

2 67

1 4,

Cat. Guy

No 3 88, Megiddo T 9 12D, 1938, * , P1.133.4, * ,

Condn

Slight

Length Edgeht

139, 18,

damage, Blade

Measmt

1 02,

M2696

From

Socklen

publication,

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

Sockht

17,

Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Single, Edge Straight, Type 1 Cat.

No

387,

Megiddo

T 911A1,

M2693

Guy 1938, * , P1.118.3, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length Edgeht

118, 14,

Blade

Moulding Absent, Hook Absent, Edge Convex,

85,

Socklen

Section

Profile Type 1 ,

2 5,

Square,

Parallel, Fig. 1

Rockefeller, Sockbr

Flange

Stops

1 1,

Sockht

Slight,

Absent,

Cat. No 385, Megiddo T 911D into f loor, M2818 Guy 1938, 161, P1.122.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 108, Blade 76, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht Edgeht 15, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 1 Driven into wall of chamber near entrance Cat. No 3 89, Megiddo T 911D into floor, M2816 Guy 1 938, 161, P1.122.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 27, Blade 9 1, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht Edgeht 2 1, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 1 Driven into floor of chamber Cat. No 3 86, Megiddo T 3 168, b122 Loud 1 948, * , P1.182.1, Jerusalem,

Section

Square,

Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Edge Straight, Type 1

Flange

Stops

I . M.,

Length

29,

1 3,

9 3,

Socklen

Sockbr

Edgeht 1 7, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, Flange Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Four

Straight, Type facets at rear

1 of

socket

268

17,

Edgeht

Slight,

Jerusalem,

Blade

2 0,

Absent,

Cat. No 3 94, Moza Cave 2 , Sussman 1966, 5 *, Fig.5.2, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, 1 26,

1 5,

Rockefeller,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Blade 95, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 2 0 • Moulding Absent,

1 3,

Sockht Slight,

1 6,

Cat.

No

401,

Na'an

Tomb,

Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 112, Blade 8 6, Socklen 2 4, Sockbr Edgeht 16, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, Hook Absent, Profile * , Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 1 Cat.

No

Magen Condn

390,

1982, Slight

Length Edgeht

130, 12,

Qedumim

Cistern

7 ,

Sockht

Flange

14,

Slight,

B ,

19, Lower Left, * , damage, Measmt From publication, Blade

9 3,

Socklen

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

Sockht

Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile * , Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 1 In later cistern, assoc pott is MBI, whole lot is context

1 3,

secondary

Cat. No 436, Ruweise T 3 3, Guiges 1938, 2 8, * , * , Condn Cannot asses, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht * Moulding * , Section * , Flange * Hook * , Profile * , Stops * , Edge * , Type 1 Possibly late MBI, but material is limited 4 36 Assoc with a small copper spearhead - found with single burial

in

chamber

Cat. No 407, Ruweise T 57, Guiges 1938, 3 4, Pl. 51D, * , Condn Cannot asses, Measmt From publication, Length

1 24,

Blade

Edgeht 11, Moulding Absent, Hook Edge

Absent, Convex,

8 3,

Socklen

Section

Profile Type 1

3 3,

Square,

Flaring,

1 39,

Blade

101,

Flange

Stops

Cat. No 408, Ruweise T 57, Guiges 1938, 3 4, Pl. 51C, * , Condn Cannot asses, Measmt From Length

Sockbr

Socklen

1 6,

Sockht

18,

Sockht

15,

Sockht

18,

* ,

Single,

publication, 29,

Sockbr

* ,

Edgeht 1 6, Moulding Absent, Section Square, Flange * , Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Single, Edge

Convex,

Type

1

Cat. No 411, Ruweise T 66, Tufnell 1976, 1 3, Fig.1.21, Beruit?, Condn Cannot asses, Measmt From publication, Length 1 24, Blade 9 1, Socklen 27, Sockbr 1 2, Edgeht 2 0, Moulding Absent, Hook Edge

Section

Square,

Absent, Profile Flaring, Straight, Type 1

Flange

Stops

269

Absent,

Absent,

Cat. No 4 12, Ruweise T 6 6, Tufnell 1 976, 1 3, Fig.1.22, Beruit?, Condn Cannot asses, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 05, Blade 7 8, Socklen 2 2, Sockbr 1 6, Sockht Edgeht 1 5, Moulding Absent, Section Square, F lange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops * , Edge Straight, Type 1 Cat. No 4 09, Ruweise T 7 4, Guiges 1 938, 6 1, Pl. 95E, * , Condn Cannot asses, Measmt From publication, Length 1 20, Blade 85, Socklen 2 9, Sockbr * , Sockht Edgeht 1 8, Moulding Absent, Section Square, F lange * , Hook Absent, Profile Parallel, Stops Single, Edge Straight, Type 1 Cat. No 4 10, Ruweise T 7 4, Guiges 1 938, 6 1, Pl. 95D, * , Condn Cannot asses, Measmt From publication, Length 1 30, Blade 9 4, Socklen 3 1, Sockbr * , Sockht Edgeht 1 8, Moulding Absent, Section Square, F lange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 1

16,

1 7,

1 8,

Cat. No 3 92, Safad Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 45, B lade 1 10, Socklen 3 2, Sockbr 1 2, Sockht Edgeht 2 2, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 1 Facetting on rear of socket Cat. No 3 93, Safad Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 23, Blade 9 0, Socklen 3 0, Sockbr 1 2, Edgeht 1 3, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, F lange Hook Absent, Profile * , Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 1 Cutting edge looks unfinished

Sockht

No

4 05,

Tell

e l-Dab'a

A/II-l/12 2 70

Gr5,

1 7,

S light,

Cat. No 4 02, Tell Sukas Coll Grave, N413 TS2125 Thrane 1 978, 5 8, Fig.86, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 42, Blade 1 04, Socklen 3 2, Sockbr 1 3, Sockht Edgeht 2 2, Moulding Absent, Section Trapezoidal, F lange S light, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops S ingle, Edge Convex, Type 1 Cat.

17,

N811

2 0,

B ietak 1968, * , f ig.9, Vienna, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 124, Blade 8 7, Socklen 3 2, Sockbr 1 3, Sockht Edgeht 1 3, Moulding Absent, Section Square, F lange Slight, Hook Absent, Profile Parallel, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 1 , Fig. 1 Cat. No 4 04, Tell e l-Dab'a F/I-d/23 Gr 1 , N3082 Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 152, Blade 1 05, Socklen 3 2, Sockbr 1 5, Sockht Edgeht 1 4, Moulding Absent, S ection Trapezoidal, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Tapering, Stops Double, Edge Convex, Type 1 , F ig. 1 Found with Belt

1 5,

1 9,

C at. No 4 06, Tell e l-'Ajjul T 1 015, P etrie 1 931, * , P l. XIV.73, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 1 21, Blade 9 1, Socklen 2 9, Sockbr 1 3, Sockht 2 6, E dgeht 2 6, Moulding Absent, Section Narrow rectgl, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 1 , Fig. 1 B lade is s lim and high for this type Type

2

Axes with single moulded ribs around the upper and lower margins of the socket. The second common factor i s the possession of a set of four vertical stops, two i n front o f, and two to the rear of the socket. Two possible subgroups exist, distinguished by the form of the crosss ection of the b lade which can be of a hexagonal or ovoid s hape. Such a d ifference would require the cutting of moulds of rather different design and therefore cannot be d ismissed as random variation. This i s supported by the d ifferent distribution shown by the two forms ( see main t ext). However, this difference apart, the two subgroups are identical, suggesting that they represent variants of the same type. A feature shared i n common between the subgroups is a tendency to possess concave cutting edges which suggests regular resharpening. Apart from a s ingle occurrence on a Type 3 axe, this trait i s restricted to those of Type 2 . However only f ifty percent of axes of Type 2 show this aspect, suggesting that it i s related to postproduction use and sharpening practices. It should be observed that a ll other types show a fairly equal d ivision i nto straight and convex-edged blades. Cat. No 4 34, E l-Gib T 4 5, N41 B 325 Pritchard 1 963, 1 38, F ig.51.41, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 55, B lade 1 19, Socklen 3 1, Sockbr 2 2, Sockht Edgeht 1 9, 2 71

1 3,

Moulding Absent,

Two

single

ribs,

Hook Absent, Edge Convex,

Profile Type 2

Cat.

Jericho

No

426,

Section

Flaring,

T J3

N43

Kenyon 1960, 3 13, Fig.117.6, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 154, Blade 1 21, Socklen Edgeht 2 2,

B lunt

ovoid,

Stops

Absent,

with

burial,

Amman, 3 1,

N . M.,

Sockbr

20,

Moulding Two single ribs, Section B lunt ovoid, Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 Equid remains in shaft, found s ide of pelvis of male burial Cat. No Kenyon

428, Jericho T J3 1960, 3 13, Ref to

Condn Good, Length 1 39,

single

Absent, Hook Absent,

Profile

Edge

2

Cat. No Kenyon

Type

ribs,

belt

and

Sockht

12,

Flange

axe,

at

left

away from burial, N36 1 17.6, Amman, N . M.,

Measmt Absolute, Blade 108, Socklen

Edgeht 19, Moulding Two

* ,

with

F lange

26,

Section

Flaring,

Sockbr Blunt

Stops

15,

ovoid,

Sockht

10,

Flange

Absent,

429, Jericho T J3 N35, away from burial, 1960, 3 13, Ref to 1 17.6, Amman, N . M.,

Condn Cannot asses, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht Moulding Two single ribs, Section Blunt ovoid, Absent, Hook * , Profile * , Stops * Edge * , Type 2 Cat. No 425, Jericho T A134 N72, Kenyon 1965, 3 72, Fig.111.15, Amman, N . M. Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 156, Blade 1 16, Socklen 29, Sockbr 1 7, Edgeht 2 3, Moulding Two

single

Absent, Hook Absent,

Profile

Edge

Type

Convex,

ribs,

Section

Flaring,

Blunt

Stops

ovoid,

* , Edgeht Flange

Sockht Flange

Absent,

2

Cat. No 4 13, Khirbet Kufin T 3 Ch 6-7 upper str, Smith 1962, * , Pl. XVII.40, Amman, N . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 162, Blade 1 20, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht Edgeht 19, Moulding Two

single

Absent, Hook Absent,

Profile

Edge

Convex,

Type

Cat.

No

Megiddo

424,

1 5,

ribs,

Section

Flaring,

Stops

2 T 4 110,

Blunt

C662 2 72

ovoid,

Absent,

1 6,

Flange

*

Loud 1 948, * , Pl. 1 82.2, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 151, Blade 1 08, Socklen 2 7, Sockbr 1 8, Edgeht 19, Moulding Two single ribs, Section Hexagonal, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 2

Sockht

1 3,

F lange Absent,

Cat. No 4 32, Ness Z iona From destroyed tomb, Ory 1 926, 1 0, P l. V . NZ6, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 156, Blade 1 15, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 1 5, Sockht 1 1, Edgeht 25, Moulding Two s ingle ribs, Section Blunt ovoid, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 Cat. No 4 30, Tell e l-Dab'a Khataneh, Griffith 1 890, 5 7, Pl. XIX.27, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 39, Blade 1 03, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 1 5, Edgeht 2 2, Moulding Two single ribs, Section * , Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 2 From one of two 2 nd Interm. Period, tombs, other published material i s MBII in style. Cat. No 4 48, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-1/12 Gr2 b2, N133 Unpublished * , * , * , Vienna, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 55, Blade 1 14, Socklen 2 8, Sockbr 1 7, Sockht Edgeht 1 7, Moulding * , Section Hexagonal, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 Across chest and right forearm of burial - handle in hand

1 4,

left

C at. No 4 44, Tell el-Dab'a A/I-g/3 Grl, burial 4 , N403 Unpublished * , * , * , Vienna, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Blade 9 8, Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 1 1, Edgeht 2 3 Moulding Two s ingle ribs, Section Hexagonal, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops * , Edge Concave, Type 2 Cat. No 4 45, Tell el-Dab'a A/I-g/3 Grl, N359 Unpublished * , * , * , Vienna, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 58, Blade 1 15, Socklen 3 3, Sockbr 2 0, Edgeht 1 7, Moulding Two s ingle ribs, Section Hexagonal, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 2 73

Sockht

1 4,

Flange Absent,

Cat. No 4 46, Bietak 1 968,

Tell el-Dab'a A/I-g/3 * , Fig. 9 , Vienna,

Grl,

N349

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 160, Blade 1 21, Socklen 3 1, Sockbr 2 0, Sockht 1 3, Edgeht 2 5, Moulding Two single ribs, Section Hexagonal, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 , Fig. 2 Cat.

No

447,

Tell

el-Dab'a

A/I-g/4

Gr3

bl,

N339

Unpublished * , * , * , Vienna, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 48, Blade 102, Socklen 3 0, Sockbr 1 6, Sockht 14, Edgeht 2 3, Moulding Two single ribs, Section Hexagonal, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 2 At back of burial Cat. No 4 42, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-m/10 Gr 8 bl, N1755 Bietak 1 970, * , Pl. XVIIb, Vienna, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 162, Blade 128, Socklen 3 3, Sockbr 1 7, Sockht Edgeht 1 8, Moulding Two single ribs, Section Beaded, Flange Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge * , Type 2 Lies on skull, handle probably in right hand Cat. No 4 41, Unpublished Condn Broken

Tell el-Dab'a A/II-n/15 Gr 1 b2, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, but adequate, Measmt Absolute,

1 4,

Absent,

N2187

Length * , Blade 96, Socklen * , Sockbr 16, Sockht 1 2, Edgeht 2 1 Moulding Two single ribs, Section Hexagonal, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 3 warriors, gold bands Cat.

No

440,

Tell

round

el-Dab'a

heads,

A/II-n/15

Unpublished * , * , * , Vienna, Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Length 2 8

* ,

Blade

122,

Socklen

* ,

Moulding * , Section * , Flange Hook * , Profile * , Stops * , Edge

* ,

Type

Handle has gold bands by neck

Length Edgeht

Good, 1 39, 2 2,

Moulding

Gr

burials

1 b3,

1 and

Two

2

N2193

Absolute, Sockbr

* ,

Sockht

* ,

Edgeht

*

2

a sheet silver covering, 3 warrior burials round heads. Across chest, on right side,

Cat. No 4 39, Unpublished Condn

between

Tell el-Dab'a * , * , * , * ,

A/II-p/21

Gr

7 ,

with, point

N3060

Measmt Absolute, Blade

1 03,

single

Socklen

ribs,

2 8,

Section 27 4

Sockbr

* ,

Sockht

1 3,

Hexagonal,

F lange

Absent,

Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Edge Concave, Type 2 By r ight shoulder of burial

Stops

Absent,

Cat. No 4 38, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-n/19 pit thro G , N4716 Unpublished * , *I * I * Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 48, Blade 1 16, Socklen 2 6, Sockbr 1 6, Sockht 1 0, Edgeht 2 1, Moulding Two s ingle ribs, Section Hexagonal, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, Edge Concave, Type 2 , F ig. 2 I n p it cut through a grave Cat. No 4 37, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-o/20 Gr 4 , N4148 Unpublished * , * , * , * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 52, Blade 1 18, Socklen 2 6, Sockbr 1 6, Sockht 1 4, Edgeht 2 7, Moulding Two single r ibs, Section Blunt ovoid, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, E dge Concave, Type 2 Outside grave but probably belonging to it C at. No 4 50, Tell el-Far'ah ( N) T A , N137 d e Vaux and Steve 1 947, * , Pl. XX.2, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, C ondn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, L ength 1 32, Blade 95, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 1 7, Sockht 1 0, E dgeht 1 7, Moulding Two s ingle r ibs, Section B lunt ovoid, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, E dge Straight, Type 2 , F ig. 2 Type

3

Type 3 consists of axes with a beading running a long the upper and lower edges of the blade, resulting in a d istinctive cross-section. In addition to this, they possess a short hook, attached below and ahead of the s ocket. The hook and the set of four vertical projections f ound on Type 2 axes, would seem to be mutually exclusive a nd are probably involved in securing the axehead to the haft. The moulding round the margins of the socket consists of two pairs of r ibs, in contrast to the s ingle r ibs of the Type 2 axes Cat. No 4 31, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, F ig.1.6, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 38, B lade 1 04, Socklen 2 7, Sockbr 1 7, Sockht Edgeht 2 5, Moulding Two pairs, Section Beaded, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, E dge Concave, Type 3 2 75

1 4,

( Hook absent but beading on blade and absence of f langes around socket are as on Type 3 axes). Well f inished, s igns of heavr sharpening on blade edge Cat.

No

427,

Jericho

T 9 ,

N26

Garstang 1932, 4 6, Pl. XXXVII.3, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 154, Blade 1 18, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 1 7, Sockht 15, Edgeht 2 7, Moulding Two pairs, Section Beaded, F lange Absent, Hook Present, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 3 , F ig. 3 Cat. No 4 18, Ras Shamra T LVII, RS9870 S chaeffer 1938, * , F ig.32H, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 52, Blade 1 12, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 1 8, Sockht 1 9, Edgeht 3 3, Moulding Two pairs, Section Beaded, F lange Absent, Hook Present, Profile Flaring, Stops S ingle ( seen only in original publication, no trace now on the axe itself), Edge Straight, Type 3 , F ig. 3 Possibly some mixing/redistribution of material with T . LVI Cat. No 4 14, Ras Shamra Tr Sud Acr unpub tom, RS26.171 Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 31, Blade 1 02, Socklen 1 4, Sockbr 1 3, Sockht 1 4, Edgeht 2 6, Moulding Two pairs, Section Beaded, F lange Absent, Hook Present, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 3 , F ig. 3 Cat. No 4 35, Tel Aviv Harbour T 6 , Kaplan 1 955, 5 , 5 .2, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 60, Blade 1 21, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr * Sockht Edgeht 2 6, Moulding Two pairs, Section Beaded, F lange Absent, Hook Present, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 3 At l eft shoulder of burial Cat. No 4 43, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-l/14 Gr 5 , N1377 B ietak 1 970,*, Pl. XVIId, Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 42, Blade 1 09, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 1 8, Sockht Edgeht 2 8, Moulding * , Section Beaded, F lange Absent, Hook Present, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge * , Type 3 , F ig. 3 Type

1 7,

1 4,

4

The axes of Type 4 have long cylindrical sockets bordered top and bottom by single ribs, or possess three ribs, the additional one being positioned half-way down the socket. 2 76

The socket may have a single ventral stop. The blades of Type 4 axes occur i n a range of forms, with a narrow rectangular section being the most frequent. Also of note i s the occurrence of two examples with ' beaded' blades, reminiscent of those of Type 3 . Axes of Type 4 are longer, possess more circular sockets and have broader cutting edges than other forms. Cat. No 4 16, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht Moulding Three ribs, Section * , F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 4

* ,

Edgeht

Cat. No 4 20, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9712 Schaeffer 1 938, * , Fig.32S, Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 62, Blade 1 15, Socklen 3 1, Sockbr 1 5, Sockht 2 3, Edgeht 2 8, Moulding Two single ribs, Section Narrow rectgl, Flange Absent, Hook Present, Profile F laring, Stops S ingle, Edge Straight, Type 4 Possibly mixed with material from Tomb LVII Cat. No 4 21, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9713 Schaeffer 1 938, * , F ig.32R, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 42, Blade 1 01, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 1 8, Sockht 2 0, Edgeht 2 8, Moulding Three ribs, Section Narrow rectgl, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Convex, Type 4 , F ig. 4 Possibly mixed with material from Tomb LVII Cat. No 4 23, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9711 S chaeffer 1 938, * , Fig.32T, Louvre, Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 74, Blade 1 29, Socklen 3 0, Sockbr 2 0, Sockht Edgeht 3 5, Moulding Three ribs, Section Beaded, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 4 , Fig. 4 No sign of cross-stop which appears in publication Possibly mixed with material from Tomb LVII

3 1,

Cat. No 4 17, Ras Shamra T LXXXVII, RS11804 Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 72, Blade 1 31, Socklen 2 5, Sockbr 2 1, Sockht 2 2, Edgeht 2 9, Moulding Three r ibs, Section Narrow rectgl, F lange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile F laring, Stops Absent, Edge Straight, Type 4 , Fig. 4

2 77

Cat.

No

422,

Ras

Shamra

MB

tomb Area

A ,

RS7401

Schaeffer 1936, 1 29, Fig.17G, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length

184,

Blade

1 46,

Edgeht 35, Moulding Three ribs, Hook Absent, Profile Edge

Straight,

Type

Socklen

29,

Sockbr

Section Square, Flange Flaring, Stops Absent, 4 ,

Fig.

Edgeht 2 8, Moulding Three ribs, Hook Absent, Profile Edge Convex, Type 4 ,

Sockht

2 6,

Absent,

4

Cat. No 4 19, Ras Shamra 2e Niv, RS462 Schaeffer 1962, * , Fig.26.1, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 48, Blade 1 14, Socklen 2 0, Sockbr

Type

22,

16,

Section Narrow rectgl, Flaring, Stops Absent, Fig. 4

Sockht

18,

Flange Absent,

5 ( Variants)

An axe published from Tomb 1750 at Tell el-' Ajjul ( No 4 49) seems to combine several of the features of Types 2 and 4 . In size, in particular in height, it is clearly closer to those of Type 2 . than the larger weapons of Type 4 . However, it shares the three ribbed socket found on Type 4 axes, and is without the four vertical stops common on axes of Type 2 . Rather more individualistic is an item found at Alalakh, which is in the north of our area, and may represent a local understood. This

phenomenon that is as axe has a cylindrical

yet poorly socket, with

a

single moulded rib top and bottom, but has a square-section blade, tapering to a sharp point, which is clearly atypical. Detailed consideration is hampered by the inadequacy of the reporting of the small finds from that site ( Woolley 1 955). Certain similarities exist with several objects found in the destruction of the Palace of Z imri-Lim at Mari ( here assigned to Type 6 within the shaft-hole axe group) but further discussion must await more evidence from the northern and inland zones of Syria. Cat. No 4 33, Alalakh I I, AT37/11 Woolley 1955, 2 79, Pl. LXXII, * , Condn Cannot asses, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht Moulding Two single ribs, Section Square, Flange Absent, Hook Absent, Profile Tapering, Edge Pointed, Type 5 Cat. No 415, Ras Schaeffer 1936,

Stops

Absent,

Shamra Area B f inds * , Fig.19J, * ,

in

pits,

Condn Cannot asses, Measmt From publication, Length 159, Blade 1 19, Socklen 2 9, Sockbr * , Edgeht 2 7, Moulding Two Hook Absent, Edge Convex, Secondary

RS7421

Sockht

single ribs, Section Beaded, Flange Profile Flaring, Stops Absent, Type 5

deposits

of

tomb

contents 2 78

or

poorly

2 1,

Absent,

excavated

pit

graves?

- see

Courtois

1979,

1 202

Cat. No 449, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1750, Petrie 1934, * , Pl. XXII.240, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length Edgeht

151, 21,

Moulding

Blade

Three

Hook Absent, Edge Convex,

1 23,

ribs,

Profile Type 5 .

Socklen

Section

* ,

Blunt

Sockbr ovoid,

* ,

Flange

Flaring, Stops Absent, By skull of burial

2 79

Sockht

1 6,

Absent,

CRESCENTIC AXES Type

1

With axes of Type 1 the cutting edge i s convex and hafting i s by means of a s ingle tang curled around the handle. The upper and lower ends of the blade curve back so as to rest against the haft. In fact it is l ikely that they were actually set into the wood of the handle. In several cases a small dome i s found on the blade. This has been i nterpreted as a skeumorphic form of a rivet ( Kenyon 1 955, 1 3). This view assumes that an early version of these axes had the blade and tang as two separate sections, j oined by the central rivet, which seems doubtful as there i s no reason to suppose that it would be any harder to cast the axe i n one piece than to cast it as two separate sections. I t seems more l ikely that the dome i s a decorative feature. This would seem in keeping with its position on the blade, where it would form a point of focus for the eye. The blades of three examples measure 2 47, 2 68 and 2 77 mm in breadth ( i.e. the distance across the two ends of the blade, the longest dimension), whilst the fourth, which i s morphologically different i s smaller at 1 85mm. Estimates of l ength i .e. distance from cutting edge to rear of haft, suggest an average of a l ittle under 1 00mm, with one exception No 4 56 which measures 1 45 mm. Therefore a ll four are considerable larger than any of the fenestrated axes so f ar reported. I f there i s a simple l ine of development between the two forms, we ought to expect a large, broad form of fenestrated axe to appear in early contexts. That this i s not so ( see 2 .1) suggests that the true sequence of development i s rather different. All seem to have been cast in simple l idded moulds. Cat. No 453, Bab edh-Dhra T A 4 4, Lapp 1 966, 1 07, * , Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute Maxbr 2 68, Length 8 6, Type 1 , Fig. 5 Thin blade, l ighter than Jericho axe, surfaces different, domes misaligned. not blunted - set into wooden haft Cat. No 4 57, Jericho T All4B, Kenyon 1 960, 1 79, F ig.66.1, Amman, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute Maxbr 2 47, Length 8 0, Type 1

tang and blade Blade extremities

N . M.,

Cat. No 4 55, Kfar Monash Find, Condn Good, Measmt From publication Gophna 1 968, 4 7, Pl. 3 C, * , Maxbr 1 85, Length 9 0, Type 1 Cat. No 456, Tell e l-Hesi Lowest level, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute Kenyon 1 955, 1 5, F ig.1.2, London, P .E.F. Maxbr 2 77, Length 1 37, Type 1 2 80

Hammer traces Type

on b lade

2

Only two there is

examples o f this type have good contexts, but enough additional evidence to suggest that they

represent a distinct group. These axes have blades with curved cutting edges. Attachment to the haft is by means of three tangs, a ll of which were curled around the shaft. In a t least one case ( Tubb 1982, 1 ) the tangs are so aligned as to have required the f itting of a curved haft, a trait which was continued into the l ater fenestrated axes ( du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, Pl. XLV). Both examples are from northern Syria. Although we have not dealt with unprovenanced items, it was felt that a piece, clearly of our Type 2 , published recently by van den Boom n( 1983, 1 31), deserved mention as it appeared after publication of Tubb's ( 1982) article. Attachment i s by means of three curled tangs, and the blade has a curved cutting edge, with a breadth of 3 19mm, a length of 8 4mm; this axe clearly belongs with our Type 2 , and a north Syrian origin seems l ikely. Cat. No 4 52, Amarna Bought, Tubb 1982, 1 , 1 , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute Maxbr 2 47, Length 8 2, Type 2 , Fig. 5 B lade edge is blunt, surface hamm tr, l ight in weight to f en axes Curled tangs are not in a straight l ine, designed to f it a curved handle. C at. No 4 54, Tawi T 3 1, C ondn Good, Measmt From publication Kampschulte and Orth 1 984, 7 8, Taf. Maxbr 3 05, Length 9 2, Type 2 Type

3 0C.1,

rel

*

3

O nly two provenanced examples of this type are known. Both h ave straight cutting edges, and possess three tangs which a re rivetted to the haft, requiring the punching of rivet holes, rather than hammering up of curled tangs. Both are o f relatively l imited breadth, 1 96mm and 2 00 mm r espectively. C at. No 4 58, Byblos T . O. Forect Dep g , C ondn Good, Measmt From publication Dunand 1 958, 8 55, Pl. CXXXIV, * , Maxbr 2 00, Length 7 2, Type 3 , F ig. 5 7 Made of gold

N16707

C at. No 4 51, Til Barsip Hypogeum, N7 Thureau-Dangin and D 1936, 1 06, Pl.XXVIII.6, C ondn S light damage, Measmt From publication Maxbr 1 96, Length 7 3, Type 3

2 81

*

Aleppo

FENESTRATED AXES SURVLEN LENGTH SOCKLEN SOCKBR MAXBR MXTH FENSHAPE MRIB PROFILE FENRIB PRECIOUS

' Surviving length' ' Overall Length' ' Internal Length of Socket' ' Internal Breadth of Socket' ' Maximum Breadth of Blade' ' Maximum Thickness of B lade' ' Shape of Fenestrations' ' Form of Midrib' ' Profile of Blade' ' Rib Round Fenestrations' ' Type of Precious Metal' ( if

made

of

s uch)

I nspection of preliminary histograms of metric variables, or their re-expression as ratios, suggested that a number of those represented complex bi-, or multi-modal d istributions ( for details see Philip 1 988a, figs. 7 0b, c ). Visual inspection of plots of one metric variable against another were revealing and provided the basis for an i nitial trial partition of the material against which variability in other aspects of the data could be e xamined. The c lear groupings suggested by the plot of length against breadth ( fig. 5 9a) f ormed the basis for the most useful of these and involved d ividing the objects into four groups. Type

1

Axes of Type 1 are essentially ' narrow' fenestrated axes o f Maxwell-Hyslop's Type B4 ( 1949, 1 20) sometimes referred to a s ' duckbill' axes. It should be observed that two possible variants exist, a lthough no chronological or spatial d ifference can be detected between them. The first group o f axes shows a profile which tapers gently towards the cutting edge, from a point of maximum thickness at t he socket ( fig. 6 bottom r ight). The s econd group show what i s here termed a s inuous profile. These axes have a point of maximum thickness which is quite f ar forward a long the b lade, which shows a c lear bulge j ust before tapering steeply to the cutting edge ( fig. 6 top left). These weapons are generally heavier and the centre of gravity is much nearer the cutting edge than i s the case with axes of the f irst form. Axes of Type 1 have a mean length of 102 mm, mean breadth of 4 9mm and the length by breadth r atio i s generally around 2 .2. Type 1 axes have ovoid f enestrations, sharp or blunt l ines a s midribs and tapering or s inuous profiles; there is only one example with a f lange round the fenestrations. Cat. No 4 97, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, F ig.1.4, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 01, Socklen 3 2, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 7, Maxbr 6 5, Mxth 1 3, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib B lunt l ine, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 1 Sharp edge, neat fenestrations though ragged at the r ear. 2 82

Cat. No 4 88, Amrit T 4 , Dunand et al 1 955, * , P l. 1 11.2, Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 3 6, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 8 , F enshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, F enrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 4 89, Amrit T 4 , Dunand et al 1 955, * , P l. 1 11.2, Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 4 5, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt F enrib Absent, Precious * ,

Mxth

1 0,

Mxth

l ine, Profile Tapering, Type 1

Cat. No 4 86, Amrit Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr * , Mxth F enshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 I tems from Amrit tombs, cannot assign to individual deposits Cat. No 4 87, Amrit Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr * , Mxth F enshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, F enrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 I tems from Amrit tombs, cannot assign to individual deposits Cat. No 4 91, Amrit Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr * , Mxth F enshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, F enrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 I tems from Amrit tombs, cannot assign to individual deposits Cat. No 4 61, Baghouz Z 9 5, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 2, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 00, Socklen 2 9, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 4 5, Mxth * , F enshape Ovoid, Mrib B lunt l ine, Profile S inuous, F enrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Traces of sheet-metal haft decoration at rear of f enestrations. Bed, table with meat, dagger and 2 spears a lso f ound. Axe found behind skull Cat. No 6 61, Baghouz Z 1 02, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 3, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative d imensions, Length 6 4, Socklen 1 9, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 2 83

3 1,

* ,

Mxth

* ,

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile S inuous, F enrib * , Precious * , Type 1 B ig dolmen, dagger with axe, Sheet s leeve behind f enestrations Cat. No 6 62, Baghouz Z 1 21, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 75, P l. XLVII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 1 14, Socklen 3 6, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib * , Profile * Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 1

5 0,

Bed, table with meat, axe, dagger, l eaf silver Haft originally extended for 5 60mm below axehead, l ower end curved, straighter above. Cross nail driven through handle above axehead. By skull, haft towards feet - originally l ay on bed. Cat. No 4 63, Baghouz Z 1 23, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, 7 6, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 12, Socklen 3 0, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 4 9, Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Bed, table with meat, dagger; axe l ay below skull, traces of sheet metal decoration visible Cat. No 464, Baghouz Z 143, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 8, P l. LX, * Condn Good, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 48, Socklen 1 6, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 2 4, Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Bed and spear. Axe lay below skull,.haft length 4 70mm, parallel to back

ran

C at. No 460, Baghouz Z 3 05, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 9 1, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 9 1, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 4 5, Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Dolmen, axe, spear and dagger. Sheet s leeve inside socket Cat. No 459, Beth Shan T 9 2, Oren 1 971, 1 11, Fig.2.4, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 9 5, Socklen 2 9, Survlen * , Sockbr 19, Maxbr 5 9, Mxth 1 3 Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat.

No

5 08,

Byblos

Dep

Sigma, 2 84

N10645

Dunand 1954, 3 80, Pl. LXXIV, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 116, Mxth * ,

Socklen

3 4,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

Line, Profile Type 1

Mostly

group

figurines

from

this

* ,

Maxbr

5 3,

Tapering,

Cat. No 509, Byblos Dep Sigma, N10646 Dunand 1954, 3 80, * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 12, Mxth * ,

Socklen

* ,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

Maxbr

5 2,

* ,

Maxbr

45,

Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 1 Mostly figurines. Cat. No Dunand Condn

510, Byblos 1954, 3 80,

Cannot

Length 106, Mxth * ,

assess, Socklen

Dep Sigma, * , * ,

N10647

Measmt Absolute, * ,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 1 Mostly Cat. No Dunand

figurines 511, Byblos 1954, 3 80,

Dep Sigma, * , * ,

N10648

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 98, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 1 Mostly

* ,

Maxbr

48,

figurines

Cat. No 514, Byblos T de Partic III, N940 Montet 1928, 2 47, Pl. CXLIX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length

120,

Socklen

3 4,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

Maxbr

50,

Mxth

46,

Mxth

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Has r ivet fastening at socket according to Montet's description Cat. No Montet

515, Byblos 1928, 2 47,

T de Partic I II, Pl. CXLIX, * ,

N941

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 100, Socklen 2 4, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib * , Fenrib Absent, Precious

Profile * , Type

Cat. No 499, Esh-Shejara Tomb, Schumacher 1889, 77, Fig.15, Condn Cannot assess, Length * , Socklen * ,

Sinuous, 1

* ,

Measmt Cannot assess, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 285

* ,

Mxth

* ,

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Cat. No Fugmann

465, Hama 1 958, * ,

Line, Profile Type 1

T G I , 5A812 Pl. X , Copenhagen

National,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 96, Socklen 29, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 4 Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No Fugmann

466, Hama 1958, * ,

T G I , 5A813 Pl. X , Copenhagen

Sinuous,

15,

Maxbr

47,

Sinuous,

National,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 101, Socklen 2 3, Survlen * , Sockbr 17, Maxbr Mxth 14, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt line, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1

67,

Cat. No 477, Karakoy Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 101, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 18, Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 , F ig. 6 Cutting edge is thick and blunt

46,

Cat. No 1 419, Kurduneh Tomb, Yogev 1985, 105, * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Cannot assess, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 1 Cat.

No

Guiges

4 69,

Lebea

1937,

3 8,

Sockbr

* ,

Maxbr

* ,

Mxth

T 1 Ch A , Fig.4A,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 98, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * ,

46,

Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 1 Traces of metal inner sleeve Cat. No 1 418, Mari Unpublished * , * , Condn Good, Measmt

Context Unknown, * , Damascus, Cannot assess,

Length * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Cat.

No

5 49,

Unpublished Condn Good,

Precious

Ras

Shamra

* , * , Measmt

* ,

Type

Context

Mxth

1 Unknown,

* , Aleppo, Absolute,

Length 86, Socklen 2 3, Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth 15, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile 2 86

12,

Maxbr

Sinuous,

40,

Mxth

Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Joint from casting visible Cat.

No

551,

Ras

Shamra

Type 1 at rear

Context

of

socket

Unknown,

Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 95, Socklen 2 4, Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth 17, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1

- unfinished

RS8381

15,

Maxbr

Sinuous,

Cat. No 571, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, RS4535 Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25I, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 91, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

Line, Profile Type 1

56,

Tapering,

Cat. No 5 38, Ras Shamra T 3 480 in Necr III, Schaeffer 1978, 476, 9 .1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 97, Socklen 2 6, Survlen * , Sockbr 2 1, Maxbr Mxth 16, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

line, Profile Type 1

Cat. No 543, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

Line, Profile Type 1

Ovoid,

Fenrib Absent,

Shamra Imprecise, RS1932 * , Fig.18.13, Louvre,

Mrib

Sharp

Precious

Cat. No 544, Ras Schaeffer 1 949,

* ,

Line, Type

Profile

Shamra Imprecise, * , Fig.18.29, * ,

Mxth 2 0, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

Sinuous,

RS6189

Line, Profile Type 1

Shamra Imprecise, * , Fig.18.14, * ,

Maxbr

Sinuous,

RS4479

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 22, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape

Ovoid,

Mrib

Sharp

Line, 2 87

1 1,

1

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 113, Socklen 2 9, Survlen * , Sockbr 15,

Cat. No 552, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

1 1,

Sinuous,

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 23, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape

66,

Sinuous,

Cat. No 5 42, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS6086 Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.18.17, Louvre, Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 22, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

4 2,

Profile

* ,

1 4,

45,

?

Fenrib Absent,

Precious

* ,

Type

1

Cat. No 550, Ras Shamra 2e Niv, RS4535 Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25I, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 9 1, Mxth * ,

Socklen

* ,

Survlen

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib * , Fenrib Absent, Precious

* ,

Profile * , Type

Sockbr

* ,

41,

* , 1

Cat. No 554, Ras Shamra Necr I , Schaeffer 1932, * , Pl. XIII.4, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 11, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 541, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

Maxbr

Shamra Charnier * , Fig.26.12, * ,

btwn

* ,

Maxbr

5 3,

Sinuous,

T of

B ,

RS475

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From publication, Length 97, Socklen 3 2, Survlen * , Sockbr 23, Maxbr Mxth 2 1, Fenshape Triangular, Mrib * , Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Socket fully enclosed. Charnier' with 22 burials pottery - poorly documented

5 9,

and MBI

Cat. No 545, Ras Shamra Charnier btwn T of B , RS431 Schaeffer 1962, * , Fig.26.6, Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 95, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 17, Maxbr 4 4, Mxth 18, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Charnier' with 22 burials and MBI pottery - poorly documented Cat. No 553, Ras Schaeffer 1962,

Shamra Charnier * , Fig.26.4, * ,

btwn

T of

B ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 103, Socklen 3 0, Survlen * , Sockbr 16, Mxth 19, Fenshape

Ovoid,

Fenrib Absent, Charnier' with documented Cat.

No

470,

Mrib

Sharp

Line,

Profile

Precious * , Type 1 22 burials and MBI pottery

Ruweise

RS484

Maxbr

Tapering, - poorly

T 57,

Guiges 1938, 3 3, Fig. 51A, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 115, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape

Ovoid,

Fenrib Absent, Cat.

No

495,

Mrib

Sharp

Precious

Safad

46,

* ,

Line, Type

Tomb, 288

Profile 1

Sinuous,

51,

Unpublished Condn Good,

* , * , * , * , Measmt Absolute,

Length 1 12, Mxth * ,

Socklen

3 0,

Survlen

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Facetting Cat. No Chehab Condn

on

of

Sockbr

Line, Profile Type 1

17,

Maxbr

46,

Tapering,

socket

492, Sin el-Fil Tomb, 1939, 8 07, Fig.10A, * ,

Slight

Length 1 03, Mxth * Fenshape

rear

* ,

damage, Socklen

Ovoid,

Fenrib Absent,

Mrib

Measmt 2 7,

Sharp

Precious

From

Survlen

* ,

publication, * ,

Line, Type

Sockbr

* ,

Maxbr

45,

Profile 1

Cat. No 493, Tel Rehov T 2 , N83 Yogev 1985, 9 3, Fig.4.3, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 105, Socklen 3 0, Survlen * , Sockbr 19, Maxbr * Mxth 12, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 . By skull of burial Cat. No 498, Tell Dan Rampart, Biran 1973, 1 11, Pl. 27B, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 105, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 471, Tell Mardikh Hyp Matthiae 1980c, * , Fig.11A, B,

B , TM78 Aleppo,

Cat. Buhl

No 475, 1983,

Condn Good, Length 102,

Tell 67,

No 476, 1983,

Measmt From Socklen 3 1,

Tell 67,

45,

Sinuous,

Line, Profile Type 1

18,

Maxbr

Sinuous,

publication, Survlen * , Sockbr Line, Profile Type 1

Sukas J 14 Layer 2 , P l. XXII.368, Aleppo,

2 0,

Maxbr

Tapering,

N368

TS3093

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 87, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 3 6, Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Cat.

No

478,

Tell

62,

Sukas Surface, N367 TS4024 Pl. XXII.367, Damascus,

Mxth 16, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Cat. Buhl

Maxbr

Q343

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 125, Socklen 41, Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth 22, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

* ,

et-Tin

Line, Profile Type 1 Tomb, 2 89

Sinuous,

52,

Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 7 2, Sockbr * , Maxbr * Mxth 1 8, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Sinuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 4 79, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 79, Sockbr * , Maxbr * Mxth 1 8, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Blunt l ine, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 4 80, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 95, Socklen 2 9, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 5, Maxbr Mxth 1 3, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 4 81, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * * * Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 9 8, Sockbr * , Maxbr * , 1 8 Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile S inuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 I

I

I

Cat. No 4 82, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 00, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr 1 6, Maxbr Mxth 2 0, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile S inuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 , F ig. 6 Cat. No 4 83, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 11, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 3, Maxbr Mxth 1 5, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile S inuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 , F ig. 6 Cat. No 4 84, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 7 8, S ockbr * , Mxth 1 8, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib * , Profile S inuous, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Cat. No 4 94, Assaf 1 967,

4 6,

Yabrud Context Unknown, 5 7, Taf.1.1, * , 2 90

Maxbr

Mxth

4 5,

4 2,

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, L ength 5 3, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , F enshape Ovoid, Mrib * , Profile Sinuous, F enrib Absent, Precious * , Type 1 Type

2 2,

2

Axes of Type 2 comprise what has traditionally been known a s ' broad' or ' D-Shaped' fenestrated axes, Maxwell-Hyslop's ( 1949, 1 20) Type B 3. The mean length is 7 7mm, mean breadth 1 15mm and the l ength/breadth ratio i s usually around 0 .60 .8. This results in a distinctive semi-circular shape, c learly identifiable at a distance. Type 2 axes are generally f lat in profile ( i.e. the centre of the blade i s not thickened), and either have no midrib, or a deliberately cast-in raised centre l ine; f langes around the f enestrations are common but not universal. Some form of relief decoration i s present on many of these axes, i n contrast to its scarcity on axes of Type 1 . The f enestrations themselves are often very large and circular i n shape, continuing well back into the socket, which must have been considerably weakened as a result. Cat. No 4 90, Amrit T 7 Layer 4 , Dunand et al 1 955, 1 97, * , Damascus, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 1 2, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 7, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile F lat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Midrib f lat between fenestrations Cat. No 5 19, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10501 Dunand 1 954, 3 43, * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 8 3, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Mxth * , Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 2

Maxbr

1 08,

Cat. No 5 20, Byblos Dep Chi, N10823 Dunand 1 954, 3 91, P l. LXXVIII, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 72, Socklen 2 1, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 11, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Profile F lat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2 E lab cast-in decor, l ooks to weak for use in combat Cat. No 5 21, Byblos Dep Chi, N10824 Dunand 1 954, 3 91, * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 71, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2 2 91

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

1 15, F lat,

Cat. No Dunand

522, Byblos 1954, 3 91,

Dep Chi, * , * ,

N10825

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 69, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Fenrib Present, Precious * ,

Low humped, Type 2

Cat. No 523, Byblos Dep Chi, N10826 Dunand 1954, 391, * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 65, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Fenrib Present, Precious * ,

Low humped, Type 2

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

* ,

1 15, Flat,

Maxbr

Profile

105, Flat,

Cat. No 524, Byblos Dep Chi, N10827 Dunand 1954, 391-2, * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 73, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

1 18, Flat,

Cat. No 518, Byblos Dep Nu, N9707 Dunand 1954, 308, Fig.338, * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From publication, Length 80, Socklen 29, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 07, Mxth * Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No Dunand

525, Byblos 1954, 3 49,

Dep Pi, * , * ,

N10228

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 74, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No Dunand

517, Byblos 1954, 286,

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

1 20,

Flat,

Dep Eta, N9472 Pl. LXIII, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 76, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 28, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No Dunand

516, Byblos 1939, 145,

Bat I I Jar Pl. LXV, * ,

2 132,

N2133

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 59, Socklen 15, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Fenrib Present, Precious * , Cat.

No

506,

Byblos

T . O.

No Midrib, Type 2

N .W

corner 2 92

Profile

ctyd,

70,

F lat,

N14440

Dunand

1958,

6 95,

* ,

* ,

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From publication, Length 89, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks Originally Cat. No Dunand

had

1 38,

Flat,

sleeve

507, Byblos 1958, 695,

T . O. N . W corner Fig.831, * ,

ctyd,

N14441

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From publication, Length 82, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks Originally had sleeve

1 42,

Flat,

Cat. No 512, Byblos T . O. N . W corner ctyd, N14439 Dunand 1958, 695, Pl. CXX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 78, Socklen 3 3, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 19, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious Silver, Type 2 Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks Hammer traces on blade surface, Silver sleeve inside socket Cat. No Dunand

526, Byblos 1958, 694,

T . O. N . W corner Pl. CXIX, * ,

ctyd,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 82, Socklen 25, Survlen

* ,

Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Fenrib Present, Precious Gold,

Midrib, Type 2

Sockbr

N14434

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks Other gold axe with this design is different Hammer traces on socket Cat.

No

527,

Byblos

T . O.

N . W corner

Dunand 1958, 6 94, Pl. CXX, * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From Length

89,

Socklen

27,

Survlen

* ,

ctyd,

in

1 17,

Flat,

size.

N14436

publication, Sockbr

Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Present, Precious Gold, Type 2

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

1 42,

Flat,

Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks With decorated gold sleeve, and engraved sign. Cat.

No

5 29,

Byblos

T . O.

N . W corner

Dunand 1 958, 695, Pl. CXX, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 85, Socklen 2 9, Survlen

* ,

ctyd,

Sockbr

Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Present, Precious Gold, Type 2 293

* ,

N14438

Maxbr

Profile

1 34,

Flat,

Against enclosure wall Sleeve inside socket

of

Temple

of

Obelisks

Cat. No 5 05, Byblos T . O. N wall ctyd, N14840 Dunand 1 958, 7 32, Pl. CXXVII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 82, Socklen 3 2, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2

9 8,

Handle is sheathed in silver. Axe seems to be bronze with a silver sleeve - bears incised sign. Handle 1=495, br 34 th 17, curved, three ribs as stop at lower end of socket Cat. No 503, Byblos T . O. Forect Dep g , N16715 Dunand 1958, 857, Pl. CXXXII, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 68, Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape * , Mrib Low sharp, Profile * Fenrib * , Precious Silver, Type 2 "gilt

*

silver"

Cat. No Dunand

504, Byblos 1 958, 855,

T . O. Forect Dep g , Pl. CXXXV, * ,

N16708

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 90, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Present, Precious Gold, Type 2 Gold with decorated sleeve

Profile

1 43, Flat,

Cat. No 5 30, Byblos T . O. Forect Dep g , N16709 Dunand 1 958, 856, Pl. CXXXVII, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 86, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 37, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious Gold, Type 2 Gold, with decorated sleeve - ragged edges round the fenestrations Cat. No 5 32, Byblos T . O. Forect Dep g , N16711 Dunand 1 958, 856, Pl. CXXXVII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 7 3, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * ,

1 03,

Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious Gold, Type 2

Profile

Flat,

Gold, ragged fenestrations, relief decoration

dog

ram as

Cat. No Dunand

5 33, Byblos 1 958, 856,

no

sleeve,

T . O. Forect Dep Pl. CXXXVII, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 8 7, Socklen * , Survlen * , Mxth

* , 2 94

g ,

and

N16712

publication, Sockbr * , Maxbr

1 29,

F enshape

Sub-Circular,

Mrib

Low

F enrib Absent, Precious Gold, Gold, poorly f inished, ragged down back of socket

sharp,

Profile

Type 2 fenestrations,

Flat,

clear

Cat. No 5 34, Byblos T . O. Forect Dep g , N16713 Dunand 1 958, 8 56, * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 8 2, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , F enshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , F enrib * , Precious Gold, Type 2 Cat. No Dunand

5 35, Byblos 1 958, 8 57,

T . O. Forect Dep g , Pl. CXXXVII, * ,

edge

1 31,

N16716

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt From publication, Length 7 9, Socklen 2 9, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 99, Mxth * F enshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile Fenrib * , Precious Silver, Type 2 S ilver with gold s leeve Cat. No Dunand

5 36, Byblos 1 958, 857,

T . O. * , * ,

Forect

Dep g ,

N16717

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Cannot Length 61, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenri b Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Bronze with traces of gold sleeve Cat. No 4 67, Unpublished Condn

Good,

Length 69, Mxth 5 ,

Hama * , * ,

T G VI, * , * ,

Flat,

assess, * , Maxbr * , Mxth Profile Flat,

5B420

Measmt Absolute, Socklen

2 3,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 4 68, Hama T G VI, 5B420 Unpublished * , * , * , * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 85, Socklen 3 1, Survlen * , Mxth 8 ,

Maxbr

Profile

Sockbr

Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 500, Jericho Sellin and Watzinger

18,

2 4,

Flat,

Maxbr

Profile

Jar from Tell, 1913, 117, Abb.105.16,

1 13,

1 12,

Flat,

* ,

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 66, Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 10, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Low humped, Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. Dar Condn

No 496, Ma'abarot T 6 , 1977, * , Fig.65.12, Kib. Good,

Ma'abarot,

Measmt Absolute, 295

*

Length 46, Mxth 4

Socklen

19,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Found in doorway of tomb Cat.

No

502,

Megiddo

T 84C,

Guy 1938, * , Pl. 163.8, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Length 82, Mxth *

Socklen

31,

Profile

* ,

Sockbr

2 1,

Unknown,

Slight

Shamra T 3 480 476, Fig.8.4,

damage,

Socklen

Measmt

21,

in * ,

Necr

1 34,

Flat,

RS8382

* ,

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2

Length 68, Mxth * ,

Flat,

Maxbr

Profile

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Absolute, Length 76, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * ,

Condn

9 4,

From publication,

Survlen

Ras Shamra Context * , * , * , Louvre,

Cat. No 555, Ras Schaeffer 1978,

Maxbr

M605

Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 558, Unpublished

13,

Maxbr

90,

Flat,

III,

RS24.117

From publication,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2

1 3,

Maxbr

Profile

8 3,

Flat,

Cat. No 557, Ras Shamra T 3480 in Necr III, Schaeffer 1978, 476, Fig.10.11, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

RS24.168

Length 63, Mxth 7 ,

Maxbr

Socklen

19,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

14,

Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 , F ig.

Profile 7

Cat. No 561, Ras Schaeffer 1978,

III,

Shamra T 3 480 in Necr 476, Fig.10.8, * ,

9 1,

Flat,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 69, Socklen 2 0, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 3, Maxbr 1 21, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 562, Ras Shamra T 3 480 in Necr III, Schaeffer 1978, 476, Fig.10.9, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 71, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Radial Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 560, Ras Schaeffer 1 978, Condn

Good,

l ines,

Profile

Shamra Necr III, RS25.205 476, Fig.9.3, Damascus,

Measmt

Absolute, 296

8 5, F lat,

Length 8 7, Mxth 1 1,

Socklen

2 6,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

1 6,

Maxbr

Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Profile Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2 , Fig. 7

1 44,

F lat,

Cat. No 5 46, Ras Shamra Graves of ' Porteurs', RS4509 Schaeffer 1 949, * , F ig.19.14, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 8 6, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 8, Maxbr 1 36, Mxth 4 , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Low humped, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2

Profile

F lat,

Cat. No 5 47, Ras Shamra Graves of ' Porteurs', RS4503 Schaeffer 1 949, * , F ig.19.13, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 8 1, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 7, Maxbr 1 11, Mxth 6 , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 5 76, Tell Balata Context Unknown, Watzinger 1 933, * , Abb. 5 4, The Hague, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 9 2, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 45, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile F lat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 4 74, Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund 2 , MBQ25/35-54 Heinrich et al 1 974, 4 4, Abb. 6 2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 8 3, Socklen 2 7, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 16, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Profile F lat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Cat. No 4 85, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 5 1, Sockbr * , Mxth 8 , Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile F lat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 2 Type

Maxbr

7 2,

3

Axes of Type 3 have traditionally been classed with the ' broad' form but seem to represent a distinct cluster on the p lot of length v maximum breadth ( fig. 59a). In view of the high degree of standarisation exhibited by the f irst two groups, the distinction i s worth making. That this has been overlooked i s probably because of the l imited numbers i n which axes of Type 3 occur. Mean length i s 8 8mm, mean breadth 8 5mm and the l ength/breadth ratio is close to 1 .0 ( fig. 5 9a). As a result, these axes appear triangular in p lan, and though they are typologically closest to those of 2 97

Type 2 , in terms of their general shape and surface decoration, they do not s imply comprise the ' narrow' end of the distribution of the former. There i s a qualitative d ifference between the semi-circular axes of Type 2 and the triangular axes of Type 3 which i s obvious to anyone who has handled this material in any quantity. Cat. No 5 13, Byblos Dep Epsilon, N8821 Dunand 1 954, 2 19, Pl. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 6 7, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 6 0, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Low humped, Profile F lat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 3 Bronze s leeve inside socket, Cat. No 5 28, Byblos T .O. Forect Dep g , Dunand 1 958, 8 56, P l.CXXXVII, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 7 5, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Sharp L ine, Fenrib Present, Precious Gold, Type 3 Gold, well f inished

N16714

* ,

Maxbr

Profile

7 2, F lat,

Cat. No 5 31, Byblos T . O. Forect Dep g , N16710 Dunand 1 958, 8 56, Pl.CXXXVII, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 95, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 9 2, Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious Gold, Type 3 Gold with gold s leeve, collar at each end of socket Cat. No 5 01, Megiddo Temp 4 040, d642 Loud 1 948, * , P l. 1 82.3, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 9 4, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 3, Maxbr Mxth 1 1, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 3 Built i nto the structure of Temple 4 040 Cat. No 5 40, Ras Sha ma 2 e Niv, RS5040 Schaeffer 1949, * , F ig.25A, Aleppo, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 6 6, Socklen 2 5, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 4, Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile F lat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 3

9 0,

5 9,

Cat. No 4 72, Tell Mardikh Hyp B , TM78 Q481 Matthiae 1 980c, * , F ig.12, Aleppo, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 8 3, Sockbr * , Maxbr 9 0, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib Radial l ines, Profile Flat, 2 98

Fenrib

Present,

Precious

* ,

Type

3

Cat. No 4 73, Tell Mardikh Hyp C , TM78 Q495 Matthiae 1 980c, * , F ig.10A, B, A leppo, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Socklen * , Survlen 6 8, Sockbr * , Maxbr 8 7, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-circular, Mrib Radial l ines, Profile F lat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 3 , F ig. 7 Type

4

Axes of Type 4 occur in a range of shapes corresponding to all of the types l isted above and show a wide spectrum of typological detail. Their unifying feature i s their restricted s ize. The average length i s 4 3mm, average breadth 2 8mm. All axes with both length below 7 0mm, and breadth below 5 0mm have been assigned to Type 4 . These f igures were selected on the basis of the clustering visible on the plot of these two dimensions ( fig. 5 9a). These represent a specific tradition of miniature, nonutilitarian fenestrated axes. Cat. No 4 62, Baghouz Z 1 03bis, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 3, * , * Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From publication, Length 45, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape * , Mrib * , Profile * , Fenrib * , Precious * , Type 4

1 2,

Cat. No 1 420, Mari Palace R i n 6 9, Parrot 1 959, 8 5, Pl. XXXIII, Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 5 0, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 2 7, Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 4 " Bathroom" paved, with drain and heating installation. S ize and context suggest a votive object Cat. No 5 39, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, RS7097 Schaeffer 1 949, * , F ig.25K, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 5 2, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 3 8, Mxth 15, Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Tapering, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 4 , Pl. lA lower l eft Cat. No 5 64, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, RS5043 Schaeffer 1 949, * , F ig.25B, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 5 2, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 4 , Pl. 1A lower

2 99

7 8,

r ight

Cat. No 565, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25C, Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 48, Mxth 3 ,

Socklen

1 3,

Survlen

* ,

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type Cat. No 566, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

Shamra Context * , Fig.25D, * ,

Sockbr

Profile 4

RS4410

9 ,

Maxbr

Flat,

Unknown,

RS4435

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 38, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Midrib, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type Cat. No 567, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

Shamra Context * , Fig.25E, * ,

Profile 4

Precious

* ,

Type

2 4,

Flat,

Unknown,

RS5046

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 39, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib * , Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent,

4 5,

1 5,

4

Cat. No 568, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, RS6342 Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25F, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 40, Mxth * ,

Socklen

* ,

Survlen

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

Line, Profile Type 4

Socklen

* ,

Survlen

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * ,

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

RS4403

Maxbr

No

574,

Ras

Shamra

Context

Unknown,

Cat.

No

575,

Ras

Mrib No Midrib, Profile Precious * , Type 4 Shamra

Context 3 00

Flat,

Unknown,

3 8,

RS5045

Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25L, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 35, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Fenrib Present,

1 1,

Line, Profile Flat, Type 4 , Pl. lA

Cat. No 573, Ras Sha ma Context Unknown, RS7097 Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25K, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 51, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Low humped, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type 4 Cat.

1 8,

Tapering,

Cat. No 570, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25H, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 26, Mxth * ,

Maxbr

RS6023

2 6,

Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.25M, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 9, Mxth * ,

Socklen

* ,

Louvre,

Survlen

* ,

Sockbr

* ,

Maxbr

1 9,

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Line, Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 4 , Pl. 1A Cat. No 569, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

Shamra 2e Niv, RS6274 * , Fig.25G, Louvre,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 9, Socklen * , Survlen Mxth * , Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib Sharp Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Cat. No 572, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

* ,

Sockbr

No

556,

Courtois

Ras

Midrib, * , Type

Shamra

Sond

4 11,

Fig.51B,

1962a,

19,

RS4448

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 56, Socklen * , Survlen * , Mxth * ,

Cat.

Maxbr

Line, Profile Tapering, Type 4 , Pl. 1A

Shamra 2e Niv, * , Fig.25J, * ,

Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Fenrib Absent, Precious

* ,

publication, Sockbr * , Maxbr Profile 4

Inf

Pt

42,

Flat,

Top

4 ,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 48, Socklen 1 3, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 0, Maxbr Mxth 3 , Fenshape Ovoid, Fenrib Present,

Mrib Low humped, Precious * , Type

Type

axe

5

' Anchor'

Profile 4

Cat. No 5 37, Byblos Demol walls Dunand 1939, 1 99, Pl. XCVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 110, Mxth * ,

Socklen

2 3,

Survlen

lev

I-X,

4 3

Flat,

N3070

publication, * ,

Sockbr

* ,

Maxbr

1 05,

Fenshape * , Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type 5 ( see Fig. 7 , example from ' Abydos' is similar) Variant

Form,

one

example

only

Cat. No 1427, Near Dera'a Tumulus, Nasrallah 1950, 3 25, Fig. 5 0, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 92, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Maxbr 1 60, Mxth * , Fenshape Sub-Circular, Mrib No Midrib, Profile Flat, Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type * Unclassified

items

Cat. No 548, Ras Schaeffer, 1949,

Shamra,"hoard' UMI * , Fig.18.38, *

Condn

adequate,

Broken

but

Measmt 3 01

or

early

Cannot

assess

Length * ,Socklen * , Survlen 7 8,Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * Fenshape * , Mrib Low humped,Profile Flat Fenrib Absent, Precious * , Type * Cat. No 559, Ras Shamra,Coupe I II prob=408 a Schaeffer, 1 948, * , P l. XL, * Condn Good, Measmt Relative dimensions Length 4 5,Socklen * , Survlen * ,Sockbr * , Maxbr Mxth * Fenshape Ovoid, Mrib No Midrib, Profile F lat Fenrib Present, Precious * , Type *

*

3 7,

SHAFT-HOLE AXES SURVLEN LENGTH BLADE SOCKLEN SOCKBR SOCKHT EDGEHT BLADFORM SOCKFORM SOCKDEC

' Surviving length' ' Overall length' ' Length of blade' ' Internal length of socket' ' Internal breadth of socket' ' Minimum height of socket' ' Height of cutting edge' ' Shape of blade' ' Form of socket' ' Form of decoration on socket'

The s et of types outlined below is essentially the result of c luster analysis ( for full details see Philip 1 988a). Type

1

A group of axes with long, square-sectioned blades tapering to a sharp point, running at right angles to the direction of the haft. The sockets are distinctive, are heavily cut away at the lower end, and bear a vertical crest at the rear. Cat. No 3 58, Mari Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht * , Bladform Pointed, Sockform Lower edge cut Sockdec Crest at rear, Type 1 Cat. No 3 59, Mari Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht * , B ladform Pointed, Sockform Lower edge cut Sockdec Crest at rear, Type 1

away,

away,

Cat. No 3 60, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n6 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, Pl. XXIX.5, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 96, Blade 1 38, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 6 9, Edgeht 1 2, Bladform Pointed, Sockform Lower edge cut away, Sockdec Crest at rear, Type 1 , F ig. 5 7 Type

2

Type 2 axes possess parallel-sided ( fig. 8 .362), or l obate ( fig. 8 .369) blades, mounted to s lope downwards when the socket i s positioned vertically. The most favoured forms of socket are those where the upper margin i s cut down ( fig. 8 .369), or where the lower margin i s cut away at an angle ( fig. 8 .362). The socket can be plain, can bear a s ingle r ib at the upper and lower margin or some other form of 3 03

r ibbed decoration. Some overlap exists with MaxwellHyslop's ( 1949) Types 6-8 and 2 1 and with Deshayes ( 1960) Types A and C2. The members of Type 2 are relatively heterogeneous, particularly when compared to the members of Type 1 . However this does seem to be a genuine f eature of the material. This type i s polythetic in the sense employed by Clarke ( 1978, 3 6) and it i s quite clear that a ll members of Type 2 bear more resemblance to each other than to any of the members of the other types. Cat. No 3 70, Byblos XVIII Salle C , n5170 Dunand 1 939, 3 47, Pl. XCVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 40, B lade 1 06, Socklen 3 5, Survlen * Sockbr * , Sockht 3 8, Edgeht 2 7, B ladform Parallel sided, Sockform Upper edge cut away, Sockdec Other ribbing, Type 2 Sagiegh ( 1983) suggests it i s part of a foundation deposit at base of wall of Bat. I I Cat. No 3 68, Halawa Gr 1 19, Orthmann 1 981, 5 6, Taf. 6 9.122, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 7 6, Blade 5 2, Socklen 1 5, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 5, Sockht 7 6, Edgeht 2 0, B ladform Parallel sided, Sockform Lower edge angled, Sockdec None, Type 2 F lat and hemispherical-head toggle-pins Cat. No 3 69, Hammam Group I II, Woolley 1 914, * , Pl. XXIc top, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 40, B lade 1 19, Socklen 1 6, Survlen * Sockbr 1 5, Sockht 5 1, Edgeht 3 9, B ladform Lobate, Sockform Upper edge cut away, Sockdec Upper and Lower ribs, Type 2 , Fig. 8 B lade end is blunt and rough, not smoothed off Wood in socket Cat. No 8 33, Mari Palace room 1 04, M993 Parrot 1 959, 8 5, Fig. 6 5, Louvre, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 56, B lade 1 04, Socklen 4 1, Survlen * , Sockbr 2 8, Sockht 4 7, Edgeht 5 0, B ladform Lobate, Sockform Lower edge angled, Sockdec Upper and Lower ribs, Type 2 This room comprises several poorly separated phases dating the destruction of the Palace of Z imri-lim. Cat. No 852, Mari I shtar Temple c or d , Parrot 1 956, 1 83, Fig. 9 8, Louvre, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 20, Blade 8 1, Socklen 2 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 2 8, Sockht 8 0, Edgeht 3 4, B ladform Lobate, Sockform Lower edge angled, S ockdec Plain, Type 2 C losest parallels are with Woolley's Type A3 as 3 04

pre-

recognized

at Ur.

Very much

in Mesopotamian

style

Cat. No 3 73, Tell Habuba Kabira Hoard fr Room 1 2, 7 7H6147 Heinrich et al 1 973, 6 7, Abb. 2 8, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 13, B lade 7 4, Socklen 2 0, Survlen Sockbr 2 3, Sockht 7 4, Edgeht 4 0, B ladform Flaring, Sockform Upper edge cut away, Sockdec * , Type 2 , F ig. 8 Hoard in j ar with other metalwork and part of a casting vessel Cat. No 3 61, Tell Selenkahiye Tomb 5 , SLK-75 Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 9 2, Blade 7 4, Socklen 2 2, Survlen * Sockbr 2 0, Sockht 9 0, Edgeht 3 3, Bladform Parallel s ided, Sockform Plain long, Sockdec None, Type 2 Many good parallels from Susa ( see main text) Blade feels heavy in comparison with socket

Mll

Cat. No 3 62, Tell Taiynat Below f loor 2 , T3374 Braidwood and Braidw 1 960, 453, F ig.351.9, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 09, Blade 8 2, Socklen 2 0, Survlen * , Sockbr 2 0, Sockht 6 9, Edgeht 2 5, Bladform Parallel s ided, Sockform * Sockdec * , Type 2 , F ig. 8 From l imited sounding below f loor, much of which comprised a big pit. Cat. No 3 71, Terqa Handed in, TPR825TQ3-34 Mount-Williams 1 980, 2 4, F ig.11, Deir ez-Zor, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 155, Blade 1 07, Socklen 3 6, Survlen * , Sockbr 3 3, Sockht 4 5, Edgeht 5 2, Bladform Lobate, Sockform Lower edge angled, Sockdec Other ribbing, Type 2 Cat. No 3 63, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n2 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, P l. XXIX.3, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 45, Blade 1 03, Socklen 3 1, Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht 5 0, Bladform Lobate, Sockform Lower edge angled, Sockdec Upper and Lower ribs, Type 2 , Fig. 5 7

*

Cat. No 3 64, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n1 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, P l. XXVIII.5, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 20, Blade 1 56, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 1 07, Edgeht 3 8, B ladform Parallel s ided, Sockform Lower edge angled, Sockdec Upper and Lower r ibs, Type 2 Four l ions cast onto back of socket

3 05

Cat. No 3 65, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n5 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, Pl. XXIX.8, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 17, B lade 8 6, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 5 4, Edgeht 2 6, B ladform Parallel s ided, Sockform Upper edge cut Sockdec Upper

and Lower

ribs,

Type

away,

2

Cat. No 3 66, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n4 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, P l. XXIX.6, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 34, Blade 9 7, Socklen * , Survlen * Sockbr * , Sockht 7 6, Edgeht 3 5, B ladform Parallel s ided, Sockform Upper edge cut away, Sockdec Other ribbing, Type 2 Cat. No 3 67, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n3 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, P l. XXIX.7, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 17, Blade 8 7, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 8 9, Edgeht 3 3, B ladform Parallel s ided, Sockform Lower edge angled, Sockdec Upper and Lower ribs, Type 2 , F ig. 5 7 Type

3

Type 3 axes have horizontally-mounted, f laring-sided blades and a l arge cylindrical socket bearing ribbed decoration. The r ibs on the socket run parallel to each other, in contrast to the f laring r ibs of axes assigned to Type 4 . The other key difference i s that the blade and socket are a ligned on approximately the same plane. None of these axes have f langed blades. A stop i s located below and i n front of the socket. Cat. No 3 74, Alalakh V unspecfd, AT/48/24 Woolley 1 955, 2 79, Pl. LXXII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 4 3, Blade 3 1, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht 1 1, Edgeht 1 4, B ladform Flaring, Sockform Straight socket, Sockdec Parallel ribbing, Type 3 Exact details unknown, could be a secondary context Cat. No 3 79, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht * , B ladform Flaring, Sockform Straight socket, Sockdec Parallel r ibbing, Type 3 Cat. No 3 80, Ras Shamra Tr Sud Acr unpub tom, RS24148 Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 38, Blade 9 9, Socklen 2 2, Survlen 1 33, Sockbr 2 3, Sockht 3 0, Edgeht 5 0, 3 06

B ladform F laring, Sockform Straight socket, Sockdec Parallel r ibbing, Type 3 , F ig. 8 Cat. No 3 77, Ras Shamra Ug Rec I I, RS5229 Schaeffer 1 962, * , F ig.33.15, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 15, Blade 1 60, Socklen 3 6, Survlen * Sockbr 3 0, Sockht 4 1, Edgeht 5 9, B ladform F laring, Sockform Straight socket, Sockdec Parallel r ibbing, Type 3 Type

4

Type 4 axes have f laring-sided blades which t ip upwards towards the cutting edge. The socket has slightly concave margins and bears a set of heavy, f laring ribs. A stop below and ahead of the socket i s general and i s usually l onger than those found on axes of Type 3 . The angle between the top of the blade and socket i s clearly obtuse, differentiating these axes from those of Type 3 . Axes of Type 4 may have f langes along the upper and l ower edges of the blade ( No 3 75), though this i s not universal. Cat. No 3 81, Ras Shamra Tr Sud Acr unpub Tomb 3 464, Schaeffer 1 963, * , Pl. 2 6, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht * , B ladform F laring, Sockform Edges convex, Sockdec Four f laring ribs, Type 4 Cat. No 3 76, Ras Shamra Imprecise, Schaeffer 1 932, * , Fig.14, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 64, Blade 109, Socklen 3 5, Survlen Sockbr 3 3, Sockht * , Edgeht 5 2, B ladform F laring, Sockform Edges convex, Sockdec Three f laring ribs, Type 4 Cat. No 3 78, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS10099 Schaeffer 1 962, * , F ig.33.14, Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 77, Blade 1 21, Socklen 3 0, Survlen * , Sockbr 3 0, Sockht 3 8, Edgeht 5 9, B ladform F laring, Sockform Edges convex, Sockdec Three f laring r ibs, Type 4 Cat. No 3 75, Shiloh Room, F inkelstein and Brandl 1 985, 2 1, * , * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 92, Blade 1 30, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht 6 4, B ladform F laring, Sockform Edges convex, Sockdec Four f laring ribs, Type 4 Found with other metalwork in corner of storeroom

3 07

Type

5

Type 5 axes have horizontally-mounted, f laring-sided blades and e laborate moulded decoration at the rear of the socket. Axes of this ( 1949, 1 13). Cat. No Montet

type

are

3 82, Byblos 1 928, 2 54,

classed by Maxwell-Hyslop as

Context not clear, Pl. CXLIX, * ,

Type

2 2

n963

Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 34, B lade 7 1, Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht 3 8, B ladform F laring, Sockform * , Sockdec Large crescentic crest behind socket,

Type

5

Cat. No 3 83, Byblos Surface, n1127 Dunand 1 939, 2 8, Pl. XCVI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt For comparsion only, Length 1 00, B lade 7 1, Socklen * , Survlen * Sockbr * , Sockht 3 8, Edgeht 2 6, B ladform Flaring, Sockform * , Sockdec D iverging Ribs, Type 5 Cat. No 3 84, Ras Shamra Context Unknown RS5052 Schaeffer 1 949, * , Fig.18.15, Aleppo, Condn S light damage, Measmt Cannot asses, Length * , Blade * , Socklen * , Survlen * , Sockbr * , Sockht * , Edgeht * , B ladform F laring, Sockform * , Sockdec Diverging Ribs, Type 5 Type

6

This type i s represented in the corpus by four examples. They have a pointed, square-section blade which i s attached centrally to a short cylindrical socket. The latter bears three broad ribs, one each at the top and bottom and one around its centre. C at. No 1 32, Mari Palace of Z -L doorway, M704 Parrot 1 959, 8 7, Fig. 6 6, Louvre, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 17, Blade * , Socklen 1 7, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 7, Sockht 3 3, Edgeht * , B ladform Pointed, Sockform Cylindrical, Sockdec Squared Ribs, Type 6 Ascribed to door in R i n 8 , no details. Is it a threshold deposit ? Cat. No 3 72, Mari Palace of Z-L doorway, M707 Petrie, MacKay and M 1 952, 8 7, F ig. 66, Aleppo, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 17, Blade 8 7, Socklen 1 8, Survlen * , Sockbr 1 8, Sockht 3 2, Edgeht * , B ladform Pointed, Sockform Cylindrical, Sockdec Squared Ribs, Type 6 Ascribed to door in Rm 8 , no details. Threshold deposit 3 08

?

C at. No P arrot

5 63, Mari Palace of Z-L doorway, 1 959, 8 7, P l. XXXIII, Aleppo,

M705

C ondn S light damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 1 20, Blade * , Socklen 1 7, Survlen * , S ockbr 1 7, Sockht 3 1, Edgeht * , B ladform Pointed, Sockform Cylindrical, S ockdec Squared R ibs, Type 6 Ascribed to door in Rm 8 , no details. I s it a threshold d eposit ? C at. No 6 09, Mari Palace of Z-L doorway, M706 P arrot 1 959, 8 7, Pl. XXXIII, Aleppo, C ondn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 1 18, Blade 8 5, Socklen 1 7, Survlen * , S ockbr 1 7, Sockht 3 3, Edgeht * , B ladform Pointed, Sockform Cylindrical, S ockdec Squared R ibs, Type 6 Ascribed to door i n Rm 8 , no details. I s it a threshold deposit ?

3 09

TANGED SPEARHEADS SURVLEN LENGTH BLADE TANG SHAFT D IAMETER MAXBR TANGFORM SECTION POINT SHAFTSHP

' Surviving length' ' Overall Length' ' Length of Blade' ' Length of Tang' ' Length of Shaft' ' Diameter of Shaft' ' Maximum Breadth of Blade' ' Form of Tang' ' Cross Section of Blade' ' Shape of Point' ' Cross Section of Shaft'

The typology presented is based on patterns of association between variables. These were derived by the use o f several statistical techniques including the analysis of i ndividual variables, their co-occurence and multivariate c luster analysis. The types are an abstraction from several different, a lthough s imilar, c lassifications. No s ingle clustering run produced the exact grouping employed here, a lthough several gave very s imilar results. The dendrogram presented ( fig. 6 0) i s a representative e xample of these ( see Philip 1 988a for a l engthier discussion). Note

on material

from Carchemish

Owing to the loss of some of the original excavation records, we do not know how much of the metalwork f rom the C ist Graves at that s ite was actually published by Woolley ( 1952). The writer has seen much o f this material but has not a lways been able to match up the items i llustrated in the publication, with those in the I stanbul Archaeological Museum. Identifications between published objects and those i n the museum, when provided, are probable rather than certain. Type

1

A group of weapons having a tripartite structure, consisting of distinctive broad blade, a shank and a c learly differentiated tang which would have been i nserted i nto the haft. Overall lengths range between 2 90 and 4 40mm. A number of items clustering at c 3 00mm are a ll from Carchemish. All are s lightly different in detail though, and must have come from different moulds. These presumably reflect localised production at that s ite. These have a square-sectioned, tapering tang, and substantial shank of mean l ength 9 1mm, generally o f c ircular section with a mean maximum diameter of 1 4mm. The b lades are quite broad ( mean max. breadth 3 4mm) a nd show a concave lozenge-shaped section, and with a clear, V-shaped central r ib. Most examples have d istinctly concave blade edges and a rather rounded point. All show blades which g ive a length to breadth ratio of around 4 .0. This feature g ives these weapons a distinctive appearance relative to 3 10

examples of Type 3 , which are here defined group ( contra de Maigret 1976, 48ff).

as

a separate

Cat. No 3 9, Carchemish KCG 15D, Woolley and Barnett 1952, 222, Pl. 61c rt „ Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 289, Survlen * , Blade 145, Tang 6 4, Shaft 79, Maxbr 3 4, Shaft Diam Point Rounded, Section Concave Shaftshp Circular, Type 1 Records

16, Lozenge,

Tangform Tapering,

lost

Cat. No 42, Carchemish KCG Woolley and Barnett 1952, Condn Slight damage, Measmt

15B, 2 22, From

Pl. 61c2 LT „ publication,

Length 289, Survlen * , Blade 129, Tang 64, Shaft 96, Maxbr 2 9, Shaft Diam 15, Point Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Circular, Records lost

Type

1

Cat. No 40, Carchemish KCG 1A, Woolley and Barnett 1952, 2 19, Pl. 61b LT „ Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 293, Survlen * , Blade 129, Tang 78, Shaft Point

86, Maxbr 3 6, Shaft Diam Rounded, Section Concave

15, Lozenge,

Shaftshp Circular, Type 1 Definitely single ( dug by Woolley), Cat. No 41, Carchemish KCG Woolley and Barnett 1952, Condn Slight damage, Measmt

Tangform Tapering,

2 globular

head

pins

1B, 219, Pl. 61b rt, From publication,

Length 289, Survlen * , Blade 147, Tang 60, Shaft 82, Maxbr 3 6, Shaft Diam 15, Point Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Shaftshp Circular, Type 1 Definitely single ( dug by Woolley),

2 globular

Cat. No 43, Tell Judeideh ' H', X5066 Braidwood and Braidw 1960, 3 76, Fig.293.4,

Tapering,

head

pins

Antakya,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 370, Survlen * , Blade 146, Tang 1 11, Shaft 115, Maxbr 4 6, Shaft Diam 15, Point Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Circular, Cat.

No

50,

Tell

Type

Kara

1

Hasan

Tomb group,

Woolley 1 914, 8 9, Pl. XIXc2, Oxford, Ashm. Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 416, Survlen * , Blade 243, Tang 1 06, Shaft 67, Maxbr 4 7, Shaft Diam 2 0, Point Blunt, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Tapering, tang edges on a different plane from blade, Shaftshp Circular, Type Hammer traces on tang.

1 ,

Fig.

3 11

9

Type

2

Type 2 spearheads are tripartite. The tang, which i s heavy and solid, terminates in a right angled turn rather than a true hook, sometimes with a distinctive button at the tip. The shank i s shorter than those on other types ( mean length 4 1mm), and terminates in a distinctive circular stop-ridge, of mean diameter 2 0mm, where it j oins with the tang. The shank i s frequently octagonal in section, though in a few cases it i s circular, and may bear i ncised or cast-in decoration. The blade too i s distinctive, being ' kiteshaped' with a clear central midrib, generally of subc ircular form. The overall impression is that the weapon has been designed with a degree of attention to its ' three d imensional' appearance. These weapons have a modal length of c 240mm, but examples occur as long as 3 50mm. The mean l ength of tang i s c8Omm. Cat. No 6 2, Byblos Dep Iota, n9524 Dunand 1 954, 2 91, Pl. LXV „ Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 50, Survlen * , Blade 1 91, Tang 100, Shaft 5 9, Maxbr 3 8, Shaft Diam 2 5, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Button, Shaftshp Hexagonal, Type 2 No. 9 528 " same as" 6 45 here Cat. No 6 3, Byblos Dep Lambda, n9633 Dunand 1 954, 3 01, Pl. LXVII „ Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 45, Survlen * , Blade 1 96, Tang 8 8, Shaft 6 1, Maxbr 3 8, Shaft Diam 2 7, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Button, Shaftshp Circular, Type 2 Cat. No 5 9, Byblos Dep Upsilon, n10680 Dunand 1 954, 3 83, Pl. LXXV „ Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 45, Survlen * , Blade 1 38, Tang 7 3, Shaft 3 4, Maxbr 3 6, Shaft Diam 2 2, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 Material from 2 different j ars. Cat. No 6 0, Byblos Dep Upsilon, n10681 Dunand 1 954, 3 83, P l. LXXV „ Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 40, Survlen * , Blade 1 20, Tang 8 4, Shaft 3 6, Maxbr 3 1, Shaft Diam 2 0, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 Material from 2 different j ars. Cat. No Dunand

6 1, Byblos 1 954, 3 83,

Dep Upsilon, P l. LXXV „ 3 12

n 10682

Condn

Slight

damage,

Measmt

From

publication,

Length 235, Survlen * , Blade 1 16, Tang 8 3, Shaft 36, Maxbr 2 9, Shaft Diam 20, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp Material

Circular, Type 2 from 2 different j ars.

Cat. No 54, Carchemish KCG 14A, Woolley and Barnett 1952, * , Pl. 60a LT, Ist. Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 293, Survlen * , Blade 167, Tang 83, Shaft 43, Maxbr 2 6, Shaft Diam 16, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 , Fig. 10 Records lost

Arch.

Mus.

Button,

Cat. No 65, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS7.008 Schaeffer 1949, Fig. 18.1, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 240, Survlen * , Blade 126, Tang 76, Shaft 38, Maxbr 16, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Shaftshp Circular, Type 2

Button,

Cat. No 68, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS4.436 Schaeffer 1949, Fig. 18.4, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 234, Survlen * , Blade 1 23, Tang 70, Shaft 41, Maxbr 2 4, Shaft Diam 17, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Button, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 Cat. No 69, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS6.354 Schaeffer 1 949, Fig. 18. 5, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 165, Survlen * , Blade 78, Tang 58, Shaft 29, Maxbr 2 0, Shaft Diam 17, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp

* ,

Type

2

Cat. No 70, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS5.062 Schaeffer 1949, Fig. 18.2,3, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 2 28, Blade 1 31, Tang * , Shaft Point

54, Maxbr 2 6, Shaft Diam 18, Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform

Shaftshp Cat.

No

Circular, 64,

Schaeffer

Ras 1962,

Type

Shamra 3 4,

only,

*

2 Poche

aux

Fig.28b,

bronzes,

RS17.419

Damascus,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 219, Survlen * , Blade 115, Tang 74, Shaft 30, Maxbr 25, Shaft Diam 17, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, 3 13

Shaftshp

Octagonal,

Type

2

Assoc pottery of later 3rd or early 2nd mill. date Incised decoration on shaft - not cast-in as on other

such

weapons Cat. No 67, Ras Shamra Poche aux bronzes, Schaeffer 1 962, 3 4, Fig.28a, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 246, Survlen * , Blade 135, Tang 78, Shaft 3 3, Maxbr 2 5, Shaft Diam 19, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Shaftshp Octagonal, Cat.

No

58,

Type

Sarrageb

5 3PT247-3.50

Button,

2

Tomb,

Suleiman 1983, * , Fig.1.1, Condn Slight damage, Measmt

* , Relative

dimensions,

Length 76, Survlen * , Blade 44, Tang 1 8, Shaft 14, Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam 5 , Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 Cat. No 57, Tarsus ca 8 .00m, CAT94 3 7.796 Goldman 1956, 2 92, Fig.427.94, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 268, Survlen * , Blade 123, Tang 103, Shaft 42, Maxbr 3 3, Shaft Diam 1 7, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Button, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 Cat. No 55, Tell Mardikh Hyp B , TM78Q477 Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 18, Survlen * , Blade 181, Tang 79, Shaft Point

58, Maxbr 3 6, Shaft Diam 2 4, Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform

Shaftshp

Octagonal,

Cat. No 56, Heinrich et Condn Good,

Type

2 ,

Fig.

Button,

1 0

Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund 2 , 71MBQ8 al 1 974, 44, Abb. 6 2, Aleppo, Measmt Absolute,

Length 2 76, Survlen * , Blade 172, Tang 7 3, Shaft 3 1, Maxbr 4 6, Shaft Diam 1 4, Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 2 , Fig. 10 Incised decoration on shaft Type

3

The weapons

of

this

type

are

tripartite

and

have

tapering

tangs and leaf shaped blades as in the case of Type 1 . shanks can occur in a range of circular or polygonal

The

sections. The major difference between these and spearheads of Type 1 is that the blades are much s limmer, with length/breadth ratios of between 5 .5 and 9 . It may in future

be

possible

to

divide

this 3 14

type

further,

but

for

the

moment the treated as

small sample one type.

size

suggests

that

Cat. No 48, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 350, Survlen * , Blade 1 85, Tang

it

is

best

75,

Shaft 90, Maxbr 3 2, Shaft Diam 1 2, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Tapering tang edges on different plane from blade, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 3 , Fig. 1 1 Hexagonal

shaft,

paired

sides

on

plane

of

blade

Cat. No 51, Hamma i n Group III, Woolley 1914, * , Pl. XXIc LT, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 282, Survlen * , Blade 1 42, Tang 84, Shaft 56, Maxbr 2 3, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Cat.

No

Sub-circular, 52,

Mari

T of

Parrot 1940, * , Pl. Condn Slight damage,

Type Dagan

3 ,

Fig.

Dep

I I,

X .1, * , Measmt Relative

Length 52, Survlen * , Blade 3 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 5 , Shaft Diam * ,

1 2

Tang

dimensions, 2 0,

Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, tang edges on different plane from blade, Shaftshp * , Type 3 Not fully published. Cat. No 46, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 264, Survlen * , Blade 1 28, Tang

Tangform

Tapering

6 4,

Shaft 72, Maxbr 1 9, Shaft Diam 9 , Point * , Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 3 , Fig. 1 2 Cat. No 47, Unpublished Condn Good,

Serrin Context Unknown, * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Measmt Absolute,

Length 3 37, Survlen * , Blade 1 63, Tang 1 24, Shaft 50, Maxbr 3 3, Shaft Diam 1 2, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Octagonal, Type 3 , Fig. 1 1 Cat. No 49, Tell Woolley 1914, Condn Broken but

Kara Hasan Tomb group, 8 9, Pl. XIXc5, Oxford, Ashm., adequate, Measmt Absolute,

Length * , Survlen 263, Blade * , Tang Shaft 118, Maxbr 3 7, Shaft Diam 1 8,

8 2,

Point * , Section High Midrib, Tangform on different plane from blade, Shaftshp

Circular,

Type

3 3 15

Tapering

tang

edges

Cat. No 5 3, Terqa Surf f ind, TPR3.11 Kelly-Buccellati and 1 977, 3 , P l. 1 11.7, Deir e z-Zor, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 4 47, Survlen * , Blade 2 65, Tang 9 1, Shaft 9 1, Maxbr 2 8, Shaft Diam 1 6, Point Sharp, Section F lat Lozenge, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Hexagonal, Type 3 Cat. No 4 4, Til Barsip Hypogeum,n20 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, P l. XXX.12, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 2 17, Blade 1 85, Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 2 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform * Shaftshp Circular, Type 3

*

Cat. No 45, Til Barsip Hypogeum,n18 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, P l. XXXI.5, * Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 65, Survlen * , Blade 1 91, Tang 8 1, Shaft 9 3, Maxbr 2 3, Shaft Diam 1 3, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Circular, Type 3 Incised decoration on shaft Cat. No 1 21, Til Barsip Hypogeum,n26 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, Pl. XXIX.4, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length 1 70, Survlen * , Blade 1 32, Tang 3 8, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point * , Section Square, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 3 Type

4

These are bipartite, consisting of a long, leaf-shaped blade generally of a concave lozenge section with a c lear medial l ine, and a short tang ending in a hook turned at n inety degrees to the plane of the blade. The weapons show mean l ength, tang l ength and blade breadth of 2 54mm, 6 2mm and 2 9mm respectively. Cat. No 1 , Beth Shan T 2 96,.3-31-9-273 Oren 1 973a, 1 8, F ig.20.3, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 35, Survlen * , Blade 1 95, Tang 45, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 6, Shaft Diam * , , Tangform Open Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge s lt Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 Cat. No 1 5, Fureidis Tomb, Hess 1 980, 3 6, F ig.1.7, I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 13, Survlen * , B lade 1 63, Tang 5 0, Shaft * , Maxbr 3 4, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 3 16

Cat. No 6 , Geva' Carmel Tomb, Amiran 1974, 1 *, F ig.1.5, I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 247, Survlen * , Blade 2 02, Tang

45,

Shaft * , Maxbr 26, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 , Fig. 16 Tomb group only, no details of actual tomb Cat. No 7 , Ginosar Tomb 5 , Epstein 1974, 3 *, Fig.4.11, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 213, Survlen * , Blade 1 69, Tang Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 3 1, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Flat Lozenge,

Shaftshp

* ,

Type

44,

Tangform

Open

Hook,

4

Cat. No 4 , Hanita Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hanita, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 292, Survlen * , Blade 2 31, Tang 61, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 7, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 Cat. No 1 365, Hazorea Tombs, Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hazorea, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft Point

* , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam Sharp, Section Concave

Hook,

Shaftshp

Cat. Dar

* ,

Type

* , Lozenge

slt,

No 14, Ma'abarot T 2 , 1977, * , Fig.62.7, Kib.

Ma'abarot,

Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 10, Survlen * , Blade 224, Tang Shaft * , Maxbr 2 7, Shaft Diam * , Point Haok, Cat. Dar

Sharp, Section Concave Shaftshp * , Type 4 No 1 1, Ma'abarot T 1 2, 1977, * , Fig.66.13, Kib.

Condn Good, Length 264,

Lozenge

Tangform

Open

Ma'abarot,

Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 3 7, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge

Hook,

Shaftshp

Type

86,

slt,

Measmt From publication, Survlen * , Blade 187, Tang

* ,

Tangform Open

4

77,

slt,

Tangform Open

4

Cat. No 1 2, Ma'abarot T 1 2, Dar 1977, * , Fig.66.14, Kib. Ma'abarot, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 70, Survlen * , Blade 192, Tang 78, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 4, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4

3 17

Cat. No 1 3, Ma'abarot T 1 2, Dar 1 977, * , F ig.66.16, Kib. Ma'abarot, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 26, Survlen * , Blade 1 62, Tang 6 4, Shaft * , Maxbr 3 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge sit, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 Cat. No 8 , Tiberias T 1 , Tsaferis 1 968, 1 9, Pl. 1A rt, I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 14, Survlen * , Blade 159, Tang 5 5, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 8, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge s it, Tangform Open Hook, Shafthp * , Type 4 Cat. No 9 , Tiberias T 1 , Tsaferis 1 968, 1 9, Pl. 1A LT, I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 91, Survlen * , Blade 2 24, Tang 6 7, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 8, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge sit, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 Cat. No 1 0, Tiberias T 1 , Tsaferis 1 968, 1 9, Pl. lA ctr, I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 73, Survlen * , Blade 1 96, Tang 7 7, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 4, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge s it, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 4 Type

5

Type 5 spearheads consist of a basic square-sectioned blade, which i s continued as a tapering tang ending in a s imple hook. The mean length, length of tang and breadth of blade are 2 37mm, 6 8mm and l lmm respectively. Several examples have blades which seem s lightly broader and f latter than the others. These seem to show a northern distribution occurring at Beth Shan and Barquai. This may be related to the preference for the broader-bladed Type 4 i n northern Palestine, but this i s not certain. Cat. No 1 47, Ain es-Samiyeh T 2 04, Shantur and Labadi 1 971, 7 7, F ig.4.20, Jerusalem, I . M. , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 36, Survlen * , Blade 1 65, Tang 7 1, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point B lunted, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Lowest 2 0mm deliberately worked off p lane of blade Cat. No 1 39, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

B . M.,

3 18

Length Shaft Point

252,

Survlen

* ,

Blade

1 64,

Tang

* , Maxbr 12, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Square, Tangform

88, Open

Shaftshp * , Type 5 , Fig. 1 3 ( resembles Type 8 examples - ' intermediate' Hammering visible on tang

Hook, form)

Cat. No 161, Amman Sport's City Tomb, Zayadine 1 978, 6 3, Fig.4.6, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 206, Survlen * , Blade 1 39, Tang 67, Shaft * , Maxbr 10, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp Grooving Cat.

No

* , on 146,

Type 5 lower tang Barquai

Hook,

sides Tomb

phase

1 ,

Gophna and Sussman 1969, 1*, Fig.3.14, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 262, Survlen * , Blade 197, Tang 65, Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal,

Shaftshp * , Type 5 Grooves on broader faces

of

blade

and

Tangform Open tang

Cat. No 1 13, Beth Shan T 3 00A, 3 1-10-38 Oren 1973a, 1 75, Fig.20.14, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 356, Survlen * , Blade 253, Tang 103, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 9, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Grooving on Cat. Oren Condn

No

1 14,

1973a, Slight

Type tang Beth

5 and

upper

Shan

blade

T 262

Ch.

A ,

3 0-10-83b

1 7, Fig.23.14, Jerusalem, damage, Measmt Absolute,

Rockefeller,

Length 2 19, Survlen * , Blade 155, Tang 64, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp * , Type 5

Hook,

Cat. No 1 15, Beth Shan T 2 62 Ch. A , 3 0-10-83a Oren 1973a, 1 7, Fig.23.13, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 47, Survlen * , Blade 1 73, Tang 84, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 5, Shaft Diam * , Point

Sharp,

Shaftshp Grooving

* , on

Section Type tang

5 and

Square, upper

Tangform Open

Hook,

blade

Cat. No 1 16, Beth Shan T 2 03, 2 6-9-239 Oren 1 973a, 1 73, Fig.19.2, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 69, Survlen * , Blade 203, Tang 66, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 6, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, 3 19

I . M.,

Hook,

Shaftshp Cat.

No

Oren Condn

* ,

Type

1 17,

5

Beth

1973a, Slight

Shan

T 89

Ch.

A .14

1864,

1 1, Fig.18.14, * , damage, Measmt Absolute,

Length 2 65, Survlen * , Blade 182, Tang 83, Shaft * , Maxbr 15, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat.

No

Oren Condn

2 ,

Beth

Shan

T 87.14

n1746

1973a, 177, Fig.21.14, Good, Measmt Absolute,

Jerusalem,

Length 2 42, Survlen * , Blade 167, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat.

No

3 ,

Beth

Shan

Broad

Hook,

Tang

Rockefeller,

75,

Rhomboidal,

Tangform

Open

Hook,

T 57, n1416

Oren 1973a, 1 77, Fig.21.20, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 256, Survlen * , Blade 169, Tang 87, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 3, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Shaftshp * , Type 5

Tangform

Cat. No 166, Byblos Dep Xi, n10078 Dunand 1954, 3 37, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt For comparison Length 91, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No Dunand

167, Byblos 1954, 3 37,

Square,

Dep Xi, * , * ,

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Length 75, Survlen * , Blade

No

169,

Byblos

XIII

only,

Idiosyncratic,

n10079 For comparison * , Tang * ,

Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam Point Sharp, Section Square, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat.

Tangform

* , Tangform

Rect

2 ,

only,

Idiosyncratic,

n3257

Dunand 1939, 2 20, Pl. C , * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication Length 2 70, Survlen * , Blade 2 11, Tang 59, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No Dunand

1 71, Byblos 1939, 255,

XVIII Pl. C ,

Rect * ,

20,

n 3722

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 10, Survlen * , Blade 2 11, Tang 99, Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open

Shaftshp

* ,

Type

Open

5 3 20

Hook,

Hook,

Hammering

visible

on tang

Cat. No 1 00, Carchemish Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 71, Survlen * , Blade 96, Tang 75, Shaft * , Maxbr 7 , Shaft Diam * Point Sharp, Section Square, Tang form Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No Woolley Mus.,

108, Carchemish C , and Barnett 1 952,

Context Unknown, 2 21, P l. 6 1c3 LT,

I st.

Arch.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 16, Survlen 2 10, Blade 1 53, Tang 6 3, Shaft * , Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam * , Point * , Section * , Tangform * , Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No 1 09, Carchemish D , KCG 1 4, Woolley and Barnett 1952, 2 22, Pl. 60A ctr, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 171, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 6 , Shaft Diam * Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Records lost, hook could be delib or accid bent Cat. No 1 60, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tomb, Lapp 1966a, 5 1, 2 4.13, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 20, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang 4 9, S haft * , Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam 1 1, P oint Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 5 Cat. No 1 38, El-Gib T 5 2n7 B338, Pritchard 1 963, 5 6, Fig.58.7, Amman, N . M. Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Le .ngth 3 04, Survlen * , Blade 2 28, Tang 7 6, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 3, Shaft Diam * , P oint Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No 1 37, E l-Gib T 5 0n8 B329, Pritchard 1963, 55, Fig.56.8, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 44, Survlen * , Blade 1 90, Tang 5 4, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, S haftshp * , Type 5 D eliberate blunting of edges beyond blade-tang j unction C at. No 1 356, Hazorea Tombs, Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hazorea, Condn S light damage, Measmt Cannot assess, L ength * , Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , 3 21

Shaft Point

* , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam Sharp, Section Square,

Shaftshp

* ,

Type

* , Tangform

Open

Hook,

5

Cat. No 1 357, Hazorea Tombs, Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hazorea, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen Shaft * , Maxbr * ,

* , Blade * , Tang Shaft Diam * ,

Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type 5

Tangform Open

Hook,

Cat. No 1 358, Hazorea Tombs, Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hazorea, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open

Hook,

Shaftshp

* ,

Type

Square,

* ,

5

Cat. No 1 33, Jebel Qa'aqir Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 40, Survlen * , Blade 177, Tang 63, Shaft * , Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam Point Sharp, Section Square, Shaftshp * , Type 5

* Tangform Open

Hook,

Cat. No 162, Jericho, Jar from Tell, n12 Sellin and Watzinger 1913, * , Abb. 1 04.12, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 220, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat.

No

164,

Jericho

T D1.7,

Kenyon 1965, 89, Fig.41.4, Amman, University, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 25, Survlen * , Blade 161, Tang 64, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Assoc w frags of Cu strip- binding for haft ? Grooved two tang faces Cat. No Kenyon

165, Jericho T M16.6, 1965, 153, Fig.41.15,

Oxford,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 255, Survlen * , Blade 193, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point

Sharp,

Section

Broad

Tang

Rhomboidal,

Shaftshp * , Type 5 , Fig. 16 Positioned with shaft lying

by

Cat. No 158, Tsori 1 971,

group, Kib. Tel

Khirbet Murhan * , Fig.6, 2rt,

Ashm., 62, Tangform

burial

3 22

on

Yosef,

Open

Hook

Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 35, Survlen * , Blade 1 78, Tang 5 7, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No 159, Khirbet Murhan group, Tsori 1971, * , F ig.6, LT, Kib. Tel Yosef, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 18, Survlen * , Blade 1 56, Tang 6 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 3, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp * , Type 5

Hook,

Cat. No 157, Menahemiya T 1 E .chamber, Bahat 1 976, 3 2, F ig.4.2, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 96, Survlen * , Blade 1 44, Tang 5 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 5 Cat. No 1 35, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1 971b, * , F ig.1.7, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 48, Survlen * , Blade 1 86, Tang 6 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 5 Type

6

Spearheads of Type 6 are tripartite i n design. They consist of a short blade, a circular shank and a roughly hammered, square-sectioned tang ending in a hook. The l atter i s generally turned at ninety degrees to the plane o f the blade. Although these weapons are tripartite in design, they bear considerable resemblance to both Types 4 and 5 . The mean overall length i s 2 70 mm, mean l engths of b lade, shaft and tang are 6 4mm, 1 39mm and 6 7mm r espectively. The blade is of a simple lozenge-shaped cross s ection of mean breadth 2 0mm. The shanks are generally c ircular or sub-circular although one square-sectioned e xample i s recorded . C at. No 8 5, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, D ever 1 972a, * , F ig. 5 .2rt, Jerusalem, H . U.C., C ondn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 2 30, Survlen * , Blade 4 3, Tang 6 1, S haft 1 26, Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam 1 0, P oint Rounded, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Sub-circular, Type 6 Two shaft faces beaten f lat to form blade faces Cat. No 8 6, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 972a, 1 12, F ig.5.1, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, 3 23

H . U.C.,

Length 2 32, Survlen * , Blade 6 3, Tang 5 6, Shaft 1 13, Maxbr 1 6, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Square, Type 6 Well made and f inished Cat. No 8 7, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 972a, * , F ig.5.2, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 95, Survlen * , Blade 1 13, Tang 7 3, Shaft 1 09, Maxbr 2 4, Shaft Diam 1 2, Point Rounded, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform * Shaftshp Circular, Type 6 Cat. No 7 8, Benaya Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 94, Survlen * , Blade 7 0, Tang 8 4, Shaft 1 40, Maxbr 2 4, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge s it, Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 6

Tangform Open

Cat. No 7 7, Bet Gamli'el Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 04, Survlen * , Blade 5 7, Tang 4 9, Shaft 9 8, Maxbr 1 6, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Rounded, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Square, Type 6 Cat. No 8 3, El-Gib T 1 3, B119 Pritchard 1 963, 2 1, Fig.18.9, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 30, Survlen * , Blade 6 9, Tang 7 0, Shaft 1 91, Maxbr 2 0, Shaft Diam 1 3, Point Sharp, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Open Shaftshp Circular, Type 6

Hook,

Cat. Na 8 2, E l-Gib Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 78, Survlen * , Blade 6 0, Tang 7 3, Shaft 1 45, Maxbr 2 1, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Rounded, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Sub-circular, Type 6 Cat. Na 7 6, Jebel Qa'aqir Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 44, Survlen * , Blade 7 6, Tang 8 6, Shaft 8 2, Maxbr 2 0, Shaft Diam 8 , Point Rounded, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 6 Cat.

No

9 1,

Jericho

T G83

chA.2, 3 24

Kenyon 1 965, 1 49, F ig.41.11, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 29, Survlen * , Blade 5 1, Tang 4 0, Shaft 1 38, Maxbr 1 6, Shaft D iam 1 2, Point Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge sit, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Square, Type 6 , Fig. 1 7 Wood traces on tang. Position allows room for long shaft Cat. No 90, Jericho T M13.N2, Kenyon 1965, 153, F ig.41.3, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 58, Survlen * , Blade 60, Tang 5 2, Shaft 1 46, Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Rounded, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Closed Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 6 Animal bones in tomb Cat. No 88, Khirbet el-Kirmil bought, Dever 1975b, 3 2, Fig.6.6, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 284, Survlen * , Blade 1 14, Tang 7 3, Shaft 9 7, Maxbr 2 8, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge sit, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 6 , Fig. 1 8 Cat. No 8 9, Khirbet el-Kirmil bought, Dever 1975b, 3 2, Fig.6.7, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 16, Survlen * , Blade 7 8, Tang 5 5, Shaft 8 3, Maxbr 1 8, Shaft Diam 9 , Point * , Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp C ircular, Type 6 Cat. No 7 2, Tell e l-' Ajjul T 2 27, Petrie 1 931, P , 1 . XIX.49, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 37, Survlen * , B lade 4 3, Tang 7 2, Shaft 1 23, Maxbr 1 6, Shaft Diam 8 , P oint Sharp, Section F lat Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 6 C at. No 7 1, Tell el-'Ajjul T 2 75, P etrie 1 931, P , 1 . XIX.48, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 88, Survlen * , Blade 8 6, Tang 8 1, Shaft 1 21, Maxbr 2 4, Shaft Diam 1 1, P oint Sharp, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, S haftshp Circular,

Type

6

C at. No 8 0, Tell ed-Duweir T 2 111, n2482 Tuffnell 1958, 7 5, P l. 2 2.1, London, B . M., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, L ength 3 03, Survlen 2 97, Blade 5 2, Tang 79, S haft 1 72, Maxbr 1 9, Shaft D iam 1 2, P oint Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge sit, Tangform * S haftshp Circular, Type 6 , F ig. 1 7 T ang edges blunted by hammering, contrast with smooth 3 25

f inish

of

blade

and

shaft

Cat. No 79, Tell ed-Duweir T 2 100, n2456 Tuffnell 1 958, 7 5, Pl. 2 2.3, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Rockefeller,

Length 2 41, Survlen * , Blade 5 8, Tang 50, Shaft 1 33, Maxbr 1 7, Shaft Diam 1 2, Point Rounded, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Shaftshp Circular, Type 6

Open Hook,

Cat. No 8 1, Tell ed-Duweir T 2 032, n2349 Tuffnell 1 958, 75, Pl. 2 2.2, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 72, Survlen * , Blade 6 3, Tang 7 3, Shaft 1 36, Maxbr 2 2, Shaft D iam 10, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge s it, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 6 , F ig. 1 7 Type

7

These weapons are bipartite, consisting of tang e nding in a t ightly closed hook and a long tapering blade. The tang occurs in a variety of cross-sections; circular, square ( by f ar the main form for most other types) and rhomboidal. The b lade has a distinctive high, sharp, midrib, giving a cross-shaped section, which continues a ll the way to the point which i s rhomboidal in appearance as a result. The general form, in particular that of the blade suggests that these represent the product of two-piece moulds rather than extensive hammering. All those pieces examined were very well made, showing signs of careful f inishing. The mean values for variables are; length 2 55mm, blade length 2 11mm and max. breadth 3 1mm. The l ength of tang at 55mm i s shorter than i s the case with the Palestinian hooked-tang weapons but the spearheads of Type 7 have rather l onger, f olded over hooks. Cat. No 2 2, Ras Shamra 2e Niv, RS5.018 Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 2 30, Blade 1 70, Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 3 4, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Rhombic, Section Cross Shaped, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 7

only,

Cat. No 2 8, Ras Shamra Sond SH, RS32.212 de Contenson et al 1 972, 3 3, Fig.15top, * Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 10, Survlen * , Blade 1 73, Tang 3 7, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 9, Shaft Diam * , Point Rhombic, Section Cross Shaped, Tangform Closed Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 7 Cat. No 2 9, Ras Shamra Sond SH, RS32.211 de Contenson et a l 1 972, 3 3, F ig.15lower, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 80, Survlen * , Blade 2 22, Tang 5 8, 3 26

*

Shaft * , Maxbr 3 4, Shaft Diam * , Point Rhombic, Section Cross Shaped, Shaftshp * , Type 7

Tangform Closed Hook,

Cat. No 2 6, Ras Shamra Sond Sup, RS17.419 Schaeffer 1 962, 3 35, F ig.4.11, Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 15, Survlen * , Blade 2 63, Tang 5 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 3 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Rhombic, Section Cross Shaped, Tangform Shaftshp * , Type 7

*

Cat. No 2 7, Ras Shamra Sond Sup, 5 3PT37-2.50 Schaeffer 1 962, 3 35, F ig.4.10, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 281, Survlen * , Blade 2 29, Tang 5 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 3 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Rhombic, Section Cross Shaped, Tangform Closed Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 7 , F ig. 1 8 Cat. No 2 5, Ras Shamra NW slope of tell, RS9.029 Schaeffer 1 962, 2 44, Fig.33.22, Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 42, Survlen * , Blade 1 68, Tang 7 4, Shaft * , Maxbr 3 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Rhombic, Section Cross Shaped, Tangform Closed Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 7 , F ig. 1 8 Type

8

These weapons consist of a square-section blade, and a t apering tang ending in a right-angle turn, which may expand towards the end. These are very s imilar to examples o f Type 5 . Mean l ength and mean tang l ength are 2 44mm and 8 3mm - the tang i s noticeably longer than those of Type 5 , probably because of the presence of a rather heavier terminal. The mean breadth of blade i s 1 4mm, which as the cross-section i s square, implies a s lightly heavier weapon than i s the case for than Type 5 spearheads. C at. No 1 45, Halawa Gr 1 19, Orthmann 1 981a, 5 6, Taf. 6 9.126, * Condn Good, Measmt From publication, L ength 2 31, Survlen * , Blade 1 28, Tang 1 03, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 8, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 8 W ith group of weapons in tomb, also f lat and hemisphericalhead toggle-pins Cat. No 1 18, Tell Mardikh Area D , TM70 D 3 69 Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, S ection Square, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 8 3 27

Cat. No 6 6, Tell Selenkahiye Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo,

Context Unknown,

Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 76, Survlen * , Blade 1 94, Tang 8 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 8 , Fig. 1 3 C lear hammer traces on out face of bent tang Cat. No 1 23, Til Barsip Hypogeum, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, P l. XXXI.3, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 17, Survlen * , Blade 1 35, Tang 8 2, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 8 Cat. No 1 24, Til Barsip Hypogeum, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, P l. XXXI.2, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 37, Survlen * , Blade 1 74, Tang 6 3, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 8 Cat. No 1 25, Til Barsip Hypogeum, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, Pl. XXXI.1, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 60, Survlen * , Blade 1 75, Tang 85, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Right Angle Shaftshp * , Type 8 Type

Turn,

9

These weapons consist of a square-section blade, and a s imple tapering tang of the form known as ' poker-butt'. Mean length i s c 250mm, tang length c 6 8mm, blade l ength 1 69mm and blade breadth 1 1mm - very c lose to that of Type weapons. Cat. No 1 49, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 972a, * , F ig.6.6, Jerusalem, H .U.C., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 36, Survlen * , Blade 1 35, Tang 3 6, Shaft 6 5, Maxbr 8 , Shaft Diam 9 , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform * , Shaftshp Sub-circular, Type 9 Edges run right a long body, slightly rounded off of shaft Cat. No 1 10, Carchemish Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 21, Survlen * , Blade 1 51, Tang 7 0, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, 3 28

at

start

5

Shaftshp * , Type 9 Poss mark of binding

j ust

below shoulders

Cat. No 1 11, Carchemish Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 65, Survlen * , Blade 1 85, Tang 80, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Cat. No 112, Unpublished

Carchemish Context Unknown, * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus.,

Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 204, Survlen * , Blade 154, Tang 5 0, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Cat. No 1 04, Carchemish KCG 1 3A, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 6 1a LT, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 267, Survlen * , Blade 192,' Tang 7 5, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Sub-circular, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 With metal macehead, silver pin Cat. No 1 06, Carchemish KCG 1 3B, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 6 1A2 LT, Ist. Mus., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 38, Survlen * , Blade 1 78, Tang 6 0, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 With metal macehead, silver pin Cat. No 1 07, Carchemish KCG 1 3D, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 6 1 rt, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 06, Survlen * , Blade 1 43, Tang 6 3, Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 9 , Shaft D iam * , Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering,

Shaftshp * , Type 9 With metal macehead,

silver

pin

C at. No 9 3, Carchemish KCG 1 4G, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 6 0A3 rt, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 34, Survlen * , Blade 1 76, Tang 5 8,

*

Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Records l ost C at.

No

9 4,

Carchemish

KCG

1 4H, 3 29

Arch.

Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, P l. 6 0A4 rt, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 11, Survlen * , Blade 1 50, Tang 6 1, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Records lost Cat. No 1 03, Carchemish KCG 1 4E, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, P l. 6 0A rt, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 81, Survlen * , Blade 2 06, Tang 75, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Records lost Cat. No 1 05, Carchemish KCG 1 4F, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, P l. 6 0A2rt, Ist. Mus., Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 50, Survlen * , Blade 1 75, Tang 7 5, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 , Fig. 1 4 Records lost

Arch.

Cat. No 9 6, Carchemish KCG 9D, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 21, Pl. 6 0C4 LT, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 2 04, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 8 , Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 1 shull only, 6 0 pots. Necklace, globular head pins, toggle-pins

bent

Cat. No 9 7, Carchemish KCG 9C, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 21, P l. 6 0C3 LT, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 70, Survlen * , Blade 1 96, Tang 7 3, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 3, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Circular, Type 9 1 shull only, 6 0 pots. Necklace, globular head pins, bent toggle-pins. Lawrence ( 1952, 9 1) says of circular s ection ( Type 1 3) a long the blade Cat. No 9 8, Carchemish KCG 9B, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 21, P l. 6 0C2 LT, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 51, Survlen * , Blade 1 74, Tang 7 7, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 1 shull only, 6 0 pots-richest grave f rom the s ite Necklace, globular head pins, bent toggle-pins 3 30

to date.

Cat. No Woolley

99, and

Carchemish KCG Barnett 1952,

9A, 221,

Pl.

60C

LT,

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 281, Survlen * , Blade 203, Tang 78, Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 11, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering,

Shaftshp

* ,

Type

1 shull only, 60 bent toggle-pins Cat. No Woolley

9 pots-richest. Necklace,

95, Carchemish KCG and Barnett 1952,

15A, 222,

Pl.

globular

61C

LT,

head

pins

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 272, Survlen * , Blade 98, Tang 67, Shaft 106, Maxbr 7 , Shaft Diam 1 3, Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Circular, Type 9 Circular-section shaft blends Records lost

into

a square-section

Cat. No 119, Qatna T IV, du Mesnil du Buisson 1935, 157, Fig.55 top, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 290, Survlen * , Blade 2 00, Tang 90, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 2, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp

* ,

Type

9

Cat. No 9 2, Ras Shamra Context Unknown RS6.180, Schaeffer 1962, * , Fig.33.10, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 198, Survlen * , Blade 48, Tang 5 4, Shaft 96, Maxbr 8 , Shaft Diam 6 , Point * , Section * , Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp Circular, Type 9 Cat. No 155, Tell Habuba Kabira S T . IVd/IV3, Surenhagen 1973, 37, Abb. 1 1.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Shaftshp * , Type 9 Ass. with Painted Euphrates Ware

*

Cat. No 1 40, Tell Kara Hasan Tomb group, Woolley 1914, 89, Pl. XIXc9, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 91, Survlen * , Blade 2 01, Tang 90, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 3, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Shaftshp * , Type 9 , Fig. 1 4

Tangform Tapering,

Cat. No 1 41, Tell Kara Hasan Tomb group, Woolley 1914, 89, Pl. XIXc7, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 61, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , 3 31

blade.

Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Cat. No 1 42, Tell Kara Hasan Tomb group, Woolley 1 914, 8 9, Pl. XIXc8, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 77, Survlen * , Blade 2 07, Tang 7 0, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Cat. No 1 44, Tell Kara Hasan Tomb group, Woolley 1 914, 8 9, Pl. XIXc6, Oxford, Ashm., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 36, Survlen * , Blade 1 88, Tang 48, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Cat. No 1 20, Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund 1 , 2 6135-77 Heinrich et al 1 974, * , Abb. 6 1, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publicatiön, Length 1 94, Survlen * , Blade 1 26, Tang 68, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 6, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Hammering visible on tang surfaces Cat. No 1 36, Tell ed-Duweir T 2 009, n2303 Tuffnell 1 958, 75, Fig.22.9, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 06, Survlen * , Blade 1 68, Tang 3 8, Shaft * , Maxbr 7 , Shaft Diam * Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Tapering, Shaftshp * , Type 9 , Fig. 1 4 Hammer traces on blade Cat. No 1 26, Til Barsip Hypogeum, n27 Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, Pl. XXX.5, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 1 40, Blade 1 14, Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 9 Cat. No 1 74, Tomb near Lake of Hor ns Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Hor ns Museum, Condn S light damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr * , Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 9 Type

1 0

These weapons

consist of

a square-section 3 32

blade,

ending

abruptly in a blunt butt. Their mean length at c172mm i s close to that of the blades for spearheads of Type 9 . The mean breadth at 1 3mm places them well within the range for weapons of Type 9 . Therefore these objects would seem to represent " tangless" versions of Type 9 possibly because the tangs had not yet been hammered out. Cat. No 102, Carchemish KCG 1 4C, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 6 0A ctr, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 145, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam * , Point Chisel-form, Section Square, Tangform B lunt butt, Shaftshp * , Type 1 0 Records lost. S ides parallel not tapered, tool or blank. Cat. No 1 01, Carchemish KCG 9E, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 60C ctr, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 171, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 1 3, Shaft Diam * , Point Chisel-form, Section Square, Tangform Blunt butt, Shaftshp * , Type 1 0 1 shull only, 6 0 pots. Necklace, globular head pins, bent toggle-pins. Possibly a tool or blank ? Cat. No 1 43, Tell Kara Hasan Tomb group, Woolley 1 914, 8 9, Pl. XIX.3, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 00, Survlen * , Blade * , Tang * , Shaft * , Maxbr 1 4, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Blunt butt, Shaftshp * , Type 1 0 Type

1 1

These items are bipartite, consisting of a square-section b lade of greater length than i s normal with s imilar types ( e.g. 5 ,8,9). Two have closed hooks, one seems to have some kind of tapering tang, but the i llustration i s poor. The great s ize of these objects casts doubt on their belonging to the same series as do most other squares ection types. The mean values of 4 55mm for length and 1 8mm for breadth place these items well beyond the s ize r ange of the types l isted above. Perhaps these are not weapons at a ll ( see main text). C at. No 1 68, Byblos L XV 1 5.18, n13921 Dunand 1 958, 6 35, F ig.693, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 5 00, Survlen * , Blade 409, Tang 9 1, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Closed Hook, S haftshp * , Type 1 1 Hook bent round into fully closed position Cat.

No

1 70,

Byblos

V 2 0.21,

n9312 3 33

Dunand 1 954, 2 69, Fig.299, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 4 45, Survlen * , Blade 3 57, Tang 8 8, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Idiosyncratic, Shaftshp * , Type 1 1 Tang c learly less well f inished than blade Cat. No 1 72, Byblos XX Rect 4 8, n 3985 Dunand 1 939, 2 79, Pl. C , * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 4 35, Survlen * , Blade 3 36, Tang 99, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 7, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Closed Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 1 Cat. No 1 73, Byblos XXXV, n5493 Dunand 1 939, 3 75, Pl.C, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 4 40, Survlen * , Blade 3 84, Tang 5 6, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 5, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 1 1 Type

1 2

This type comprises two tripartite i tems resembling weapons of Type 6 , but which are far longer ( mean length 4 48mm). The two are different in many respects, and have been grouped mainly on account of their s ize. Cat. No 8 4, Moza Tomb Group, Bahat 1 975, 1 17*, F ig.5.1, I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 4 66, Survlen * , Blade 3 13, Tang 7 9, Shaft 7 4, Maxbr 3 5, Shaft Diam 1 5, Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Sub-circular, Type 1 2 Cat. No 7 4, Yavne Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 4 30, Survlen * , Blade 90, Tang Shaft 1 92, Maxbr 3 5, Shaft Diam 1 3, Point Rounded, Section * , Tangform * , Shaftshp Circular, Type 1 2 Type

1 48,

1 3

Tripartite weapons with a hooked-tang, but without the broad blades of Type 6 weapons, sharing rather a squaresection blade with the weapons of Type 5 . The key difference i s the possession of a distinct shank, which assigns them to a transitional place, in morphological terms, between these two types. Cat.

No

1 48,

Ain

es-Samiyeh

Bought, 3 34

Dever 1972a, * , Ref to 6 .1, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 42, Survlen * , B lade 7 8, Tang 5 4, Shaft 1 12, Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam 1 0, Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp Circular, Type 1 3 Blade edges run i nto shaft with l ittle preliminary rounding off Cat. No 1 50, Ain e s-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1972a, * , Ref to 6 .2, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 29, Survlen * , Blade 8 5, Tang 5 8, Shaft 86, Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam 1 0, Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp C ircular, Type 1 3 Blade edges fade i nto shaft Cat. No 151, Ain e s-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1972a, * , F ig.6.1, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 36, Survlen * , Blade 6 6, Tang 5 0, Shaft 1 20, Maxbr 8 , Shaft Diam 1 0, Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp C ircular, Type 1 3 B lade edges flattened off, and fade i nto shaft Cat. No 1 52, Ain e s-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 972a, * , F ig.6.7, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 58, Survlen * , Blade 9 6, Tang 3 7, Shaft 25, Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Idiosyncratic, Shaftshp Sub-circular, Type 1 3 Horizontal band 5mm long - binding traces. Grooves on tang f aces. B lade edges fade into shaft but re-emerge a s tang edges C at. No 1 53, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, D ever 1 972a, * , Ref to 6 .1, Jerusalem, H . U.C., C ondn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 2 28, Survlen * , Blade 7 8, Tang 5 9, S haft 9 1, Maxbr 8 , Shaft Diam 1 0, P oint Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Tangform Open Hook, S haftshp C ircular, Type 1 3 C at. No 1 54, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, D ever 1 972a, * , Ref to 6 .1, Jerusalem, H . U.C., C ondn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 2 41, Survlen * , Blade 5 7, Tang 7 8, S haft 1 06, Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam 1 1, P oint Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Hook, S haftshp Sub-circular, Type 1 3 Three of the tang faces are grooved. l Omm corr z one at b lade-tang j unction. ' Edges gradually rounded off as they r un into shaft

3 35

Cat.

No

1 30,

Benaya

Unpublished * , * , Condn Good, Measmt

Context

Unknown,

* , I . D. A., Absolute,

Length 294, Survlen * , Blade 1 24, Tang 65, Shaft 1 05, Maxbr 10, Shaft Diam 11, Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp

Sub-circular,

Type

Hook,

1 3

Cat. No 1 28, Bet Gamli'el Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 200, Survlen * , Blade 40, Tang 61, Shaft 99, Maxbr 9 , Shaft Diam 1 1, Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp

Sub-circular,

Cat. No 1 29, Unpublished

Holon * , * ,

Type

Context Unknown, * , I . D. A.,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 177, Survlen * , Blade 89, Tang Shaft Point

40,

48, Maxbr 8 , Shaft Diam 7 , Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open

Shaftshp

Hook,

1 3

Sub-circular,

Type

Hook,

1 3

Cat. No 1 31, Jebel Qa'aqir Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 192, Survlen * , Blade 16, Tang 67, Shaft 1 09, Maxbr 1 0, Shaft Diam 3 , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Open Shaftshp Circular, Type 1 3, Fig. 15

Hook,

Cat. No 156, Khirbet el-Kirmil bought, Dever 1 975b, * , Fig.6.5, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 18, Survlen * , Blade 155, Tang 78, Shaft Point

85, Maxbr 1 1, Shaft Diam 1 2, Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal,

Shaftshp

Circular,

Type

1 3,

Fig.

Cat. No 1 34, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1 971b, * , Fig.1.8, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 64, Survlen Shaft 78, Maxbr 1 1,

Cat. No Amiran Condn Length Shaft Point

visible

on

* , Blade 1 17, Tang Shaft Diam 1 2,

69, Tangform

3 31,

1 39, Maxbr 10, Sharp, Section

Shaftshp

I . M.,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen

Open Hook,

shaft

1 27, Yavne Context Unknown, 1 969b, 46, Fig.3 left, Jerusalem,

Good,

Open Hook,

H . U. C.,

Point Sharp, Section Broad Rhomboidal, Shaftshp Sub-circular, Type 1 3 Hammering

Tangform

15

* ,

Blade

1 25,

Tang

67,

Shaft Diam 1 1, Square, Tangform Open

Sub-circular,

Type

1 3

3 36

Hook,

Type

1 4

This type i s represented by the four large objects from the Kfar Monash hoard and one from Megiddo, some of which approach 600mm in l ength. These objects are very s imilar to each other, but are less so to any other spearheads. Cat. No 16, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 79, Fig.11.2, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 660, Survlen * , Blade 4 60, Tang 2 00, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 19, Shaft Diam * , Point Chisel-form, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 4 Blade edges heavily chipped, all show hammer marks Cat. No 17, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 79, Fig.10.3, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 33, Survlen * , Blade 2 31, Tang 1 02, Shaft * , Maxbr 5 6, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 4 Cat. No 1 8, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 79, Fig.11.1, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 496, Survlen * , Blade 3 27, Tang 1 69, Shaft * , Maxbr 95, Shaft Diam * , Point Blunt, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 4 Cat. No 1 9, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 79, F ig.11.3, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 4 75, Survlen * , Blade 3 33, Tang 1 42, Shaft * , Maxbr 9 0, Shaft Diam * , Point Blunt, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 1 4

I . M.,

Cat. No 2 0, Megiddo NW=4034, c117, Loud 1 948, 6 6, P l. 2 83.1, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 5 71, Survlen * , Blade 4 20, Tang 1 51, Shaft * , Maxbr 1 14, Shaft Diam * , Point Rounded, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 4, Fig. 5 8 Type

15

These weapons are bipartite, having no shank, and share the obvious feature of a pair of parallel s lots on the blade. However, there are several other features which distinguish members of this type. Some of these weapons have short tangs ( mean 3 8mm), ending in a s imple r ight angle turn, w ith a button terminus in one case. The hook i s a lways turned on the plane of the blade. Two have rather longer 3 37

tangs, although still below the mean for most other types. These are No. 38 which is from Ras Shamra, and i s unusually small in any case five examples are

and No. 3 4 from Til Barsip. The other more homogeneous. They ( except No 3 8)

have blades of rather ovoid form, and frequently broader than those of other types ( mean c 4 0mm). It is l ikely that the slots were functional, relating to the fixing in position of the haft. This different hafting method may partly account for the short tangs which would not therefore constitute the sole attachment for the handle. Cat. No 3 6, Halawa EB III-IV Tomb, Dornemann pers. comm * , * , * , * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 174, Survlen 159, Blade 1 45, Tang 29, Shaft Point Turn,

* , Maxbr 37, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Flat Lozenge, Shaftshp * , Type 15

restored,

Tangform Right Angle

Cat. No 3 7, Megiddo Loc 5061, d201 Loud 1948, * , Pl. 1 78.5, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 222, Survlen * , Blade 191, Tang 3 1, Shaft * , Maxbr 46, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Flat Lozenge, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 15 Within enclosure wall of Temple 4040 Cat. No 3 8, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS.9. 015, Schaeffer 1 948, 3 7, Pl. X .1, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 140, Survlen * , Blade 89, Tang 5 1, Shaft * , Maxbr 29, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge slt, Tangform Right Angle Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 15, Fig. 19 Cat. No Goldman

35, Tarsus Cache Rm 56, 1956, 292, Fig.428.93,

CAT93 * ,

38.498,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 296, Survlen * , Blade 2 49, Tang 47, Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 46, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge

Angle Cache

Turn, Shaftshp * , Type 15 in Room 56, frag' y walls,

slt,

cut up by

Tangform Right later

pits

Cat. No 3 2, Tell Judeideh 2nd Mixed Range, X42, Braidwood and Braidw 1960, 470, Fig. 3 71.5, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 34, Survlen * , Blade 200, Tang 3 4, Shaft * , Maxbr 40, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type 15, Cat.

No

3 3,

Til

Square, Fig. 16

Barsip

Tangform Right

Hypogeum

Angle

n16,

Thureau-Dangin and D 1936, 107, Pl. XXX.2, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Blade 1 91, Tang 16, 3 38

Turn,

Shaft * , Maxbr 3 8, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Square, Tangform Button, Shaftshp * , Type 1 5 Cat. No 3 4, Til Barsip Hypogeum n15, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, P l. XXXI.4, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 60, Survlen 2 40, B lade 2 00, Tang 6 0, Shaft * , Maxbr 46, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform * Shaftshp * , Type 1 5 Type

1 6

Group of ' variants' grouped together within the database.

for

ease

of

handling

Cat. No 7 3, Azor Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 268, Survlen * , B lade 5 3, Tang 2 15, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 6, Shaft D iam * , Point Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 6, typologically unusual. Cat. No 2 1, Byblos Dep i solee, n8261 Dunand 1 954, 1 84, P l. L IX „ Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 08, Survlen * , B lade 1 31, Tang 77, Shaft * , Maxbr 2 5, Shaft Diam * , Point Rounded, Section F lat Centre, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 1 6 This piece is a bipartite weapon with a hooked tang and a broad blade. Typologically it i s closest to examples of Types 4 and 7 but there are numerous differences of detail. L ength 1 95mm, Br= 3 0mm, tang rectangular in section, rather than square, while the blade has a f lat central z one in p lace of a midrib. From a scatter of material spread over 1 /2 square metre, no vessels, assoc with No. 8 263 a decorated object which i s partly of iron C at. No 3 1, Hazor Area F Loc J1, F1601.2, Y adin 1 964, * , F ig.CCXLIV.23, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 24, Survlen * , B lade 2 61, Tang 6 3, Shaft * , Maxbr 3 8, Shaft Diam * , Point Blunt, Section Concave Lozenge, Tangform Open Hook, S haftshp * , Type 1 6 Typologically unusual having a tang of rhomboidal section, a blunt point and a f lat section blade with a V-shaped m idrib. Compared to Type 4 weapons it i s longer and broader. The hook i s turned in the plane of the blade, unusual amongst P alestinian hooked-tang weapons. The full context of this item i s unpublished. "Unstratifiedu according to caption of original publication plate. Cat.

No

3 0,

Ras

Shamra

T LIV

lower, 3 39

RS9.567-86,

Schaeffer 1 938, * , Fig.23.1, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 416, Survlen * , Blade 3 20, Tang Shaft * , Maxbr 46, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type 16

Concave

Lozenge,

96, Tangform

Open

Hook,

A genuine example of the Cypriot hooked-tang weapon series ( Äström 1957, 2 42). It is reassuring to f ind that the cluster analysis separated this item from the local broad bladed types Found bent round arm of burial Cat. No 2 3, Ras Shamra Sond Sup, NSPT37-2.45, Schaeffer 1962, 3 37, Fig.4.9, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 195, Survlen * , Blade 158, Tang 37, Shaft Point

* , Maxbr 30, Shaft Diam * , Sharp, Section Concave Lozenge,

Shaftshp * , Type 16. with a tapering tang, are

no

Cat.

published

No

2 4,

Ras

Tangform

Tapering,

Rectangular in section ( 26mm x 12mm) long ( 314mm), with closed hook. There

parallels. Shamra

Sond

Sup,

5 3PT32-2.40,

Schaeffer 1962, 3 35, Fig.4.12, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 14, Survlen * , Blade 2 41, Tang 73, Shaft * , Maxbr 26, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type 16. tapering tang. Long published parallels.

Square, Tangform Closed Hook, Rectangular in section with a ( 314mm) with a closed hook. No

Cat. No 122, Til Barsip Hypogeum Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07,

n19, Pl. XXXI.6,

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 00, Survlen * , Blade 1 04, Tang 96, Shaft * , Maxbr 15, Shaft Diam * , Point Sharp, Section Cross Shaped, Tangform Open Hook, Shaftshp * , Type 16. No published parallels. This weapon could be interpreted as a variation on the standard hookedtang weapon theme, but using a two piece mould to produce a blade

with

a cross-shaped

section.

Cat. No 5 , Bat Yam Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 28, Survlen * , Blade 1 86, Shaft * , Maxbr 50, Shaft Diam * ,

Tang

42,

Point Sharp, Section High Midrib, Tangform * , Shaftshp * , Type 16. No close parallels exist, although the weapons of Type 7 might be regarded as the best of the available Cat.

No

comparanda.

1 63,

Jericho,

Jar

from Tell,

Sellin and Watzinger, 1913, Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Length 1 20 Survlen * , Blade Shaft * Maxbr * , Shaft Diam

* , * , * For comparison * , * 3 40

Tang

*

only,

Point Sharp, Section Shaftshp * , Type *

Square,

Tangform

*

I t seems better to a llow the complexity of the s ituation to manifest itself, rather than to force a ll the material into other types, thus upsetting the homogeneity of those groups. A number of the above are essentially of a bipartite, broad bladed form. These might be interpreted a s having l inks with Type 7 weapons, in the same way as Type 4 spears are seen as a Palestinian equivalent. No doubt the Syrian industry of the E .B. A. produced a wide range of broad-bladed bipartite forms, which are as yet poorly known, of which the Type 7 weapons from Ras Shamra represent a s ingle instance. BARBED SPEARHEADS SURVLEN LENGTH BLADE

( Type

1 7)

' Surviving length' ' Overall Length' ' Length of Blade'

This type comprises a group of four rather enigmatic items which have a large heavy, pointed ' blade with two projecting barbs at the rear. They are hafted by means of a solid tang ending in either a hole for a peg or r ivet or a tightly c losed hook through which a peg could be inserted. These weapons are all very heavy and would have required substantial shafts to support them were they intended for practical use. Cat. No 1 310, Tell Judeideh ' H' „ X5065 Braidwood and Braidw 1 960, 3 76, F ig.293.3, Condn Slight Damage, Measmt From Publication Length 1 94, Blade 1 38, Survlen * Cat. No 1 311, Tell el-Hesi Lowest l evel, B liss 1 898, 3 6, No.70, London, P .E.F., Condn S light Damage, Measmt Absolute Length 2 64, Blade 1 72, Survlen * C at. No 1 312, Tell el-Hesi Lowest l evel, Condn Slight Damage, Measmt From Publication B liss 1 898, 3 6, No.71, * , Length * , Blade 2 27, Survlen 2 64 Cat. No 1 313, Tell e l-Hesi Lowest l evel, Condn Slight Damage, Measmt From Publication B liss Length

1 898, 3 6, No.72, * , * , Blade 2 28, Survlen

2 52

3 41

*

RI VETTED SPEARHEADS SURVLEN LENGTH MAXBR MAXTH TANGFORM POINT BLSHAPE SECTION

' Surviving length' ' Overall Length' ' Maximum Breadth of B lade' ' Maximium Thickness of B lade' ' Form of Tang or Butt' ' Shape of Point of B lade' ' Shape of Blade' ' Cross Section of Blade'

A study of the dimensions of those for which data i s available shows that they occur in a large range of s izes. Two modal values of variable l ength occur, at c . 1 40mm and 2 20-240mm. However, a ll the small examples occur i n the ' D pöts' at Byblos, and may be non-functional objects made for such a role. Those from graves are all of the l arger s ize, as are many of those from Byblos. In fact E isenberg has observed that they are almost twice the weight of the associated Type 1 daggers in the tomb at ' Enan. Despite the substantial range in absolute s ize, the correlation coefficient between Length of Blade and Max. Breadth of B lade i s 0 .91, suggesting a high degree of conformity to the basic shape. These weapons were hafted by means of a large solid tang, generally between 1 4 and 2 0mm in breath and measuring 4 -5mm i n thickness. Thus they are considerably more robust than the rectangular tangs which occur on daggers, reflecting the greater strain placed on them by the long shaft and weight of the blade. The blades which are of lozengeshaped section, measure 7 -8mm in thickness. This too contrasts with contemporary dagger blades, which are considerably thinner. Cat. No 958, Byblos Dep Epsilon, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 44, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp Cat. No 9 59, Byblos Dep Epsilon, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 44, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 4, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Cat. No 9 60, Byblos Dep Epsilon, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, P l. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 25, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 2, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp Cat.

No

9 63,

Byblos

Dep

Iota,

N9538,

3 42

Dunand 1954, 2 92, Pl. LXIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 214, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle shlr, Section Concave Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp

Lozenge,

Cat. No 969, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10110, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Fig.377, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 299, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp Cat. No 970, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10111, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Fig.377, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 322, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp Cat.

No

971,

Byblos

Dep

Omikron,

Lozenge,

N10113,

Dunand 1954, 3 41, Fig.377, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 226, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp 971-974 are four of eight such from this group Cat. No 972, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10114, Dunand 1 954, 3 41, Fig.377, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 159, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp 9 71-974

are

four

of

eight

such

from

this

group

Cat. No 973, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10115, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Fig.377, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 4, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp 9 71-974 are four of eight such from this group Cat. No Dunand

974, Byblos 1 954, 3 41,

Dep Omikron, Pl. LXXI, * ,

N10118,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 47, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle 4r, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp 9 71-974 are four of eight such from this group Cat. No 9 46, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8363, Dunand 1954, 1 90, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 18, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, 3 43

Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Miniature, 946 is 1 of 4 such in Cat.

No

Dunand

947,

Byblos

1954,

1 90,

Dep Pl.

Gamma, LVI,

Sharp this group N8381,

* ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 31, Maxbr 25, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle 4r, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Cat. No Dunand

9 48, Byblos 1954, 1 90,

Dep Gamma, Pl. LVI, * ,

N8382,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 127, Maxbr 22, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle 4r, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * „ 9 48

is

1 of

3 such

in

this

group

Cat. No 949, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8403, Dunand 1954, 190, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 187, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * Cat. No 950, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8401, Dunand 1954, 190, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 37, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape

Concave

Cat.

951,

No

Sided,

Byblos

Point

* ,

Dep Gamma,

Dunand 1954, 190, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From

N8402, publication,

Length 189, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Cat. No 952, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8396, Dunand 1954, 190, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 142, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * Cat.

No

953,

Byblos

Dep

Gamma,

N8397,

Dunand 1954, 190, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length

140,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

28,

Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Blshape Concave Sided, Point *

Maxth Concave

* , Lozenge,

Cat. No 954, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8407, Dunand 1954, 191, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length

187,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

3 4, 3 44

Maxth

* ,

Tangform Solid Rectgle shlr, Section Blshape Straight Tapering, Point *

Concave

Lozenge,

Cat. No 955, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8408, Dunand 1954, 191, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 208, Survlen * , Maxbr 37, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle 3r, Section Concave Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Cat.

No

Dunand

956,

Byblos

1954,

1 91,

Dep Pl.

Gamma, LVI,

Lozenge

N8409,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 192, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle Blshape Concave Sided,

3r, Section Point *

Concave

Lozenge

Cat. No 957, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8417, Dunand 1954, 1 91, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 217, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape * , Point * , 9 57 is 1 of 11 such from this group Cat. No 975, Byblos VIII 15.13, N10669, Dunand 1954, 3 82, Fig.414, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 253, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape

Straight

Tapering,

Point

Sharp

Cat. No 9 61, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9160, Dunand 1 954, 2 53, Pl. LXII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 37, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape

Concave

Cat.

9 62,

No

S ided,

Byblos

Point

Dep

Sharp

Zeta,

N9161,

Dunand 1 954, 2 53, Pl. LXII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From

publication,

Length 1 82, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape

Straight Tapering,

Cat.

1 197,

No

Byblos

Dep

Point Zeta,

Sharp N9167,

Dunand 1954, 2 53, Pl. LXII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , Tangform Small Straight, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp Cat.

No

965,

Byblos

Dep

Lambda,

N9634,

Dunand 1954, 3 01, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length

3 70,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

50, 3 45

Maxth

* ,

Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp 965 is 1 of 1 6 such from this group

Lozenge,

Cat. No 966, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9650, Dunand 1 954, 3 01, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 04, Survlen * , Maxbr 37, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle 4r, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Cat. No 9 67, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9651, Dunand 1954, 3 01, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle Blshape Concave Sided, Cat.

No

968,

Byblos

shlr, Point

Dep

Section Sharp

Lambda,

Concave

Lozenge,

N9665,

Dunand 1954, 3 03, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 25, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape

Concave

S ided,

Point

Sharp

Cat. No 9 64, Byblos Dep Kappa, N9615, Dunand 1 954, 2 98, Pl. LXVI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 67, Survlen * , Maxbr 41, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp 9 64 is 1 of 3 such from this group Cat. No 9 44, Byblos Dep Beta, N8323, Dunand 1 954, 1 88, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 46, Survlen * , Maxbr 43, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp 9 44,

945

are

2 of

9 such

from

this

group

Cat. No 9 45, Byblos Dep Beta, N8324, Dunand 1954, 1 88, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp 9 44, 945 are 2 of 9 such from this group Cat. No Dunand Condn

1 351, 1 954,

Slight

Byblos Dep Beta, N8317, 1 88, Pl. LVIII, * , damage,

Measmt

From

publication,

Length 2 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle shlr, Section F lat no Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Blunted No rivet holes visible - a blank perhaps ?

3 46

Midrib,

Cat. No 9 76, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10695, Dunand 1 954, 3 84, P l. LXXV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 98, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Material from 2 different j ars. Cat. No 9 77, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10704, Dunand 1 954, 3 84, P l. LXXV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle 4r, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp Material from 2 different j ars. Cat. No 9 79, Byblos XXI 1 2.19, N17330, Dunand 1 958, 9 15, F ig.1025, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Haft traces visible, implies handle and rivets deliberately removed Cat. No 9 78, Byblos 1 2.20 XIX Dep Nord, N16177, Dunand 1 958, 8 21, F ig.933, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Maxth * , Tangform Solid Rectgle shlr, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp Cat. No 9 33, Enan Bundle of spears, E isenberg 1 985, * , F ig.8.42, * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 69, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 8 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Blunted, Fig. 2 0 1 of 4 spearheads i n a bundle. Horizontal haft-line below rivet Cat. No 9 34, Enan Bundle of spears, E isenberg 1 985, * , F ig.9.46, * , I .D.A., Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 72, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 7 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Blunted, 1 of 4 spearheads i n a bundle Cat. No 9 36, Enan Bundle of spears, E isenberg 1 985, * , F ig.8.41, * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 81, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 7 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Blunted, 1 of 4 spearheads in a bundle

3 47

2 0mm

Cat. No 9 39, Enan Bundle of spears, E isenberg 1 985, * , Fig.9.47, * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 22, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 7 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point B lunted, 1 of 4 spearheads in a bundle Cat. No 9 35, Enan Tomb, E isenberg 1 985, * , Fig.8.40, * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 71, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 8 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Blunted Faced tang edges, horizontal haft-line 2 0mm below r ivet Cat. No 9 37, Enan Tomb, E isenberg 1 985, * , Fig.8.43, * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 66, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 7 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Blunted, F aced tang edges Cat. No 9 38, Enan Tomb, E isenberg 1 985, * , Fig.9.48, * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 67, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 5 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point B lunted, Faced tang edges Cat. No 9 40, Enan Tomb, E isenberg 1 985, * , Fig.8.44, * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 49, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 8 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Blunted Faced tang edges Cat. No 9 41, Enan Tomb, E isenberg 1 985, * , Fig.9.45, * , I .D. A., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 42, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 8 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Faced tang edges Cat. No 9 31, Khirbet Murhan group, Tsori 1 971, * , F ig.6 rt, * , Kib. Tel Yosef Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 22, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 8 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Blunted Cat.

No

9 42,

Ma'ayan

Barukh

Tomb 3 48

I II,

last

Amiran 1961, 92, F ig.8.21, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 198, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 7 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Blunted Cat. No 943, Ma'ayan Barukh Tomb I II, Amiran 1961, 92, F ig.8.20, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 226, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 6 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Two copper bands round tang, one originally round upper rivet, copper sheet fragments on upper blade. Indicative of the sort of handles removed from those in the Döpöts at Byblos

?

Cat. No 932, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971b, 3 3, Fig.1.14, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 269, Survlen * , Maxbr 42, Maxth 9 , Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Fig.

20

.

3 49

SOCKETTED SPEARHEADS As before, types were established on the basis of detailed examination of patterning among variables. A cluster analysis using the following metric variables suggested the existence of several main categories, differentiated by overall size ( fig. 6 1). 1 . Length of Blade 2 . Length of Socket 3 . Maximum Breadth of Blade 4 . Internal Diameter of Socket ( for i llustrations this was taken as external diameter less 1-2 mm, depending on the degree of corrosion visible). SURVLEN LENGTH BLADE SOCKET MAXBR D IAM POINT SECTION BLADE PEG COLLAR Type

' Surviving Length' ' Overall Length' ' Length of Blade' ' Length of Socket' ' Max. Breadth of Socket' ' Max Inner Diameter of Socket ' Shape of Point of Blade' ' Cross-section of Blade' ' Shape of Blade' ' Evidence of Peg through Socket' ( if any) ' Form of Collar around Socket' ( if any)

1

All are large weapons, but lack the very long sockets of Type 2 . The distinguishing feature i s that the blades are big, l ength around 2 00mm and mean max. breadth 4 7mm, and the sockets fairly large, mean diameter 2 3mm. The two examples from Tell Mardikh have distinctly rounded points, and a general appearance which hints at some resemblance to certain weapons from Ras Shamra. The spearhead from Egypt has a heavily concave blade, which on examination would seem to be the result of sharpening. One of the pair from Mardikh also shows slightly concave edges support that this i s the result of sharpening rather than design. The section consists of a low concave-lozenge, or a rounded midrib. Cat. No 2 18, Tell Mardikh He IV-III Sett M , TM71 M841, de Maigret 1 976b, 3 2, Fig.1.1, Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 30, Survlen * , Blade 1 90, Socket 1 40, Maxbr 5 0, Diam 2 3, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, B lade Concave s ided, Peg holes visible, Collar Simple band, Type 1 , Fig. 2 1 "Arsenal" M Cat. No 2 21, Tell Mardikh He IV-III Sett M , TM71 de Maigret 1 976b, 3 4, Fig.1.2, Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 05, Survlen * , Blade 1 90, Socket 1 10, Maxbr 4 4, D iam 2 4,

3 50

M842,

Point r ound, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar Clearly absent, Type 1 "Arsenal" M Cat. No 2 11, Tell e l-Dab'a F/I-k/20 P1 0/1, n4802, Unpublished * , * , * , * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 4 14, Survlen * , Blade 2 16, Socket 2 20, Maxbr 4 8, Diam 2 2, Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, B lade Heavily concave, Peg * , Collar Double, Type 1 , Fig. 2 1 Prob f rom Gr 9 or 1 0 Type

2

The s pearheads assigned to Type 2 are distinguished by their great length. Although the blades are rather l onger than those of other types, it is the sockets which are most distinctive, having a mean length of 3 15mm, almost three t imes the average f or other large-bladed spears. The mean breadth at 3 3mm and the mean socket diameter at 2 1mm are typical of those of large spears generally. The blades show a d istinctive rounded midrib and have square or rounded shoulders. Many are decorated, bearing l ightly incised l ines running the l ength of the blade. These occur s ingly or i n pairs at each s ide of the midrib. This echoes the decoration seen on certain contemporary daggers, Type 1 2 in particular, an interesting detail. The decoration implies that the blades of these weapons were made in two p iece moulds, although the sockets may have been cast as f lat sheet, hammered out and subsequently rolled i nto shape. Cat. No 1 84, Byblos Dep Epsilon, n8824, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, P l. LX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 440, Survlen * , Blade 1 62, Socket 2 77, Maxbr 3 1, D iam 1 9, Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 Cat. No 1 85, Byblos Dep Epsilon, n8825, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, P l. LX, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, , Length * , Survlen 5 05, Blade 2 56, Socket * Maxbr 35, D iam 2 3, Point sharp, Section Round medial zone, Blade Convex s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 Cat. No 1 86, Byblos Dep Iota, n9523, Dunand 1 954, 2 91, Pl. LXV and f ig. 3 20, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, L ength * , Survlen 4 30, Blade 1 98, Socket * , Maxbr 3 0, D iam 2 1, P oint sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, B lade Straight

3 51

tapering, Peg * , Collar

* ,

Type

2

Cat. No 187, Byblos Dep Lambda, n9625, Dunand 1954, 3 00, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 5 30, Diam 2 2,

Survlen

Point sharp, tapering, Peg

holes

Cat. No Dunand

* ,

Section

visible,

Blade

Socket

Rounded Midrib,

Collar

1 88, Byblos 1954, 3 00,

177,

* ,

Type

1 89,

3 2,

Straight

2

For comparison Socket 3 20,

Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 No

Blade

Maxbr

Dep Lambda, n9626, Pl. LXVIII, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length 520, Survlen * , Blade 200, Maxbr 3 1, Diam * ,

Cat.

353,

Byblos

Dep

Lambda,

Blade

only,

Straight

n9627,

Dunand 1954, 300, Pl. LXVII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 460, Survlen * , Blade 1 80, Socket 280, Maxbr 3 7, Diam 20, Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type 2 Cat. No 190, Byblos Dep Lambda, n9630, Dunand 1954, 3 00, Pl. LXVII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 370, Blade 2 20, Socket * , Maxbr 40, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 Cat.

No

191,

Byblos

Dep

Lambda,

n9629,

Dunand 1954, 3 00, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 5 30, Survlen * , Blade 202, Socket 327, Maxbr 3 7, Diam 2 3, Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 , Fig. 5 6 Cat.

No

Dunand

192, 1954,

Byblos

Dep

3 00,

Pl.

Lambda, LXVII,

Blade

Straight

n9628,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 460, Survlen * , Blade 173, Socket 287, Maxbr Point

2 9, Diam 2 0, sharp, Section

tapering, Peg holes

visible,

Rounded

Collar

* ,

Midrib, Type

3 52

2

Blade

Straight

Cat. No Dunand

193, Byblos 1954, 301,

Dep Lambda, n9631, Pl. LXVII, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 3 89, Blade 200, Maxbr 3 6, Diam * , Point sharp, tapering, Peg

holes

Cat. No Dunand Condn

Section Rounded Midrib,

visible,

Collar

194, Byblos 1954, 3 01,

Broken

Length * , Maxbr 2 7,

but

Survlen Diam * ,

Point sharp, tapering,

* ,

No

195,

adequate, 3 92,

Measmt

Blade

Section Rounded

Byblos

Type

Dep Lambda, Pl. LXVII,

Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 Upper socket is silver, heat Cat.

For comparison Socket * ,

Dep

165,

Blade

Straight

2 n9632, For

comparison

Socket

Midrib,

bonded

Lambda,

Blade

to

only,

* , Straight

lower,

bronze

part

n9667,

Dunand 1954, 303, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 3 51, Blade 185, Socket * , Maxbr 3 1, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Rounded tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2

only,

Midrib,

Blade

only,

Straight

Cat. No 196, Byblos Dep Lambda, n9668, Dunand 1954, 303, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 81, Blade * , Socket * , Maxbr 3 1, Diam * , Point * , Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 Cat. No Dunand

197, Byblos 1954, 3 03,

Dep Lambda, n9669, Pl. LXVIII, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 2 81, Blade 195, Maxbr 3 1, Diam * , Point * , Section Rounded Midrib, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2

For comparison Socket * , Blade

Straight

only,

tapering,

Cat. No 182, Byblos Dep Beta, n8351, Dunand 1954, 1 89, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 582, Survlen Maxbr 3 7, Diam 2 0, Point sharp, tapering, Peg 182

Section

* ,

Blade

1 99,

Rounded Midrib,

* , Collar * , Type 2 and 183 are two of 7 such

Cat. No Dunand

183, Byblos 1954, 1 89,

Socket

in

Dep Beta, Pl. LVIII,

the

n8352, * ,

3 53

3 83,

Blade

group

Straight

Condn

Slight

damage,

Measmt

From

publication,

Length 605, Survlen * , Blade 191, Socket 413, Maxbr 3 7, Diam 2 0, Point * , Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 1 82 and 183 are 2 of 7 such in the group Socket clearly split, must have been formed by rolling Cat. No 199, Byblos Dep Upsilon, n10707, Dunand 1954, 3 94, Pl. LXXV, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 80, Survlen * , Blade 146, Socket 203, Maxbr 3 0, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type 2 Material from 2 different jars. Cat. No 202, Byblos Dep Upsilon, n10708, Dunand 1 954, 3 94, Pl. LXXV, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 75, Survlen * , Blade 160, Socket * , Maxbr 29, Diam 2 1, Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 2 Material from 2 different j ars. Band at end of socket Cat. No 198, Byblos Dep Xi, Dunand 1954, 3 39, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Maxbr 27,

Survlen Diam * ,

Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * , Cat.

No

200,

175,

Blade

Rounded Type 2

Byblos

Dep

* ,

Midrib,

Xi,

For

Socket Blade

comparison

only,

* , Straight

tapering,

n10100,

Dunand 1954, 3 39, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 355, Blade 1 30, Socket * , Maxbr 29, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg 2 00

* , is

Collar * , Type 1 of 4 such in

2 the

group

Cat. No 201, Byblos T . O. N wall ctyd, n15082, Dunand 1958, 7 39, Fig.872, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 3 90, Blade 2 22, Socket * , Maxbr

3 8,

Diam

* ,

Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * , Threshold,

201

only,

is

High midrib, Type 2 1 of

4 such

Blade in

3 54

Straight

the group

tapering,

Type

3

Although these spears have fairly l arge blades, the sockets are only two thirds of the length of the blade, a marked contrast to Types 2 and 5 . The mean blade length i s 1 55mm, and mean breadth 3 6mm. This i s typical for medium to large weapons. The mean socket diameter i s c 1 9mm. The blades are f ormed with incurved or straight-sloping shoulders, two of the forms which seem to merge i nto each other and are thus hard to distinguish reliably, and are straight-sided, tapering to a rounded point. The blade section shows a Vshaped midrib, either low or quite sharp which merges into the s ocket. Cat. No 2 69, Ras Shamra Tomb in Palace Garden, RS18188, Schaeffer 1 962, 3 07, Pl. XV11.5, Damascus, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 195, Survlen * , Blade 1 19, Socket 7 6, Maxbr 3 6, D iam 1 8, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, B lade Concave s ided, Peg holes visible, Collar S imple band, Type 3 Nail in socket Cat. No 2 72, Ras Shamra T LV, RS9682, Schaeffer 1 938, * , Fig.27L, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 27, Survlen * , Blade 2 08, Socket 1 24, Maxbr 3 3, Diam 2 1, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, B lade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar S imple band, Type 3 Nail in p lace, with collar Cat. No 2 75, Ras Shamra MB Tombs unpub, RS7429.2, * * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 74, Survlen * , Blade 1 54, Socket 1 20 „ Maxbr 3 6, D iam * , Point * , Section * , Blade * , Peg * , Collar * , Type 3 Cat. No 2 76, Ras Shamra MB Tombs unpub, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, L ength 2 76, Survlen * , Blade 1 72, Socket 1 04, Maxbr 3 4, Diam 2 2, P oint * , Section * , Blade * P eg * , Collar * , Type 3 Cat. No 2 77, Ras Shamra T LXXV i nf, RS11504, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 38, Survlen * , Blade 1 48, Socket 9 0, Maxbr 3 2, Diam 1 4, P oint round, Section Concave lozenge, B lade Straight t apering,

3 55

Peg holes visible, Collar * , Split socket, partly f illed

Type

3

Cat. No 278, Ras Shamra T LXXV inf, RS11395, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 216, Survlen * , Blade 1 34, Socket 82, Maxbr 3 8, Diam 1 8, Point round, tapering, Peg

holes

Split

Section

visible,

socket,

Concave

Collar

clearly

* ,

lozenge, Type

Blade

3

filled with metal.

Cat. No 273, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9722, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32B, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 15, Survlen 186, Blade 1 30, Socket Maxbr 30, Diam 2 1, Point round, tapering,

Section

Straight

Low broad

midrib,

85,

Blade

Straight

Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type 3 Poss mixed with material from Tomb LVII Cat. No 274, Ras Schaeffer 1938,

Shamra T LVI, * , Fig.32A, * ,

RS9728,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 284, Survlen * , Blade 175, Socket 109, Maxbr 40, Diam 2 0, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar S imple band, Type 3 Possibly mixed with material from Tomb LVII Cat. No 256, Ras Shamra Area B finds in pits, Schaeffer 1 936, * , Fig.19M, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 265, Survlen * , Blade 148, Socket 117,

RS7425,

Maxbr 37, Diam 2 1, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 3 Secondary deposits of tomb contents or poorly excavated pit-graves? Cat. No 253, Ras Shamra MB tomb Area A , RS7400, Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.17D, Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 238, Survlen * , Blade 1 35, Socket 103, Maxbr

3 5,

Diam

1 7,

Point round, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type 3 , Fig. 22 Split on socket is very neat - no trace of filling Traces of horizontal haft-line well haft binding originally present

356

down

socket,

implies

Cat. No 254, Ras Shamra MB tomb Area A , RS7352, Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.17B, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 280, Survlen * , Blade 158, Socket 1 22, Maxbr

3 7,

Diam

Point round, tapering, Peg holes

2 1,

Section

visible,

Concave

Collar

* ,

lozenge, Type

Blade

3

Cat. No 255, Ras Shamra MB tomb Area A , Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.17E, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 238, Survlen * , Blade 1 39, Socket Maxbr 38, Diam 2 1, Point round, tapering, Peg

* ,

Collar

Section Simple

Cat. No 266, Ras Schaeffer 1936,

Concave band,

lozenge,

Type

Straight

RS7350,

99,

Blade

Straight

3

Shamra MB tomb Area * , Fig.17C, Louvre,

A ,

RS7351,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 248, Survlen * , Blade 153, Socket 95, Maxbr 39, Diam 2 0, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar Simple band, Type 3 Cat. No 250, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS473, Schaeffer 1962, * , Fig.33.10, Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 297, Survlen Maxbr 36, Diam * ,

* ,

Blade

184,

Socket

Point round, Section Rounded Midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 3 Cat.

No

252,

Ras

Shamra

Imprecise,

1 13,

Blade

Straight

RS6257,

Schaeffer 1962, * , Fig.33.8, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 265, Survlen * , Blade 150, Socket 1 05, Maxbr 37, Diam 2 0, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes

visible,

Collar

* ,

Type

3

Cat. No 264, Ras Shamra Pt Top 68, RS470, Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.26.3, Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 212, Survlen * , Blade 140, Socket 7 2, Maxbr 35, Diam 1 5, Point round, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar Simple band, Type 3 Cat. No 262, Ras Schaeffer 1932,

Shamra * , Pl.

Between Bibi and XIII.2, Louvre,

357

T o ,

RS471,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 05, Survlen * , Blade 187, Socket 115, Maxbr 3 1, Diam 2 2, Point round, Section Low broad midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar Simple band, Type 3 Type

4

The spearheads assigned to Type 4 are medium-sized, with blades slightly shorter ( mean length 1 43m) but virtually the same breadth ( mean 39mm) as those of Type 3 weapons. The sockets are of roughly the same length but are of lesser diameter ( mean 16.5mm). In terms of morphology, the blades are generally straight-sided, although concave-edged examples occur, with a mix of variety of shoulder shapes. Cat. No Dunand

2 36, Byblos 1954, 3 92,

sharp and

round

points,

and

Dep Chi, n10840, Pl. LXXVIII, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 265, Survlen * , Blade 142, Socket 1 23, Maxbr 40, Diam 17, Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type 4 2 36, 2 37 are 2 of 8 such in the group

Blade

Cat. No 2 37, Byblos Dep Chi, n10841, Dunand 1 954, 3 92, Pl. LXXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 260, Survlen * , Blade 1 35, Socket 125, Maxbr 4 1, Diam 1 6, Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, Blade tapering, Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type 2 36, 2 37 are 2 of 8 such in the

Straight

Straight

4 group

Cat. No 2 38, Byblos Dep Chi, n10834, Dunand 1954, 392, Pl. LXXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 00, Survlen * , Blade 1 35, Socket 142, Maxbr 3 8, Diam 16, Point sharp, tapering, Peg 2 38 Cat.

* , is

Section

Rounded Midrib,

Collar Clearly absent, Type 1 of 8 such in the group

No

2 19,

Matthiae

Tell

1 980a,

Mardikh N90,

* ,

Hyp

B ,

Blade

4

TM78

Q479,

Aleppo,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 299, Survlen * , Blade 161, Socket Maxbr 4 3, Diam 17, Point sharp, tapering, Peg

holes

Section

visible,

Low

Collar

Straight

broad * ,

midrib,

Type

358

4

1 38,

Blade

Straight

a

Cat. No 224, Unpublished

Tell et-Tin Tomb, * , * , * , Ist. Arch.

Mus.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 1 76, Blade 1 31, Maxbr 30, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Shp midrib Peg * , Collar * , Type 4

For comparison Socket * ,

thin

edges,

Blade

Cat. No 225, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Gautier 1 895, * , F ig. on p9, 2nd Left, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publcation, Length 240, Survlen * , Blade 142, Socket 98, Maxbr 36, Diam 16, Point sharp, Section Narrow round midrib, Blade sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 4 Type

only,

* ,

Convex

5

As most examples of this type are damaged or poorly published it is not possible to present a set of statistics for metric variables. However it is clear that these items represent spearheads with long sockets similar to Type 2 weapons. Cat. No 2 13, Unpublished

Hama * , * ,

T G VI, * , * ,

5B420,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 3 16, Blade 228, Maxbr 23, Diam * ,

For comparison Socket * ,

Point sharp, Section Round Peg * , Collar * , Type 5

zone,

medial

Cat. No 2 14, Hama T G VI, 5B420, Fugmann 1958, * , Pl. X , * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 3 64, Blade 2 28, Maxbr 29, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Round medial Peg * , Collar * , Type 5 , Fig. 22 Cat. Guy

No 2 35, Megiddo T 84C, 1938, * , Pl. 163.9, * ,

Blade

* ,

For comparison Socket * , zone,

only,

only,

Blade

M606,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, L ength * , Survlen 1 77, Blade 151, Socket * , Maxbr 3 2, Diam * , P oint sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, Blade Straight tapering, P eg * , Collar * , Type 5 Cat.

No

2 67,

Ras

Shamra

Poche

aux

bronzes,

S chaeffer 1962, 3 42, Fig.28E, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 87, Survlen Maxbr 2 8, Diam 1 4, Point

* ,

* ,

Blade

Section Low broad

124,

midrib,

3 59

Socket Blade

163, Straight

tapering,

Peg holes

visible,

Collar

* ,

Type

5

Cat. No 2 20, Tell Mardikh Hyp B , TM78 Q478, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 86, Blade 1 55, Socket * , Maxbr 3 0, Diam * , Point * , Section Round medial zone, B lade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 5 I ntermediate-Sized Type

Spearheads

6

These weapons show a mean length of blade of 98mm, a nd mean breadth of blade of 2 9mm. The sockets show a mean l ength of 8 3mm and mean diameter of 1 6mm. I n terms of absolute s ize they seem to stand between the small spearheads described below and the larger Types 1 -5. The blades have concave or straight-sloping shoulders, and can occur with e ither straight-tapering or curved s ides. It should be observed that the f ive items from Baghouz conform very c losely to a f ixed pattern; sharp V-shaped midrib, straight-sided tapering blade and straight-sloping shoulders. This supports an interpretation of these i tems as l ocally produced weapons showing a high degree o f standardisation but forming part of a general pattern. Cat. No 2 06, Baghouz Z 1 23, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 6, Pl. LXI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 84, Survlen * , Blade 1 04, Socket 8 0, Maxbr 2 9, Diam 1 6, Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, B lade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 6 , Bed, table with meat, axe. By skull, point upwards. Dagger i s assoc. with meat offering Cat. No 2 07, Baghouz Z 1 43, du Sesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 8, Pl. LXI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 66, Survlen * , Blade 9 9, Socket 6 7, Maxbr 3 2, Diam 1 6, Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, B lade S traight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 6 Bed and axe. Spear i s well down cist, away from burial Cat. No 2 08, Baghouz Z 2 32, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 8 5, P l. LXI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 92, Survlen * , Blade 1 03, Socket 89, Maxbr 3 2, Diam 1 8, Point

sharp,

Section

Sharp V-shaped midrib,

3 60

B lade

S traight

tapering, Peg * , Collar Bronze bowl Cat.

No

209,

du Mesnil

du

* ,

Type

6

Baghouz

Z 246,

Buisson

1948,

86,

Pl.

LXI,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 125, Survlen * , Blade 76, Socket 49, Maxbr 2 1, Diam 11, Point sharp, tapering, Peg Cat.

* , No

Collar 2 10,

du Mesnil

du

Section * ,

Sharp V-shaped midrib,

Type

Blade

Straight

6

Baghouz

Z 285,

Buisson

1948,

89,

Pl.

LXI,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 186, Survlen * , Blade 92, Socket 94, Maxbr 28, Diam 1 6, Point round, tapering, Peg Cat.

* , No

Collar 205,

Section * ,

Sharp V-shaped midrib,

Type

Blade

Straight

6

Baghouz

Z 3 05,

du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, 91, Pl. LXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 176, Survlen * , Blade 98, Socket 78, Maxbr 28, Diam 15, Point sharp, tapering,

Section

Sharp V-shaped midrib,

Blade

Straight

Peg * , Collar * , Type 6 Dolmen, axe and dagger Cat. No 204, Baghouz Z 309, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, 9 1, Pl. LXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * , Survlen * , Blade 65, Socket * , Maxbr 21, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, Blade tapering, Peg * , Assoc. Cat. No Dunand

Collar * , with axe

Type

247, Byblos 1954, 1 87,

Straight

6

Dep Beta, Pl. LVIII,

n8289, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 198, Survlen * , Blade 114, Socket 84, Maxbr 25, Diam 1 7, Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 6 Cat.

No

2 32,

Nahariyah

Survlen Diam * ,

1 32,

Straight

Temple,

Dothan 1956, 2 0, Pl. 4D, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Maxbr 3 3,

Blade

Blade

106,

3 61

For

comparison

Socket

* ,

only,

Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 6

Blade

Concave

Cat. No 2 63, Ras Shamra Charnier btwn T of B , RS429, Schaeffer 1 932, * , Pl. XIII.1, Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 1 71, Survlen 1 42, Blade 8 1, Socket 9 0, Maxbr 3 5, D iam 1 6, Point sharp, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Convex s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 6 ' Charnier' with 2 2 burials and MBI pottery - poorly documented Cat. No 3 01, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 31, Blade 1 00, Socket * , Maxbr 2 8, D iam * , Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 6 Small

Convex

Spearheads

A considerable variation in overall s ize within the small spearhead class was observe and it was clear from c luster analysis ( fig. 6 1) that although these weapons formed a f airly continuous sequence from small to large, distinct areas of concentration existed. In order to investigate i nternal structure it was decided to scan the main variables again, using histograms and scatterplots, having f irst removed all those items belonging outwith the general group ' small spearheads'. Such scatter plots did i ndeed suggested the existence of three internal groups, Types 7 , 8 and 9 ( see F ig. 5 9b). Type

7

This type i s composed of the smallest items. Members are c learly distinguished from those of other types by their scores on a ll four metric variables. The blades are short and narrow ( mean l ength 5 2mm, mean breadth 1 9mm) and the sockets short and s lim ( mean length 5 2mm, diameter l lmm). The result i s that these weapons are l ight and s lender. They show a range of shoulder shapes and blade crosssections, but only two values for shape of blade, straight tapering and convex-sided. Most examples have sharp points, though a few occur with angled tips. Cat. No 3 17, Barquai Tomb phase 2 , Gophna and Sussman 1 969, 1 *, Fig.4.14, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 8 4, Blade 5 4, Socket * , Maxbr 2 1, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Convex

3 62

sided, Peg * , Cat. Meir Condn

Collar

No

3 28,

* ,

Type

Ga'led

7 T .

VIII,

1974, * , Fig.5.4, * , Slight damage, Measmt

Length 96, Survlen Maxbr 2 2, Diam 11, Point angled, sided, Peg * , Collar

* ,

Blade

From publication, 45,

Socket

Section

Shp midrib thin

* ,

7

Type

51, edges,

Blade

Cat. No 308, Ginosar T 1 , Epstein 1974, 4*, Fig.7.14, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 138, Survlen * , Blade 70, Socket 68 „ Maxbr 20, Diam 1 2, Point sharp, Section Concave lozenge, Blade Convex Peg * , Collar * , Type 7

Convex

sided,

Cat. No 305, Ginosar T 2/3, Epstein 1 974, 5*, Fig.18.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 118, Survlen * , Blade 57, Socket 61, Maxbr 18, Diam 12, Point sharp, Section Round medial Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type

zone, 7

Blade

Convex

sided,

Cat. No 293, Hama T G VI, 5B420, Fugmann 1958, * , Pl. X , * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 105, Survlen * , Blade 50, Socket * , Maxbr 2 1, Diam 1 3, Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Blade * , Peg * , Collar * , Type 7 , Fig. 2 4 Cat. Ory

No 3 09, 1 926,

Ness Z iona From destroyed 10, Pl. V NZ7, *

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Length 76, Survlen * , Blade

From publication, 4 3, Socket 3 3,

Maxbr 15, Diam 9 , Point sharp, Section * , Blade Straight Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type 7 Cat. Ory

No 3 15, Ras 1 938, 1 03,

el ' Ain/Aphek Gr Pl. XXXII. B5, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Length 90, Survlen * , Blade Maxbr

2 4,

Diam

tomb,

tapering,

2 ,

From publication, 5 2, Socket 3 8,

1 2,

Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Peg * , Collar * , Type 7

Blade

Cat. No 2 88, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-1/14 Gr 7 , Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 03, Survlen * , Blade 55, Socket 48,

3 63

Convex

n1690,

sided,

Maxbr

15,

Diam

Point sharp, tapering,

1 1,

Section

Concave

Peg * , Collar * , Type Below skull of burial Cat. No 291, Unpublished Condn Good, Length 101,

lozenge,

Blade

Straight

7

Tell el-Dab'a F/I-d/23 Gr 1 , * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Blade

5 3,

Socket

n3084,

48,

Maxbr 16, Diam 1 3, Point sharp, Section Round medial zone, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 7 Found with metal belt and other weapons

Blade

Cat. No 290, Tell el-Dab'a F/I i/22 Gr 3 1, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 75, Blade 44, Socket * Maxbr 17, Diam 1 1, Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Peg * , Collar * , Type 7 , Fig. 24 Below large vessel in tomb chamber Cat.

No

279,

Tell

el-' Ajjul

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. Condn Slight damage,

Straight

n3974,

Blade

Convex

sided,

T 1 417,

X1V.75, * , Measmt From

publication,

Length 96, Survlen * , Blade 46, Socket 50, Maxbr 17, Diam 1 1, Point * , Section Low f lat centre, Blade Convex

sided,

Peg * , Collar * , Type 7 Just outside door of tomb Cat.

No

280,

Tell

el-' Ajjul

T 1015,

Petrie 1932, * , * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 115, Survlen * , Blade 55, Socket 60, Maxbr 20, Diam 1 1, Point sharp, Section Low flat centre, Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type 7 Cat. No Petrie

281, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1015, 1932, * , Pl. XIV.1015, Jerusalem,

Condn Good, Length 117,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Blade

Maxbr 20, Diam 1 1, Point sharp, Section Peg * , Collar Simple

Slight

damage,

57,

Socket

Measmt

Convex

sided,

Rockefeller, 60,

Low flat centre, Blade band, Type 7 , Fig. 2 4

Cat. No 282, Tell el-' Ajjul Tuffnell 1980, * , Fig.5.17, Condn

Blade

Convex

sided,

T 303B, Rockefeller, From

publication,

Length * , Survlen 73, Blade 45, Socket * , Maxbr 18, Diam 1 0, Point sharp, Section Round medial zone, Blade

3 64

Convex

sided,

Peg Type

* ,

Collar

* ,

Type

7

8

Types 8 and 9 a lso represent areas of concentration within a continuum. The separation i s made on the basis of Length of B lade and Breadth of Blade. A plot of these two variables suggested a division into two groups, Types 8 and 9 with ( relatively) long, broad blades, and short, narrow blades respectively. The distributions on Length and D iameter of Socket are less easily separated, suggesting that both types used s imilar shafts and they represent broadly equivalent weapons with rather different blade forms. This i s confirmed by the fact that Type 8 shows a distinctive profile in terms of the categorical variables relating to blade morphology. As these were not employed as c lassification criteria, this provides valuable supporting evidence for the separation of the two types. The members of Type 8 are larger ( mean Length of Blade 8 5mm, mean Max. Breadth 3 3mm) than other forms of small spearhead. The value for breadth i s close to that of the l arger types, i llustrating that Type 8 weapons are exceptionally broad in relation to their length. This is reflected by their values on the categorical variables, where Type 8 weapons tend to have wide blades with very thin edges, a point reinforced by the distinctive pattern of damage which many show; a series of small lacunae on the blade surface, giving an appearance l ike that of a l eaf eaten away by insects. They generally also have a low Vshaped midrib, and deliberately angled points. The blades are often convex s ided and have square shoulders. Cat. No 3 21, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, F ig.1.2, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Blade 75, Socket 6 5, Maxbr 3 2, D iam 1 3, Point sharp, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 8 Midrib hammered f lat at tip of blade. Cat. No 3 22, Ga'led T . XII, Meir 1 974, * , F ig.11.2, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 69, Survlen * , Blade 8 0, Socket 8 9, Maxbr 3 5, D iam 1 3, Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 8 Cat. No 3 26, Ga'led T . XII, Meir 1 974, * , F ig.11.1, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 72, Survlen * , Blade 9 3, Socket 7 9,

3 65

Convex

Convex

Maxbr Point

3 7, Diam 1 4, angled, Section

sided, Peg * ,

Collar

* ,

Type

Shp midrib thin

edges,

Blade

8

Cat. No 3 04, Ginosar T 2/3, Epstein 1974, 5 *, Fig.18.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 26, Survlen * , Blade 7 2, Socket 5 4, Maxbr 3 3, Diam 18, Point sharp, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade concave, Peg holes

visible,

Collar

Metal

through

pegholes

peg

Cat. No Epstein

306, Ginosar 1974, 5*,

* ,

Type

in

30, Diam 1 1, angled, Section

concave, Peg * , Collar Three

ribs

* ,

run

Type

round

Heavily

8

socket

T 2/3, Fig.11.24,

* ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 16, Blade 72, Socket * , Maxbr Point

Convex

Low V-shaped midrib,

Blade

only,

Heavily

8 socket

at

junction with

Cat. No 3 19, Khirbet Ibrekhtias Edelstein 1971, * , Fig.19, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 121, Survlen * , Blade 77, Maxbr 31, Diam 1 3, Point angled, Section Shp midrib sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 8

T 9 ,

blade

n1,

publication, Socket 44, thin

edges,

Blade

Convex

Blade

Convex

Convex

sided,

Cat. No 3 18, Khirbet Ibrekhtias T 5 , n3, Edelstein 1 971, * , Fig.18, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 160, Survlen * , Blade 84, Socket 76, Maxbr 29, Diam 1 3, Point angled, sided, Peg * , Collar

Section

Shp midrib thin

* ,

8

Type

edges,

Cat. No 294, Lebea T 1 Ch C , Guiges 1937, 3 9, Fig.4C, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 136, Survlen * , Blade Maxbr 36, Diam 1 0, Point round, Section Concave Peg

* ,

Cat.

Collar

No

3 30,

* ,

Type

Megiddo

72,

lozenge,

3 2,

Diam

64,

Blade

8 T 1 100D,

Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 36, Survlen * , Blade 71, Maxbr

Socket

1 2,

3 66

Rockefeller, Socket

65,

Point angled, sided, Peg * , Collar Hammer traces

Section

Shp

* , Type visible

8 on

midrib

thin

edges,

Blade

Convex

socket

Cat. No 331, Megiddo T 1100D, M3461, Guy 1938, * , Pl. 1 49.4, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 183, Survlen * , Blade 96, Socket 87, Maxbr 35, Diam 13, Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade sided, Peg

* ,

Collar

Twine binding,

Type

8 ,

Fig.

Convex

2 3

Cat. No 333, Megiddo T 1100D, M3469, Guy 1938, * , Ref to 149.4, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 16, Blade 8 1, Socket * , Maxbr 27, Diam * , Point angled, sided, Peg * , Collar

Section

Shp

* ,

8

Type

midrib

thin

edges,

Blade

Parallel

Cat. No 3 34, Megiddo T 1100D, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 164, Survlen * , Blade 9 1, Socket 7 3, Maxbr 31, Diam 1 3, Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade sided, Peg Cat.

* , No

Collar 3 35,

* ,

Type

Megiddo

8 T 1100D,

Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 186, Survlen * , Blade 96, Maxbr 37, Diam 1 1, Point sharp, sided, Peg

* ,

Collar

Section * ,

Type

Convex

Shp midrib

Rockefeller, Socket thin

90,

edges,

Blade

Convex

8

Cat. No 3 14, Ras e l ' Ain/Aphek Gr 4 , Ory 1938, 103, * , * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 145, Survlen * , Blade 75, Socket 70, Maxbr 30, Diam 1 2, Point angled, s ided,

Section

Shp midrib

Peg

* ,

8

* ,

Collar

Type

1 skull only, possibly a single in south recess of tomb. Cat.

No

2 95,

Ruweise

thin

edges,

burial.

Blade

Animal

T 3 3,

Guiges 1938, 2 7, Fig.41, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 5 3, Survlen * , Blade 3 0, Socket 2 3,

3 67

( ?)

Convex

bones

Maxbr

12,

Diam

Point round, tapering, Peg

* ,

Collar

Cat. No Tufnell

5 ,

Section * ,

Shp midrib

Type

297, Ruweise 1976, 1 3,

thin

edges,

Blade

Straight

8 T 6 6, Fig.1.25 „

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 33, Survlen * , Blade 78, Socket 55, Maxbr

28,

Diam

Point round, tapering, Peg

* ,

Cat.

Collar

No

3 12,

1 2,

Section * ,

Shp midrib

Type

Safad

thin

edges,

Blade

Straight

Blade

Convex

8

Tomb,

Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 184, Survlen Maxbr 38, Diam 1 3, Point sharp, sided, Peg

No

Section

holes,

Cat. No 3 10, Yogev 1985, Condn Slight

* ,

Collar

Blade

95,

89,

Shp midrib thin

edges,

Clearly

Type

absent,

8

Tel Rehov T 2 „ No91 93, Fig.4.5, I . D. A., damage, Measmt From publication,

Length 171, Survlen Maxbr 35, Diam 15,

* ,

Blade

99,

Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 8 Below feet of burial Cat. No 3 11, Yogev 1985, Condn Slight

Socket

Socket

72,

midrib,

Blade

Tel Rehov T 2 , No90, 9 3, Fig.4.4, I . D. A., damage, Measmt From publication,

Length 175, Survlen * , Blade 98, Socket 77, Maxbr 34, Diam 15, Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 8 , Fig. 25 Below feet of burial Cat. No 283, Tell el-Far'ah ( N) Unpublished * , * , * , * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 170, Survlen * , Blade 87, Maxbr

3 2,

Diam

Point angled, tapering, Peg * , Collar Re-used

Convex

Chalco

T 3 ,

Convex

n58,

Socket

8 3,

12, Section

Shp midrib

* ,

8

Type

tomb,

not

fully

thin

edges,

published

Cat. No 2 84, Tell el-Far'ah ( N) T 6 , de Vaux 1 951, 571, Pl. XXVI. A7, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication,

368

Blade

Straight

Length 1 67, Survlen Maxbr 3 0, Diam 1 1, Point angled, tapering, Peg Not

* ,

Section

Blade Concave

* , Collar Twine binding, fully published

Type

84,

Socket

lozenge, Type

83, Blade

Straight

8

9

The weapons of Type 9 show very similar sockets to those Type 8 but the blades are generally shorter and slimmer; mean l ength of blade 72mm, mean max. breadth 25mm. Type spearheads show a greater heterogeneity across the categorical that Type 8 represented distributed

Convex

Cat. No 245, Byblos Dep Beta, n8292, Dunand 1954, 187, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 46, Blade 81, Socket * I Maxbr 25, Diam * , Point sharp, Section tapering,

Low V-shaped

Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 2 45, 246 are 2 of 1 0 such

midrib,

from this

Blade

23, Diam 1 4, sharp, Section

Low V-shaped

tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 2 45, 246 are 2 of 10 such

from

midrib,

this

only,

Straight

restored,

Blade

Straight

group.

Cat. No 2 42, Byblos Dep Xi, n10105, Dunand 1954, 3 39, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 197, Survlen * , Blade 80, Socket 1 17, 20, Diam 1 5, sharp, Section

tapering, Peg holes Cat.

No

visible,

3 02,

El-Gib

Rounded Midrib,

Collar T 58,

* ,

Type

B343,

3 69

9

sided,

group.

Cat. No 2 46, Byblos Dep Beta, n8291, Dunand 1954, 1 87, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 160, Survlen * , Blade 81, Socket 79,

Maxbr Point

9

variables than do those of Type 8 , suggesting represents a particular variant, well in the known archaeological record, of a widely general form, Type 9 .

Cat. No 316, Barquai Tomb phase 2 , Gophna and Sussman 1969, 1*, Fig.4.13, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 132, Survlen * , Blade 65, Socket 67, Maxbr 24, Diam 11, Point * , Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Peg * , Collar * , Type 9

Maxbr Point

of

Blade

Straight

Pritchard

1963,

6 1,

Fig.64.12,

Amman,

N . M.,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 24, Blade 7 1, Socket * , Maxbr 26, Diam 10, Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Convex sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Weapons belong to last burial. Cat. No 3 03, El-Gib T 58, B344, Pritchard 1963, 61, Fig.64.13,

Amman,

N . M.,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 140, Survlen * , Blade 64, Socket 76, Maxbr Point

2 6, Diam 11, angled, Section

Shp midrib thin

restored,

edges,

Blade

Convex

sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Weapons belong to last burial. Cat. No 3 23, Ga'led T . VIII, Meir 1974, * , Fig.6.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 158, Survlen * , Blade 86, Socket 72, Maxbr 26, Diam 1 3, Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Cat.

No

3 24,

Ga'led

T .

Concave

VIII,

Meir 1974, * , Fig.6.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 45, Survlen * , Blade 76, Socket 69, Maxbr 2 7, Diam 1 3, Point angled, sided,

Section

Peg

Twine

* ,

Cat.

Collar

No

Meir Condn

3 25,

binding,

Ga'led

T .

Point round, sided, * ,

Collar

* ,

Section * ,

Type

Blade

7 1,

Survlen Diam * ,

106,

Point angled, tapering,

Section

Peg

Collar

Twine

3 07,

Ginosar

Cat.

* , No

Convex

9

Socket thin

61,

edges,

Blade

Concave

9

Cat. No 3 27, Ga'led T . VIII, Meir 1974, * , Fig. 5. 5, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt For Length * , Maxbr 25,

Blade

From publication,

Shp midrib

Type

edges,

VIII,

1974, * , Fig.6.3, * , Slight damage, Measmt

Length 1 32, Survlen Maxbr 2 6, Diam 1 1,

Peg

Shp midrib thin

Blade Shp

comparison

76,

midrib

binding,

Type

T 2/3,

3 70

Socket thin 9

only,

* ,

edges,

Blade

Straight

Epstein 1974, 5*, F ig.11.23, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 128, Survlen * , Blade 76, Socket 52, Maxbr 2 6, Diam 16, Point angled, tapering,

Section

Shp midrib

Peg

* ,

9

* ,

Collar

Type

thin

edges,

Blade

Straight

Cat. No 329, Golan Dolmens No.13, Epstein 1985, 43, Fig.3.18, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 120, Survlen * , Blade 57, Socket 63, Maxbr 26, Diam 10, Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9

Convex

Cat. No 3 32, Megiddo T 1 100D, M3467, Guy 1938, * , Ref to 1 49.4, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 27, Blade 85, Socket * , Maxbr 27, Diam * , Point angled, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Parallel sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Cat. No Guiges

2 99, Ruweise T 57, 1938, 3 4, Fig.51B,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 136, Survlen * , Blade 62, Socket 74, Maxbr 24, Diam 1 3, Point round, Section Low V-shaped midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 One of four such in tomb

Blade

Straight

Cat. No 296, Ruweise T 66, Tufnell 1976, 1 3, Fig.1.24 „ Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 28, Blade 6 3, Socket * , Maxbr 2 2, Diam 1 1, Point sharp, Section * , Blade Convex sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Cat. No 2 17, Ruweise T 7 4, Guiges 1 938, 6 1, Fig.95C, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 205, Survlen * , Blade 96, Maxbr 3 1, Diam * ,

publication, Socket 109,

Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type 9

Blade

Convex

Cat. No 292, Tell el-Dab'a F/I-d/23 Gr 1 , n3083, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 29, Survlen * , Blade 58, Socket 71,

3 71

only,

sided,

Maxbr

2 1,

Diam

1 5,

Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Blade Convex Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Associated with metal belt and other weapons. Cat. No 2 12, Tell el-Dab'a F/I- 1 /2 0 Gr 2 0, Unpublished * , * , * , * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 24, Survlen * , Blade 7 1, Socket 5 3, Maxbr 2 4, Diam 1 0, Point sharp, Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Convex Peg * , Collar * , Type 9 Cat. No 2 89, Tell el-Dab'a F/I i/22 Gr 3 1, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

s ided,

n3973,

Length 1 30, Survlen * , Blade 6 2, Socket 6 8, Maxbr 2 4, Diam 1 6, Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Blade Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type 9 , F ig. 2 4 Below large vessel in tomb chamber Type

s ided,

Convex

s ided,

1 0

The weapons assigned to Type 1 0 are differentiated from a ll the other types by virtue of the way in which the socket i s formed, by rolling up the shoulders of the blade ( see main text for discussion). Cat. No 3 20, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, Fig.1.3, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 61, Survlen * , Blade 9 0, Socket 71, Maxbr 2 2, Diam 1 4, Point sharp, Section Low f lat centre, Blade Ovoid, Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type 1 0 Cat. No 1 75, Byblos Dep Beta, n8279, Dunand 1 954, 1 87, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 26, Survlen * , Blade 7 0, Socket 5 6, Maxbr 2 3, Diam 1 4, Point sharp, Section Flat, Blade * Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 0 Cat. No 1 76, Byblos Dep Beta, n8282, Dunand 1 954, 1 87, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 33, Survlen * , Blade 5 0, Socket 8 3, Maxbr 2 0, Diam 1 4, Point sharp, Section Low V-snaped midrib, Blade Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 0 Cat. No 1 77, Byblos Dep Beta, n8283, Dunand 1 954, 1 87, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication,

3 72

Length 142, Survlen Maxbr 2 0, Diam * , Point sharp, tapering, Peg Cat.

* , No

Collar 178,

1 37,

Blade

7 2,

Socket

Section Low V-shaped midrib, * ,

Type

Byblos

70, Blade

Straight

10 Dep

Beta,

n8286,

Dunand 1954, 1 87, P l. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 126, Survlen Maxbr 2 1, Diam 1 4,

* ,

Blade

Point sharp, Section Flat, Peg * , Collar * , Type 10 Cat.

No

179,

Byblos

Dep

68,

Blade

Beta,

Socket

58,

Straight

tapering,

n8288,

Dunand 1954, 187, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 114, Survlen * , Blade 5 4, Socket 60, Maxbr 23, Diam * , Point angled, Peg * , Collar

Section * , Type

Flat, 10

Blade

Straight

tapering,

Cat. No 181, Byblos Dep Beta, n8315, Dunand 1954, 188, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 285, Survlen * , Blade 1 33, Socket 152, Maxbr 21, Diam 15, Point * , Section * , Blade * , Peg * , Collar * , Type 10 Cat. No 180, Hama T G X , 6A358, Fugmann 1958, * , P l. X , * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 123, Survlen 114, Blade 99, Socket 2 4, Maxbr 16, Diam 1 2, Point * , Section F lat, Blade * , Peg * , Collar * , Type 10, Fig. 2 3

only,

Cat. No 1428, Megiddo T 1101B Lower, M3538, Guy 1938, 67, P l. 86.3, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 205, Survlen * , Blade 1 13, Socket 92, Maxbr 31, Diam 1 6, Point sharp, Section Flat, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar Clearly absent, Type 1 0, Fig. 25 Type

11

This type contains several spearheads which clearly belong to none of the other types, but which are sufficiently well preserved so that their morphology can be established. This group should not be confused with those items which have simply been reckoned as ' unclassified'. The latter are so not on account of their morphology but owing to their poor condition or inadequate data.

3 73

Cat. No Kenyon

2 33, Jericho T J19, n26, 1965, 3 82, Fig.111.16, Toronto,

R . O. M.,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 190, Blade 88, Socket * , Maxbr 30, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 1

midrib,

Blade

Straight

Cat. No 1407, Mari Palace Ct 131, Parrot 1959, 85, Pl. XXXIII, Aleppo, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length 145, Survlen * , Blade 70, Socket 75, Maxbr 27, Diam 1 4, Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 1 Main Courtyard of Palace,

no

further details

Cat. No 2 34, Megiddo T 9 11D with burial, M2813, Guy 1938, * , Pl. 1 22.7, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 32, Blade 99, Socket * , Maxbr 2 2, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 1 Cat. No 2 49, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

only,

Blade

Ovoid,

Shamra Imprecise, * , Fig.18.21, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 95, Blade 68, Socket * , Maxbr 38, Diam * , Point * , Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Triangular, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 1 Cat. No 1421, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1975a, 3 2, Fig.3.3, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 146, Survlen * , Blade 109, Socket 37, Maxbr 24, Diam 17, Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 1 Type

Blade

Ovoid,

1 2

Weapons

which

are

clearly

' small'

spearheads

but

for which

the data is insufficiently good as to enable them to be assigned to one of the more tightly defined types. Their main use is that they provide additional data for analysis of distribution and context. 285,

Baghouz

du Mesnil du Condn Slight

Cat.

No

Buisson damage,

Length * , Maxbr 12,

Survlen Diam * ,

5 8,

Z 1 68, 1948, Measmt Blade

50, Pl. LXI, * , Relative dimensions, 42,

3 74

Socket

* ,

Point sharp, Section Sharp V-shaped midrib, sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 12 Socket pinched at j unction with blade

Blade

Convex

Cat. No 287, Baghouz Z 2 27, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, 85, Pl. LXI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 82, Survlen * , Blade 45, Socket 3 7, Maxbr 15, Diam 10, Point round, Section Sharp V-shaped sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 12

midrib,

Blade

Convex

Cat. No 203, Beth Shan T 92, Oren 1971, 1 15, F ig.2.2, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 24, Blade 101, Socket * , Maxbr 35, Diam 1 3, Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Convex sided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 12 Cat. No 351, Byblos T de Partic I II, n942, Montet 1928, 2 48, Pl. CXLIX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 118, Survlen * , Blade 60, Socket 58, Maxbr 27, Diam * , Point * , Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Convex Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 2

sided,

Cat. No 341, Megiddo T 1 100A, M3509, Guy 1 938, * , Pl. 1 45.10, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 8 5, Blade 59, Socket * , Maxbr 27, Diam * , Point Sharp, Section * , Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 350, Megiddo T 4052, C230, Loud 1948, * , Pl. 1 73.1, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 24, Blade 56, Socket * , Maxbr 22, Diam 1 1, Point sharp, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Convex s ided, Peg

* ,

Collar

* ,

Type

1 2

Cat. No 222, Qatna T I , du Mesnil du Buisson 1927, * , Pl. XIII Delta, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 74, Survlen * , Blade 4 3, Socket 3 1, Maxbr 13, Diam 6 , Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Concave sided, Peg

* ,

Collar

* ,

Type

1 2

3 75

Cat.

No

2 23,

Qatna

T I ,

du Mesnil du Buisson 1 927, * , Pl. X III Gamma, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 7 1, Survlen * , Blade 4 8, Socket 2 3, Maxbr 1 3, Diam 6 , Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Convex s ided, Peg

* ,

Collar

* ,

Type

1 2

Cat. No 3 55, Ras Shamra T 3 480 in Necr I II, Schaeffer 1 978, 4 76, Fig.10.1, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 18, Blade * , Socket * , Maxbr 3 0, Diam * , Point angled „ Section Shp midrib thin s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 2

edges,

Blade Concave

Cat. No 2 68, Ras Shamra Poche aux bronzes, RS1956, Courtois 1 962a, 3 45, * , * , Condn Very poor, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Socket * , Maxbr * , Diam * , Point sharp, Section * , Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 3 00, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 09, Blade 8 4, Socket * , Maxbr * , Diam * , Point angled, Section Low V-shaped m idrib, Blade Convex s ided, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 2 Type

1 3

This type consists of a group of weapons which can be easily seen to be related, but which cannot be defined on the basis of well preserved pieces, as no examples exist for which the data is sufficiently r eliable. Such data as can be established does however indicate that these objects are f ar more s imilar to each other than to any of the c lasses described above. Although data is patchy, the general pattern indicates medium sized weapons ( Length of B lade C . 1 50-170mm and Breadth c . 4 0-48mm) with broad, square-shouldered blades showing distinct midribs - e ither sharp-narrow or broad-rounded forms. Only one example has a well preserved socket ( No. 2 57). This i s 1 08mm l ong i .e. around two thirds of the length of the blade and shows a d iameter of c16-18mm, rather l ike those of Types 3 and 4 , confirming the p lace of these weapons as "medium s ized" spearheads. Several weapons from Ras Shamra, with s lightly smaller, round shouldered blades are a lso assigned to this group, as despite the differences they seem more c losely related to the l arger pieces than to any other type.

3 76

Cat. No Dunand

2 39, Byblos 1954, 3 49,

Dep Pi, Pl. LXX,

n10232, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 15, Blade * , Socket * , Maxbr * , Diam * , Point sharp, sided, Peg 2 39

* , i s

Cat. No Dunand

Section

High

Collar * , Type 1 of 3 such in 240, Byblos 1954, 3 49,

narrow midrib,

Blade

only,

Convex

1 3 group

Dep Pi, Pl. LXX,

n10230, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 93, Blade 168, Socket * , Maxbr 45, Diam * , Point sharp, Section High narrow midrib, Blade Convex sided, Peg Cat.

* , No

Dunand

Collar 241, 1954,

* ,

Type

Byblos 3 49,

1 3 Dep

Pl.

Pi, LXX,

n10229, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 206, Blade 1 47, Maxbr 47, Diam * , Point sharp, sided, Peg

* ,

Cat. No Guiges

Collar

Section * ,

High

Type

215, Lebe'a 1937, 7 3,

For comparison Socket * ,

narrow midrib,

Blade

only,

Convex

1 3

T 25 burial Fig.34C, * ,

4 ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 230, Survlen * , Blade 1 24, Socket 106, Maxbr 47, Diam * , Point * , Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Heavily concave, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 3 Mostly MB I I material, though present. At side of burial

a little

MBI

is

possibly

Cat. No 257, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS4540, Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.19.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 264, Survlen * , Blade 156, Socket 108, Maxbr 33, Diam 18, Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 3

Blade

Straight

Cat. No 258, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS4506, Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.18.27, * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Socket * Maxbr * , Diam * , Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 3

3 77

Cat. No 260, Ras Schaeffer 1949,

Shamra Imprecise, * , Fig.18.10, * ,

RS4505,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Relative Length * , Survlen * , Blade * , Socket * , Maxbr * , Diam * , Point round, Section Low broad midrib, tapering, Peg holes visible, Collar Simple band,

dimensions,

Blade Type

Straight 13

Cat. No 2 61, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS4478, Schaeffer 1949, * , Fig.19.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 162, Survlen * , Blade 1 23, Socket 39, Maxbr 30, Diam 1 2, Point sharp, Section Low broad midrib, Blade Straight tapering, Peg holes Cat.

No

visible,

2 70,

Ras

Collar

Shamra

Simple Sond

band,

Sud

Type

13

Bibltqe,

Courtois 1962b, 459, Fig.48B, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 172, Survlen * , Blade 1 20, Socket 62, Maxbr * , Diam 15, Point sharp, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade tapering, Peg * , Collar * , Type 1 3

Straight

Cat. No 2 71, Ras Shamra Sond Sud Bibltqe, Courtois 1962b, 459, Fig.48A, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 72, Blade 1 20, Socket * , Maxbr 40, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Straight tapering, Peg * , Collar Below pile of Cat.

No

Gautier

2 26,

* , Type 1 3 stones in a large Tell

1 895,

* ,

et-Tin Fig. on

pit

Tomb, p9,

2nd Rt,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 2 71, Blade 1 69,

* ,

For comparison Socket * ,

Maxbr 38, Diam * , Point sharp, Section Narrow round midrib, tapering, Peg * , Collar Clearly absent, Type 1 3 Unclassified

Blade

only,

Straight

Items

Cat. No 2 29, Alalakh, VII Palace Rm Woolley, 1955, 2 82, Pl. LXXI, *

1 1

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 78 Survlen * , Blade 3 9, Socket 3 9 Maxbr 18, Diam * Point * , Section * , Blade * Peg * , Collar * , Type * Used by Woolley to i llustrate

several

3 78

found

at

the

site.

Cat. No 227, Unpublished,

Amrit, Context Unknown * , * , * , Damascus

Condn Slight damage, Length * Survlen * , Maxbr * , Diam *

Measmt Cannot assess, Blade * , Socket *

Point sharp, Section Concave lozenge, Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type * Cat. No 228, Amrit, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Damascus Condn Slight damage, Measmt * , Length * Survlen * , Blade * , Socket Maxbr * , Diam * Point sharp, Section * , Blade Peg * , Collar * , Type * Possibly

from Tomb

8 ,

not

Blade

Ovoid

*

Straight

tapering

certain

Cat. No 1399, Baghouz, Z 59 du Mesnil du Buisson, 1948, 69, Pl. LXI, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length 96 Survlen Maxbr * , Diam 14 Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * , From a Dolmen Cat. No Dunand,

1402, 1954,

* ,

Blade

* , Blade Type *

53,

Socket

only,

4 3

*

Byblos, Dep Gamma, 191, Pl. LVI, *

n8439

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 270 Survlen * , Blade 106, Socket 163 Maxbr 30, Diam 1 9 Point sharp, Section Concave tapering Peg holes visible, Collar * ,

lozenge, Type

265,

Blade

1 43,

restored,

Socket

Point * , Section Low broad midrib, Blade P eg holes visible, Collar * , Type * Cat. No Dunand,

1 404, 1 954,

Byblos, Dep 192, * , *

Gamma,

Straight

*

Cat. No 1 403, Byblos, Dep Gamma, n8440 Dunand, 1954, 1 92, Pl. LVI, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately Length 275 Survlen Maxbr 25, Diam *

Blade

1 33

Straight

tapering

n8441

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * Survlen 250, Blade * , Socket * Maxbr * , Diam * Point * , Section Low broad midrib, Blade Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type * Cat. No Dunand,

2 44, Byblos 1 954, 1 87,

, Dep Beta, * , *

Straight

n8299

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, Length 1 96 Survlen * , Blade * , Socket * Maxbr * , Diam *

3 79

tapering

Point sharp, tapering

Section

Low V-shaped

Peg holes visible, Collar * , 1 of 10 such from this group Cat. No Dunand,

Type

352, Byblos, Dep Beta, 1954, 1 87, Pl. LVIII,

Peg

* ,

Cat.

Collar

No

353,

Section * ,

Byblos,

Straight

*

publication, Socket 61

Low V-shaped

Type

Blade

n8285 *

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 1 33 Survlen * , Blade 72, Maxbr 2 3, Diam 1 3 Point sharp, tapering

midrib,

midrib,

Blade

Straight

* Dep

Beta,

n8280

Dunand, 1954, 1 87, Pl. LVIII, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 35 Survlen * , Blade 76, Socket 59 Maxbr * , Diam 1 3 Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Peg * , Collar * , Type * Cat. No Dunand,

3 54, Byblos, Dep Beta, 1954, 187, Pl. LVIII,

n8281 *

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 151 Survlen * , Blade 78, Maxbr 2 2, Diam 1 3

publication, Socket 73

Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, sided Peg * , Collar * , Type * Cat.

No

1 401,

Byblos,

Dep

Blade

Beta,

Blade

Convex

n8300

Dunand, 1954, 1 87, * , * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 1 81, Blade * , Socket * Maxbr * , Diam * Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * ,

* , Blade Type *

1 of 4 such from the the medial line Cat. No Dunand,

Straight

group.

only,

tapering

Incised

lines

run

parallel

2 43, Byblos, Dep Eta, n9474 1954, 2 87, Fig.317, *

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length 112 Survlen * , Blade * , Socket * Maxbr 25, Diam * Point * , Section Rounded Midrib, Blade Parallel sided Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type * 1 of 8 such from the group Cat.

No

Dunand,

2 48, 1939,

Byblos, 2 83,

Walls Pl.

XI-XX,

XCV,

n4059

*

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 95 Survlen 1 35, Blade * , Socket * Maxbr 2 4, Diam * Point

round,

Section

* ,

Blade

Convex

3 80

sided

only,

to

Peg

* ,

A pair

Collar of

* ,

Type

incised

*

l ines

run

along

each

side

of

the

midrib.

Cat. No 1395, Carchemish, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Ist. Anc. Or. Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 223 Survlen * , Blade 119, Socket 104 Maxbr 35, Diam 20 Point * , Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Convex Peg No holes, Collar Clearly absent, Type * Not mentioned in Carchemish Report

sided

Cat. No 231, Golan Dolmens, No.10 Epstein, 1985, 4 3, Fig.2.9, * Condn Substantial Length * Survlen Maxbr 30, Diam * Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * ,

damage, Measmt For comparison 1 70, Blade 1 27, Socket * Shp midrib Type *

thin

edges,

Blade

only,

*

Cat. No 216, Lebea, T 1 Ch C Guiges, 1937, 3 9, Fig.4D, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * Survlen 1 48, Blade 1 24, Socket * Maxbr 31, Diam * Point round, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Straight tapering Peg

* ,

Collar

* ,

Type

*

Cat. No 338, Megiddo, T 912D, M2957 Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 1 33.7, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 115 Survlen * , Blade 56, Socket 59 Maxbr 20, Diam 1 1 Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade tapering Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type

Straight

Cat. No 3 42, Megiddo, T 1100B, M3492 Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 1 46.3, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 180 Survlen * , Blade 9 8, Socket 82 Maxbr Point

30, Diam 1 1 angled, Section

tapering Peg * , Collar

Simple

Low V-shaped midrib, band,

Type

Blade

Straight

*

Cat. No 3 43, Megiddo, T 1100B, M3493 Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 1 46.4, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length Maxbr Point sided Peg * ,

191

Survlen

30, Diam 1 1 sharp, Section Collar

Simple

* ,

Blade

98,

Socket

9 3

Low V-shaped midrib, band,

Type

3 81

*

Blade

Convex

Cat. Guy,

No 3 44, Megiddo, T 9 11A1, M2761 1938, * , Pl. 118.6, Jerusalem, Rockefeller

Condn

Good,

Measmt

Accurately

restored,

Length * Survlen 118, Blade 65, Socket * Maxbr 2 1, Diam * Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade sided Peg * , Cat.

Collar

No

3 45,

* ,

Type

Megiddo,

Convex

* T 9 11A1,

M2772

Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 118.8, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 90 Survlen * , Blade 50, Socket 40 Maxbr Point

2 1, Diam 1 1 sharp, Section

tapering Peg * , Collar Cat. Guy,

* ,

Type

Low V-shaped midrib,

Blade

*

No 3 46, Megiddo, T 911A1, M2762 1938, * , Pl. 1 18.7, Jerusalem, Rockefeller

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 20 Survlen * , Blade 62, Socket 58 Maxbr 2 4, Diam 1 3 Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade sided Peg * , Collar * , Type * Cat.

Straight

No

3 48,

Megiddo,

T 911D

into

floor,

Convex

M2815

Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 122.6, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 11 Survlen * , Blade 55, Socket 56 Maxbr 16, Diam 1 1 Point * , Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade * Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type * Cat. No 3 39, Megiddo, T 912B, M3042 Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 1 25.12, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 9 3, Blade 45, Socket * Maxbr 2 0, Diam * Point sharp, Section Shp midrib sided Peg * , Collar * , Type *

thin

edges,

only,

Blade

Cat. No 3 40, Megiddo, T 1100A, M3512 Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 145.11, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 42 Survlen * , Blade 72, Socket 70 Maxbr 3 1, Diam 1 0 Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade sided Peg Cat.

* , No

Collar 3 47,

* ,

Type

Megiddo,

* T 9 11C

Guy, 1938, 67, Pl. 1 20.13, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication,

382

Convex

Convex

Length 116 Survlen Maxbr 1 8, Diam 1 2

* ,

Blade

61,

Point angled, sided

Section

Shp midrib

Peg

* ,

*

Cat.

* , No

Collar 349,

Type

Megiddo,

T 911D

Socket thin

MBII

55

edges,

material,

Blade

Convex

M2819

Guy, 1 938, * , Pl. 1 22.5, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 106 Survlen * , Blade 51, Socket 55 Maxbr 19, Diam 10 Point sharp, Section Shp midrib thin sided Peg * , Collar Twine binding, Type * Cat. No 336, Megiddo, BB XII Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 1 73.7, *

013,

edges,

Blade

Convex

c93

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * Survlen 1 05, Blade * , Socket * Maxbr 27, Diam * Point * , Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Straight tapering Peg * , Collar * , Type * Cat. No 337, Megiddo, N=3106, b1006 Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 1 73.9, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately Length 145 Survlen Maxbr 31, Diam 12

* ,

Blade

Point angled, sided

Section

Peg * , Collar From the fill

Clearly absent, of a room

83,

Shp midrib

restored,

Socket thin

Type

62

edges,

Blade

Convex

*

Cat. No 1411, Megiddo, - 2 048, c65 Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 1 73.10, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 8 1, Blade 65, Socket * Maxbr 19, Diam *

only,

Point * , Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Straight tapering Peg * , Collar * , Type * From group of material found below Temple 2 048 Cat. No 1408, Megiddo, T 5181, d523 Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 1 73.4, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * Survlen 9 8, Blade 64, Socket * Maxbr 18, Diam * Point round, Section Low broad Peg * , Collar * , Type *

midrib,

Cat. No 1409, Megiddo, E=5061, Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 1 73.6, *

d265

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * Survlen 1 06, Blade 82 „

3 83

Blade

Concave

For comparison Socket *

sided

only,

Maxbr

2 6,

Diam

*

Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * ,

Low broad Type *

There is a Type 15 tanged from this locus. Part of Cat.

No

1410,

Megiddo,

W=T

midrib,

Blade

*

spearhead and several other a deliberate deposit ? 3 157,

Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 173.5, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Length * Survlen 1 14, Blade 92, Maxbr 2 2, Diam * Point sharp, Section * , Blade Peg * , Collar * , Type *

finds

b1094 For comparison Socket *

only,

*

Cat. No 1 398, Megiddo, N=5184, d778 Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 173.2, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 69, Blade 45, Socket * Maxbr 1 8, Diam * Point * , Section * Blade * Peg * , Collar * , Type *

only,

Cat. No 356, Pella, T 20, NO. 3 2185 McNicoll, Smith and, 1982, 43, Pl. 111.28, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 32 Survlen * , Blade 66, Socket 66 Maxbr 2 4, Diam 1 2 Point round, Section * , Blade Straight tapering Peg holes visible, Collar * , Type * Cat. No 251, Unpublished,

Ras Shamra, Context * , * , * , Louvre

Unknown,

RS6323

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 155, Blade * , Socket * Maxbr 3 4, Diam * Point sharp, tapering Peg

* ,

Collar

Section * ,

Type

Shp midrib thin

edges,

only,

Blade

*

Cat. No 259, Ras Shamra, Necr III Schaeffer, 1978, * , Fig.10.1, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 1 21, Blade 97, Socket * Maxbr 3 0, Diam * Point angled, Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade Peg * , Collar * , Type * Cat. No 265, Ras Schaeffer, 1978,

Straight

only,

*

Shamra, Necr III * , Fig.6.3, *

Condn Very poor, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length * Survlen * , Blade * , Socket * Maxbr * , Diam * Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * , Cat.

No

298,

Concave Type *

Ruweise,

lozenge,

T 62

3 84

B lade

Convex

sided

Guiges,

1938,

3 9,

F ig.64,

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 110 Survlen * , Blade 44, Socket 66 Maxbr 2 2, Diam 1 3 Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * , Cat. No Chehab,

Low V-shaped midrib, Type *

Blade

Heavily

concave

2 30, Sin el-Fil, Tomb 1939, 807, Fig.10b, *

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 1 20, Blade 100, Socket * Maxbr * , Diam * Point * , Section * , Blade * Peg * , Collar * , Type * 1 of 2 noted in publication Cat. No 1422, Dever, 1975a,

Sinjil, Bought 3 2, Fig.3.2,

Jerusalem,

only,

H . U. C.

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 144 Survlen * , Blade 9 3, Socket 51 Maxbr 37, Diam 12 Point angled, Section Shp midrib thin edges, Blade Convex sided Peg * , Collar Simple band, Type * Published drawing shows an ' extension' grafted onto the socket Cat. No 357, Tell Albright, 1938,

Beit Mirsim, D or 5 2, Pl. 41.18, *

C ,

SE

2 3

e or

D ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 98 Survlen * , Blade 5 3, Socket 45 Maxbr 19, Diam 8 Point angled, Section * , Blade Straight tapering Peg * , Collar * , Type * Unreliable context Cat.

No

1394,

Tell

et-Tin,

Tomb

Unpublished, * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 8 4, Blade * , Socket * Maxbr 25, Diam * Point * , Section Round medial zone, Blade Peg * , Collar * , Type *

*

Cat. No 1396, Tell et-Tin, Tomb Unpublished, * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Mus. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * Survlen 1 20, Blade 97, Socket * Maxbr * , Diam * Point * , Section Low V-shaped midrib, Blade * Peg

* ,

Collar

* ,

Type

Mus. For comparison

Length

Socket

Survlen

1 08,

only,

*

Cat. No 1397, Tell et-Tin, Tomb Unpublished, * , * , * , Ist. Arch. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt *

only,

Blade

96,

3 85

*

only,

VII-2

Maxbr * , Diam * Point * , Section Peg * , Collar * ,

Low V-shaped midrib, Type *

Blade

Cat. No 1 405, Yabrud, Context Unknown Assaf, 1967, * , Taf. 1 .4, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Relative

dimensions,

Length 96 Survlen * , Blade 57, Socket 3 9 Maxbr 1 9, Diam 8 Point sharp, Section * , Blade Straight tapering Peg * , Collar * , Type * Cat. No 1 406, Yabrud, Context Assaf, 1967, * , Taf. 1 .5, * Condn Slight damage, Length * Survlen * , Maxbr * , Diam *

Unknown

Measmt Relative dimensions, Blade * , Socket *

Point sharp, Section Low V-shaped midrib, tapering Peg * , Collar * , Type *

3 86

Blade

Straight

NARROW DAGGERS SURVLEN LENGTH MAXBR MAXTH TANGFORM BLSHAPE SECTION HANDLE RIVETSET

' Surviving l ength' ' Overall Length' ' Maximum Breadth of B lade' ' Maximum Thickness of B lade' ' Form of Tang or Butt' ' Shape of Blade' ' Cross Section of Blade' ' Form of Handle' ' Layout of Rivets'

As a result of preliminary analysis the variables was selected for clustering.

following

set of

Metric variables 1 . 2 . 3 .

Overall Length Maximum Breadth Maximum Thickness

Categorical 4 . 5 .

variables

Shape of Butt Cross-section of

Blade

It i s explained in the main text that ten clusters were detected, but that these were combined to form Types 1 -5, and Type 6 a collection of oddities ( see f ig. 6 2). The reasoning i s outlined briefly here, full details are provided e lsewhere ( Philip 1 988a).

7

The original clusters were examined in order to assess the distribution of the defining variables within each, which permitted the combinination of several groups. For example c lusters 4 and 6 ( of the original ten) were differentiated only on the basis of Cross-section of Blade ( lentoid and f lat l ozenge-shaped respectively). They were indistinguishable on all other variables. Given that these weapons were hammered into shape it i s unlikely that this particular difference i s s ignificant. Therefore the two groups were combined to form a larger group Type 2 . Type

1

Narrow-bladed daggers with long hilt-plates. Examples are d istinguished by having a full-length hilt-plate bearing several pairs of r ivets and a l ine of s ingle rivets above these, making these weapons sufficiently different i n terms of manufacturing process, to warrant their recognition as a separate type. The long hilt plate should not disguise their essential s imilarity to other types within the narrow dagger series. One example shows traces of slight f langing a long one s ide of the butt. This occurs sporadically on daggers of several other types and brings to mind the fact that f langed daggers from Syrian contexts appear as early a s the M .B.I period. In terms of other variables such as 3 87

length, are

breadth

closest

to

and the

cross-section more

developed

of

blade

Types:

these 4 ,

weapons

5 and

7 .

Cat. No 926, Enan with burial H1, Eisenberg 1985, * , F i g.6.34, * , I . D. A. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 2 67, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Straight

Full Hilt Tapering,

Plate,

Section

Flat

Lozenge,

Rivetset At waist

Linear Setting, Handle * , Type 1 of burial H1, point down - on belt

only, B lshape

?

Cat. No 927, Enan with burial H1, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.7.35, * , I . D. A. Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 281, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 6 , Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section Concave Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Linear Setting, Handle * , Type 1 At waist of burial H1, point down - on belt ?

Blshape

Cat. No 928, Enan with burial H1, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.6.29, * , I . D. A. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 252, Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 5 , Tangform Straight

Full Hilt Tapering,

Plate,

Section

Lozenge,

Blshape

Cat. No 929, Enan with burial H1, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.6.33, * , I . D. A. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 2 14, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 4 , Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section F lat Lozenge,

Blshape

Rivetset * , Handle * , Type Near feet of burial H1

Straight Rivetset Cat.

No

Tapering, * , Handle 925,

Enan

E isenberg 1985, Condn Broken but

* ,

Type

with

Flat

1

1

burial

H2,

* , Fig.6.32, * , I . D. A. adequate, Measmt For comparison

Length * , Survlen 256, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section F lat Straight Tapering, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 1

5 , Lozenge,

only, Blshape

Cat. No 921, Enan Tomb, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.6.30, * , I . D. A. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 48, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset

Linear

Setting,

Handle

* ,

Type

1

Cat. No 922, Enan Tomb, E isenberg 1985, * , Fig.6.31, * , I . D. A. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison 3 88

only,

Length * , Survlen 2 46, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth Tangform Full Hilt P late, Section Flat Straight Tapering, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 1 Cat. No 923, Enan Tomb, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.7.38,

* ,

6 , Lozenge,

I . D. A.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 308, Survlen 297, Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 5 , Tangform Straight

Full Hilt Tapering,

Plate,

Rivetset Linear Setting, Wood traces on Blade

Section Handle

Cat. No 924, Enan Tomb, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.7.36,

* ,

Blshape

Flat

* ,

Type

restored,

Lozenge, 1 ,

Fig.

Blshape 2 6

I . D. A.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 96, Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 5 , Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset

Linear

Setting,

Handle

* ,

Type

1

Cat. No 930, Enan Tomb, Eisenberg 1985, * , Fig.7.37, * , I . D. A. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 2 65, Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 4 , Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Linear Setting, Handle * , Type 1 Wood Type

Blshape

2

This type is essentially that which was classed as the ' simple' form in the earlier survey ( Philip b , in press). It consists of daggers which are generally smaller than those belonging to other types - mean length 2 35mm, mean max breadth 28mm, and which show a simple lentoid or f lat lozenge-shaped cross-section. The butt is generally square or trapezoidal with four, conical with three rivets

or occasionally in a triangular

six rivets, pattern.

Cat. No 7 61, Azor Niche „ N1/104 Ben-Tor 1975, 2 6, Fig.12.4, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 262, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 4 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type Dagger from niche, not main burial

2

Cat. No 7 13, Azor Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 01, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 2 3 89

Blshape

or

Cat. No 7 14, Azor Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 68, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth Tangform Trapez Parallel Rivetset

Butt,

Section

Sided, Four Square,

Handle

Flat * ,

5 ,

Lozenge,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 7 15, Azor Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 185, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 7 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 2

Blshape

Cat. No 7 47, Bab edh-Dhra T D 1 „ NO17 Rast and Schaub 1978, 30, Fig.26, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 250, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Rivetset

Square Butt, Tapering, Four Square,

Cat. No 744, Unpublished

Section Handle

Lentoid * ,

Type

Section,

Blshape

2

Bab edh-Dhra Context Unknown, * , * , * , Amman, N . M.,

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 24, Maxth * , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Parallel Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat.

No

746,

Bab edh-Dhra

T A 41,

Lapp 1966, 107, Page 107, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 00, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Square Butt, Straight tapering, Rivetset Four Square,

Section Handle

Lentoid * ,

Type

Section,

Blshape

2

Cat. No 779, Beer Resisim Cairn 101, Cohen and Dever 1 980, 5 3, Fig.16, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 158, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth 4 , Tangform Straight

Square Butt, Tapering,

Rivetset

Two

Rows

of

Section Three,

Flat

Handle

Lozenge, * ,

Type

Blshape 2

Cat. No 712, Bet Gamli'el Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length

2 65,

Tangform Parallel Rivetset Cat.

No

Survlen

* ,

Square Butt, Sided, Four Square, 789,

Byblos

Maxbr Section Handle

XXI

2 8,

Maxth

Flat * ,

10.18, 3 90

7 ,

Lozenge,

Type

2

N17219,

Blshape

Dunand 1958, 906, Fig.1062, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From

publication,

Length 187, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 "Below Temple of the Obelisks" Cat. Ory

No 1319, El 1 946, 41,

Condn Good, Length 200,

* ,

Jisr Early tombs, * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

Tangform Straight

Square Butt, Tapering,

Rivetset

Two

Pairs

2 2,

Section

Plus

One,

Maxth

Lentoid Handle

4 , Section,

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 767, Fureidis Tomb, Hess 1980, 3 6, Fig.1.9, I . D. A., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 187, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Rivetset

* , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Four Square, Handle * , Type 2

Cat. No 770, Ga'led T . X , Meir 1974, * , Fig.8.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt

From

* ,

publication,

Length 234, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Rivetset

Tapering, Triangular,

Cat. No 710, Unpublished

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

Hanita Context Unknown, * , * , * , Kib. Hanita,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 153, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 2 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 2 Cat.

No

725,

Hanita

Context Unknown,

Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hanita, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 258, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Rivetset

Tapering, Four Square,

Blshape

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 1 288, Hazorea Tombs, Kib. Hazorea Unpublished, * , * , * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length 285, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 4, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Rivetset Cat. No Epstein

Four

Butt,

Square,

768, Ja'adan 1 985, 4 0,

Section Handle

Flat * ,

Dolmen, Pl. IX.19,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 155, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 7, 3 91

Lozenge,

Type

Blshape

2

* , publication, Maxth * ,

1

Tangform Straight

Curved Butt, Tapering,

Rivetset

Triangular,

Cat.

No

7 26,

Unpublished Condn Good,

Jalama * , * , Measmt

Section Handle

Flat

* ,

Lozenge,

Type

2

Context Unknown, * , Jerusalem, Absolute,

Rockefeller,

Length 2 21, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat. No Kenyon

Blshape

Blshape

826, Jericho T A23, Ni, 1960, 194, Fig.70.6,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 209, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth * , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 2 In hands of crouched burail, point upwards Cat. No 825, Jericho T A62, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 250, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Rivetset

Tapering, Four Square,

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

Blshape

2

Cat. No 811, Jericho T A95, Ni, Kenyon 1960, 191, Fig.70.4, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 251, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Above

head

of

Blshape

burial

Cat. No 822, Jericho T Li, N2, Kenyon 1965, 54, Fig.24. 8, No Longer any Record, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 170, Survlen * , Maxbr 20, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Metal

studs,

aml

bones

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

found

Cat. No 821, Jericho T A110, Ni, Kenyon 1960, 196, Fig.70.10, Leeds University, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 198, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat. No Kenyon

820, Jericho T A91, N1 1960, 194, Fig.70.7, Dublin " 3 92

Blshape

Condn Good, Length 244,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

3 0,

Maxth

* ,

Tangform Curved Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 2 By arms of burial Cat. No Kenyon

819, Jericho T L5, N1 1965, 1 55, Fig.41.16,

Leeds,

Blshape

City Museum,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 234, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth * , Tangform Sided,

Square

Butt,

Section

Flat

Lozenge,

Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type Ami bones fd w burial. Dagger lying

2 across

Blshape

adult

Concave

burial

Cat. No 818, Jericho T L6, Ni, Kenyon 1965, 5 4, Fig.24.6, Cambridge, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 226, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, By waist of burial

Section Handle

Lentoid

Section,

Additional

Rivets,

Cat. No 817, Jericho T A113, Ni Kenyon 1960, 1 93, * , Toronto, R . O. M., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 320, Survlen 3 04, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat. No 815, Jericho T A82, Ni Kenyon 1960, 1 90, Fig. 70.3, Edinburgh, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 250, Survlen 2 29, Maxbr 2 6, Maxth 6 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, By waist

of

Handle

* ,

Type

Curved

Butt,

Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Aml

bones

Cat. No Kenyon

Type

2

restored, Blshape

restored, Blshape

2

burial

Cat. No 814, Jericho T B14, Ni Kenyon 1960, 1 91, Fig. 70.5, Sydney, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From Length 2 44, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth Tangform

Blshape

Section Handle

Flat

publication, * ,

Lozenge,

Additional

Blshape

Rivets,

Type

2

w burial

813, Jericho T A26 b Ni, 1960, 1 96, Fig.70.8, Birmingham

City Museum,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 292, Survlen 2 45, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 5 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Concave

Sided, 3 93

Rivetset By waist Cat. No Kenyon

Four Square, of burial A

Handle

* ,

Type

8 12, Jericho T F5, Ni 1960, 1 74, Fig.66.3, London,

2

Inst.

of

Arch,

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 16, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat.

No

809,

Jericho

Unknown

Kenyon 1960, 1 91, Fig.70.4, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Context Amman,

N . M.,

Length 2 44, Survlen * , Maxbr 30, Maxth 5 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square,

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 808, Jericho T A111 „ Ni Kenyon 1 960, 1 89, Fig.70.2, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 08, Survlen 204, Maxbr 26, Maxth 5 , Tangform * , Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Tapering, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 2 By waist of burial

Straight

Cat. No 805, Jericho T K26, N2 Kenyon 1965, 8 3, Fig.41.1, Atlanta, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 280, Survlen 2 70, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Cat.

No

Four 8 03,

Square, Jericho

Handle

Additional

Rivets,

Type

2

T 351,

Garstang 1 935, 1 63, Pl. XXXIV.41, Aberdeen, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 14, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering „ Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 , Fig. 27 There is MBII mtl from deepest layer of tomb. Prob disturbed/mixed Cat.

No

8 02,

Jericho

T L3 „

Ni

Kenyon 1965, 5 6, Fig.24. 9, Leiden, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 08, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Rivetset Four Square,

Section * , Blshape Handle * , Type 2

With traces of studded strap By right forearm of burial Cat. No Kenyon

or

additional

8 01, Jericho T M13, Ni 1965, 151, Fig.41.12, Amman, 394

Concave

N . M.,

rivets

Sided, at

butt

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 271, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Tangform

Square

Butt,

Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Ami bones in tomb

Section Handle

publication, Maxth * ,

Flat

Lozenge,

Additional

Blshape

Rivets,

Type

Concave 2

Cat. No 794, Jericho T A131 it, Ni, Kenyon 1965, 5 2, Fig.24.4, Birmingham City Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 329, Survlen * , Maxbr 29, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 At chest of burial Cat. No 795, Jericho T A131 rt, N2, Kenyon 1965, 5 2, Fig.24. 5, Birmingham City Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 284, Survlen * , Maxbr 30, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 By arm of burial, point towards shoulder Cat. No 793, Jericho T A132, Ni Kenyon 1965, 5 1, Fig.24.3, Birmingham City Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 193, Survlen * , Maxbr 24, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 , Fig. 27 In front of burial point downward Cat. No 792, Jericho T A129, Ni Kenyon 1965, 5 1, Fig.24.2, Toronto, R . O. M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 277, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth * , Tangform Curved Butt, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, At chest of burial

Section Handle

Flat * ,

Lozenge,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 786, Jericho T A128 adult, Ni Kenyon 1965, 5 1, Fig.24.1, Melbourne, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 249, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Concave Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 At chest of burial Cat. No Kenyon

Blshape

7 85, Jericho T A28, Ni 1960, 1 98, Fig.70.11, Sydney,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 246, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape 3 95

Concave Rivetset At chest

Sided, Two Rows of of burial

Three,

Handle

* ,

Type

2

Cat. No 784, Kamid el-Loz Tomb, Mansfeld 1970, 124, Taf. 3 8.4, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Lenath 192, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Triangular, Handle With very long toggle pin

* ,

Type

2

Cat. No 777, Kerazeh Dolmen, Turville-Petre 1931, * , Pl. IV.5, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From Length 245, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 1, Maxth

publication, * ,

Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2

Straight

Cat. No 778, Kerazeh Dolmen, Turville-Petre 1931, * , Pl. IV.4, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 250, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Straight Rivetset

Tapering, Four Square,

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 758, Khirbet Ibrekhtias T 10, N2 Edelstein 1971, * , Fig.15, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 21, Survlen * , Maxbr 30, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Rivetset Cat. Dever Condn

No

Tapering, Four Square, 771,

Khirbet

Handle

* ,

Type

el-Kirmil

2

bought,

1975, 3 2*, Fig.6.8, Jerusalem, Good, Measmt Absolute,

H . U. C.,

Length 283, Survlen * , Maxbr 29, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Rivetset Cat.

No

Tapering, Four Square, 787,

Megiddo

Handle T 3 1,

* ,

Type

Blshape

2

X516,

Guy 1 938, 106, Pl. 156.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 166, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 7, Maxth 4 , Tangform Straight

Curved Butt, Tapering,

Rivetset

Triangular,

Cat.

No

788,

Megiddo

Section Handle

Lentoid

* ,

T 1 101B

Type Lower,

Section,

2 M3539,

Guy 1938, * , Pl. 86.4, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 10, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth 5 , 3 96

Blshape

Tangform Straight

Square Butt, Tapering,

Section

Rivetset

Four

Handle

Square,

Lentoid * ,

Cat. No 724, Nazareth ' Illit Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Type

Section,

Blshape

2

Tomb,

Length 242, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2

Blshape

Cat. No 1392, Numeira Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Kerak, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 325, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 5 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat. No 732, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971, * , Fig.1.12, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 198, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Sided, Rivetset Four Blade wear is

Square, Handle one-sided

* ,

Type

Concave

2

Cat. No 734, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971, * , Fig.1.10, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 274, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 4, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Parallel-Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Cat. No 735, Dever 1971,

Section Handle

Flat * ,

Lozenge,

Type

Sinjil Bought, * , Fig.1.11, Jerusalem,

Blshape

2

H . U. C.,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 257, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Concave Sided, Rivetset Triangular,

Handle

* ,

Type

2

Cat. No 7 36, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971, 3 3, * , Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 238, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth 4 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 2 Cat. No Petrie

687, Tell el-' Ajjul 1 932, * , P l. LX.47,

T 1526, Jerusalem,

Blshape

Rockefeller,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 164, Survlen * , Maxbr 29, Maxth 4 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, 3 97

Blshape

Blshape

Straight Rivetset

Tapering, Four Square,

Handle

* ,

Type

2

Cat. No 689, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1527, Petrie 1 932, * , Pl. X .49, Newcastle, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 289, Survlen * , Maxbr 41, Maxth Tangform Trapez Butt, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square,

Section Handle

Flat * ,

4 ,

Lozenge,

Type

Blshape

2

Cat. No 695, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1570, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI.54, London, Inst. of Arch, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 290, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 , Fig. 27 Cat. No 698, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1531, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI.57, Newcastle, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 257, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 6 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Cat. No de Vaux

706, Tell and Steve

el-Far'ah 1949, * ,

Blshape

( N) T 3 „ A105 F680 Fig.4.7, Louvre,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 155, Survlen * , Maxbr 25, Maxth * , Tangform Straight

Square Butt, Tapering,

Section

Flat

Lozenge,

Blshape

Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Re-used Chalco tomb, not fully publ'd Cat. No 775, Tell en-Nasbeh Tomb 7 , McCown 1947, 227, Pl. 104.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 62, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 2 Type The type down

Blshape

3 key

criteria

for

assigning

objects

to

this

particular

is the possession of a pair of incised lines running the centre of the blade. Besides bearing incised

decoration, members of Type 3 are both longer, mean length 2 77mm, and broader, mean max breadth 3 0mm, than those of Type 2 . Most examples have trapezoidal or shouldered butts secured by five or six rivets. One example from Ma'ayan Barukh ( Amiran 1961, Pl. XII.8. No. 2 ) had traces of f langing along one side of each face of the butt. Cat.

No

762,

Ain

es-Samiyeh

T 2 04, 3 98

Shantur and Labadi 1 971, 77, Fig.4.19, Jerusalem, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 12, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth 5 , Tangform * , Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 3 Flange traces round tang Cat.

No

763,

Ain

es-Samiyeh

I . M.,

*/

Bought,

Dever 1972, * , Ref to 7 .1, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 286, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 4 , Tangform Rivetset

* , Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 3

Gr and Rib broader executed Cat. No 764, Dever 1972,

than

usual

Ain es-Samiyeh * , Ref to 7 .1,

for

EB-MB,

Bought, Jerusalem,

*/

straighter,

well

H . U. C.,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 270, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Irreg grooves, marks thin Cat. No 765, Dever 1972,

Butt,

Section

Double

Gr

Three, Handle * , Type 3 vis where tool slipped,

Ain es-Samiyeh 1 12, Fig.7.1,

and Rib,

butt

edges

Bought, Private Collection,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 295, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 4 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One,

Section Handle

Double * ,

Type

Gr

and Rib,

3

Cat. No 781, Degania A Tomb, Kochavi 1973, * , Fig.6.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 132, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 3, Maxth * , Tangform Square Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Cat.

No

Two 741,

Rows

of

El-Gib

Pritchard 1963, Condn Good, Measmt Length

322,

Survlen

Tangform Trapez Concave Sided,

Three,

Handle

T 4 3 „

B315

49, Fig.47.13, Absolute, * ,

Butt,

Maxbr

3 4,

Section

Maxth

Double

Cat. No 742, El-Gib T 5 2, B337, Pritchard 1963, 55, Fig.58.6, Good,

Measmt

Type

Amman,

Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle The grooves are cut-in neatly

Condn

* ,

* ,

Blshape

3

N . M. /

6 ,

Gr

and

Type

Amman,

Rib, 3 ,

Blshape

Fig.

2 8

N . M.,

Absolute,

Length 3 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth 5 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section Double Gr and Concave Sided, 3 99

Rib,

Blshape

v .

Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type 3 Light in weight, grooves crudely cut-in. Beside j avelin, pointing in opposite direction Cat. No 743, El-Gib T 50 „ B328 Pritchard 1963, 5 4, Fig.56.9, Amman, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length

255,

Survlen

Tangform Shldrd Concave Sided,

* ,

Butt,

Maxbr

3 2,

Section

Maxth

Double

N . M., 3 ,

Gr

and

Rib,

Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type 3 Lt in wt, grooves run fairly straight but vary Beside javelin Cat.

No

769,

Ga'led

T .

Blshape

in

width

V ,

Meir 1974, * , Fig.4.8, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 36, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type 3

Blshape

Cat. No 711, Hanita Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Kib. Hanita, Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 213, Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 4 , Tangform * , Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape * Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 3 Cat. No 806, Jericho T Li, Ni Kenyon 1965, 5 4, Fig.24.7, Sydney, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 292, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle Addit' n1 Metal studs, a nd bones found Burial, butt in hands, point upwards Cat.

No

816,

Jericho

T A86,

Blshape

Rivets,

Type

Ni,

Kenyon 1960, 189, Fig.70.1, Liverpool University, Cöndn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 260, Tangform * ,

Survlen Section

2 44, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 4 , Double Gr and Rib, Blshape

Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Grooves run unevenly - cut-in. Cat. No Kenyon

Type 3 By waist

810, Jericho T A26 b , Ni 1960, 196, Fig.70.9, Birmingham

of

burial

City Museum,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 318, Survlen 3 03, Maxbr 2 6, Maxth 5 , Tangform

Concave-sided

Butt,

Section

Double

Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type By waist of burial B . Ami bones w burial

400

Straight

restored, Gr

3

and Rib,

3

Cat.

No

804,

Jericho

T D1,

N6,

Kenyon 1965, 89, Fig.41.3, Amman, University, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 5 , Tangform Straight

Shldrd Butt, Tapering,

Section

Double

Gr

and

Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type Neat grooves, but still look as i f cut-in Asscc w copper frags - function ? Cat.

No

800,

Jericho

Rib,

Blshape

3

T M16,

Kenyon 1965, 153, Fig.41.14, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 276, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 5 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Fig. 2 8 A nd

Two

bones,

Rows

Copper

of

Section Three,

band

round

Double

Handle head,

Gr

and

Addit'n1 traces

of

Rib,

Blshape

Rivets,

Type

3

a staff

Cat. No 799, Jericho T L7 b2, N1 Kenyon 1965, 148, Fig.41.9, Durham, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 287, Survlen 2 84, Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle Additional Rivets, Type 3 A nd bones on remains of wooden platter Wood on butt, extra rivets. With 2nd burial, possible remains of strap round arms of burial Cat. No 797, Jericho T L2, N5, Kenyon 1965, 144, Fig.41.6, Amman, University, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 3 02, Survlen 283, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 6 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle Addit'n1 Rivets, Type Studs, rivets etc. 2 daggers, with one corpse, between chest

and

Cat. No Kenyon

arm,

traces

of

studs

798, Jericho T L2, N6, 1965, 1 44, Fig.41.7, Amman,

University,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 242, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt „ Section Double Gr and Concave Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Ami W Cu

bones,

Copper

band

Handle round

Additional head,

Rib,

Rivets,

traces

of

Blshape

Type

3

a staff

f ittings

Cat. No 796, Jericho T L4, N1, Kenyon 1965, 57, Fig.24.10, Edinburgh, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 250, Survlen 2 36, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Straight

Tapering, 4 01

restored, Rib,

Blshape

3

Rivetset Four Square, Handle Additional Rivets, Type 3 Grooves run squint, cut-i n 2 daggers, with one corpse, between chest and arm, traces of

studs

Cat. No 756, Khirbet Ibrekhtias T 3 2, Edelstein 1971, 1 8, Fig.16, * ,

N12,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 262, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Cat. Dar

No 755, 1977,

Three,

Handle

Ma'abarot T 4 , 64, Pl. 1 4.5, Kib.

* ,

Type

Blshape

3

Ma'abarot,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 269, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 3 Horizontal Haft-line

Blshape

Cat. No 752, Ma'abarot T 2 , Dar 1977, 6 2, Pl. 1 4.4, Newcastle, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 2 54, Maxbr 30, Maxth 7 , Tangform * , Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset * ,

Handle

* ,

Type

3

Cat. No 753, Ma'abarot Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 48, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 3 Cat. No 774, Ma'ayan Barukh Tomb I II, Amiran 1961, 8 4, Fig.8.20, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

I . M.,

Length 2 39, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Concave-sided Butt,

3 3, Maxth 6 , Section Double

Gr

Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One,

Handle

3

Flanges

on

one

side

of

the

* ,

Type

Survlen Section

Rivetset

Handle

Cat.

No

* , 707,

du Mesnil du Condn Broken

Qatna

Type

T IV,

Rib,

restored,

3 93, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 6 , Double Gr and Rib, Blshape * ,

and

tang

Cat. No 749, Moza Tomb Group, Bahat 1975, * , Fig.5.4, I . D. A., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 398, Tangform * , Tapering,

Blshape

Straight

3 AD,

Buisson 1 935, 157, but adequate, Measmt 402

Fig.55 rt, Louvre, For comparison only,

Length * , Survlen 2 41, Maxbr 35, Maxth * , Tangform Square Butt, Section Double Gr and Straight Tapering, Rivetset Cat.

No

* , 708,

Handle Qatna

* ,

Type

T IV,

Rib,

Blshape

3 00,

du Mesnil du Buisson 1 935, 157, Fig.55 it, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 275, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 3 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Parallel Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 3 Cat. No 733, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971, * , Fig.1.9, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 274, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Maxth 7 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Double Gr and Rib, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 3 Grooves go off-line and fade out at top of blade

Blshape

Blshape

* ,

- cut-in

Cat. No 700, Tell e l-' Ajjul T 1552, N978, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XIII.68, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 220, Survlen 2 05, Maxbr 27, Maxth 4 , Tangform * , Section Double Gr and Rib, Blshape * , Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 3 Type

4

These daggers represent the largest of the various types. They show a mean l ength of 3 12mm and mean max breadth of 4 0mm; some examples are a good deal larger. In addition to overall size, they are generally differentiated from other types by the possession of trapezoidal or more frequently concave-sided butts, with three or four pairs of rivets. The blades frequently show pronounced midribs. This latter feature is not found on any of the other types. Cat. No 720, Azor Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 258, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Concave Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 4 Blade twisted in profile Cat. No 718, Unpublished

Blshape

Benaya Context Unknown, * , * , * , I . D. A.,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately Length 260, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth

restored, 5 ,

Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape * , Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 4 Cat.

No

721,

Benaya

Context

Unknown, 403

Unpublished Condn Good,

* , * , Measmt

* , I . D. A., Absolute,

Length 2 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 6 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 4

Lozenge,

Cat. No 722, Benaya Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 35, Survlen 229, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 4 Cat. No Amiran Condn

728, Benaya 1969b, 46,

Good,

Measmt

Context Unknown, Fig.46 it, Jerusalem,

From

I . M.,

publication,

Length 285, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth 7 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Cat.

No

Two 729,

Rows

of

Benaya

Three,

Handle

Context

* ,

Type

Blshape

4

Unknown,

Amiran 1969b, * , * , Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 3 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth 8 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type 4 Cat. No 716, Bet Gamli'el Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 280, Survlen 270, Maxbr 44, Maxth 6 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Eight or more, Handle * , Type 4 Cat.

No

717,

Bet

Gamli'el

Context

Unknown,

Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 208, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Four Square, Handle

* ,

Type

Lozenge,

4

Cat. No 7 30, En Ha'nasiv Context Unknown, Porath 1973, 259, * , I . D. A., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 462, Survlen * , Maxbr 60, Maxth 11, Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Eight or more, Handle * , Type 4 Cat. No 727, Unpublished

Jebel * , * ,

w Round Midrib,

Qa'aqir Context Unknown, * , Jerusalem, H . U. C., 404

Condn

Good,

Measmt Absolute,

Length 385, Survlen * , Maxbr 44, Maxth 7 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Concave Sided, Rivetset

Two

Rows

of

Three,

Handle

* ,

Type

Blshape

4

Cat. No 773, Jebel Qa'aqir Context Unknown, Dever 1970, 2 33, * , * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 368, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave Blshape Concave S ided, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 4 Cat. No 757, Khirbet Ibrekhtias Edelstein 1971, * , Pl. it, * ,

T 3 2,

Lozenge,

N7,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 273, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth * , Tangform Concave-sided Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset

Two

Rows

of

Butt,

Three,

Section Handle

Cat. No 760, Khirbet Ibrekhtias Edelstein 1971, * , Fig.17, * ,

Concave

* ,

Type

T 10,

Lozenge,

4

N3,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 63, Maxbr 28, Maxth 4 , Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 4 Cat. No 731, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971, * , Fig.1.13, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 262, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 5 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type 4 Cat.

No

681,

Tell

el-' Ajjul

Blshape

T 1542,

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. X111.66, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 347, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three,

London,

Inst.

of

Arch,

4 3, Maxth 7 , Section Flat w Round Midrib, Handle

* 1 Type

4

Cat. No 682, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1544, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. X111.65, No Longer any Record, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 262, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 8 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Cat.

No

* ,

Handle

683,

Tell

* ,

Type

4

el-' Ajjul

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. X111.64, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

T 1565, London,

405

Inst.

of

Arch,

Length 3 37, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Concave-sided Butt,

3 5, Maxth 6 , Section Flat

Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One,

Handle

* ,

w Round Midrib,

Type

4

Cat. No 685, Tell el-' Ajjul T 294, Petrie 1 931, 1 2, Pl. XIX.47, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 427, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth 7 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Across Two Up, Handle * , Type 4 Cat. No 699, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1 534, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XIII.67, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 62, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth 13, Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Eight or more, Handle

* ,

Type

4

Cat. No 702, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1538, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI. 59, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 257, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset

Two

Rows

of

Three,

Handle

* ,

Type

4

Cat. No 701, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1517, Petrie 1 932, * , Pl. XII.60, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately

restored,

Length 3 64, Survlen 351, Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 7 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 4 , Fig. 2 9 Cat. No Petrie

703, Tell el-' Ajjul 1932, * , Pl. XII.61,

Condn Good, Length 400,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

T 1 537, London, 48,

Maxth

Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle Cat. No 705, Tell el-' Ajjul Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XII.63, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Inst.

of

Arch,

8 ,

w Round

Midrib,

Blshape

* ,

4 ,

2 9

Type

Fig.

T 1 521, Manchester,

Length 364, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth 8 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Point deliberately angled Cat.

No

704,

Tell

el-' Ajjul

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XII.62, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Handle

* ,

T 1530, Glasgow,

406

Type

4

Blshape

Length 268, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Cat.

No

Two

Rows

of

Three,

686,

Tell

e l-' Ajjul

3 8, Maxth 6 , Section Concave Handle Deir

* ,

Type

Lozenge,

4

al-Bala'h,

Petrie 1934, * , P l. XXIVLT, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 290, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 6 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 4 Cat.

No

738,

Tell

ed-Duweir

T 2 111,

Tuffnell 1958, 75, Pl. 21.10, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

N2481,

London,

B . M.,

Length 272, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Concave B lshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Triangular, Handle * , Type 4

Lozenge,

Cat. No 740, Tell ed-Duweir T 2 049, N2381, Tuffnell 1958, 75, Pl. 2 2.5, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 299, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 4 Type

5

Although there are few examples of this type, it was felt that it was of sufficient value in revealing the connection between certain of the larger groups to j ustify its retention as a separate unit. These daggers show a mean l ength of 241mm and mean max breadth of 3 3mm, placing them between Types 3 and 4 in terms of absolute size. Cat. No 7 66, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1972, * , F ig.7.2, Private Collection, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 36, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided Concave Sided, Rivetset

Two

Pairs

Butt,

Plus

One,

Section Handle

Flat * ,

Lozenge,

Type

Blshape

5

Cat. No 783, Amman Sport's City Tomb, N7, Z ayadine 1978, * , Fig.4.7, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 13, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave-sided B lshape Concave S ided, Rivetset 1B Cat. No Dunand

Four

Square,

790, Byblos 1 954, 1 91,

Butt, Handle

Section

Concave

Additional

Dep Gamma, Fig.194, * , 407

N8429,

Lozenge,

Rivets,

Type

5 ,

Pl.

Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 20, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, R ivetset Linear Setting, Handle * , Type 5 Poss l owest rivet hole i s a repair ? Close to EB MB style r ivet patts Cat. No 7 80, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tomb, Lapp 1 966, 5 0, F ig.24.12, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 95, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 6 , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 5 Cat. No 7 50, Yabrud T 4 , Assaf 1 967, * , Abb.5, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 1 07, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 5, Maxth * , Tangform Concave-sided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset * , Handle * , Type 5 Type

B lshape

B lshape

6 Variants

Cat. No 9 20, Alalakh VII City Gate area, 3 8/282, Woolley 1 955, 2 83, Pl. LXXII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 1 46, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 6, Maxth * , Tangform Full Hilt Plate, Section * , B lshape Straight tapering, R ivetset Linear Setting, Handle * , Type 6 . On c lay surf from S corner gate tower, ass w skull f rags,star hd nail Sm f langes at bottom of One piece metal hilt-plate Woolley classes this as his Type Kn 3 ( 1955, 2 83 P l. LXXII) and which i s very similar to daggers here classed as Type 1 . In addition the l ength/max breadth value of 9 .2, or l ength of blade/max breadth of 6 .2 i s in keeping with those of most narrow daggers. However, this piece has short f langes at the bottom of the tang, suggesting a later date, and may therefore relate rather to Type 2 1 discussed below. Unfortunately the dagger i s published without any i ndication of its actual size, making comparison difficult. This item i s from a poor context. Although Woolley ascribes this dagger to Level VII, its stratigraphical position i s not clear, as it comes from an area outwith the gate, and i s associated with a pin with a star-shaped head and some human skull fragments, suggesting either a disturbed or damaged burial or some sort of deliberate deposit. Cat. No 7 76, Givatayim Cave 4 , Sussman and Beit An 1 966, 2 7, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 42, Survlen * „ Maxbr 2 4, 4 08

P1.10.1, Maxth

* ,

Jerusalem,

I . M.

Tangform Square Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 6 The dagger has s ix r ivets Pl. 5 3). However, as these are l ocated asymmetrically, it i s possible that some are repair holes. It a lso shows traces of very heavy wear at the edges of the blade, and may be rather changed from its original form. In fact, it i s probably a much worn and repaired example of Type 2 , lending further support to a view o f Type 2 as the original form of narrow dagger. Cat. No 7 72, Menahemiya T 1 W .chamber, Bahat 1 976, 3 2, F ig.4.1, I . D. A., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 70, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 6 This dagger i s unusual in that it possesses a marked midrib, although i n s ize and general shape it resembles the simpler forms. It is probably j ust a ' variant' form. This dagger and the previous one can be seen as part of a general change from s imple Type 2 daggers, to the l onger more e laborate weapons of Types 3 -5 and 7 . Cat. No 7 39, Tell ed-Duweir T 1 556, N4067, Tuffnell 1 958, 7 5, Pl. 2 2.6, London, B . M. Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 78, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 7 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Parallel S ided, Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type 6 This dagger has four rivets in a square butt, but unusually this i s associated with a concave lozenge-shaped crosssection. S ingle male burial with gp of mtl in mouth of cave Type

7

The members of this type are generally distinguished by their possession of a trapezoidal or more rarely a shouldered butt with s ix rivets combined with a s imple, f lat, lozenge-shaped cross-section. With mean length 2 71mm and mean max breadth 3 3mm they are fairly large and can, l ike Type 5 , be i nterpreted as a step on the way to the development of the e laborate daggers of Type 4 , a lthough l acking their elaborate midribs. C at. No 7 19, Azor Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 2 78, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape S traight Tapering, R ivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 7 C at.

No

6 55,

Gezer

T 1 001

main 4 09

chamber „

n37

Rowe

1935,

2 4,

Pl.

IV,

London,

P . E. F.,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 355, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight

Tapering,

Rivetset

Two

Rows

of

Three,

Handle

* ,

Type

7

Cat. No 807, Jericho T G83 chA, N1, Kenyon 1965, 1 49, Fig.41.10, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 76, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 6 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape S ided, Rivetset Cat.

No

Two 751,

Dar 1977, Condn Good, Length 179,

Rows

of

Three,

Ma'abarot

Handle

* ,

Type

7

T 4 ,

64, Pl. 1 4.3, Newcastle, Measmt From publication, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth

6 ,

Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section * , Blshape Parallel Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 7 Cat.

No

7 37,

Sinjil

Concave

S ided,

Bought,

Dever 1971, 3 3, * , Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 43, Survlen * , Maxbr Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 7 Cat. No 684, Tell el-' Ajjul T 277, Petrie 1931, 1 2, Pl. XIX.46, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 224, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Rivetset Cat.

No

Two Rows 688,

Tell

of

Three,

Handle

el-' Ajjul

* ,

T 1532

of

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. X .48, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Type 1500

Cat.

No

Two

Rows

of

Three,

690,

Tell

el-' Ajjul

Handle

* ,

Fig.

3 0

Cem,

Rockefeller,

Length 249, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Straight Tapering, Rivetset

7 ,

Type

Blshape 7

T 1546,

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. X .50, Manchester, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length

274,

Survlen

Tangform Trapez Sided, Rivetset Cat.

No

Maxbr

Rows

of

692,

Tell

el-' Ajjul

2 45,

Survlen

3 6,

Section

Two

Petrie 1932, * , Pl. Condn Slight damage, Length

* ,

Butt,

Three,

Maxth

Flat

Handle

5 ,

Lozenge, * ,

Type

Blshape 7 ,

Fig.

T 1535,

X .51, No Longer any Record, Measmt From publication, * ,

Maxbr

3 5, 4 10

Maxth

5 ,

Concave 3 0

Tangform

Trapez

Sided, Rivetset

Two

Butt,

Rows

of

Section Three,

Flat

Handle

Lozenge, * ,

Type

Blshape

Concave

7

Cat. No 693, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1569, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. X .52, London, Inst. of Arch, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 3 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth 5 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Parallel Rivetset

Sided, Two Rows

of

Three,

Handle

* ,

Type

7

Cat. No 694, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1551, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI.53, Glasgow, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 285, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 5 , Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 7 Cat. No 696, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1516, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI.55, No Longer any Record, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 273, Survlen * , Maxbr 36, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 7 Cat. No 697, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1539, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI.56, London, Inst. Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

of

Arch,

Length 201, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 6 , Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle * , Type 7 Cat. No 691, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1545, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XI.58, Cambridge, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 277, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Sided, Rivetset Two Rows of Three, Handle

Lozenge, * ,

Type

Blshape

Concave

7

Cat. No 7 45, Bab edh-Dhra, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Amman, N . M. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 85, Maxbr 27, Maxth 5 Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering Rivetset * , Handle * , Type * Cat. No 8 28, Beth Shan, T 3 01B, 3 1-10-340 Oren, 1973, 175, Fig.20.17, * Condn Cannot assess, Measmt From publication, Length 2 69, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Shldrd Butt, Section * , Blshape Straight Rivetset Two Pairs Plus One, Handle * , Type * 4 11

Tapering

Cat.

No

Kochavi,

782,

Degania

1 973,

* ,

A , Tomb

Fig.6.2,

*

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Relative Length 1 33, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Rivetset Cat. No Kenyon,

* , * ,

Section Double Handle * , Type

791, Jericho, T 1960, 194, * ,

Gr *

and Rib,

A39, n1 No Longer

dimensions,

Blshape

*

any Record

Condn Very poor, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform * , Section * , Blshape * Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type * Cat. No 824, Jericho, T A72 Unpublished, * , * , * , Amman, N . M. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length 2 26, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Rivetset

* , * ,

Section Flat Lozenge, Handle * , Type *

Blshape

only,

Straight

Tapering

Cat. No 759, Khirbet Ibrekhtias, T 3 2 Edelstein, 1971, * , Fig.14, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 209, Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 4 Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering Rivetset Four Square, Handle * , Type * Cat. No 754, Ma'abarot, T 1 2 Dar, 1977, 66, Pl. 14.6, Kib. Ma'abarot Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 2 78, Tangform * , Rivetset * ,

Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth 6 Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Handle * , Type *

Straight Tapering

Cat. No 748, Moza, Tomb Group Bahat, 1975, * , Fig. 5.3, I . D. A. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 3 30, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 6 Tangform * , Section * , Blshape Straight Tapering Rivetset

* ,

Handle

Cat. No 723, Unpublished,

* ,

Nazareth * , * , * ,

Type

*

' Illit, Tomb I . D. A.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 253, Maxbr 2 7, Maxth * Tangform Square Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape * Rivetset

* ,

Handle

* ,

Type

*

Cat. No 1 393, Numeira, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Kerak Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 202, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 6 Tangform Square Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Concave Rivetset

Sided * ,

Handle

* ,

Type

*

4 12

only,

Blshape

Cat. No 709, Qatna, T IV, EE du Mesnil du Buisson, 1935, 1 57, Fig.55 it, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 2 45, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 4 Tangform Rivetset

* , * ,

Section Flat Lozenge, Handle * , Type *

Blshape

only,

Straight

Cat. No 827, Tomb near Lake of Homs, Tomb Unpublished, * , * , * , Ho r ns Museum Condn Slight damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering Rivetset

Two

Rows

of

Three,

Handle

4 13

* ,

Type

*

Tapering

LONG-TANGED DAGGERS SURVLEN LENGTH TANGLEN MAXBR MAXTH TANGFORM POINT BLSHAPE SECTION Type

' Surviving length' ' Overall Length' ' Length of Tang' ' Maximum Breadth of Blade' ' Maximium Thickness of Blade' ' Shape of Tang or Butt' ' Shape of Point' ' Shape of B lade' ' Cross Section of B lade'

1 0

Most of these weapons have a square-shouldered blade ( mean l ength 1 58mm) with either straight-tapering, or more commonly concave s ides, probably the result of regular sharpening. All feature a long, thin tang, frequently tapering from the root towards the tip. Although a few examples with sharp points occur, most are rounded. The f act that many of those blades with straight sides have rounded points implies that these were a deliberate design f eature and cannot be explained away as the result of wear or repeated sharpening. This suggests that these were not primarily intended as stabbing weapons. In fact the attention paid to the sharpness of the blade edges suggests more frequent use as cutting tools than was so with daggers of Types 1 2-19. The blade is usually quite broad ( mean max breadth 4 3mm) and thin ( mean max thickness 4mm) and of a s imple f lat section without a midrib, or a f lat l ozengeshape with a faint medial l ine. The tang i s generally of straight, tapering form ( mean length 4 5mm). Cat. No 8 86, Barquai Tomb phase 3 , Gophna and Sussman 1 969, 1 *, F ig.9.6, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 75, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Tanglen 5 7, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Type 1 0, Later MB I I ?

3 ,

Cat. No 8 57, Beth Shan Level X . A, 3 1-10-399, F itzgerald 1 932, 1 47, * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 19, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Tanglen 8 3, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Tapering, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Type 1 0 Cat. No 9 01, Beth Shemesh Tomb 3 , Grant 1 929, * , F ig.123.4 rt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 3 8, Survlen * , Maxbr 8 , Tanglen 5 , Maxth * , Tangform Long Straight, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 1 0

4 14

Cat. No 878, El-Gib Pritchard 1963, * ,

T 5 7, B342, Fig.62.42, Univ.

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 256, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 0,

Mus.

Penn.,

publication, Tanglen 40, Maxth

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 10. This is the MBII useage ( Jer Gp I II). is separate Cat. No 876, El-Gib Pritchard 1963, * , Condn

Slight

damage,

T 18, B137, Fig.26.13, Amman, Measmt

From

4 ,

EB-MB

N . M.,

publication,

Length 140, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Tanglen 5 9, Maxth Tangform Straight Tapering, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10, Re-used in LBA Cat. No 877, El-Gib T 3 0, N36 Pritchard 1963, * , Fig.33.36, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

B300, Amman,

N . M.,

Length 248, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Tanglen 44, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Assymetric, Point Sharp, Type 10. Disturbed - Roman and Byz mtl found Assymetric wear on blade - use as a knife ? Cat.

No

887,

El-Jisr

Ch

1 ,

4 ,

N50,

Ory 1946, 3 7, Pl. XIII. 50, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 159, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Tanglen 3 6, Maxth * Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Type 10

Straight

Tapering,

Point

Rounded,

Cat. No 888, El-Jisr Ch 1 „ N49 Ory 1946, 3 7, Pl. X111.49, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 190, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Tanglen 3 9, Maxth * Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10 Cat.

No

882,

Gezer

T 1 ,

MacAlistair 1 912, 3 01, Pl. LX. 5, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 200, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Tanglen 50, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Type 10 Cat. No 883, MacAlistair

Gezer 1 912,

T 1 , 3 01,

Pl.

LX.3,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 209, Survlen * , Maxbr 48,

* ,

publication, Tanglen 40, Maxth

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10 4 15

pott

Cat. No 881, MacAlistair

Gezer 1 912,

Cave 1 24,

28 I I, Pl. XXIV.33,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 157, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1,

* ,

publication, Tanglen 3 4, Maxth

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10 Cat No 884, MacAlistair

Gezer 1912,

T 3 , 303,

1Fig.60.3,

* ,

Midrib,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 153, Survlen * , Maxbr 38, Tanglen 30, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 1 0 Cat. No 879, Ginosar T 2/3, Epstein 1974, 5*, Fig.12.4, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 174, Maxbr 45, Tanglen * , Maxth * , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10 Cat. No 911, Jericho Garstang 1932, 46, Condn Good, Length 259,

T 9 , D9 N922, Pl. XXXVII.1, Jerusalem,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

5 3,

Tanglen

62,

Rockefeller, Maxth

4 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Handle Globular, Type 10 ( Fig. 3 5) Globular pommel shown in original publication, but given the degree of mixing in this particular tomb, and the presence of several daggers of other types, the association is not certain. Cat. No 914, Jericho T M11, N40, Kenyon 1965, 2 38, Fig.111.2, Edinburgh, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 265, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Tanglen 52,

Maxth

3 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Handle Globular, Type A globular pommel was reliability Cat. No Kenyon

of

this

10 found

near

association

this is

dagger-blade.

913, Jericho T J12, N36, 1960, 4 24, Fig.146.2, Cambridge,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 192, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Tanglen 49, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type

10.

Cat. No Kenyon Condn

The

uncertain.

Layer

B ,

mostly w Cyl

juglets

912, Jericho T D13, N18, 1965, 4 28, Fig.111.18, Liverpool

Good,

Measmt

Absolute, 416

3 ,

University,

Length 298, Survlen * , Maxbr 50, Tanglen 57, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type

1 0.

Cat. No Kenyon

Repr

the

MBA

use,

not

EB-MB

5 ,

phase

9 0, Jericho T Al, N52, 1960, 3 06, Fig.146.3,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 244, Survlen * , Maxbr 58,

publication, Tanglen 40, Maxth

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Type 1 0 Cat. No 893, Megiddo T 2 135, Loud 1948, * , Pl. 1 78.10, * ,

4 ,

no Midrib,

A119,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 179, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2,

publication, Tanglen 3 8, Maxth

Tangform Long Straight, Section * , Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 1 0 Cat. No 894, Megiddo T 3 075, Loud 1948, * , Pl. 179.16, * ,

B571,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 234, Survlen * , Maxbr 41, Tanglen 35, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 1 0. Clear wood traces on tang Cat.

No

895,

Megiddo

T 3 029,

B436,

Loud 1948, * , Pl. 179.21, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 164, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Tanglen 62, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Type 10. Child

S ided, burial

Point

Cat. No 897, Megiddo T 4055, Loud 1948, * , Pl. 178.12, * ,

Rounded,

A1165,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 158, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Tanglen 26, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type

10.

Cat.

No

Rich 1 414,

burial Ras

el

' Ain/Aphek

4 1M,

Ory 1938, 120, F ig. XXX11B.1, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For

comparison

only,

Length * , Survlen 1 60, Maxbr 44, Tanglen 51, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape * , Point * , Type 10 Cat.

No

854,

Tel

Aviv

Harbour

T 1 ,

Kaplan 1955, 5 , * , * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Tanglen * , Maxth 417

* ,

Tangform * , Section Blshape * , Point * , Type

1 0.

Cat.

No

Kaplan

At waist 855,

Tel

* of

Aviv

1955,

5 ,

burial Harbour

Fig.5.1,

T 6 , * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 204, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Tanglen 40, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10. At waist of burial

* ,

Midrib,

Cat. No 919, Tell Beit Mirsim D Rm 1 , N775, Albright 1938, 5 2, Pl. 41.11, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 181, Survlen * , Maxbr 42, Tanglen 3 9, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 1 0. Fallen from upper floor of phase D Palace Cat. No 872, Tell Fara Price Williams 1977, Rockefeller,

( S) 61,

T 559, Fig.38.2,

Jerusalem,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 171, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Tanglen 25, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Heavily Concave, Point Rounded, Type 10 Cat. No 871, Tell Fara ( S) T 564, Price Williams 1977, 7 2, Fig.45.6, Manchester, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 196, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 0, Tanglen 56, Maxth

4 ,

5 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10 Cat. No 875, Tell Fara ( S) T 1 021, MacDonald, Starkey et al 1932, * , P l. XLIII, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 05, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Tanglen 47, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Type 1 0

Concave

Sided,

Cat. No 870, Tell Fara Price Williams 1 977, Arch, Condn

Good,

Point

( S) 90,

Rounded,

T 569, EV5/12, Fig.60.1, London,

Inst.

1 0

Cat.

No

Price Arch,

873,

of

Measmt Absolute,

Length 200, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Tanglen 3 4, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type

* ,

Tell

Williams

Fara

1977,

( S) 2 4,

T 550,

EV1/15,

Fig.11.3,

4 18

4 ,

London,

Inst.

of

Condn

Good,

Measmt

Absolute,

Length 211, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Tanglen 47, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10 Cat. No 874, Tell Fara ( S) T 1007, MacDonald, Starkey et al 1932, 2 2, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

5 ,

Pl. XLIV.66,

Length 219, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Tanglen 3 7, Maxth 4 , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 10. Hamm traces on sides of tang. Horiz haft-line just below shldrs Cat. No 890, Tell Mevorakh Str XII loc 3 18, Brandl 1984, 6 2, Fig.18.1, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 205, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Tanglen 5 1, Maxth * Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 10. From f loor of a kitchen -ash, tanur, aml bones. Domestic use for knife ? Cat. No 889, Tell Mevorakh S r XI Iloc 255, Brandl 1984, 6 2, Fig.18.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 101, Maxbr 40, Tanglen * , Maxth Tangform * , Section * ,

* ,

Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 10. From bottom of a "silo" Cat. No 906, Tell el-' Ajjul T 1543, Petrie 1932, * , Pl. XIV.70, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 191, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Tanglen 5 4, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Type 10

Straight

Cat.

898,

No

Tell

Tapering,

el-' Ajjul

Point

Rounded,

Context

Unknown,

Petrie 1931, 8 , Pl. XVII.30, Jerusalem, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute,

Rockefeller,

Length 2 44, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Tanglen 5 3, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 10. From Lower City ( I) More substantial than upper edge of shldrs Cat. No Petrie,

most

9 08, Tell el-' Ajjul MacKay and M 1952,

such

* ,

daggers.

5 ,

Haft marks

Context Unknown, N65, 1 4, Pl. XI.3, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 48, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 4, Tanglen 60, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, 4 19

* ,

at

Type

1 0.

Cat.

No

From 899,

Lower

Tell

City

( I)

el-' Ajjul

DS

741=1041,

Petrie 1 933, 9 , Pl. XX.33, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 155, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Tanglen 40, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type

1 0.

Locus

and

height

correct

Cat. No 9 00, Tell el-' Ajjul Petrie 1933, * , Pl. XX.20, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

for

Lower

City

AT 640=940, Jerusalem, Rockefeller,

Length 191, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Tanglen 46, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10. Depth correct Solid and well made

for

City

5 ,

I

Cat. No 902, Tell el-' Ajjul HA 660=960, Petrie 1933, 9 , Pl. XX.2, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 173, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Tanglen 42, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type

10.

Prob

from

lower

levels

of

south

* ,

city

Cat. No 903, Tell el-' Ajjul AR'696=996, Petrie 1933, 9 , Pl. XX.4, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 198, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Tanglen 57, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10. Prob from lower levels of City I Cat.

No

Petrie

904,

Tell

1933,

el-' Ajjul 9 ,

Pl.

AT

XX.25,

700=1000, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 182, Survlen * , Maxbr 48,

publication, Tanglen 44, Maxth

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10. Probably from City I Cat. No Petrie

905, Tell el-' Ajjul 1933, * , Pl. XX.35,

LZ * ,

17

* ,

Midrib,

=990,

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Tanglen * , Maxth * , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10. Assoc with Cypriot Red on Black bowl Cat. No 907, Tell el-' Ajjul DC 6 35, Petrie 1931, * , Pl. XVII.31, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 164, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Tanglen 64, Maxth Tangform Straight Tapering, Section F lat no Midrib, Blshape

Concave

Sided,

Point

Rounded, 420

Type

1 0.

Prob

City

I

Cat. No 909, Tell el-' Ajjul Petrie, MacKay and M 1952,

AO 835 „ N816 * , Pl. XI.4, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Tanglen * , Maxth * , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type , 1 0. Context ? Cat. No 863, Tell ed-Duweir T 119, N631, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.18, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 151, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Tanglen 26, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Type 1 0 Cat.

No

858,

Tell

ed-Duweir

T 1552,

Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.12, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 172, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8,

* ,

N2199,

publication, Tanglen 3 7, Maxth

3 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type

10

Cat. No 859, Tell ed-Duweir T 1552, N2197, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.11, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 246, Survlen * , Maxbr 41, Tanglen 3 8,

Maxth

4 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type

10.

Hamm vis

on

blade

edges

Cat. No 860, Tell ed-Duweir T 1552, N2198, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.13, London, B . M., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 66, Maxbr 45, Tanglen 3 2, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Type 10

4 ,

Cat. No 861, Tell ed-Duweir T 1502, N1725, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.14, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Length 216,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

4 2,

Tanglen

3 6,

Maxth

3 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type

10

Cat. No 865, Tell ed-Duweir T 1502, N1726, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.15, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 208, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Tanglen 58, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type

10 4 21

3 ,

Cat. No 862, Tell ed-Duweir Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 248, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Tanglen 42, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10. Inscribed Cat. No 868, Tell ed-Duweir T 1 29, N721, Tuffnell 1 958, * , Pl. 2 2.20, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 201, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Tanglen 41, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 10. Horiz haft-line visible on one face blade

of

4 ,

4 ,

upper

Cat. No 869, Tell ed-Duweir T 1 29, N722, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 2.19, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 200, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Tanglen 38, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Type

10

Cat. No 864, Tell ed-Duweir T 6002, N6504, Tuffnell 1 958, 2 94, Pl. 2 2.16, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 178, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Tanglen 3 2, Maxth

4 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Type 10 Cat. No 866, Tell ed-Duweir Tuffnell 1 958, * , Pl. 2 3.1, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 21, Survlen * , Maxbr

T 7 014, London, 47,

N6709, B . M.,

Tanglen

50,

Maxth

4 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Type 10, Fig. 3 5 Cat. No 867, Tell ed-Duweir T 157, N2646, Tuffnell 1958, * , Pl. 2 3.2, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 259, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Tanglen 45, Maxth 6 , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type

10.

Cat.

No

Horiz 891,

haft-line

Jerusalem

vis

on

Dominus

Fl

one

face

Tomb,

R772,

Saller 1964, 1 70, Fig.62.12, Jerusalem, C . of F lag., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 2 32, Maxbr 45, Tanglen 52, Maxth 3 , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Type 10

Straight

Tapering,

Point

4 22

Rounded,

Type

1 1

( Variants)

This type contains a ll those straight tang, which clearly

objects did not

showing a long, belong to the main

group of such weapons ( Type 10 above). The presence of such a tang implies at least some relationship to each other and with the weapons of Type 10, if only in terms the method of hafting. It is reassuring to observe that

of

many Type

of

of 10

these are itself.

from

outwith

the

area

of

distribution

Cat. No 1 413, Amman Citadel Tomb ( Picirillo), Piccirillo 1978, * , Tay. 3 .48, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Length 2 48,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

47,

Tanglen

7 3,

Maxth

4 ,

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 11. Tang is unusually long. Cat. No 1 360, Baghouz Z 102, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 948, 7 3, Pl. LX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 61, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Maxth * , Tangform Hooked Tang, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket Metal Sleeve, Type 1 1 Should date to the M . B.I period, or perhaps a l ittle later ( see 2 .1). It has a broad flat blade, with a round point, s imilar to those of Type 10 weapons. The long tang ends in a distinctive hook, and is contained within a silver coated metal sleeve. This piece seems to represent a prestige item. A stylistically similar dagger is reported from Susa, but is of uncertain date ( Tallon 1987, 1 25 No. 1 62). Big dolmen, dagger and axe Cat. No 1 417, Byblos Context not clear, N964, Montet 1 928, 2 54, Pl. CXLIX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Tanglen 60, Maxth * Tangform Straight Tapering, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 1 1. Rounded, sloping shoulders and long thin tang. The blade is unusually narrow; length of blade/max breadth = 4 .7 ( 3.6-4.0 i s normal for Type 10 daggers). Cat. No 8 80, Gezer Cave 2 8 I I, MacAlistair 1912, 1 24, Pl. XXIV.32, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 23, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Tanglen 19, Maxth Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Slighty Convex, Point Sharp, Type 1 1. In the published drawing this item looks

* ,

to

correctly proportioned, but is far too short at length 1 23mm, to be considered as a ' real' Type 10 weapon. Cat.

No

896,

Schumacher

Megiddo 1 908,

Sch 7 1,

I II,

Taf.

XVIIIA, 4 23

*

be =

Condn

S light

damage,

Measmt

From

publication,

Length 3 39, Survlen * , Maxbr 68, Tanglen Tangform Straight Tapering, Section Flat Blshape Slighty Convex, Point Rounded, Type 1 1. Very large, length 3 39mm and convex sided blade and long thin tang,

7 4, Maxth Lozenge,

5 ,

very broad, has length 74mm. Has

inscribed sign on blade. Context is poor, and could well be L . B. A. According to the published drawing the blade is positioned asymmetrically with respect to the tang, rather than centrally as is generally the case. Cat. No 916, Ras Schaeffer 1949, Condn Good, Length 1 30,

Shamra Context Unknown, * , Fig.18.12, Louvre,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

2 1,

Tanglen

Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Type 11. Rounded-sloping =130mm) and narrow. Cat. No 8 49, Unpublished

shoulders,

RS5050,

29,

Maxth

2 ,

Midrib,

very

short

( length

Ras Shamra T LXXXVII, * , * , * , Louvre,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 284, Maxbr 48, Maxth * , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Bracket Lower Cross Stop, Type 1 1

only,

* ,

Tang broken but was probably of long form. Traces of flange around the root of the tang - perhaps a L . B. A. Cat. No 917, Ras Shamra T LXXXI, RS11527, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison

a item?

only,

Length * , Survlen 156, Maxbr * , Tanglen 3 9, Maxth * , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape * , Point * , Type 1 1. In poor condition but a rather different shape from Type 10. Cat. No 918, Unpublished

Ras Shamra T LXXXI, * , * , * , Louvre,

RS11.584,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 205, Maxbr * , Tanglen 42, Maxth * , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape * , Point Rounded, Type 1 1. In poor condition, heavy damage to blade edges. However, its size and shape, with incurved shoulders and correctly proportioned tang resemble those of Type 1 0 daggers. It is by no means certain, but this piece could represent a poorly preserved example of a Type 1 0 weapon from a Syrian context. Cat. No 1 412, Tell Belt Mirsim D SE Albright 1938, 52, Pl. 41.19, * ,

2 3D,

TBM2033,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 121, Maxbr 3 8, Tanglen 43, Maxth * , Tangform Long

Straight,

Section 4 24

Flat

no Midrib,

Blshape Type

Parallel

1 1.

This

Sided,

piece

is

Point

* ,

broken

but

is

clearly

an

example

of

Maxwell-Hyslop's ( 1946, 29) Type 2 8 with long straight tang and stop ridge; l ikely to be of L . B. A. date and from a secondary or disturbed context at the site. Cat. No 853, Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund Heinrich et al 1 974, * , Abb. 60, * ,

I ,

26/35-76,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 217, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Tanglen 50, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Tapering, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Parallel Sided, Type 11. Straight thin

Point tang,

* , parallel-sided

concave lozenge section. Blade is usually of blade/max breadth = 5 .2) This weapon is dating to the early second millennium.

blade

with

a

narrow ( length from a context

Cat. No 1134, Tell ed-Duweir T 1 19, N632, Tuffnell 1958, 2 28, Pl. 2 2.17, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 148, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section * , Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 11. Tang pierced by a rivet-hole.

Handle

Cat. No 1 415, Terqa FT 1 3 Loc 4 levll, TPR8.26TQ360, Mount-Williams 1980, 2 4, Fig.11, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 119, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Tanglen 21, Maxth 4 , Tangform Long Straight, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Sides slightly convex, Point Sharp, Type

11

Cat. Na 892, Jerusalem Dominus Fl Tomb, R771, Sailer 1964, 1 70, Fig.62.11, Jerusalem, C . of Flag. Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 93, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Tanglen 107, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Tapering, Section Flat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Type 11. Has tang. Context

clearly marked, rounded midrib spans late M . B. A. and L . B. A.

and very

Cat. No 885, Ras el ' Ain/Aphek,31E-505 Ory, 1938, 120, Pl. XXXIIB3, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 19, Maxbr 49, Tanglen * , Maxth * Tangform

* ,

Section

Blshape Type *

* ,

Cat.

856,

No

Point

Tell

Flat

no

Midrib

*

el-Far'ah

( N), T

5

de Vaux and Steve, 1949, 1 31, * , * Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, Length

* ,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

Tangform Long Straight, Blshape * , Point * Type

* ,

Tanglen

Section

* 4 25

Flat

* , no

Maxth Midrib

*

long

OTHER DAGGERS For Types SURVLEN LENGTH MAXBR MAXTH TANGFORM POINT BLSHAPE SECTION HANDLE BRACKET Type

1-7

see

Narrow Daggers

' Surviving length' ' Overall Length' ' Maximum Breadth of Blade' ' Maximium Thickness of B lade' ' Form of Tang or Butt' ' Shape of Point of Blade' ' Shape of Blade' ' Cross Section of Blade' ' Form of Handle' ' Type of F itting for Handle, i f

present'

8

These weapons consist of a square-section blade, and a tapering tang ending in a right-angle turn, which may expand towards the end. These are very similar to examples of Type 5 . Mean l ength and mean tang length are 2 44mm and 8 3mm - the tang i s noticeably longer than those of Type 5 , probably because of the presence of a rather heavier terminal. The mean breadth of blade i s 1 4mm, which as the cross-section i s square, implies a s lightly heavier weapon than i s the case for than Type 5 spearheads. Cat. No 1 034, Azor Tomb 4 level I I, 4/110, Ben-Tor 1 975, 2 6, F ig.12.5, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 17, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 7, Maxth 1 1, Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 8 , F ig. 3 3 V . well made and f inished Cat. No 1 049, Megiddo T 9 12A2 „ M2969 Guy 1 938, 6 9, P l. 1 23.4, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 43, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 2, Maxth 7 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 8 Type

9

These weapons consist of a square-section blade, and a s imple tapering tang of the form known as ' poker-butt'. Mean l ength i s c 2 50mm, tang length c 6 8mm, blade l ength 1 69mm and blade breadth l lmm - very c lose to that o f Type weapons. Cat. No 1 079, Byblos Dep Epsilon, N 8823, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, Pl. LX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 5 85, Survlen * , Maxbr 6 2, Maxth * , Tangform Conc s ided Rectgle, Section F lat w Round Midrib, 4 26

5

Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 9

Point

* ,

Handle

Cat. No 1 236, Byblos Dep Epsilon, N8822, Dunand 1 954, 2 20, P l. LX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 575, Survlen * , Maxbr 6 0, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat w Round Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 9 , F ig. 5 6 Cat. No 1 237, Byblos Bat I I Jar 2 132, N2178, Dunand 1 939, 1 48, Pl. LXVII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 570, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 3, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 9 I ncl sev Ag items, brnz bowl, mush and bicon pins Cat. No 1 234, Byblos T . O. N wall ctyd, N15078, Dunand 1 958, 7 38, Fig.873, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 5 05, Survlen * , Maxbr 55, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , B racket * , Type 9 Threshold, 1 234 i s 1 of 3 F or Types Type

1 0

and

1 1

see

Long-tanged

Daggers

1 2

These weapons occur in two main varieties. One has two s harp r ibs separated by a central groove, the other two more rounded ribs. As the second form is known largely f rom the ' Depots' at Byblos it i s not possible to expand on this difference, and the two forms will be treated as one i n the following discussion. However the difference should b e noted. Such b lades occur with several different forms o f hafting. In particular they are found with rounded butts with the r ivets mounted very near the upper end of t he blade, often very near to the edge of the metal, with c oncave-sided triangular tangs, generally f ixed by three r ivets, or less often, with straight, horizontal butts. It s eems l ikely that many of these weapons had composite h andles, probably attached to the blade via some kind of c ollar or bracket. This must surely have been the case w ith those daggers with rivets right at the edge of the metal. Some show groups of l ightly incised l ines running l ongitudinally outside the main pair of ribs. When a pommel i s found it i s of crescentic shape. Most of these daggers are between 2 10 and 2 60mm in l ength. Smaller examples come largely from the ' Depots' at Byblos and may be specific to such contexts. One or two l arger examples are known from Megiddo. The blades are broad, 4 27

generally between 4 0 and 5 0mm across, and the correlation between length and breadth i s high, 0 .85, suggesting that it was important to maintain a particular blade shape, regardless of actual size. The ribs can be quite pronounced, resulting in a maximum thickness of up to 9mm, a lthough most examples measure 5-6mm. Cat. No 6 24, Amrit Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 1 24, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Items from Amrit tombs, cannot assign to individual deposits Cat. No 6 25, Amrit Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative d imensions, Length 1 60, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped r ibs, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Items from Amrit tombs, cannot assign to individual deposits Tang heavily hammered Cat. No 6 26, Amrit Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn S light damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 1 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type 1 2 Items from Amrit tombs, cannot assign to individual deposits Cat. No 6 20, Beth Shan T 9 2, Oren 1 971, 1 16, Fig.2.1, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 44, Maxbr 5 4, Maxth 6 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 44, Byblos Dep Iota, N9527, Dunand 1 954, 2 91, Pl. LXIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w Low Ribs, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 45, Byblos Dep Iota, N9529, Dunand 1 954, 2 91, Pl. LXIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, 4 28

Length

2 25,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

5 1,

Maxth

* ,

Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w Low Ribs, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 12 No. 9528 is "same as" 6 45 here Cat.

No

Dunand

646, 1954,

Byblos 291,

Dep Pl.

Iota, LXIV,

N9530, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 225, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w V-shaped Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 12 Cat. No Dunand

647, Byblos 1954, 291,

ribs,

Dep Iota, N9531, Fig.321, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 1 77, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w V-shaped Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 12 Cat. No 653, Byblos Dep Iota, N9536, Dunand 1954, 292, * , * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Cannot Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove Blshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No Dunand

654, Byblos 1954, 2 91,

assess,

w Low Ribs,

Dep Iota, N9525, Fig.320, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 260, Survlen * , Maxbr 53, Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 1 2

publication, Maxth * ,

Section Groove w Low Ribs, Point Sharp, Handle Crescentic,

Cat. No 1096, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9166, Dunand 1954, 253, Fig.277, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 192, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Double Gr and Rib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No Dunand

6 32, Byblos 1954, 3 02,

ribs,

Dep Lambda, N9660, Pl. LXVIII, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 19, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w Low Ribs, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 33, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9659, Dunand 1954, 3 02, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, 429

Length 175, Survlen 170, Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w Low Ribs, Blshape Bracket

Concave * , Type

Cat. No Dunand

1 354, 1954,

Sided, 1 2

Point

Sharp,

Handle

* ,

Byblos Dep Lambda, N9657, 302, Pl. LXVIII, * ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section * , Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 12

Point

Sharp,

Handle

only,

* ,

Cat. No 1355, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9666, Dunand 1954, 303, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 250, Survlen * , Maxbr 51, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 1 2 Electrum collar item Cat. No Dunand

rd

butt,

651, Byblos 1954, 299,

Section Groove w Low Ribs, Point Sharp, Handle * ,

pommel

9 670

prob belongs

to

this

Dep Kappa, N9619, Pl. LXVI, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 250, Survlen 2 41, Maxbr 5 4, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 12 651, 652 are 2 of 3

Section Groove w V-shaped Point Sharp, Handle * ,

ribs,

Cat. No 652, Byblos Dep Kappa, N9620, Dunand 1954, 299, Fig.300, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen 165, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 12 651, 652 are 2 of 3

Section Groove w V-shaped Point Sharp, Handle * ,

ribs,

Cat. No 649, Byblos Dep Beta, N8343, Dunand 1954, 189, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 166, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w V-shaped Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 12 6 49 is 1 of 3 Cat. No Dunand

650, Byblos 1954, 188,

Condn Slight damage, Length * , Survlen * , Tangform Concave Blshape * , Point Bracket

* ,

Type

Dep Beta, * , * ,

ribs,

N8326,

Measmt From publication, Maxbr * , Maxth * ,

Trianglr, * , Handle

Section * ,

12 4 30

Groove

w V-shaped ribs,

650

i s

Cat. No Dunand

1 of

8

639, Byblos 1954, 3 92,

Dep Chi, N10828, Pl. LXXVIII, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w Low Ribs, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 640, Byblos Dep Chi, N10829, Dunand 1954, 392, Pl. LXXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 201, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w Low Ribs, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No Dunand

641, Byblos 1954, 3 92,

Dep Chi, N10830, Pl. LXXVIII, *

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 201, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 1 2

Point

Sharp,

Handle

Cat. No 642, Byblos Dep Xi, Dunand 1954, 3 38, * , * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt

Cannot

assess,

* ,

Length * , Survlen 1 78, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Groove w Low Ribs, Blshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No Dunand

643, Byblos 1 954, 3 38,

Dep Xi, Pl. LXX,

N10096, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 255, Survlen * , Maxbr 57, Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 1 2 6 43 is 1 of 3 Cat. No Dunand

6 38, Byblos 1 954, 3 49,

publication, Maxth * ,

Section Groove w Low Ribs, Point Sharp, Handle * ,

Dep Pi, Pl. LXX,

N10234, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 204, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cres

ivory

Cat.

No

Dunand Condn

pommel

6 48, 1 954,

Slight

( 10236)

Byblos 2 87, damage,

Length 1 60, Survlen Tangform Horizontal

Dep

prob Eta,

Fig.317,

fr

this

dagger

N9483, * ,

Measmt Accurately 150, Maxbr Rectangle,

restored,

4 2, Maxth * , Section Groove

4 31

w V-shaped

r ibs B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cres l imest pommel ( 9486) prob fr this dagger Cat. No 6 36, Byblos T .O. N . W corner ctyd, N14450, Dunand 1 958, 6 98, P l. CXVII, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 20, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w Low Ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks Cat. No 6 37, Byblos T . O. N . W corner ctyd, N14442, Dunand 1 958, 6 96, Pl. CXVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 49, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Against enclosure wall of Temple of Obelisks Same engraved s ign as No.527, folded over I llustration i s much restored - how reliable ? Cat. No 6 34, Byblos T .O. N wall Dunand 1 958, 7 39, F ig.872, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From Length 2 42, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Tangform Conical, Section Groove B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Bracket * , Type 1 2 Threshold

ctyd,

N15086,

publication, Maxth * , w V-shaped ribs, Sharp, Handle * ,

Cat. No 6 35, Byblos T . O. N wall ctyd, N15087, Dunand 1 958, 7 39, F ia.872, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 93, Survlen 1 87, Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Threshold Cat. No 6 18, Byblos XIV 15.22, N13778, Dunand 1 958, 5 79, F ig.672, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 95, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Three Low ribs, B lshape * , Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 21, Hama T G VI, 5B420, Fugmann 1 958, * , F ig. X, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 60, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth 8 , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Groove w V-shaped r ibs, 4 32

Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 1 2

Cat. No Guiges

5 87, Lebea 1 937, 3 9,

Point

T 1 Ch C , F ig.4E „

* ,

Handle

* ,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 63, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 29, Megiddo T 1 100D, M3456, Guy 1 938, 89, P l. 1 49.6, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 87, Survlen * , Maxbr 6 6, Maxth 7 , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cres marble pommel. Blade deliberately bent over, in hole in wall of chamber Cat. No 6 30, Megiddo T 1 100D, M3457, Guy 1 938, 89, P l. 1 49.5, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 2 10, Survlen 1 76, Maxbr 6 0, Maxth 6 , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 31, Megiddo T 1 100D, M3455, Guy 1 938, 8 9, P l. 1 49.7, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 3 45, Survlen * , Maxbr 8 2, Maxth 9 , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point * , Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cres marble pommel Cat. No 6 60, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, RS6188, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 30, Survlen 1 12, Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w Low Ribs, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2, Fig. 3 6 Cat. No 6 57, Ras Sha ma Imprecise, RS4058, S chaeffer 1 949, * , Fig.18.24, Louvre, Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 86, Survlen 1 45, Maxbr 4 5, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 59, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS6247, S chaeffer 1 949, * , F ig.18.30, Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, 4 33

Length 1 59, Survlen 1 23, Maxbr 4 3, Maxth 6 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Groove w V-shaped r ibs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 15, Ras Sha ma Necr I II, Schaeffer 1 978, * , F ig.10.7, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Other Ribbing, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 16, Ras Shamra Necr I II, Schaeffer 1 978, * , F ig.10.6, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 87, Maxbr * , Maxth 5 , Tangform * , Section * , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp Handle Bracket * , Type 1 2

only,

Cat. No 658, Ras Shamra Poche aux bronzes, Courtois 1 962a, 3 42, F ig.4, Damascus, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 1 56, Survlen 1 51, Maxbr 4 0, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w Low Ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat. No 6 27, S in el-Fil, Tomb, Chehab 1 939, 8 07, F ig.10C, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 1 45, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Groove w V-shaped ribs, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cres pommel fd in tomb Cat. No 6 28, Tel Rehov T 2 , Yogev 1 985, 9 3, F ig.4.2, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 2 64, Maxbr 5 8, Maxth 5 , Tangform * , Section Groove w V-shaped r ibs, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 2, Fig. 2 6 Cres pommel. In front of burial - suggesting a sheath or belt attachment Cat. No 6 22, Tell Mardikh G 1 43 EQ VI IV, TM79G143, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 10, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 7, Maxth 5 , Tangform * , Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 1 2 Cat.

No

6 19,

Tell

e l-Far'ah

( N) 4 34

T 3 „

N104

F679

de Vaux and Steve 1 949, * , F ig.4.8, Louvre, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 82, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Groove w V-shaped r ibs, B lshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2 Re-used Chalco tomb, not fully publ'd Cat. No 6 23, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 67, Maxbr * , Maxth 6 , Tangform * , Section Groove w V-shaped r ibs, Blshape * , Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 2, P l. 3A Type

1 3

These daggers have a straight-tapering or s lightly convexs ided blade ( sometimes described a s triangular), with a broad rounded midrib decorated with a s et of concentric r ibs, cast i n relief on the surface o f the blade. One or two examples are d ifferent i n that the r ibs are not cast but demarcated by shallow l ines cut-in on e ither s ide ( see main text). The number of r ibs varies between daggers, three or f ive being the most common. These generally converge i n pairs a long the l ength of the b lade while a nother r ib runs a long the centreline. L ike the daggers of Type 1 2, these weapons must have been cast from two-piece moulds ( an example o f such a mould i s known from Tell e lD ab'a, unpublished). The daggers sometimes end i n a sharp, r homboidal-section point, l ike that o f Type 1 7 daggers, a lthough others have a more conventional point. None of the examples known to the writer show the concave b lade e dges, familiar on many other dagger types. I n addition to the f orm of decoration, there i s a second main difference between the daggers o f Types 1 2 and 1 3. The latter possess hammered-out tangs, as opposed to the butted arrangement more common with the former type. The t angs occur i n s everal varieties; l ong and narrow, r ectangular, square and various squat shapes. However a ll a re c learly tangs, separate from the b lade, presumably r eflecting a rather d ifferent hafting from that employed i n the daggers of Type 1 2. This can be c learly seen i n the mould cited above which would produce only the dagger b lade, l eaving the smith to hammer out the tang a fterwards. F or this reason, I have d iscussed l ength of b lade rather than overall l ength when comparing this type with the Type 1 2 daggers, i n which the butt was c learly a part of the i nitial casting. I n connection with this, it should be observed that s everal examples o f Type 1 3 are hafted by means of a metal bracket. An example f or a mould for casting these i s published f rom Byblos ( Dunand 1 954, 1 1 No. 6 794, P l. CLXXXIV). G lobular, rather than crescentic pommels, are f ound i n association with daggers o f this type. 4 35

Overall length i s highly variable owing to the great differences in the l ength of the tang. This presumably reflected the preferences of particular smiths, and globular pommels were used regardless of the exact form of the tang. Most examples have blades of between 1 70 and 1 90mm in length and 4 0 and 50mm in breadth, not unlike the daggers of Type 1 2. Maximum thickness is generally between 5 and 7mm. Therefore daggers of Types 1 2 and 1 3 would be noticeably heavier, and use more metal than would examples of Type 1 0, say. As with Type 1 2 the correlation between l ength ( of blade this time) and maximum breadth i s high, at 0 .73, probably for the same reason, that the broad blade i s necessary for the arrangement of the decoration. Naturally plain daggers with broad blades occur, but the more e laborate forms of grooved and ribbed decoration never appear on daggers with narrow blades. Cat. No 5 98, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, F ig.1.1, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 82, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth 6 , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section F ive Ribbed, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cast-in ribs, tang hammered Convex arc at foot of tang, dam on shldrs suggests a bracket f itting Cat. No 1 318, Amman Citadel NFD, Unpublished * , * , * , Amman, N . M., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 69, Maxbr * , Maxth 1 2, Tangform Short Tailed, Section Three Ribbed, B lshape * , Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 I tem in Amman Musrum, probably from tomb; unpublished Cast blade and hammered tang Cat. No 6 14, Byblos Demol walls lev I -X, N7406, Dunand 1 954, 9 6, F ig.82, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Lehgth * , Survlen 1 97, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Long Tailed, Section Four Ribs, Blshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cat. No 606, Byblos VIII 2 0.22, N10983, Dunand 1954, 4 10, F ig.425 it, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform * , Section Four Ribs, B lshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Assoc w bicon pin, lge bracelet. Sagieh Area VII, unit C , ph 6 JI/II Cat.

No

6 13,

Byblos

XIX

Salle

C ,

4 36

N 3806,

Dunand 1939, 2 61, P l. XCV, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length 190, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Six Converg Lines, Blshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cat. No 591, El-Gib T 3 1-31A, B 305, Pritchard 1 963, 1 26, Fig.34.2, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 205, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Five Ribbed, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket Bracket Mounting, Type 1 3, Fig. 3 7 Only other f ind i s amph , f lat base, 2-handled with rim. W Glob l imestone pommel Cat. No 595, Gezer T 1 , MacAlistair 1912, 3 01, Pl. LX.6, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 195, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 6, Maxth * , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Three Ribbed, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Rhombic, Handle Bracket * , Type 1 3

f lared

*

Cat. No 1 337, Gezer T 1 , MacAlistair 1 912, 3 01, Pl. LX.2, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 94, Maxbr 5 0, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Round Centre, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Rhombic, Handle * Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cat. No 5 94, Gezer T 2 26, MacAlistair 1 912, 3 86, Pl. CXX.1, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 01, Maxbr 5 6, Maxth * , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Dagger is only recorded f ind Cat. No 5 93, Khirbet Kufin T 3 Ch 3 -4 upper str, Smith 1 962, * , P l. XIII.5, Amman, N . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 52, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth 6 , Tangform * , Section Five Ribbed, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cat. No 6 04, Megiddo T 9 11A1, M2694, Guy 1938, * , P l. 1 18.5, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 2 18, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 2, Maxth * , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rhombic, Handle * , B racket * , Type 1 3 4 37

Tang c learly hammered out Cat. No 6 03, Megiddo T 9 11D into f loor, M2814, Guy 1 938, * , P l. 1 22.9, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth 7 , Tangform Short Tailed, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Rhombic, Handle Waisted Conical, Bracket * , Type 1 3 Driven into f loor of tomb Cat. No 6 02, Megiddo W=5087, d295, Loud 1 948, * , P1.178.3, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 52, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Maxth * , Tangform Long Tailed, Section Five R ibbed, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 3 No assoc mtl, though other mtl fr s ame gp of bldgs i s MBI Glob pommel Cat. No 5 97, Na'an Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem, I .M., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth 9 , Tangform Stepped, Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape * , Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cat. No 5 96, Nazareth T 1 , Bagatti 1 967, 3 04, F ig.211, Jerusalem, C . of Flag., Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 51, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 2, Maxth * , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 3 G lob pommel Cat. No 5 99, Qedumim Cistern B , Magen 1 982, 1 9, upper, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 55, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * Tangform * , Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape * , Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket Bracket Mounting, Type 1 3 In l ater cistern, assoc pott i s MBI, whole context. Metal bracket with tubular haft Cat. No 6 00, Magen 1 982,

Qedumim Cistern 1 9, lower, * ,

lot

l ater

cistern,

assoc

pott

s econdary

is

s econdary

B ,

Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 1 61, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * Tangform * , Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket Bracket Mounting, Type 1 3 I n

is

is MBI, 4 38

whole

*

lot

context.

Metal

bracket with

tubular haft

Cat. N o 5 88, Ruweise T 5 7, Guiges 1 938, 3 4, F ig.52 2ndlt, * , Condn Good, Measmt F rom publication, Length 2 38, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth * , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section F ive Ribbed, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket Bracket Mounting, Type 1 3 W metal bracket Cat. No 590, Sinjil Bought Dever 1975a, 3 2, F ig.3.1, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 80, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 6 , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Five Ribbed, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Cat. No 583, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-1/12 Gr5 „ N810 Bietak 1 968, * , F ig. 9 , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 31, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth 9 , Tangform Long Tailed, Section F ive Ribbed, Blshape * , Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3, F ig. 3 7 At l eft s ide of pelvis of burial Cat. No 5 84, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-m/10 Gr 8 bl, N1756, Bietak 1 970, * , P l. XVIIa, Vienna, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 2 05, Maxbr * , Maxth 9 , Tangform Short Tailed, Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape * , Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 L ight l ines beyond main ribs - has parallels at Byblos Thin upper blade edges, suggest a bracket hafting L ies over l eft s ide of pelvis Cat. No 5 86, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-m/15 Gr 9 bi, N4128, Unpublished * , * , * , * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 27, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 0, Maxth * , Tangform Long Tailed, Section Two Rins Angld Ctre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 3 Warrior with belt, by waist of burial. Also animal bones and child burial. Glob l imest pommel F aint l ines run a long blade, as on many examples from Byblos Cat. No 5 80, Tell el-'Ajjul T 1 417, P etrie 1 932, 8 , P l. XIV.74, London, Inst. of Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 1 88, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth 4 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Three Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , 4 39

Arch,

Bracket

* ,

Type

1 3,

P l.

3B

The incised l ines run squint and are surely cut-in, cast. Glob pommel. Lies over left s ide of pelvis, by hand

not handle

Cat. No 5 79, Tell e l-'Ajjul T 1 015, Petrie 1 932, 8 , Pl. XIV.70, London, B . M., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 2 27, Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point * , Handle Globular, Bracket Bracket Mounting, Type 1 3 G lob pommel w bracket handle Cat. No 5 78, Tell el-'Ajjul T 3 03B, Petrie 1 933, 7 , Pl.XIX.10, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 76, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth 6 , Tangform Globular, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 3 L ines irregular and of variable depth, prob.cut-in. Glob pommel. Found at left hand side of burial Cat. No 5 81, Tell e l-Far'ah ( N) T 3 , A104, de Vaux and Steve 1 949, * , Fig.4.8, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 82, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 8, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Butt, Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 1 3 Re-used Chalco tomb, not fully publ'd

*

Cat. No 5 82, Tell el-Far'ah ( N) T . AD, N4818, Mallet 1 973, 1 24, Pl. 1 6.8, * , Condn Good, Measmt From publication, Length 2 00, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 8 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section F ive Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 3 Glob pommel Cat. No 5 89, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 38, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 4 „ Maxth 7 , Tangform Conical, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape * , Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 3 Lightly incised l ines on blade -as s een at Byblos Cat. No 6 01, Wadi et-Tin Cave, Vincent 1 947, 2 78, P l. VII lt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 95, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 6, Maxth * , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Five Ribbed, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular, 4 40

Bracket

* ,

Type

MB d eposit seems Dam patt suggest Type

1 3 f airly homogeneous, distbd by Bedouin a bracket was f itted - Glob pommel assoc

1 4

The daggers assigned to this group are best considered as a variation on Types 1 2 and 1 3. They share the same broad b lade, but feature a sharp, beaded midrib rather than the grooves or multiple r ibs of the previous types. The daggers are attached to the handle by means rivets mounted i n a concave-sided triangular or conical butt, as used on daggers of Type 1 2. All have sharp pointed blades with straight-tapering s ides, are fairly broad ranging from 3 84 8mm in max breadth, and are around 1 80-210mm in l ength. The exception is the example from Tell et-Tin ( No. 1 004) which measures 3 65mm in length and 8 4mm in max breadth according to the published i llustration, a size which brings to mind the l arge Type 1 2 daggers from Megiddo Tomb 1 100D. These weapons show a strong s imilarity to those of Type 1 2, and are best considered as a variant. Cat. No 1 070, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9158, Dunand 1 954, 2 52, P l. LXII front, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, L ength 2 13, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Central Beaded Rib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Crescentic, B racket * , Type 1 4 Tublular metal s leeve - open semi-circ at top where a pommel would sit Cat. No 9 83, Hama T G VI, 5B420, 5B420, Unpublished * , * , * , * , C ondn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, L ength 2 60, Survlen 2 45, Maxbr 4 7, Maxth 9 , T angform Concave Trianglr, Section Central Beaded Rib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , B racket * , Type 1 4, F ig. 3 8 C at. No 1 382, Ras Shamra Necr I II, S chaeffer 1 978, * , F ig.10.5, * , C ondn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, L ength * , Survlen 2 27, Maxbr 4 8, Maxth 1 0, T angform * , Section Central Beaded Rib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , B racket * , Type 1 4 By waist of burial Cat. No 1 329, Ras e l ' Ain/Aphek Gr 5 , Ory 1 938, 1 20, P l. XXXII. B6, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 1 76, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Central Beaded Rib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 4

4 41

Cat. No 1 004, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Gautier 1 895, * , F ig.9 ctr, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 3 65, Survlen 3 46, Maxbr 8 4, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Central Beaded Rib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Angled, Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 1 4 Deliberately angled point. Gautier's sketch shows a cres pommel, may belong to this item Type

1 5

This type includes several daggers which do not f it i nto the types described above, but which clearly belong to the same general class, broad-bladed daggers with ribbed decoration. The members of Type 1 5 are Cat. No 5 92, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 28, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 9 , Tangform Angular, Section Nine Parallel Lines, B lshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 5, Fig. 3 6 V . heavy blade, much edge damage. Much hammering on tang The unusual tang was probably cast a s one with the b lade ( fig. 3 9). The blade bears nine parallel ribs. As decorated daggers generally come from M . B. A. contexts, this p iece suggests that some at least of the material obtained by Woolley from this site dates from the early second millennium, despite the fact that the pottery is mainly of mid-third millennium date. We know very l ittle about the material culture of inland north Syria during the M .B.A. and this piece, unusual though it appears when compared to our, l argely southern corpus, may be typical of the l ocal product. Cat. No 6 11, Byblos Bat I I Jar 2 132, N2189, Dunand 1 939, 1 50, Pl. LXX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 1 80, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Tang S lpg shldrs, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 5 The i llustration i s poor but the blade i s clearly r ibbed. Cat. No 6 07, Byblos XXIII 1 1.22, N18365, Dunand 1 958, 1 005, F ig.1093, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 7 2, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 5, Maxth * , Tangform Shoulder rivetted, Section Three Parallel Ribs, B lshape * , Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 5 A miniature dagger hafted by rivets i n the shoulder, three r ibs running parallel.

4 42

Cat. No 6 12, Byblos XVII W extrem du rec, N3657, Dunand 1 939, 2 49, P l. XCV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 09, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 2 , Tangform Conical, Section 2x4 F ine Lines, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 1 5 Miniature dagger, has a conical butt and bears two four l ightly incised l ines on the blade.

sets

of

Cat. No 6 17, Ras Shamra Poche aux bronzes, Courtois 1 962a, 3 42, F ig.4, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 98, Survlen 1 83, Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 4 , Tangform Tang S lpg shldrs, Section 2x7 Fine Lines, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 5 Has a rivetted tang, and a f lat, lozenge-shaped blade bearing two sets of seven l ightly incised l ines. Cat. No 5 77, Tell e l-'Ajjul E 7 84, Petrie 1 934, * , P l. XXVI.271, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 58, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth 8 , Tangform Shldrd r ivetless, Section F ive Parallel Lines, B lshape * , Point * , Handle * , B racket * , Type 1 5, F ig. 3 6 S eemingly hafted without rivets; bears f ive parallel l ines on b lade, in contrast to the more usual designs which a rrange the ribs i n curved, converging pairs ( fig. 3 9). No r eal context. C at. No 5 85, Tell e l-Dab'a F/I-d/23 Gr 1 , N3081, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 2, Maxth 9 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Two Ribs Round Ctre, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 5, F ig. 3 8 Assoc with metal belt. A pair of l ightly incised l ines down each s ide of the midrib zone. Type

run

1 6

These daggers comprise f eatures of both Types

a small group which 1 2 and 1 3.

seem to combine

C at. No 1 076, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10134, D unand 1 954, 3 41, Pl. LXXI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 2 07, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , B racket * , Type 1 6 B road, rounded midrib, with a double groove at each s ide. Concave-sided butt.

4 43

Cat. No 605, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9664, Dunand 1 954, 3 03, P l. LXVIII, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 2 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 6, Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section * , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 1 6 This piece has the concave-sided triangular butt found on many daggers of Type 1 2. This i s however combined with a broad rounded midrib bearing three sets of triple i ncised l ines, a trait closer to those of Type 1 3. Cat. No 1081, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9663, Dunand 1 954, 3 03, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 54, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 1 6 Trapezoidal butt, a double groove runs down centreline. Cat. No 6 10, Byblos Dep Kappa, N9618, Dunand 1954, 2 99, Pl. LXVI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 6 This dagger is hafted by means of one rivet in each shoulder and one on a short tang a different arrangement from Type 1 3 daggers generally which have all rivets mounted in a hammered tang. Tang i s cast, but continues from thick central zone. The blade has a round midrib with three relief ribs along the centreline and on each s ide. Cat. No 608, Byblos Dep Chi, N10831, Dunand 1 954, 3 92, Pl. LXXVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 90, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth * , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 6 Has a short hammered tang with three r ivets and 3 central r ibs f lanked by groups of l ightly incised l ines. The l atter is a feature common on daggers of Type 1 2, and i s l ess frequently seen on those of Type 1 3. Cat. No 1 338, Gezer T 3 , MacAlistair 1 912, 3 03, F ig.160.1, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 71, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 6 This dagger has a broad central thickening with one r ib on each side. Its breadth at 3 6mm, and general shape resemble that of daggers assigned to Type 1 7 below, and the p iece 4 44

may represent a transitional form. Bearing in mind the existence of several daggers s imilar, but not exactly corresponding to Type 1 7, although l acking the ribs of daggers of Type 1 3, ( see under Type 1 8) this i s not really surprising. Type

1 7

These daggers are identified by their unusual blades, with broad, f lat midribs ending in a sharp, rhomboidal-section point, as in certain examples of Type 1 3. Also l ike Type 1 3, a number of different forms of tang were used, although the daggers are a lways tanged rather than butted. As these weapons share the distinctive globular pommel with daggers of Type 1 3, and presumably therefore the same general mode of hafting, this i s not surprising. The blades are never concave. Most of the daggers have blades of around 1 701 80mm in length, although a few are longer at c . 2 00-240mm. A s imilar pattern i s seen for maximum breadth which i s c . 3 6mm for most examples, and c . 4 2mm for a few others. No chronological or spatial significance could be detected in this. These daggers are therefore notably s limmer than those of Type 1 2 and 1 3. The modal maximum thickness of 6mm makes them fairly heavy. Cat. No 6 63, Ain es-Samiyeh Bought, Dever 1 975a, 2 4, F ig.1.5, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 17, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 7 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section F lat Centre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 Tang hammered out of l ower rivet

top of

midrib.

Convex

l ine

just below

Cat. No 672, Dhahrat e l-Humraiya Gr 1 1, Ory 1 948, 8 1, P l.XXXIII.26, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 00, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Flat Centre, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 7 1 male, l female in burial. Dagger found lying across male burial,

also

animal

remains

in grave.

Cat. No 6 75, Jericho T 9 , N899, Garstang 1 932, 4 6, Pl. XXXVII6, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 82, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 6 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Flat Centre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

1 7,

F ig.

3 9

Cat. No 6 77, Jericho T 9 , N1032, Garstang 1 932, 4 6, Pl. XXXVII.5, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 05, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 6 , 4 45

Rockefeller,

Tangform Vertical

Rectangle,

Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 17

Cat.

676,

No

Jericho

Section

Point

T D22,

Flat

Rhombic,

Centre, Handle

* ,

N91,

Kenyon 1965, 2 58, Fig.111.3, Amman, N . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 200, Survlen * , Maxbr 36, Maxth 7 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Bracket * , Type 17 Kenyon says all from one burial, only one Glob "alabaster" pommel. Nearer to bones daggers in the tomb

Handle body than

Globular,

found the other

Cat. No 680, Jericho T D22, N111, Kenyon 1965, 259, Fig.111.4, Amman, N . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 33, Survlen * , Maxbr 36, Maxth 5 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 7 Kenyon says all from one burial, only one body found Glob "alabaster" pommel Cat. No 673, Jericho T D9, N84, Kenyon 1 965, 2 84, P1.111.10, Edinburgh, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 14, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 7 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Bracket * , Type 1 7

Centre, Handle * ,

Cat. No 6 74, Jericho T D9, N64, Kenyon 1965, 2 84, P1.111.11, Edinburgh, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 10, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 5 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 7, Fig. 3 9 Tang same thickness as midrib, poss cast hammered out. Glob "alabaster" pommel

rather

Cat. No 679, Jericho T J3 away from burial, Kenyon 1 960, 3 13, * , Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Accurately restored, Length * , Survlen 191, Maxbr 41, Tangform * , Section Flat Centre,

Maxth

Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 1 7

* ,

Cat.

6 78,

No

Jericho

Point

T J14,

than

N37,

7 ,

Handle

Globular,

N183,

Kenyon 1965, 3 22, Fig.111.14, Amman, N . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 201, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Blshape

Straight

Tapering,

35, Maxth 8 , Section Flat

Point 446

Rhombic,

Centre, Handle

* ,

Bracket * , Type 1 7 Sealed below brick

platfrom.

A l ittle

gold

in

tomb

Cat. No 665, Tell el-Dab'a A/I-g/3 Grl, N350, Bietak 1968, * , Fig. 9 , Vienna, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 85, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 Cat. No 666, Tell el-Dab'a A/I-g/3 Grl, b5, N433, Bietak 1968, * , Fig. 9 , Vienna, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 236, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 Cat. No 667, Tell el-Dab'a A/I-g/3 Grl, b4, N461, Unpublished * , * , * , Vienna, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 248, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 Cat. No 671, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-p/20 Gr 3 , N3105, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 192, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth 4 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 Cat. No 668, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-l/14 Gr 5 , N1356, Bietak 1970, * , Pl. XVIIc, Vienna, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 264, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Round Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 Cat. No 1 122, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-n/15 Gr 1 bl, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 228, Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 3 warriors, gold bands round heads Corr G lob

adhering may be pommel. Across

from left

no Midrib, Handle * ,

sheath or a decorated thigh of burial

Cat. No 669, Tell el-Dab'a A/II-p/21 Gr 7 , Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, 4 47

N2174,

belt

N3059,

Length 1 98, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Short Trapezoidal, Section F lat Centre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle Bracket * , Type 1 7 Left s ide of pelvis Cat. No 6 70, Unpublished

Tell e l-Dab'a * , * , * , * ,

A/II-o/20

Gr

4 ,

N4139,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 50, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 5 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section F lat Centre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 7 "o utside grave but belonging to it" Cat. No 6 64, Tell e l-Far'ah ( N) T A „ N10 de Vaux and Steve 1 947, 1 35, Pl. XX.3, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 04, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 6 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section F lat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle G lobular, Bracket * , Type 1 7 Tang hammered out of midrib Glob pommel Type

1 8

These daggers resemble those assigned to Type 17 but differ i n that the blades do not show the distinctive flat medial thickening, having a more lentoid section. It seems clear from their general s ize and shape however, that they are sufficiently close to those of Type 1 7 to suggest that the s imilarity i s deliberate. Both examples ( Nos. 1 341 and 1 162) have s lender, straight-tapering blades, and measure 1 87mm and 1 72mm in l ength, and 2 8mm and 3 0mm in max breadth, respectively. Both have rivetted rectangular tangs. One ( No. 1 341) has a rhombiodal-section point, emphasising the close relationship with Type 17. As with Types 1 6 above, these are best considered as infrequently occurring variations on a well known type, in this c ase Type 1 7. Cat. No 1 341, Gezer T 1 , MacAlistair 1 912, 3 01, Pl. LX.4, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 19, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth * , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Round Centre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 1 8 Cat. No 1 162, Jericho T B 35, N94, Kenyon 1 960, 3 91, * , Sydney, Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , 4 48

Bracket Type

* ,

Type

1 8

1 9

Only two examples o f this type are known. The blade i s a of the classic form, rhomboidal-section point and broad f lat midrib, for a dagger of Type 1 7. Absolute d imensions ( mean length of blade 1 65mm, mean max breadth 4 0.5mm) confirm this. However the butt i s f langed. Cat. No 8 35, E l-Gib T 45, N40 B 323, Pritchard 1 963, * , Fig.51.39, Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 7 , Tangform Shldr Tang F langed, Section F lat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 1 9, F ig. 4 0 Glob stone pommel w this item or knife also from this tomb Cat. No 8 42, Jericho T D22, N116, Kenyon 1 965, 2 59, Fig.111.5, Amman, N . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 6 , Tangform Shldr Tang F langed, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rhombic, Handle Globular „ Bracket * , Type 1 9 Kenyon says all from one burial, only one body found Glob "alabaster" pommel, rivetted bronze binding fr sheath or handle. Lies across tomb from burial Type

2 0

A group of s ix short ( mean length 1 63mm, length of blade 1 23mm), s lender ( mean max breadth of blade 2 6mm) daggers. The blades are f lat in section, have no midrib, and are convex rather than straight s ided. The hilts show distinctive ' horns' at the j unction with the blade, and are f langed along their full length but open at the top. Some have a clear thickening at the lower end of the handle noted here as Bracket ( cross-stop). Cat. No 8 36, Gezer Context Unknown, MacAlistair 1 912, * , Pl.CXXXV12, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 81, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth * , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket Lower Cross Stop, Type 2 0 Cat. No 8 34, Tell Fara ( S) T 5 54, Price Williams 1 977, 3 6, F ig.20, London, Inst. of Arch, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 57, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 8 , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * Bracket Lower Cross Stop, Type 2 0 F langes l ook cast in not hammered 4 49

Cat. No 8 29, Tell el-'Ajjul T Gr 1 551 ( City), Petrie 1 934, 9 , F ig. XXVIII.297, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 39, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Maxth 3 , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Angled, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

2 0

Cat. No 8 39, Tell el-' Ajjul T Gr 1 551 ( City), Petrie 1 934, * , Pl.XXI.215, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 65, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 1, Maxth * , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 0 Child burial Cat. No 8 40, Tell el-'Ajjul T 1 231, Petrie 1 934, * , Pl. XXVIII.294, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 64, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket Lower Cross Stop, Type 2 0 Cat. No 8 32, Tell el-'Ajjul Gp 9 45, NG Petrie, MacKay and M 1 952, * , Pl. XI.5, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 74, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Maxth 3 , Tangform Horned, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 0 Cat. No 8 31, Tell el-'Ajjul DK 7 15, Petrie 1 931, * , Pl. XVII.33, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 56, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Maxth * , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 0 C ity I Cat. No 1 429, Tell el-' Ajjul T .338, Petrie 1 933, * , Pl. XXII.94, Jerusalem, H . U.C., Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 36, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Long w Full F lange, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 0, F ig. 4 1 Type

2 1

A group of daggers of medium length ( mean length 2 00mm, b lade 1 53mm) and breadth ( mean max breadth of blade 3 5mm), which are distinguished by their possession o f a pair of short f langes at the lower end of the hilt, which i s not 4 50

' horned' and can be either would have been secured by

long or rivets,

short. Hilt-plates although the actual

rivet layout seems unlikely to be of great importance. The blades are of flattish section, without midribs and have convex or straight-tapering sides. Cat.

No

838,

Mersin

XI

Rm

118,

N1088,

Garstang 1953, * , Fig.149.23, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 230, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth 5 , Tangform Short Flanged, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 2 1

Point

Sharp,

Handle

Cat. No 837, Mersin X Rm 103b, N1038, Garstang 1953, * , Fig.149.22, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 202, Survlen * , Maxbr 31, Maxth 5 , Tangform Long w Short Flanges, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 1 Cat. No 841, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9715, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32G, Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 193, Survlen * , Maxbr 44, Maxth 5 , Tangform Short Flanged, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 1 Poss mixed w mtl from Tomb LVII Cat. No 851, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9714, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32E, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 219, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 4 , Tangform Long w Short Flanges, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 2 1 Poss mixed w mtl from Tomb

Point

* ,

Handle

no

Midrib,

* ,

LVII

Cat. No 1381, Ras Shamra Tr Sud Acr unpub tom, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 167, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 5 , Tangform Short Flanged, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 1 Hamm marks on f langes - beaten into shape ? Cat.

No

848,

Ras

Shamra

Area

B finds

in

pits,

RS24140,

RS7422,

Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.19A, Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 190, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 3 , Tangform Short Flanged, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 1, Fig. 41 Secondary

deposits

of

tomb

contents 451

or

poorly

excav

graves.

Type

2 2

This type comprises two weapons which are rather l arger than the rest, ( mean length 3 93mm, max breadth 4 6mm). They have straight-tapering, f lat-sectioned blades. One example has fully f langed tang, l ike many L .B. A. examples ( 850), the other a horned tang, which i s open at the upper end ( 847). Cat. No 850, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9724, Schaeffer 1 938, * , F ig.32U, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 3 81, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 5, Maxth * , Tangform Fully Closed Flange, Section * , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Bracket * , Type 2 2 Poss mixed w mtl from Tomb LVII Cat. No 8 47, Ras Shamra MB tomb Area A , RS7353, Schaeffer 1 936, * , Fig.17T, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 4 05, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 6, Maxth 8 , Tangform Horned, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 2 Type

2 3

Small, rather irregularly shaped daggers which may represent f langed variants of the more common Type 3 3 daggers. Only one example provides reliable metric data. I t i s 1 49mm long, the blade measuring 1 16mm in l ength and 3 2mm in max. breadth. They have simple blades, f lat in section with round points and straight tapering s ides. Their s ize and form suggests that they were all-round ' pocket-knife' items. The flanges on the tang are asymmetric as with the f langed examples of the narrow dagger series. Cat. No 8 44, Ras Shamra 2e Niv, Schaeffer 1 932, * , Pl. XIII5LT, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length 1 20, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth 3 , Tangform Assym F langed, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Type

2 3

Cat. No 8 43, Ras Shamra Necr I , N463, Schaeffer 1 932, * , Pl. XIII6LT, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 49, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Assym F langed, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 3 F langing on one s ide of the butt

452

* ,

Type

2 4

Variants

This type comprises several f lange-hilted daggers which do not f it any of the groups described above. Cat. No 1 425, Alalakh VII Palace Rm 15, Woolley 1 955, 2 83, P l. LXXII, * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 102, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 4, Maxth * , Tangform All-round f lange, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape S lightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket Lower Cross Stop, Type 2 4 The number refers to a dagger from the destruction debris of the level VII Palace, which was found on the f loor of Room 15 ( Woolley 1 955, 2 83, Pl. LXXII). The item i s published only by reference to a single i llustration ' representative' of Woolley's Type Kn. 4 , of which t his dagger was an example. Unfortunately this one drawing serves to i llustrate a number of weapons, from contexts spanning several centuries, most of these being of L . B. A. date, although several are from the destruction of the Level VII palace. We cannot now be sure j ust how much variation existed between the individual daggers. Cat. No 8 45, Ras Shamra Tr Sud Acr unpub tom, RSS24.430, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 78, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth 7 , Tangform Horned, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket Lower Cross Stop, Type 2 4 The dagger has a horned hilt and a f lat-sectioned blade, l ength 2 78mm. , RS7399, Cat. No 8 46, Ras Shamra MB tomb Area A S chaeffer 1 936, * , F ig.17F, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 78, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth 3 , Tangform Long w Full Flange, Section Flat no Midrib, , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 4 I t has a l ong hilt, fully f langed but open l ength 1 78mm, with a f lat-sectioned blade. Type

at the

top,

25

F our daggers from Kfar Monash and a similar piece from Jericho. Those from Kfar Monash are very s imilar in appearance, with straight, tapering blades, pronounced, s harp midribs and a distinctive rivet l ayout consisting of e ither one or two r ivets placed at the very end of the butt. The Kfar Monash daggers have a Length of c . 2 202 40mm and a max. breadth of between 3 4 and 4 1mm. The d agger from Jericho i s smaller, length 1 80mm and max breadth 3 2mm. However, it shares many typological details, i n particular shape and cross-section of blade and the 4 53

d istinctive r ivet arrangement, with the must be considered as of the same type.

former weapons,

and

Cat. No 8 23, Jericho T . A100, Unpublished * , * , * , Amman, N . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 76, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 6 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 5, F ig. 3 4, Pl. 2A Unpublished shaft tomb, noted as cutting Proto-Urban Tomb A94. Several burials, no other f inds. Perhaps an E . B. A. shaft-tomb of the type now known from Bab edh-Dhra'? Cat. No 1 037, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 83, Fig.12.4, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 53, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth 8 , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 5 Cat. No 1 038, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 83, F ig.12.2, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 6 , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 5 Cat. No 1 039, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 83, F ig.12.1, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 21, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 7 , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 5 Cat. No 1 040, Kfar Monash Hoard, Hestrin and Tadmor 1 963, 2 83, F ig.12.3, Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 44, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 7 , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 5 Type

I . M.,

I . M.,

I . M.,

I . M.,

2 6

A small group of weapons which although occurring i n the same contexts as examples of the narrow dagger series, are d ifferent in terms of s ize and morphology. Type 2 6 daggers are defined as short weapons, with a trapezoidal butt with three r ivets l aid out in a triangular pattern. The daggers range from 1 30 to 1 90 mm in length and between 3 0 and 37mm i n max breadth and are generally fairly f lat in section, without marked midribs. Although there are some s imilarities to daggers of Type 3 0 ( see below), these 4 54

weapons are generally smaller and are markedly narrower in relation to their l ength. It would be wrong to dismiss these s imply as small examples of the narrow dagger series, a lthough examples of the latter with a triangular rivet arrangement are known. The members of Type 2 6 are much smaller; most narrow daggers are well over 2 00mm in length, and show completely different values on the variable l ength/max breadth. That for the narrow daggers i s generally between 7 .0 and 9 .0, while that for daggers of Type 2 6 is between 4 .5 and 5 .0. This suggests that they were based on different design concepts. Cat. No 1 227, Barquai Tomb phase 1 , Gophna and Sussman 1 969, 1 *, F ig.3.13, * Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 88, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 6 Two extra rivet holes, prob repairs Cat. No 1 231, Enan with burial H1, E isenberg 1 985, * , F ig.7.39, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 6 Concav haft l ine With burial, opposite s ide of torso from a pair of Type narrow daggers Cat. No 1 228, Hanita Tomb, Negbi 1 968, 2 3, F ig.2, Kib. Hanita, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 45, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * , B racket * , Type 2 6, F ig. 3 1 C at. No 1 230, Khirbet Murhan group, T sori 1 971, * , F ig.6, 2nd rt, Kib. Tel Yosef, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 1 77, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , T angform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , B racket * , Type 2 6 C at. No 1 045, Megiddo T 9 11A1, M2763, Guy 1 938, 6 4, P l. 1 18.1, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 1 74, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * B racket * , Type 2 6 C at.

No

1 046,

Megiddo

T 9 11A1, 4 55

M2773,

1

Guy 1 938, 6 4, P l. 1 18.9, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 46, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 6, F ig. 3 2 Cat. No 1 229, Menahemiya T 1 E .chamber, Bahat 1 976, 3 2, F ig.4.5, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 6 Butt i s hammered Cat. No 1030, Nahal Alexander Context Unknown, Dar 1 977, * , Fig.56.16, Kib. Ma'abarot, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 60, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 6 Type

2 7

These daggers are short. Length varies between 1 10 and 1 80mm of which the blades account for 9 0-150mm. They seem rather narrow, max breadth i s usually 3 2-36mm. The value of the ratio length/max breadth i s generally between 4 .0 and 5 .0 ( 3.4-3.8 i f one takes only that part below the r ivets). Although there i s no strong correlation between l ength and max breadth, there i s a pronounced correlation between the ratio length/breadth and max breadth ( value 0 .83). It seems therefore, that these daggers tend to become relatively more s lender as l ength increases, indicating a preference for lengthening the basic design, rather than to re-scaling all dimensions to maintain general proportions, as seems to have been the case with daggers of Types 1 2 and 1 3. This might indicate that the exact shape was of less s ignificance than with certain other types, a possibility in keeping with the relatively unsophisticated techniques employed in their manufacture. The morphological resemblance to Types 2 6, 3 3 and 3 6 should be noted. Cat. No 1 008, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 21, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc sided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 The two blade faces do not match Cat. No Woolley

1 009, Amarna Bought, 1 914, * , Pl. XXIV it,

London, 4 56

B . M.,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 80, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point B lunted, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7, F ig. 4 2 Cat. No 1 011, Amarna Bought, Woolley 1 914, * , P l. XXIV.31t, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 28, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7 Hamm traces on butt. Tang edges blunted Cat. No 1 012, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 2 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7, F ig. 4 2 B lade edges stop at haft-line Cat. No 1 013, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 36, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 2 , Tangform Concave Straight, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Blunted, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7, F ig. 4 2 Hamm tang surf, well cut rivet holes F aint convex l ine of haft Cat. No 1 014, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 13, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle ETacket * , Type 2 7, F ig. 4 2 Neat rivet holes, hammer traces on tang Cat. No 1 015, Amarna Bought, Woolley 1 914, * , Pl.XXIV.21t, London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 62, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7, F ig. 3 2 Cat. No 1 016, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , 4 57

Bracket * , Type 2 7, F ig. 4 2 Sharp blade, and blunt tang

edges

Cat. No 1 335, Amarna Bought, Unpublished *„ * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 47, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc s ided Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 Well cut rivet holes Cat. No 1 363, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 2 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7

*

Cat. No 9 94, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 45, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc s ided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 Cat. No 9 95, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 47, Survlen 1 37, Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc s ided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 Rivet pattern i s markedly irregular Cat. No 9 96, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc s ided Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 Cat. No 1 000, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ash ., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 65, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 Cat. No 1 028, Tawi T 6 3, Kampschulte and Orth 1 984, * , Taf. 3 1A3, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 3 , 4 58

Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7 H/made pottery, bent head t/pin By f eet of burial Cat. No 1 043, Tell B i'a Grave 5 9/78/2, 5 9/78:16, Arns 1 984, 6 2, Abb. 3 7, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 46, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth 3 , Tangform Solid Rectgle shlr, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 7 Cat. No 1 132, Til Barsip Hypogeum N11, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, Pl. XXX.9, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 75, Survlen 169, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * , Tangform Conc s ided Rectgle, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 7 Cat. No 1 042, Yarkon River Survey F ind, Gophna 1 978, 1 40, Fig.7.2, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 74, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 2 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 7 Type

2 8

This type consists of a long, s lender weapon, perhaps a knife rather than a dagger. The form i s quite distinctive, and on this basis it i s defined as a separate type. Their respective measurements are 2 58mm and 1 98mm in l ength and 2 0mm and 1 9mm, in max. breadth. The butts are trapezoidal or s lightly rounded and mount a pair of rivets. The blades are long and slender with a f lattish or gently lozengeshaped section. Cat. No 1 314, Jericho T P12, N40, Kenyon 1 965, 1 32, Fig.73, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 58, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 0, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 2 8 A nd bones, diartic EB-MB skeleton, f ittings C at. No 1 342, Tell ed-Duweir T 1 513, N1831, Tuffnell 1 958, 7 5, P1.22.7, London, B . M., C ondn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 1 83, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 2 8, F ig. 3 1 4 59

Also this

some

Type

2 9

EB-MB mtl

in

tomb,

j ust

poss

dagger

i f

conn w

Both examples are from the cist graves at Carchemish, and are very similar in s ize and shape. They are medium s ized weapons, of length c . 2 30mm, with long, concave-sided tangs around 5 0mm in l ength. The blades are broad at around 4 0mm across, have s lightly concave s ides and are of f lat section. Cat. No 1 117, Carchemish KCG 9 , Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 21, Pl. 6 0c rt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 33, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 9 1 skull only, 6 0 pots. Necklace, glob head pins, t/pins Cat. No 1 116, Carchemish KCG 1 5, Woolley and Barnett 1 952, 2 22, Pl. 6 1c2rt, I st. Mus., Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 33, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 2 9, Fig. 3 4 Notes l ost Type

bent

Arch.

3 0

These daggers occur with either a trapezoidal or rounded butt, or a triangular tang with concave sides. Most of these daggers are 1 80-220mm in length and between 3 8-46mm i n max. breadth, i .e. they are quite broad. The blades can be f lat or lozenge-shaped in section, measuring 3 -5 mm in thickness, and occasionally bear very s imple incised decoration, usually a pair of incised l ines, a motif well known in the E . B.-M.B. repertoire, and on certain daggers of the E .D I II period in Mesopotamia ( see under Types 3 and 1 2 above). Cat. No 1 077, Byblos Dep Iota, N9535, Dunand 1 954, 2 92, Pl. LXIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 02, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 235, Byblos Dep Iota, N9533, Dunand 1 954, 2 92, P l. LXIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 38, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth * , 4 60

Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket

* ,

Type

3 0,

Fig.

Lozenge, *

4 4

Cat. No 1080, Byblos Dep Iota, N9532, Dunand 1954, 292, Pl. LXIV, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 207, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, Point * , Type 30, F ig. 44

Sharp,

Handle

Cat. No 1054, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10135, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Pl. LXXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 231, Survlen * , Maxbr 50, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Bracket No

rivet

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 0 holes,

1 of

Point

6 such,

Sharp,

blank

Handle

* ,

?

Cat. No 1055, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10136, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Pl. LXXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 194, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 No rivet holes, 1 of 6 such, blank ? Cat. No 1056, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10141, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Pl. LXXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 28, Survlen * , Maxbr 50, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 0

Point

Sharp,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1057, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10142, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Pl. LXXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Lehgth 2 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Concave * , Type

Sided, 3 0

Point

Sharp,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1073, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10119, Dunand 1954, 3 41, Pl. LXXI, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 203, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

3 0

Cat. No 1074, Byblos Dep Omikron, N10128, Dunand 1 954, 3 41, Fig.376, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, 461

Length 1 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 089, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8369, Dunand 1 954, 1 90, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Miniature, 1 089 i s 1 of 6 such in this deposit Cat. No 1 091, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8370, Dunand 1 954, 1 90, Pl. LVI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 46, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle *I Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 092, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8371, Dunand 1 954, 1 90, Pl. LVI, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 66, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section * , B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 093, Byblos Dep Gamma, N8372, Dunand 1 954, 1 90, P l. LVI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 69, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth * , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 058, Byblos VIII 15.13, N10670, Dunand 1 954, 3 82, F ig.414, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 10, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Conical, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Two repair holes, orig holes burst open

*

Cat. No 1 094, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9162, Dunand 1 954, 2 53, Pl. LXII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 50, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No Dunand

1 097, 1 954,

Byblos Dep Zeta, N9169, 2 54, P l. LXII frt, * , 4 62

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length 1 65, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Double Gr and Rib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 The sgle rib defined by grooves occurs here in a doubled form Cat. No 1 098, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9170, Dunand 1 954, 2 54, P l. LXII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 75, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Shallow medial groove, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 0 Central groove is shallow, marked ribs on e ither s ide are l acking, dagger cannot be classed as Type 1 2. Cat. No 1099, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9171, Dunand 1 954, 2 54, P l. LXII bk, * , Condn Cannot assess, Measmt For comparison only, Length 1 35, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Shallow double groove on midline, Blshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 072, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9661, Dunand 1 954, 3 02, P l. LXVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 32, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 7, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 082, Byblos Dep Lambda, N9662, Dunand 1 954, 3 02, P l. LXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 81, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 107, Byblos Dep Chi, N10852, Dunand 1 954, 3 92, Pl. LXXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 28, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 C at. No 1 059, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10684 Dunand 1 954, 3 83, P l. LXXV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 75, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 4 63

Material

i s

from

2 different

j ars,

1 059

i s

1 of

2

Cat. No 1 100, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10686 Dunand 1 954, 3 83, P l. LXXV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 90, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Material is from 2 different j ars Cat. No 1 101, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10683, Dunand 1 954, 3 83, Pl. LXXV, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 72, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Double Gr and Rib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Material is from 2 different j ars Cat. No 1 102, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10687, Dunand 1954, 3 83, P l. LXXV, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 0 Material is from 2 different j ars Cat. No 1 103, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N10688, Dunand 1 954, 3 83, Fig.415, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 10, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section * , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Material is from 2 different j ars Cat. No 1 105, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N 10691, Dunand 1 954, 3 83, Pl. LXXV, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 53, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Material i s from 2 different j ars No r ivet holes visible, unfinished ? Cat. No 1 106, Byblos Dep Upsilon, N 10692, Dunand 1 954, 3 84, Pl. LXXV, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Material is from 2 different j ars No r ivet holes visible, unfinished ? 4 64

Cat. No Dunand

1060, 1939,

Byblos Bat I I Jar 1 49, Pl. LXX, * ,

2 132,

N2186,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 177, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No Dunand

1084, 1939,

Byblos Bat I I Jar 150, Pl. LXX, * ,

2 132,

Lozenge, *

N2187,

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * „ Survlen 1 80, Maxbr 5 3, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No Dunand

1108, 1958,

Section Concave Point * , Handle

Byblos T of 0 Dep 813, Fig.933, * ,

Sud,

only,

Lozenge, *

N15958,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 94, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Mostly figurines, covered by stones, set against E wall S area of Temple Cat. No Montet

1083, 1928,

Byblos T de Partic 2 48, Pl. CXLIX, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 138, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5,

III,

N943,

publication, Maxth * ,

Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1067, Byblos XV 1 4.21, N13470, Dunand 1958, 606, Fig.714, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 182, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Double Gr and B lshape Bracket

Concave * , Type

Cat. No Dunand

1071, 1958,

Sided, 3 0

Point

Sharp,

Byblos L XI 15.16, 499, Fig.672, * ,

Handle

only, Rib,

* ,

N12146,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 20, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Conc sided Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Cat.

1033,

No

Type

3 0

Halawa

Gr

70,

Orthmann 1981a, * , Taf. 6 3.38, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 191, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 4 , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Type

3 0 465

of

By

l eft

s ide

of

pelvis

of

male

burial,

point

upwards

Cat. No 1 339, Ma'abarot T 1 , Dar 1 977, * , F ig.61.19, Kib. Ma'abarot, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 80, Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0

* ,

Cat. No 1 112, Mari T of Ishtar b or , N1403c, Parrot 1 956, 1 82, Pl. LXIV, Aleppo, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 84, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 I shtar Temple b or c prob = EBIII Cat. No 1 158, Megiddo T 1 100B, M3491, Guy 1 938, * , Pl. 1 46.6, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 60, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section * , B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 159, Megiddo T 1 100B, M3494, Guy 1 938, * , Pl. 1 46.5, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 93, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section * , B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 320, Megiddo =5061, D264, Loud 1 948, * , Pl. 1 78.6, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 1 08, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0

only,

Cat. No 1 023, Nazareth T 1 , Bagatti 1 967, 3 04, Fig.211.7, Jerusalem, C . of Flag., Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 96, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 9 90, Qatna T IV, AH, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 935, 1 57, F ig.54 lt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 38, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 5, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point B lunted, Handle * , 4 66

Bracket

* ,

Type

3 0

Cat. No 991, Qatna T IV, TT, du Mesnil du Buisson 1 935, 157, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Fig.54

rt,

Louvre,

Length 186, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 1 110, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS4527, Schaeffer 1 949, * , Fig.18.23, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 213, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Concave haft-line cresc pommel

just

below butt.

Crescentic,

I llustration

suggests

a

Cat. No 1111, Ras Shamra Imprecise, RS4501, Schaeffer 1 949, * , Fig.18.25, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 164, Survlen * , Maxbr 47, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Crescentic, Bracket * , Type 3 0 Concave haft-line j ust below butt. I llustration suggests a cresc pommel Cat. No Guiges

985, Ruweise T 57, 1938, 3 4, Fig. 52 lt,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 246, Survlen * , Maxbr 50, Maxth * , Tangform

Conical,

Section

Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 0

Cat.

987,

No

Ruweise

Flat

Lozenge,

Point

* ,

Handle

*

T 57,

Guiges 1938, 3 4, Fig.52 2d rt, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 198, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Concave * , Type

Cat.

1 125,

No

Sided, 3 0

Ruweise

Point

* ,

Handle

* ,

T 62,

Guiges 1 938, 40, Fig.64 rt, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 143, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No Goldman Condn

1 006, Tarsus 1 956, 2 92,

Slight

damage,

Cache Rm 56, 3 8.500 Fig.428.100, * , Measmt

From 467

N100,

publication,

Length 1 60, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Lentoid B lshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cache

in Room

5 6,

frag'y walls,

cut up by

Section,

later pits

Cat. No 1 027, Tawi T 6 4, Kampschulte and Orth 1 984, * , Taf. 3 1B3, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 92, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 4 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 0 Poss earlier in EB, and aml bones By waist of burial

pott

poorly known

-H/made

* pott

assoc,

Cat. No 1 036, Tell Habuba Kabira S T . IVd/IV3 Burial 1 , Surenhagen 1 973, 3 7, Abb. 1 1.20, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 70, Survlen 1 57, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 3 , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape S lightly concave, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Cat. No 9 81, Tell Selenkahiye WR 2 2, 7 2-313, Unpublished * , * , * , Amsterdam, Allard P i, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length * , Survlen 1 74, Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 3 , Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 0 Type

3 1

These daggers are distinguished by their possession of a short, broad tang. Most examples are around 1 80-190mm in l ength, of which the blades account for c . 1 60-170mm. max. breadth i s generally around 40mm, giving a ratio for length of blade/max. breadth of around 4 .0, fairly typical for the broader forms of dagger. The tangs are usually short and broad, say 1 6-20mm long and a l ittle over 2 0mm in breath at the base. In terms of absolute s ize they are very similar to daggers of Types 1 2, 1 3, 3 0 and 3 2 a ll of which might be collectively referred to as ' broad-bladed' daggers. Cat. No 1 168, Byblos Ramparts „ N6569 Dunand 1 939, 4 26, Pl. XCV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 84, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth * , Tangform Short trapezoidal, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 1 Cat. No 1 137, El-Gib T 1 5 ph3, B 83, Pritchard 1 963, 1 10, F ig.24.92, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, 4 68

Length 1 87, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section midrib,

3 , F lat with

s light

B lshape Slightly convex-sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 1 1 4skulls in whole tomb, phases diff to separate Laid across spine of lower burial - implying a sheath or strap ? Cat. No 1 138, El-Gib T 1 4, B130, Pritchard 1 963, 1 00, Fig.19.10, Amman, N . M., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 90, Survlen 1 87, Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 1 Re-used in LBA Cat. No 1 139, El-Gib T 1 2, B65, Pritchard 1 963, 9 8, Fig.17.6, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 72, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth 3 , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Flat with s light midrib, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 1 Cat. No 1 154, Halawa Gr 1 19, Orthmann 1 981a, * , Taf. 6 9.120, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 88, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 6, Maxth 7 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 1 F lat and mush head t/pins Cat. No 1 164, Jericho T 9 , N1031, Garstang 1 932, 4 6, Pl.XXXVII.4, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, L ength 2 43, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth 5 , Tangform Semi-circular, Section Lentoid Section, B lthape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, B racket * , Type 3 1, Fig. 4 6 C at. No 1 020, Khirbet Kufin T 3 Ch 6 -7 upper str, Smith 1 962, * , P l. XVII.39, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 4 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 1, F ig. 4 5

N39,

Cat. No 1 143, Khirbet Kufin T 3 Ch 6-7 upper Smith 1 962, * , P l. XVII.37, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 80, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth * , Tangform Semi-circular, Section F lat Lozenge,

N37,

4 69

str,

B lshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, Point * , Type 3 1, Fig. 4 5

Sharp,

Handle

Cat. No 1 156, Megiddo T 9 12D, M2959, Guy 1 938, * „ P l. 1 33.6, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 42, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 8, Maxth 6 , Tangform Short trapezoidal, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 1 Cat. No 1 123, Tell e l-Dab'a F/I-i/21 Gr 3 4, N4041, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 95, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth 4 , Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 1 Type

3 2

These daggers are distinguished by their r ivet layout; one in each shoulder of the blade and one in a short tang. Although one or two small examples are known, these are e ither extensively sharpened or from the 1 1 ) pöts' at Byblos, which has produced miniature examples of many dagger types. Most of the remainder vary between 1 80 and 2 20mm in length and 3 8-46mm in max breadth. The mean value for l ength/max. breadth i s 4 .5, however, i f allowance is made for the short tang, and length i s taken to refer to the distance from the shoulders to the point this ratio f alls to 4 .0, placing most of these daggers in the ' broad' category. Cat. No 1 044, Central Negev Highlands, Structure Cohen and Dever 1 981, 6 3, Fig.9, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 14, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 4 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Lentoid Section, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Assoc w Cu awls, whetstones, Red Sea shells - in E .B.-M. B. structure. Many parallels for this hafting at Byblos Cat. No 1 078, Byblos Dep Iota, N9534, Dunand 1 954, 2 92, P l. LXIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 86, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 1, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1 075, Byblos Dep Omikron, N 10129, Dunand 1 954, 3 41, P l. LXXI, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 62, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section * , 4 70

Blshape Concave Sided, Bracket * , Type 3 2 1075 i s 1 of 3 such

Point

Sharp,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1066, Byblos Dep Zeta, N9164, Dunand 1954, 253, P l. LXII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 187, Survlen * , Maxbr 38, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1088, Byblos Dep Beta, N8337, Dunand 1954, 189, Pl. LVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Bracket 1088 is

only,

Section Concave * , Handle * ,

Lozenge,

* , Type 3 2 1 of 6 such

Cat. No 1062, Byblos Bat II Jar 2 132, N2184, Dunand 1939, 1 49, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 145, Survlen * , Maxbr 55, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1063, Byblos Bat II Jar 2 132, N2183, Dunand 1939, 1 49, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 41, Maxbr 44, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No Dunand

1 167, 1 939,

Byblos L XIX Salle 2 61, Pl. XCV, * ,

C ,

N3805,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 10, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Double Gr and B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

3 2

Cat. No 1 173, Byblos L II 17.22, N8029, Dunand 1 954, 1 65, Pl. CLXXVIII, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 26, Survlen * , Maxbr 44, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Double Gr B lshape Bracket Lines

Cat. No Dunand Condn

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 2

look

squint

1068, 1 958,

S light

Rib,

- cut-in

Point

Measmt

Handle

and Rib,

* ,

?

Byblos 12.20 XIX 8 21, Fig. 933, * , damage,

* ,

From 471

Dep Nord,

N16176,

publication,

Length 1 48, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided „ Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1 065, Byblos Surf 19.18, N7335, Dunand 1 954, 8 9, F ig.85, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 53, Maxbr 4 3, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat.

No

1 018,

Ginosar

T 4 ,

Epstein 1 974, 5 *, F ig.18.3, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored „ Length 1 92, Survlen 1 76, Maxbr 5 1, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle G lobular Bracket * , Type 3 2 Glob L imest pommel Cat. No 1 017, Ginosar T 2/3, Epstein 1 974, 5 *, Fig.12.3, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 59, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 4 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1 052, Jericho T 9 , Cat. 9 21, Garstang 1 932, 4 6, Pl. XXXVII.2, B irmingham City Museum, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 55, Survlen 2 18, Maxbr 5 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 3 2, F ig. 4 7 Glob l imest pommel Cat. No 1 053, Megiddo T 4 055, C249, Loud 1 948, * , P l. 1 78.13, * , Cdndn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 88, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Shoulder rivetted, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 3 2 Rich burial Cat. No 1 047, Megiddo Loc. 4009, C81, Loud 1 948, * , P l. 1 78.4, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Pavement sealing Altar 4 017, in some relationship to Temple 4 040. One of several metal objects f rom this locus. 4 72

Asymmetric

wear

on

blade

Cat. No 1 048, Megiddo Loc 5 093, D237, Loud 1 948, * , P l. 1 78.2, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 992, Melaha Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 56, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2, F ig. 4 3 Cat. No 1021, Moza Cave 2 , Sussman 1966, 5 *, * , Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 02, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 2, Maxth * , Tangform Shoulder r ivetted, Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1 041, Qedumim Cistern B , Magen 1982, 1 9, Lower right, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 75, Survlen 1 51, Maxbr 45, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat no Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 I n l ater cistern, assoc pott i s MBI, whole lot i s secondary context Cat. No 1 007, Tarsus Cache Rm 5 6, 3 8.497 N 9 9, Goldman 1 956, 2 92, F ig.428.99, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 7, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cache in Room 5 6, frag'y walls, cut up by later p its Cat. No 1 005, Tarsus Room 0 , 3 6.756 N103, Goldman 1 956, 2 92, F ig.428.103, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 20, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 0, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 C at. No 1 025, Tell e l-Yahudiyeh Gr 1 , Tufnell 1 978, * , F ig.8.72, Oxford, Ashm., Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, L ength * , Survlen 1 93, Maxbr 3 9, Maxth * , 4 73

Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Cat. No 1 026, Tell el-Yahudiyeh Gr 5 , Tufnell 1 978, * , F ig.8.73, Univ. Mus. Penn., Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 79, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Rd Shldrs, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 2 Aml bones in annex. The accompnaying "ring" sheet gold over ' ash' core i s poss a decayed or bone pommel By skull - burials poorly preserved Type

3 3

These daggers are rather irregular in appearance and would s eem to have been made by hammering a cast billet, as they l ack the careful f inish and attention to detail of many other dagger types. The blades which can have straighttapering or concave edges, are generally of flat or lentoid section, often without a recognizable midrib. The butt arrangements differ somewhat in detail, but can be summed up as of ' sinuous' or ' stepped' profile. Three r ivets, in a triangular arrangement i s the norm. Their unifying f actor i s their crudeness and s implicity. They are generally rather narrow in relation to their length which distinguishes them from most other contemporary dagger types. length varies between 1 30mm and 2 50mm, although most are between 1 70 and 2 30mm long, while max. breadth, generally l ies between 2 9 and 3 4mm. The value of l ength/max breadth l ies between 5 .2 and 6 .0 in most cases. Cat. No 1 226, Byblos Bat I I Jar 2 132 N2182, Dunand 1 939, 1 49, Pl. LXX, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 37, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform S inuous, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1 090, Byblos Surface, N1128, Dunand 1 939, 2 9, Pl. XCIV, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 95, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform S inuous, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1 222, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 39, Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Short tang and Rd Shoulders, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , 4 74

Bracket

* ,

Type

3 3

Cat. No 1384, Ras Shamra Context Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre,

Unknown,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 78, Maxbr * , Maxth 4 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3

only,

Cat. No 1386, Ras Shamra Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 181, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 4 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3

* ,

Cat. No 1202, Ras Shamra Tomb in Palace Garden, Schaeffer 1962, 3 07, Fig. 5G, Damascus, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 185, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 3 , Tangform Short tang and Rd Shoulders, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1203, Ras Schaeffer 1962,

Shamra Tomb 3 07, Fig.5H,

RS18.191,

Section Flat Handle * ,

in Palace Damascus,

Garden

Lozenge,

, RS18.189,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 140, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat.

No

1 209,

Ras

Shamra

T LV,

RS9684,

Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.27M, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 162, Survlen * , Maxbr 29, Maxth 3 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 3

Point

Sharp,

Handle

Cat. No 1214, Ras Shamra T LV, RS9671, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.27Q, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 206, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 5 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, Point * , Type 3 3, Fig. 5 1

Sharp,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1 371, Ras Shamra T LV, RS9683, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.27D, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 18, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 3 , Tangform Short tang and Rd Shoulders, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 4 75

Lozenge,

Cat. No 1 210, Ras Shamra MB Tombs Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre,

unpub,

RS11866,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 216, Survlen 209, Maxbr 38, Maxth 4 , Tangform Tang and Rd Shldrs, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1 212, Ras Shamra T LXXXV, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn

Slight

damage,

Measmt

restored,

no Midrib, * ,

RS11615,

Absolute,

Length 191, Survlen * , Maxbr 30, Maxth 4 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1213, Ras Shamra T LXXV inf, RS11491, Schaeffer 1939, * , Fig. 5s, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 188, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 3 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1223, Ras Shamra T LXXV Schaeffer 1939, * , Fig.5Q, * ,

inf,

* ,

RS11493,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 47, Survlen * , Maxbr 6 , Maxth * , Tangform Short Tailed, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 3

Point

Cat. No 1224, Ras Shamra T LXXV Schaeffer 1939, * , Fig.5P, * ,

Sharp,

inf

Handle

* ,

, RS11492,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 25, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 , Maxth * , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1225, Ras Shamra T LXXV inf, RS11489, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 178, Survlen * , Maxbr 29, Maxth 4 , Tangform Tang and Rd Shldrs, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Bracket

* ,

Type

no Midrib, Handle * ,

3 3

Cat. No 1 388, Ras Shamra T LXXV Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre,

inf

RS11499,

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 94, Maxbr 3 8, Maxth 4 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Blshape * , Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat.

No

1 389,

Ras

Shamra

no

T LXXV 476

Midrib,

inf,

RS11490,

only,

Schaeffer 1 939 „ * , Fig.5R, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Relative Length 28, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 , Maxth * , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Blshape * , Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3

no * ,

dimensions,

Midrib,

Cat. No 1221, Ras Shamra T LVII, RS9900, Unpublished * , * , * , Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 170, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 4 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Bracket * , Type 3 3, Fig. 51 Poss

some

mixing/redistribution

of

mtl

Handle with

T .

* LVI

Cat. No 1215, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9725, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32C, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 236, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 5 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Bracket Pass

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 3

mixed w mtl

from

Tomb

Point

Sharp,

Handle

LVII

Cat. No 1216, Ras Shamra T LVI, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32F, * ,

RS9726,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 223, Survlen 2 03, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 2 , Tangform Midrib,

Short

tang

and

Rd

Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 3 3 Pass mixed w mtl from Tomb Cat.

No

1 218,

Ras

Shamra

Shoulders, Point

* ,

restored,

Section

Handle

*

LVII T LVI,

RS9719,

Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.320, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 166, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Bracket Pass

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 3

mixed

w mtl

from Tomb

Point

Sharp,

Handle

LVII

Cat. Na 1 219, Ras Shamra T LV, RS9727I, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32Q, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 72, Survlen * , Maxbr 30, Maxth 3 , Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Pass mixed w mtl from Tomb LVII Cat.

No

1 379,

Ras

Shamra

Unpublished Condn Good,

* , * , Measmt

Length

Survlen

2 24,

T 4496,

RS27179,

* , Damascus, Absolute, * ,

Maxbr

37, 477

Maxth

4 ,

Flat

no

Tangform Sinuous, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Butt sides

Type have

3 3, Fig. 51 been hammer

blunted

Cat. No 1 380, Ras Shamra T 4496, Unpublished * , * , * , Damascus, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

RS27180,

Length 195, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 4 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Centre, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3 Flat midrib runs through bulb of latter

* ,

into

tang,

forming

* , basis

for

top

Cat. No 1 368, Ras Shamra Area B f inds in pits, RS7424, Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.19C, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 29, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 3 Secondary graves?

deposits

of

tomb

contents

or

poorly

excav

Cat. No 1 369, Ras Shamra Area B f inds in pits, Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.19D, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 41, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 5 , Tangform Sinuous, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 3 Secondary graves?

deposits

of

tomb

contents

or

Cat. No 1 383, Ras Shamra Area B f inds Schaeffer 1936, * , Fig.19B, * ,

poorly

in

RS7415,

excav

pits,

pit

pit

RS7423,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 71, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 3

Secondary graves?

deposits

of

tomb

Point

Rounded,

contents

or

Handle

poorly

Cat. No 1 370, Ras Shamra T LII or LIII, Unpublished *„ * , * , Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately

excav pit

restored,

Length 1 33, Survlen 128, Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Concave Sided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1 207, Ras Shamra MB Schaeffer 1 936, * , Fig.17H,

tomb Area Louvre,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 165, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 478

A ,

3 ,

*

RS7396,

Tangform Sinuous, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Bracket * , Type 3 3, F ig. 5 1

Handle

Cat. No 1 367, Ras Shamra MB tomb Area A , RS7395, Schaeffer 1 936, * , F ig.17A, Louvre, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 00, Survlen 1 92, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Lentoid Section, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1206, Ras Shamra 2e Niv, Schaeffer 1 932, * , P l.XIII.5 rt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 46, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 3 Cat. No 1 204, Ras Shamra Necr I , RS472 Schaeffer 1 949, * , F ig.26.8, Louvre, Condn S light damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 46, Survlen 2 40, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 3 , Tangform Short tang and Rd Shoulders, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 3 Type

3 4

These daggers are d istinguished by having concave or straight butts with handles secured either by a pair of horizontally-opposed rivets, or a small group arranged i n a semi-circular pattern. This i s clearly different from the forms described above. Although a few small examples exist ( less than 1 20mm i n l ength), the present writer has not examined any of them at f irst hand, and so it i s not clear i f they are genuinely related to the full-size daggers or represent a mix of damaged or heavily worn objects of various types. These small examples are therefore of uncertain s ignificance and are excluded from statistical calculations. The remainder are generally around 1 60-180mm i n l ength ( quite s imilar to the values for most other dagger types i f the l ength of the tang i s discounted). They show a great range in max. breadth, from j ust below 4 0mm to well over 5 0mm, a lthough a ll are broad in relation to their l ength ( mean value for length/max breadth 3 .2). Cat. No 1 176, Beth Shemesh Tomb 3 , Grant 1 929, * , F ig.123.4, 2nd rt, * , Condn Very poor, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Straight Butt, Section * , B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 4

4 79

Cat.

No

Dunand

1 196,

Byblos

1954,

343,

Dep Omikron,

Pl.

LXXI,

N10143,

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 42, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 4 1 196 is 1 of 8 . Incurved butt, possibly trimmed and repaired ? Cat. No 1 187, El-Gib Pritchard 1963, 114,

T 1 8, B136, Fig.26.14, Amman,

N . M.,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 161, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth 6 , Tangform Concave Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Bracket * , Type 3 4 Tomb re-used in LBA Cat. No Kenyon

1069, 1960,

Point

Jericho T G37, 329, Fig.146.4,

* ,

Handle

N129, Oxford,

* ,

Ashm.,

Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 229, Survlen * , Maxbr 64, Maxth 8 , Tangform Slightly rounded butt, Section Round Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Bracket * , Type 3 4, Fig. 50 Blade edges seem rather thick

Rounded,

Centre,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1195, Jericho T A34, N114, Kenyon 1960, 367, Fig.146.1, Birmingham City Museum, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 150, Survlen * , Maxbr 53, Maxth 5 , Tangform Concave Straight, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Angled, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 34 Furniture,

aml

bones

mostle

from phase

3 ( this

Phase)

Cat. No 1 194, Megiddo T 911D, M2817, Guy 1 938, * , Pl. 1 22.8, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 169, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth 4 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Type

3 4

Cat. No Bagatti

1 188, Nazareth T 1 , 1967, 304, Fig.211.6,

Jerusalem,

C .

of

Flag.

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 178, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 3, Maxth * , Tangform Concave Blshape Slightly Bracket

* ,

Type

Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * 34

Cat. No 1 190, Safad Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , Jerusalem,

I . M.,

Condn Good, Length 158,

Maxth

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

3 3, 480

3 ,

Tangform Straight Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 4 Cat. No 1200, Tell Beit Mirsim Albright 1938, 5 2, Pl. 41.6,

D SE * ,

3 3

D4,

TBM757,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 155, Survlen 1 49, Maxbr 50, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 4 Cat.

No

1179,

Tell

Fara

( S)

T 551,

Price Williams 1977, 3 3, Fig.16.5, London, Inst. of Arch, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 177, Survlen * , Maxbr 56, Maxth 6 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Twin Rods, Bracket * , Type 3 4 Cat. No 1180, Tell Fara ( S) T 556, Price Williams 1 977, 48, Fig.28.8,

London,

Inst.

of

Arch,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 168, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth 5 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 4 Cat. No 1181, Tell Fara ( S) T 559, Price Williams 1977, 61, Fig.38.1, Jerusalem, Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication,

Rockefeller,

Length 167, Survlen * , Maxbr 53, Maxth 7 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Round Centre, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 4, Fd w two nails poss

Fig. from

48 twin-rod

*

handle

Cat. No 1182, Tell Fara ( S) T 564, Price Williams 1977, 72, Fig.45. 5, Manchester, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length 146, Survlen * , Maxbr 50, Maxth 7 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Flat w Round Midrib, Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle Twin Rods, Bracket

* ,

Type

3 4

Cat. No 1 183, Tell Fara ( S) T 5 84, Petrie 1930, * , Pl. VI.12, London, Inst. of Arch, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length

110,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

3 5,

Maxth

Tangform Straight Butt, Section * , Blshape Concave Sided, Point Rounded, Bracket

* ,

Type

Slight

Handle

* ,

3 4

Cat. No 1 184, Tell Fara ( S) T 596, Price Williams 1 977, 1 39, Fig.108.1, Arch, Condn

* ,

damage,

Measmt

From 481

London,

publication,

Inst.

of

Length 9 4, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 3 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section * , B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 4, F ig.49

* ,

Cat. No 1 185, Tell Fara ( S) T 1 021, MacDonald, Starkey et al 1 932, * , Pl. XLIII, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 9 9, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 8, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Type

3 4

Cat. No 1 186, Tell Fara ( S) T 1 018, MacDonald, Starkey et al 1 932, * , P l. XLIII, Jerusalem, Rockefeller, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 64, Survlen * , Maxbr 5 1, Maxth 7 , Tangform Concave Straight, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Twin Rods, Bracket * , Type 3 4, F ig. 4 8 Butt f itted as for twin-rod handle Cat. No 1 177, Tell e l-Dab'a A/II-p/20 Gr 3 , N3106, Unpublished * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 87, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform Straight Butt, Section Lentoid Section, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 4, F ig. 4 9 Possibly repaired and re-used, not necessarily in i ts original form Cat. No 1 193, Wadi et-Tin Cave, Vincent 1 947, 2 80, Pl. VII rt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 80, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 7, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 4 MB deposit seems fairly homogeneous, distbd by Bedouin Type

3 5

This group comprises those daggers which are hafted by means of a straight or tapering rectangular tang with r ivets in a l inear arrangement, unlike those of most other types. Most of these daggers are between 1 80mm and 2 30mm i n l ength. The blades are from 1 40-200mm long, and are of s imple f lat or l entoid section usually with straighttapering s ides. The max breadth of this type of dagger varies widely from 3 0mm to 4 8mm, and there i s l ittle correlation between the length of blade and max breadth. This i s not surprising considering that we are dealing with material from many different s ites, united in effect by a common method of hafting. Examples with concave s ided blades are relatively rare. As such i s also the case with 4 82

tanged daggers of Type 3 1, this may warrant consideration as it suggests that most were

further not employed

cutting implements. The tangs are usually long rectangular and may taper towards the tip which generally 8-13mm across. Cat.

No

1121,

du Mesnil du Condn Slight

Baghouz Buisson damage,

as

( 30-45mm), is

Z 95, 1948, Measmt

Length 180, Survlen * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Blshape Concave Sided, Bracket * , Type 3 5

7 2, Pl. LX, * , From publication,

Maxbr 4 8, Maxth * , Section Flat no Midrib, Point Rounded, Handle * ,

Among remains of stool on which meat offering was Bed, table with meat, axe, dagger and 2 spears in Hammer traces on blade

set tomb

Cat. No 2 86, Baghouz Z 193, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, 8 2, Pl. LX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 180, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 5

Point

* ,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1 120, Baghouz Z 305, du Mesnil du Buisson 1948, 91, Pl. LX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 18, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Parallel Sided, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 5, Fig. 52 Dolmen, axe, spear and dagger. Of rather "Mesopotamian" appearance Cat. No 1 174, Byblos Dep Iota, N9537, Dunand 1954, 2 92, Pl. LX1V, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 12, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 5 Cat. No 1 165, Byblos Bat I I Jar 2 132, N2180, Dunand 1 939, 1 49, Pl. LXX, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 16, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 35

Cat. No Dunand

1166, 1939,

Point

Byblos Bat I I Jar 1 49, Pl. LXX, * ,

Rounded,

2 132,

Handle

N2179,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 45, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , 483

Globular,

Bracket

* ,

Type

Cat. No Dunand

1 169, 1939,

3 5

Byblos Bat II Jar 1 49, Pl. LXX, * ,

2 132,

N2181,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 24, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5 Remains of gold hilt Cat. No Dunand

1 172, 1954,

Byblos L X petite 454, Fig.487, * ,

depot,

N11540,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 245, Survlen * , Maxbr 51, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Blshape * , Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 5 Ass w 2 flat axes, pin etc says its a disturbed area, Cat.

No

1 118,

Carchemish

Woolley and Barnett Condn Slight damage,

in or KCG

Flat

no

only,

Midrib,

a "deposit". Sagieh ( 1983) is it some sort of deposit. 14,

1952, 221, Pl. 60a21t, * , Measmt Accurately restored,

Length 174, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5 Notes lost Cat. No 1124, Hama J 4 , 3A697, Fugmann 1958, 7 1, Fig.85, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From

publication,

Length 218, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5 In " fill" of phase J4 Cat. No Woolley

1 133, Kara Kuzak Context Unknown, 1914, * , Pl. XXVc 3rd dwn, Oxford,

Ashm.,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 175, Survlen 170, Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 8 ,

restored,

Tangform Slim Rectgle, Blshape Concave Sided, Bracket * , Type 3 5

Section Lentoid Section, Point Sharp, Handle * ,

Cat.

T 3 123,

Loud Condn

No

1160,

1948, Good,

Megiddo

Length 177, Survlen * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Blshape Concave Sided, Bracket

* ,

B929,

* , Pl. 1 78.9, Jerusalem, Measmt Absolute,

Type

3 5,

Rockefeller,

Maxbr 45, Maxth 4 , Section Flat no Midrib, Point Rounded, Handle * ,

Fig.

5 3

Cat. No 1375, Ras Shamra T LVII, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.39B, * , 484

RS9887,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From Length 182, Survlen * , Maxbr 26,

publication, Maxth 1 ,

Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Parallel S ided, Point * , Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Type

Cat. No Guiges

1126, 1938,

3 5

Ruweise T 66, 49, Fig. 71, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 140, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 3 , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Lentoid Section, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 5 Cat. No 1423, Sinjil Bought, Dever 1971b, * , F ig.1.15, Jerusalem, H . U. C., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 244, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 5 , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Blshape Concave Sided, Bracket * , Type 3 5 Cat.

No

1147,

Tawi

Section Flat Point Sharp,

Lozenge, Handle * ,

T 24,

Kampschulte and Orth 1984, Condn Slight damage, Measmt

* , Taf. 29A4, * , From publication,

Length 190, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth 4 , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5 Cat. No 1 129, Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund 2 , 2 5/32-25, Heinrich et al 1 974, 44, Abb. 62, * , Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 76, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape * , Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 5 Cat. No 1 127, Tell Unpublished * , * ,

Mumbaqat Hortfund * , Aleppo,

1 ,

7 1MBQ48,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 34, Survlen * , Maxbr 38, Maxth 4 , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Parallel Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket Metal Sleeve, Type 35, Fig. 5 3 Metal sleeve over wood, inside latter shldrs are

square

Cat. No 1 128, Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund 1 , 2 6/35-74, Heinrich et al 1 974, * , Abb. 59, * , Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 150 „ Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section * , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5, Fig. 3 3 Cat. van

No Loon

1 114,

Tell

1968,

Selenkahiye

3 0,

Fig.11,

Tomb Nr

Aleppo, 485

City

* ,

Wa1167-809

Condn Good, Length 2 32,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

4 6,

Maxth

6 ,

Tangform S lim Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point B lunted, Handle * Bracket Metal S leeve, Type 3 5, F ig. 4 6 Metal s leeve over wood, case grips shldrs, bears relief decor Cat. No 1 161, Tell e l-'Ajjul T 1 532, Petrie 1 934, 9 , Pl. XXI.214, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 00, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform S lim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5

* ,

Cat. No 1 146, Tell e l-Yahudiyeh Gr 4 07, Tufnell 1 978, 9 4, Fig.8.71, No Longer any Record, Condn Very poor, Measmt From publication, Length 2 61, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth * , Tangform S lim Rectgle, Section * , B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 5 Near pelvis - on l eft s ide -handle pointing to right Cat. No 1 330, Til Barsip Hypogeum N8, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 06, P l.XXVIII.4, Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 3 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 57, Maxth * , Tangform S lim Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 5, Fig. 5 2

* ,

Cat. No 1 332, Til Barsip Hypogeum N 12, Thureau-Dangin and D 1 936, 1 07, P l.XXX.10, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 81, Maxbr 3 9, Maxth * , Tangform S lim Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 5 Type

3 6

These daggers share the distinctive hafting method of one r ivet i n each shoulder and one in a short tang with daggers of Type 3 2. However, it is immediately clear that there are substantial differences between the two groups. Those of Type 3 6 are shorter, most being between 1 40 and 1 70mm in l ength and narrower ( modal max breadth c35-36mm). The other main difference i s that these weapons are generally rather roughly made. The blades are either f lat or of f latl ozenge shaped section. Closely related to Type 2 7. Cat. No 1 010, Amarna Bought, Unpublished * , * , * , London, B . M., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 28, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 4 86

3 ,

Tangform

Tang

and

Sq

Shldrs,

Section

Concave

Lozenge,

Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 6, F ig. 4 3 Hammer marks visible on butt, bl edges sharp right shldr

up to

Cat. No 1031, Halawa Gr 70, Orthmann 1 981a, * , Taf. 6 3.39, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 140, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat w slight Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 6 By shoulder of male burial,

point

downwards

Cat. No 1 032, Halawa EB III-IV Tomb, H74-415, Dornemann pers. comm * , * , * , * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 171, Survlen 163, Maxbr 36, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 6 Cat. No 997, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 175, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 6 Cat. No 998, Serrin Context Unknown, Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 72, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 6, Fig. 4 3 Cat. No 9 99, Serrin Context Unpublished * , * , * , Oxford, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 43, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Bracket * , Type 3 6 Cat.

No

1 029,

Tawi

Unknown, Ashm., 3 3, Maxth 3 , Section Flat no Midrib, Sharp, Handle * ,

T 21,

Kampschulte and Orth 1984, * , Taf. 1 6B13, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 45, Survlen * , Maxbr 39, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 6

Cat.

1 035,

No

Surenhagen

Tell

1 973,

Habuba 3 7,

Point

Kabira

Abb.

11.3, 487

Sharp,

S * ,

T .

Handle

IVd/IV3

* ,

Burial

2 ,

Condn Slight damage, Length * , Survlen * , Tangform B lshape Bracket

* ,

Section

Measmt Relative dimensions, Maxbr * , Maxth * , Flat

no Midrib,

Straight Tapering, * , Type 36

Point

Cat. No 980, Unpublished

Tell Selenkahiye * , * , * , Aleppo,

Condn

but

Broken

adequate,

* ,

WR

Handle

1 0

Measmt

Tomb

* ,

2 ,

67-25,

Accurately

restored,

Length 150, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket

* ,

Cat.

988,

No

Type

3 6,

Tell

Fig.

4 3

Taiynat

Tay

Braidwood and Braidw 1960, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Length 145, Survlen * , Maxbr Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering, * , Type 3 6

From

1 of

Cat.

No

5 pits

1 331,

Til

outside Barsip

8 .4

pit,

T3826,

453, Fig.351. 6, * , From publication, 3 6, Maxth 4 , Section Flat

Point

bldg

of

* ,

no Midrib,

Handle

* ,

T8.4

Hypogeum N9,

Thureau-Dangin and D 1936, 107, Pl. XXX. 7, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 37, Survlen 131, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 6 Type

3 7

Examples of this type are between 1 30 and 170mm in length, around 30mm in max. breadth and have concave sided, or s lender rectangular tangs. The blades are generally f lat in section, without a midrib and may be straight-tapering or concave sided. These items represent a group of small tanged implements which are l ikely to represent pocket knives than daggers. Cat. No 1136, El-Gib Pritchard 1963, 1 46,

T 57, B349, Fig.62.43, Univ.

Mus.

Penn.,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 140, Survlen * , Maxbr 25, Maxth 3 , Tangform Small Trapez., Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 7 This is the separate Cat. No Epstein

MBII

useage

( Jer

1142, Ginosar T 4 , 1974, * , Fig.18.4,

Gp

I II).

EB-MB

pott

is

* ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 144, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 5 , Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Slightly Convex, Point * , Handle * , 488

Bracket

* ,

Type

3 7

Cat. No 1148, Halawa Unpublished * , * , * , Condn

Broken

but

Gr 5 4 Ch Aleppo,

adequate,

C ,

79WR54:161,

Measmt

Accurately

restored,

Length 171, Survlen 1 36, Maxbr 34, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type 37 V thin and flat, no rivets visible Cat. No 1150, Halawa Unpublished * , * , * , Condn

Broken

but

Gr WR 66, Aleppo,

adequate,

79WR66:28,

Measmt

Accurately

restored,

Length 177, Survlen * , Maxbr 30, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 7, Fig. 3 2 Much hammering

visible

on

blade

surfaces

Cat. No 1208, Ras Shamra T LV, RS9685, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.27P, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length

170,

Survlen

* ,

Maxbr

31,

Maxth

4 ,

Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat Blshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 7

no Midrib, *

Cat. No 1220, Ras Shamra T LVII, RS9885 Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.56A, Louvre, Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 179, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Maxth * , Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 7 Poss some mixing/redistribution of mtl with T . LVI Cat. No 1 376, Ras Shamra T LVII, RS9886, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.39C, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 130, Survlen * , Maxbr 25, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 7 Poss some mixing/redistribution

of

mtl

with

T .

Cat. No 1217, Ras Shamra T LVI, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32N, * ,

RS9719,

Condn

publication,

Slight

damage,

Measmt

From

LVI

Length 1 29, Survlen * , Maxbr 27, Maxth 2 , Tangform Conc sided Butt, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Poss mixed Cat.

No

Type 3 7 w mtl from Tomb

1205,

Schaeffer

Ras

1949,

Shamra * ,

LVII Necr

Fig.18.11,

I ,

RS382,

Louvre,

489

Condn S light damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 51, Survlen * , Maxbr 29, Maxth

3 ,

Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 7, Fig. 3 2 Cat.

No

1 325,

Unpublished Condn Good,

Sinsile

* , * , Measmt

Context

* , Oxford, Absolute,

Unknown, Ashm.,

Length 1 72, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 7 Cat. No 1 130, Tell Mumbaqat Hortfund 2 , Heinrich et al 1974, 44, Abb. 62, * ,

25/35-24,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 1 40, Survlen 1 30, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth * , Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle Bracket * , Type 3 7

restored,

no * ,

Midrib,

Cat. No 1 345, Tell el-' Ajjul DH 657, Petrie 1931, * , Pl. XVII.32, Newcastle, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 45, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 3 , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Bracket In City

Concave * , Type I

Sided, 3 7

Point

Rounded,

Handle

* ,

Cat. No 1 131, Til Barsip Hypogeum N10, Thureau-Dangin and D 1936, 107, Pl. XXX.8, * , Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 32, Maxbr 2 9, Maxth * , Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Bracket Type These

Concave * , Type

Sided, 3 7

Point

Sharp,

Handle

only,

* ,

3 8 weapons

are

around

200mm

in

length,

with

long,

concave-sided tangs ( c5Omm long) and f lat sectioned blades of max breadth c44mm. In terms of s ize and shape these objects rank with the main classes of a rather different tang arrangement. Cat. No Dunand

1 171, 1958,

Byblos L XIV 582, Fig.672,

16.18, * ,

dagger,

but

N13205,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 05, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Maxth * , Tangform Blshape Bracket

Conc * , * ,

Tapering,

Section

Point Rounded, Type 3 8

Handle

Flat no * ,

Cat. No 1 373, Ras Shamra T LVI, RS9723, Schaeffer 1938, * , Fig.32D, Louvre, 490

Midrib,

they

have

Condn G ood, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 16, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 3 , Tangform * , Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Bracket * , Type 3 8 Poss m ixed w mtl from Tomb LVII

Handle

Cat. No 1426, Tell Mumbaqat Kuppe, 3 0/29-121, Machule et a l 1 986, 8 9, Abb. 1 1.1, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 08, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 3 , Tangform Conc s ided Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge, Blshape Concave S ided, Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type 3 8 Dagger below wall of bldg complex. Latter dated by early Akk s eal Cat. N o 1113, Tell S elenkahiye Tomb U22, Unpublished * , * , * , Aleppo, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 182, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth 4 , Tangform Conc s ided Rectgle, Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 8, F ig. 5 3 Type

3 9

This type comprises those items which are sufficiently well preserved for it to be established that they do not f it any of t he types l isted above. A brief individual description i s therefore given, and any relevant comments made. I t may prove useful to have ready access to a l ist of such p ieces for e asy reference. Cat. No 1 334, Azor T 4 level I II, 4/145, Ben-Tor 1 975, * , F ig.12.6, Jerusalem, I . M., Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 77, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 8 , Tangform Short tang and shlders, Section Concave Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 9 S hort sharp, pointed blade ending in a straight tang s ecured by two horizontally opposed rivets; E .B.I period, no known parallels. C at. No 1 348, Byblos Bat I I Jar 2 132, N2175, Dunand 1 939, 1 48, Pl. LXVIII, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 2 89, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth * , T angform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rounded, Handle * , B racket * , Type 3 9 May in f act be a saw, Dunand observes that the blade thin and supple. C at. No D unand

1 349, 1 939,

Byblos Bat I I Jar 2 132, 1 48, Pl. LXVIII, * , 4 91

N2176,

i s

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 94, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no M idrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 9 May i n fact be a saw, Dunand observes that the b lade thin and supple. Cat. No Dunand

1 350, 1 939,

Byblos Walls XI-XX, 2 82, Pl. XCIV, * ,

i s

N4054,

Condn S light damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length 2 20, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * , Tangform Cast on Handle, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point * , Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 9 Handle and blade cast in one piece. No real dating evidence. Cat. No 1 022, Ness Z iona From destroyed tomb, Ory 1 926, 1 0, Pl. V . N26, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 52, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform Shoulder r ivetted, Section F lat Centre, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle G lobular, Bracket * , Type 3 9 Poorly preserved, may be a damaged Type 1 7 dagger, but the i llustration i s not clear. Cat. No 1 391, Numeira NFD, Unpublished * , * , * , Kerak, Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 73, Maxbr 5 3, Maxth 1 1, Tangform Solid Rectgle, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape Concave Sided, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 9 Large heavy weapon, with no exact parallels. Has a heavy solid tang with two rivets in-line. Has a vague resemblance to the Rivetted Dagger type as found at Byblos, ' Enan and other sites. Cat. No 1 377, Ras Shamra Tomb in Palace Garden, RS18190, Schaeffer 1 962, 3 07, P1.51, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 54, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 3 , Tangform Swollen Terminal, Section F lat no Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Rounded, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 3 9 Has a solid, cast, broad, f lat tang, without rivets. Some resemblance in terms of size and general shape to Type 3 3 daggers. Cat. No 9 86, Ruweise T 5 7, Guiges 1 938, 3 4, F ig.52 rt, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 03, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * , Tangform Small Straight, Section Flat no Midrib, B lshape * , Point * , Handle * , 4 92

Bracket

* ,

Type

3 9

Small round-butted implement with two horizontally-opposed rivets, similar to, but smaller than Type 2 8. Cat.

No

1 024,

Safad

Tomb,

Unpublished * , * , * , I . D. A., Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 36, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 2 , Tangform Trapez Butt, Section F lat no Midrib, Blshape Slightly Convex „ Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type 3 9 Small Cat.

with tapering butt, No

989,

Tell

Judeideh

two

rivets,

' F',

* ,

horizontally opposed.

X 3816,

Braidwood and Braidw 1 960, 2 45, F ig.185.5, * , Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 200, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 5, Maxth 4 , Tangform * , Section F lat Lozenge, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * . Bracket * , Type 3 9 No e xact parallels. Along with the Byblos examples, this piece i llustrates the fourth millennium background for our material. Cat. No 1 232, Tell e l-'Ajjul T 1 750, Petrie 1 934, * , P l. XXII.239, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 257, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * , Tangform S lim Rectgle, Section F lat w Round Midrib, B lshape S lightly Convex, Point * , Handle Globular, Bracket * , Type 3 9 Has straight tang with two rivets and a long s lim b lade with a marked midrib. Found with pommel and narrow-bladed axe of Type 5 . G lob pommel, cartd variety Cat. No 1 233, Tell el-'Ajjul T 3 12, Petrie 1 933, 8 , P l. XVIII.7, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, L ength 2 61, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Maxth * , T angform Conical, Section Flat w Round Midrib, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle Globular, B räcket * , Type 3 9 General s imilarity to 1 232 above. Found with pommel. The l ast two might be seen as l ate examples of the various types of decorated daggers popular in the Levant. G lob pommel, cartd variety. Left s ide of burial point towards feet C at. No 1 003, Tell et-Tin Tomb, Unpublished * , * , * , I st. Arch. Mus., C ondn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, L ength * , Survlen 2 66, Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * , Tangform * , Section F lat Lozenge, B lshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle *1 B racket * , Type 3 9 Long narrow blade with two horizontally opposed r ivets, known parallels ( Pl. 7 8). 4 93

no

Cat. No Gautier

1 362, Tell et-Tin Tomb, 1 895, * , Fig.9 left, * ,

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 4 26, Survlen * , Maxbr 61, Maxth * , Tangform Straight Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib, Blshape Straight Tapering, Point Sharp, Handle * , Bracket * , Type 39 Very long dagger length = 426mm, max breadth 61mm. rivets visible in published i llustration. central zone and is bevelled at the edges. parallels.

No

Blade has No close

flat

Cat. No 1 424, Ain es-Samiyeh, Bought Dever, 1971b, * , Fig.7.3, Jerusalem, H . U. C. Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 42, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 8, Maxth 5 Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Concave Sided Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1 323, Alalakh, VII Palace Rm 10 Woolley, 1 955, 2 83, Pl. LXXII, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length 390, Survlen * , Maxbr 70, Maxth 2 2 Tangform * , Section Square Midrib Blshape Slightly Convex Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type Only such piece

* from the

only,

site.

Cat. No 1 140, Amrit, T 7 layer 3 Dunand et al, 1 955, 197, * , Damascus Condn Slight damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth *

only,

Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Parallel Sided Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Details obscured by corrosion. Cat. No 1 326, Beer Resisim, Cohen and Dever, 1980, 49,

Bldg 3M Fig.11,

*

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 2 30, Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * Tangform Trapez Butt, Section * Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Broken,

found

with

two

Cat. No Dunand,

1095, 1954,

Byblos, 253, * ,

copper Dep *

ingots,

Zeta,

inside

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Probably Type 30, ' same as' 1094

but

Point

Sharp,

illustration

494

a structure

n9163

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt For comparison Length 1 38, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Blshape Bracket

only,

i s

only, Lozenge

Handle

*

inadequate

said

to

be

Cat. No Dunand,

1353, 1954,

Byblos, Dep Zeta, 253, Pl. LXII, *

n9165

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 193, Survlen * , Maxbr 49, Maxth * Tangform * , Section * Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Point

* ,

Handle

only,

*

Cat. No 1104, Byblos, Dep Upsilon, n10690 Dunand, 1954, 3 83, * , * Condn Cannot assess, Measmt For comparison only, Length 135, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Cat.

1359,

No

Byblos,

Point

Sharp,

Dep Upsilon,

Handle

*

n10689

Dunand, 1954, 3 83, Pl. LXXV, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 185, Survlen 1 76, Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * Tangform * , Section * Blshape Concave Sided Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Tang possibly

repaired

Cat. No Dunand,

Byblos, Bat I I Jar 149, Pl. LXX, *

1061, 1939,

and

only,

reshaped 2 132,

n2185

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 79, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 8, Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Concave Sided Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No Dunand,

1 346, 1939,

Byblos, Bat II Jar 150, Pl. LXX, *

2 132,

n2188

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 00, Maxbr 58, Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No Dunand,

1 347, 1939,

Byblos, Bat II Jar 150, Pl. LXX, *

2 132,

n2186bis

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 156, Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform * , Section * B lshape Concave S ided Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

Cat. No Montet,

1 352, 1 928,

only,

*

Byblos, T de Partic 2 48, Pl. CXLIX, *

I II,

n945

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 1 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 1, Maxth * Tangform Conc sided Butt, Section * B lshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * No rivets visible in

i llustration 495

only,

Cat. No Dunand,

1170, 1939,

Byblos, L VI Rect 1 32, Pl. XCVI, *

2 1,

n1934

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 165, Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * Tangform

Tang

and

Blshape Bracket

Concave * , Type

Cat. No Dunand,

1087, 1954,

Sq

Shldrs,

Sided *

Section

Point

Byblos, Surf 99, Fig.85,

*

Rounded,

15.14, *

only,

Handle

*

n7430

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 166, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 4 Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Concave Sided Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No Dunand,

1085, 1939,

Byblos, Walls 283, Pl. XCV,

XI-XX, *

n4056

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 62, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth 2 Tangform Curved Butt, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Concave Sided Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Very small, Dunand notes tnöolithique period.

possible

parallels

with daggers

Cat. No 1086, Byblos, Walls XI-XX, n4055 Dunand, 1939, 283, Fig.241, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 170, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Maxth * Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Straight Tapering Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1198, Byblos, L IV sud du rectgl, Dunand, 1939, 121, Pl. XCIX, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Relative Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Rounded butt, Section * B 1 ,shape Concave Sided Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type *

n1809 dimensions,

Cat. No 8 30, Byblos, XXII 1 1.22, n17805 Dunand, 1958, 959, Fig.1062, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 106, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Irreg. Flanged, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape * Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Illustration Cat.

No

1109,

not

clear,

Byblos,

but

XXII

no

obvious

1 1.22,

parallels

n17769

Dunand, 1958, 955, Fig.1062, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 1 18, Survlen 1 13, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section F lat Lozenge 496

only,

only,

of

Blshape Bracket

* * ,

Point * , Type *

Cat. No Dunand,

1064, 1939,

Handle

*

Byblos, XIX centre 2 68, Pl. XCIV, *

du

rectgl,

n3872

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 159, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth 4 Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Heavily concave, Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Very worn blade Cat. No Woolley

1119, Carchemish, KCG 1 3E and Barnett, 1952, 2 22, Pl.

61a

rt,

Ist.

Arch.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt From publication, Length * , Survlen 2 37, Maxbr 52, Maxth 5 Tangform

Slim Rectgle,

Section

Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Appears

to

Cat.

1336,

No

be

without El

Jisr,

Flat

Point

Butt, Sided *

Handle

*

rivets Early

tombs

Unpublished, * , * , * , Jerusalem, Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 247, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Tangform Trapez Blshape Concave Bracket * , Type

Lozenge

Rounded,

Rockefeller Maxth

Section Lentoid Point Rounded,

5 Section Handle *

Cat. No 1 317, Ga'led, T. VIII Meir, 1974, * , Fig.5.7, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 80, Survlen * , Maxbr 38, Maxth * Tangform Small Trapez., Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Bracket S ingle

* * ,

Point * , Type *

rivet

in

Handle

tang,

odd

* item.

Cat. No 1 141, Ginosar, T 4 Epstein, 1974, * , Fig.18. 5, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt

For

comparison

Length * , Survlen 128, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 3 Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat B lshape * Point * , Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

Lozenge

*

Cat. No 1019, Ginosar, T 2/3 Epstein, 1974, 5 *, Fig.12.5,

*

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 2 00, Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform * , Section Flat no Midrib B lshape

*

Point

only,

* ,

Handle

*

Bracket * , Type * Butt broken off. Cat. No 1 322, Halawa, Gr Orthmann, 1981a, * , Taf.

123 71.8,

*

497

only,

Mus.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 45, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * Tangform * , Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Bracket Found

Straight Tapering * , Type *

by

pelvis

of

a male

Point

Sharp,

Handle

*

burial.

Cat. No 1 153, Halawa, Gr 119 Orthmann, 1981a, * , Taf. 69.119, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 156, Survlen * , Maxbr 35, Maxth 2 Tangform Horizontal Rectangle, Section Flat no Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * No sign of rivets Cat. No 1 191, Halawa, Gr Orthmann, 1981a, * , Taf.

only,

119 69.121,

Midrib

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 118, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * Tangform * , Section * Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Possibly broken Cat. No 1 149, Halawa, Gr 5 4 Ch C , WR54:121 Unpublished, * , * , * , Aleppo Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 05, Maxbr 2 5, Maxth 3 Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section * Blshape Bracket Roughly

Straight Tapering Point * , Type * finished by hammering

Cat. No 1 152, Halawa, Unpublished, * , * , * ,

* ,

Handle

*

Gr.66, WR066:20 Aleppo

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 74, Maxbr 3 4, Maxth 4 Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1 151, Halawa, Unpublished, * , * , * ,

only,

Gr 1 1/12, Aleppo

only,

no Midrib Handle *

Wx011

Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 40, Maxth

3

Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Straight Tapering Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Crudely made Cat. No 982, Hama, Room in phase J2, 3A397 Fugmann, 1 958, 7 4, Fig.98, Copenhagen National Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 2 30, Survlen 2 22, Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform * , Section Concave Lozenge Blshape

Straight

Tapering

Point 498

Sharp,

Handle

*

Bracket

* ,

Type

*

Cat. No 984, Hama, H 4 , 2E70 Fugmann, 1958, 96, F ig.117, Copenhagen National Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 48, Maxbr 35, Maxth 9 Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Concave Blshape Concave Sided Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type *

only,

Lozenge

From debris Cat.

No

1327,

Hazorea,

Tombs

Unpublished, * , * , * , Kib. Hazorea Condn Slight damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length 140, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Maxth * Tangform Concave-sided, Section * Blshape Concave Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Three rivets in triangular pattern, related to Type

2 7

Cat. No 1163, Jericho, T M11, n69 Kenyon, 1965, 2 38, F ig.111.1, Edinburgh Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 81, Maxbr * , Maxth 4 Tangform Vertical Rectangle, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape * Point Sharp, Handle Globular Bracket * , Type * With glob, l imestone pommel Cat.

No

1051,

Jericho,

T J3

corpse,

Kenyon, 1960, 3 13, Fig.117.5, Amman, N . M. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 01, Maxbr 48, Maxth * Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Straight Tapering Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type * With glob ' alabaster' pommel, axe and belt. Cat. No Kenyon,

1050, 1960,

Globular

Jericho, T J3 away from burial 3 13, * , Amman, N . M.

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 91, Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 5 Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Section Lentoid Section Blshape Slightly Convex Point Sharp, Handle Globular Bracket * , Type * , Fig. With ' alabaster' pommel

47

Cat. No 1 001, Kara Kuzak, Context Unknown Woolley, 1914, 8 7, Pl. XXVC 4th down, Oxford, Ashm. Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 80, Maxbr 41, Maxth 3 Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Concave S ided Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1 144, Khirbet Kufin, T 3 Ch Smith, 1 962, * , P l. XVII.38, * 499

6-7

upper

str

?

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 28, Maxbr 28, Maxth 4 Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Point

Sharp,

Handle

only,

*

Cat. No 1316, Khirbet el-Kirmil, bought Dever, 1975b, 3 2, * , Jerusalem, H . U. C. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison

only,

Length 219, Survlen * , Maxbr 41, Maxth 3 Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Concave Sided Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Three rivets in triangular pattern Cat. No Chehab,

1 340, 1940,

Majdalouna, Cave 46, Fig.9B, *

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 60, Maxbr * , Maxth * Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape * Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Single large rivet hole in tang Cat. No 1 157, Megiddo, T 912D M2958 Guy, 1938, * , Pl. 1 33.5, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 38, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. Loud, Condn

No

1 155,

Megiddo,

T 3055,

b307

1948, * , Pl. 179.20, * Slight damage, Measmt From

publication,

Length 189, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Maxth * Tangform Concave Trianglr, Section * Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle Bracket

* ,

Type

*

*

Cat. No 1321, Megiddo, -2048, c64 Loud, 1948, * , Pl. 1 78.14, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length 172, Survlen * , Maxbr 46, Maxth * Tangform * , Section Flat lozenge Blshape Straight Tapering Point Bracket

* ,

Cat.

1 364,

No

Type

Sharp,

Handle

only,

*

*

Megiddo,

T 3175,

c39

Loud, 1948, * , P1.179.15, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 182, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * Tangform * , Section Flat no Midrib Blshape

Straight

Bracket

* ,

Cat.

993,

No

Type

Tapering

Point

Rounded,

*

Melaha,

Context

Unknown 500

Handle

only,

*

Unpublished,

* ,

Condn

but

Broken

Length 152, Tangform * , Blshape Bracket

* ,

* ,

Oxford,

adequate,

Survlen Section

Ashm.

Measmt

Accurately

1 44, Maxbr 4 3, Maxth F lat no Midrib

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Cat. No 1 324, Melaha, Unpublished, * , * , * ,

Point

Context Oxford,

Sharp,

restored,

3 Handle

*

Unknown Ashm.

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 123, Maxbr 35, T, Maxth 5 Tangform * , Section Round Centre Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Point

Sharp,

Handle

only,

*

Cat. No 1192, Mersin, W Terrace Garstang, 1935, * , F ig.149.21, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 124, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 3 Tangform Straight Butt, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Concave Sided Point * , Handle * Bracket * Type * Unfinished blank ? Cat. No 1390, Numeira, No Details Unpublished, * , * , * , Kerak

of

Context

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 211, Survlen * , Maxbr 48, Maxth * Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Straight Tapering Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1199, Ras Shamra, Context Unpublished, * , * , * , Louvre

Unknown,

RS11805

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 14, Maxbr 40, Maxth 4 Tangform Straight Butt, Section Lentoid Section Blshape * Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1211, Ras Shamra, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Aleppo Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length 161, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 0, Maxth 3 Tangform * , Section Flat Lozenge Blshape * Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

only,

only,

*

Cat. No 1 372, Ras Shamra, T . Schaeffer, 1 938, * , Fig.27N,

LV, RS9672 Louvre

Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 160, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * Tangform * , Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Straight Tapering Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket

* ,

Cat.

1 374,

No

Type

*

Ras

Shamra,

T LXXXV, 501

RS11614

Unpublished,

* ,

* ,

* ,

Louvre

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length 153, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Maxth 4 Tangform Trapez Butt, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Bracket

Straight Tapering * , Type *

Point

* ,

Handle

*

Cat. No 1 385, Ras Shamra, T LXXV inf, RS11398 Unpublished, * , * , * , Louvre Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 14, Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 3 Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Blshape * Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type *

Flat

only,

only,

no Midrib

Cat. No 1 387, Ras Shamra, T LXXV inf, RS11394 Unpublished, * , * , * , Louvre Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 98, Maxbr 3 3, Maxth * Tangform * , Section * Blshape Straight Tapering Point Rounded, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1 366, Ras Shamra, T LVI, RS9718 Schaeffer, 1938, * , Fig.32P, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 66, Maxbr 3 1, Maxth 2 Tangform * , Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 1 378, Ras Shamra, 2e Niv, Schaeffer, 1949, * , Fig.26.11, *

only,

RS1931.464

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 48, Survlen * , Maxbr 19, Maxth 3 Tangform Slim Rectgle, Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Straight Tapering Point Rounded, Handle Bracket * , Type *

*

Cat. No 1 175, Ras Shamra, Necr I , RS1931.482 Schaeffer, 1962, * , Fig.26.7, Louvre Condn Slight damage, Measmt For Length 1 60, Survlen * , Maxbr * ,

comparison Maxth 2

Tangform Conc sided Rectgle, Section Blshape * Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Cat. No 656, Ras Schaeffer, 1 949,

Shamra,"hoard' UMI * , Fig.18.31, *

Condn

adequate,

Broken

but

Length * , Survlen Tangform Conical, Blshape Bracket Probably Cat.

No

from 1 328,

a ' scrap' Ras

el

no

Midrib

early,

RS6319

Measmt Absolute,

2 12, Maxbr Section *

Straight tapering, * , Type *

or

Flat

only,

50,

Point

Maxth * ,

Handle

Gr

4

hoard

' Ain/Aphek, 502

* *

Ory, 1938, 120, Pl. XXXII. B2, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 23, Maxbr 3 0, Maxth * Tangform * , Section * Blshape Bracket

* * ,

Point * , Type *

Cat. No Guiges,

1178, 1938,

Handle

only,

*

Ruweise, T 7 4 60, F ig.95A,

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 160, Survlen * , Maxbr 45, Maxth * Tangform Straight Butt, Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Concave Sided Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Very heavily worn Cat. No 1 315, Safad, Tomb Unpublished, * , * , * , * Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 36, Maxbr 2 9, Maxth 3 Tangform * , Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Concave Sided Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type *

*

Cat. No 1344, Serrin, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Oxford, Ashm. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 1 57, Maxbr 3 2, Maxth 2 Tangform * , Section Flat no Midrib Blshape Bracket

Slightly Convex * , Type *

Point

Sharp,

Handle

only,

*

Cat. No 1201, Tell Beit Mirsim, D palace, 1722SE Albright, 1938, 5 2, Pl. 41.17, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Slight damage, Measmt Absolute, Length 105, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 9, Maxth 4 Tangform * , Section Concave Lozenge Blshape Concave Sided Point Sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * , Fig. 49 From level D Palace Cat.

No

1135,

MacDonald,

Tell

Fara

Starkey a ,

( S),

1 932,

T 1006 * ,

Pl.

XLIV,

*

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 172, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 3, Maxth 3 Tangform Small Trapez., Section Flat Lozenge Blshape Slightly convex Point sharp, Handle * Bracket * , Type * Single rivet in tang Cat. No 1 115, Tell Selenkahiye, W13 1 2 tII 146, SLK75-m29 Unpublished, * , * , * , Amsterdam, Allard Pi Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 81, Maxbr 4 6, Maxth 2 Tangform Small Trapez., Section Flat no Midrib Blshape * Point * , Handle * Bracket

* ,

Type

* 5 03

Single Cat.

rivet

No

intang,

1 343,

Tell

irregular

el-Maskhuta,

Holliday, 1982, 44, Condn Cannot assess,

Fig.68, * Measmt For

Length * , Survlen 250, Maxbr Tangform Tang and Sq Shldrs, Blshape Concave Sided Point Bracket * , Type * Assoc.

with

head

and

Cat. No 1002, Tell Unpublished, * , * , Condn Substantial Length * , Survlen

f inish T L2029 comparison

* , Maxth * Section * Sharp, Handle

forequarters

et-Tin, * , Ist.

Tomb Arch.

of

only,

*

a donkey

Mus.

damage, Measmt For comparison 168, Maxbr 4 4, Maxth 3

Tangform Concave Trianglr, Blshape Straight Tapering Bracket * , Type *

only,

Section Flat no Midrib Point * , Handle *

Cat. No 1 333, Til Barsip, Hypogeum, n13 Thureau-Dangin and D , 1 936, 107, Pl. XXX.11, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison Length * , Survlen 175, Maxbr 42, Maxth * Tangform * , Section Flat Blshape Slightly Convex Bracket * , Type *

Lozenge Point * ,

Handle

Cat. No 1 145, Yabrud, T 4 Assaf, 1967, * , Taf. 1 .2, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative

*

dimensions,

Length 129, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 1, Maxth * Tangform Long Tailed, Section * Blshape Straight Tapering Point Sharp, Handle Bracket * , Type * Similar in shape to Type 1 3 dagger but lacking

Globular ribs

blade Cat.

No

1 189,

Yabrud,

T 4

Assaf, 1967, * , Taf. 1 .3, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Relative dimensions, Length 70, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Maxth * Tangform Straight Butt, Section * Blshape Straight Tapering Point * , Handle * Bracket * , Type Exact shape not

* clear

504

only,

on

CURVED-BLADED KNIVES SURVLEN

' Surviving

LENGTH BUTTLEN

' Overall Length' ' Length of Butt'

BLADLEN

' Length

MAXBR POINT RIVETS

' Maximum Breadth of Blade' ' Shape of Point of BLade' ' Pattern of Rivets'

BUTTSHP

' Shape

Type

of

Blade'

Butt'

1

Cat. No Montet, Condn

of

length'

1304, 1928,

Byblos, R. T. II, n658 181, Pl. CII, *

Substantial

damage,

Length * , Survlen * , Buttshp Trapezoidal, Rivets * Type 1 Sheet gold wrappings

Measmt

Maxbr Point

* , *

Cannot

assess, Bladelen

*

Cat. No 1305, Byblos, R. T. II, n656 Montet, 1928, 181, Pl. CII, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets Three rivets Type 1 Sheet gold wrappings around handle

*

Cat. No 1306, Byblos, R. T. II, n657 Montet, 1928, 1 81, Pl. CII, * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets * Type 1 Sheet gold wrappings around handle

*

around

Buttlen

* ,

handle

Cat. No 1 278, Dhahrat el-Humraiya, Gr 44 Ory, 1948, 85, Pl. XXXIII.21, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 166, Survlen * , Maxbr 20, Buttlen * , Bladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets Three rivets Type Found with animal remains Cat. No 1 269, El-Gib, T Pritchard, 1963, 1 38, Condn Good, Length 197,

1 by

of

burial

45, n40, B324 Fig. 51.40, Amman,

Measmt Absolute, Survlen * , Maxbr

Buttshp Trapezoidal, Rivets Three rivets

feet

2 3,

Buttlen

Point Marked Upturn Type 1 , Fig. 56, Pl.

N . M. 3 0,

Bladelen

167

2B

Cat. No 1 270, El-Gib, T 15 phl, B112 Pritchard, 1963, 1 10, Fig.24.94, Univ. Mus. Penn. Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length

155,

Survlen

Buttshp Trapezoidal,

* ,

Maxbr

Point

27,

Buttlen

Straight 505

2 1,

Bladelen

1 34

Rivets

Three

rivets

Type

Cat. No 1 271, El-Gib, T Pritchard, 1963, 1 10,

1

15 ph2, B78 Fig.24.93, Univ.

Mus.

Penn.

Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 160, Survlen * , Maxbr 25, Buttlen 19, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Rivets Three rivets Cat.

No

1 284,

141

Point Marked Upturn Type 1

El-Jisr, Ch

1 ,

n51

Ory, 1946, 3 7, Pl. XIII.51, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 182, Survlen * , Maxbr 16, Buttlen 2 2, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets

Three

rivets

Type

1

Cat. No 1 274, Gezer, Cave 15 I MacAlistair, 1912, 92, Pl. XXI.20, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 26, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 1, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets * Type 1 Cat. No 1275, Gezer, T 1 MacAlistair, 1912, 301, Pl. LX.1, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 198, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets

Three

rivets

Type

No

1 308,

Halawa, Gr

1 1

Ch

BTomb,

Cat.

No

Single 1 302,

rivet

Type

Jericho, T

9 ,

*

166

WR11:49

Unpublished, * , * , * , Aleppo Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 61, Maxbr 29, Buttlen 36, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets

*

1

Cat. No 1 272, Ginosar, T 2/3 Epstein, 1974, 5 *, Fig.12. 6, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 191, Survlen * , Maxbr 28, Buttlen 25, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Three rivets Type 1 Cat.

160

Bladelen

*

1 n989

Garstang, 1932, 4 6, Pl. XXXVII.7, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 170, Survlen * , Maxbr 24, Buttlen 24, Bladelen 146 Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Three rivets Type 1 Cat.

No

1 300,

Jericho, T

D22,

n55

Kenyon, 1965, 259, Fig.111.8, Amman, N . M. Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 42, Buttlen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets

Three

rivets

Type

1 506

25,

Bladelen

*

Cat. No 1301, Jericho, T D22, n126 Kenyon, 1965, 259, Fig.111.9, Amman, N . M. Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 168, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 4, Buttlen 25, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Rivets Three rivets

Point Marked Type 1

*

Upturn

Cat. No 1299, Jericho, T D9, n103 Kenyon, 1965, 285, Fig.111.13, Edinburgh Condn Good, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 188, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Buttlen 20, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Straight Rivets Three rivets Type 1

Bladelen

*

Cat. No 1303, Jericho, T D9, n66 Kenyon, 1965, 285, Fig.111.12, Edinburgh Condn Good, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 202, Survlen * , Maxbr 26, Buttlen 2 4, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Four rivets Type 1 Cat. No 1265, Lebe'a, T 25 burial 3 Guiges, 1937, 7 1, Fig.35A, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 160, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Rivets * Type 1 By s ide of burial

Point

Cat. No 1 283, Majdalouna, Cave Chehab, 1940, 4 6, Fig.9A, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Length * , Survlen 152, Maxbr 2 4, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point *

Cat.

Three

No

1 285,

rivets

Type

Megiddo, T

For

comparison

Buttlen

26,

Cat. Loud, Condn

No

1 286,

*

only,

Bladelen

*

1

3 090,

b727

Loud, 1948, * , P l. 179.17, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 30, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 1, Buttlen 18, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, R ivets * Type 1

*

Straight

Cat. No 1266, Lebea, T 25 Guiges, 1 937, 7 2, Fig.35B, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 210, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 0, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Three rivets Type 1

Rivets

*

1 12

Point Marked Upturn

Megiddo, T

2 140,

a1163

1 948, * , P l. 179.23, * Slight damage, Measmt From

publication,

Length 170, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Buttlen 2 8, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up R ivets Three rivets Type 1

5 07

*

Cat. No 1 282, Pella, T 6 2, 7 0551 Unpublished, * , * , * , * Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 56, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 2, Buttlen 4 2, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point S lightly turned up Rivets Single rivet Type 1 , Fig. 5 4 F lange

around handle,

back of

blade

i s

2 14

thickened

Cat. No 1 307, Ras Shamra,Context Unknown, Unpublished, * , * , * , Louvre Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 35, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Tapering R ivets Three rivets Type 1

RS

2 5,

7592

Bladelen

1 10

Cat. No 1 239, Ruweise,T 7 3 Guiges, 1 938, 5 7, F ig.82, Louvre Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 1 45, Maxbr 1 7, Buttlen * , Bladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Two horizontal Type 1 Handle i s partly surrounded by a f lange Cat. No 1 264, Ruweise, T 7 3 Guiges, 1 938, 5 7, F ig.82, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison o nly, Length 1 45, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Bladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point S lightly turned up Rivets * Type 1 Cat. No 1 263, Safad,Tomb Unpublished, * , * , * , Jerusalem, I . M. Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 42, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets Three r ivets Type 1

1 5,

Bladelen

*

Cat. No 1 245, Tell el-Dab'a, A/I-g/3 Grl, n460 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 54, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 8, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Two horizontal Type 1 Cat. No 1 253, Tell el-Dab'a, A/I-g/3 Grl, n363 B ietak 1 968, * , Fig. 9 , Vienna Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 70, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen 2 5, Bladelen 145 Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Four rivets Type 1 Cat. No 1 261, Tell e l-Dab'a, A/II-n/19 Gr 5 , n3965 Unpublished, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 84, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 9, Buttlen 1 9, Bladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Three rivets Type 1 , Fig. 5 5 5 08

Cat. No 1 247, Tell e l-Dab'a, A/II-n/11 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Good, Measmt Absolute,

Gr

Length 170, Survlen * , Maxbr 20, Buttlen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Straight Rivets Two horizontal Type 1

4 bi,

2 4,

Cat. No 1 248, Tell e l-Dab'a, A/II-1/14 Gr 7 , Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 154, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 0, Buttlen 2 0, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets Three rivets Type 1

n1310

B ladelen

1 46

n1656

Bladelen

1 34

Cat. No 1 249, Tell e l-Dab'a, A/II-n/12 P 1 1/2, n1748 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Substantial damage, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 3 3, Maxbr * , Buttlen * , B ladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets * Type 1 Cat. No 1 250, Tell el-Dab'a, A/II-m/10 P1 2 , n2005 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 2 11, Maxbr 3 4, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets * Type 1 Cat. No 1 252, Tell el-Dab'a, A/II-1/16 Gr 2 , n2165 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 00, Maxbr 1 2, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up R ivets * Type 1 C at. No 1 254, Tell el-Dab'a, A/II-1/16 Gr 2 , n2171 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna C ondn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, L ength * , Survlen 150, Maxbr 2 6, Buttlen * , Bladelen B uttshp Trapezoidal, Point * R ivets * Type 1 C at. No 1 255, Tell el-Dab'a, A/II-n/15 Gr 1 b2, n2186 Unpublished, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 78, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 7, Buttlen 2 8, B ladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up R ivets Two horizontal Type 1 , Fig. 5 5 C at. No 1 256, Tell el-Dabia, A/II-k/14 Gr 1 , n2271 Unpublished, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 38, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 1, Buttlen 1 5, B ladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point S lightly turned up R ivets Two horizontal Type 1 Cat.

No

1 257,

Tell

e l-Dab'a,

A/II-p/20 509

Gr

2 ,

n2935

*

*

Unpublished, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 5, Buttlen 1 9, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets Two horizontal Type 1

Bladelen

9 6

Cat. No 1 260, Tell el-Dab'a, A/II-1/17 Gr 1 3, n4105 Unpublished, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 57, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen 2 5, Bladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Straight Rivets Three rivets Type 1 Cat. No 1 259, Tell el-Dab'a, F/I-j/23 Pl. 1 , Unpublished, * , * , * , * Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 39, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen 1 8, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Straight Rivets Two vertical Type 1

n4291

Bladelen

Cat. No 1 241, Tell el-Dab'a, F/I-i/22 P1 3 , n157 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 90, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Buttlen 3 2, Bladelen 1 58 Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Straight Rivets Three r ivets Type 1 Cat. No 1 242, Tell el-Dab'a, F/I-i/22 P 1 3 , n1296 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 58, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 8, Buttlen 2 6, Bladelen * Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets Two horizontal Type 1 Cat. No 1 262, Tell el-Dab'a,F/I-d/23 Gr 1 , n 3085 Unpublished, * , * , * , Cairo, Egypt Museum Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 1 84, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen * , B ladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets * Type 1 Cat. No 1 298, Tell e l-' Ajjul, T 1 702 Petrie, 1 934, * , Pl. XXXI.374, Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Good, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 60, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 9, Buttlen 2 7, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up R ivets * Type 1 Cat. No Petrie,

1 294, 1 933,

Tell e l-' Ajjul,SR 9 , Pl. XIX.19,

No

1 295,

Tell

e l-'Ajjul, TCL 5 10

*

9 50=960 *

Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 78, Survlen * , Maxbr 4 2, Buttlen 4 4, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets Four r ivets Type 1 Room on E s ide of Palace I Cat.

1 37

8 20

2 34

Petrie, 1934, * , Pl. XXXI.369, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 272, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen 25, Bladelen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Slightly turned up Rivets Four rivets Type 1 South City Area Cat. No 1296, Tell el-'Ajjul, AQ" 6 80=980 Petrie, 1933, 9 , Pl. XX.3, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately Length 180, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen 27, Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point * Rivets Three rivets Type 1 City

I ,

lower

*

restored, Bladelen 153

levels

Cat. No 1297, Tell el-' Ajjul, CJ 792 Petrie, 1931, * , Pl. XVII.34, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 16, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 2, Buttlen Buttshp Trapezoidal, Point Marked Upturn Rivets Two horizontal Type 1 Type

2 1,

Bladelen

195

2

Cat. No 1290, Byblos, R. T. II, n659 Montet, 1928, 1 81, Pl. CII, * Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt For comparison only, Length * , Survlen 2 70, Maxbr 5 4, Buttlen 110, Bladelen Buttshp Rectangular, Point * Rivets None visible Type 2 Cat. No 1 238, Carchemish, Context Unknown Unpublished, * , * , * , Ist. Anc. Or. Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 158, Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp Rectangular, Point Slightly turned up Rivets None visible Type 2 Cat. No 1 268, Ruweise, T 74 Guiges, 1 938, 6 1, Fig.95B, * Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication, Length 150, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 5, Buttlen 45, Bladelen Buttshp Rectangular, Point Straight Rivets * Type 2 Cat. No 1 240, Tell Unpublished, * , * , Condn Good, Measmt

el-Dab'a, A/II-l/12 * , Vienna Absolute,

Gr2,

el-Dab'a, * , Vienna

A/I-g/3

Grl,

1 41

105

n86

Length 1 53, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 6, Buttlen 50, Bladelen Buttshp Rectangular, Point Slightly turned up Rivets None visible Type 2 , Fig. 5 4 From pit cutting through grave Cat. No 1 244, Tell Unpublished, * , * ,

*

103

n365

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Accurately restored, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 1 9, Buttlen 35, Bladelen 1 05 5 11

Buttshp Rectangular, Point Rivets None visible Type

* 2

Cat. No 1 276, Tell e l-Yahudiyeh, Gr 5 annex Tufnell, 1978, 95, F ig.8.74, No Longer any Record Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 1 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 2 0, Buttlen 2 9, Bladelen Buttshp Rectangular, Point S lightly turned up R ivets Two horizontal Type 2 Assoc. with animal bones Scimitar-type weapon with no

1 11

close parallels

Cat. No 1 309, Tell e l-Dab'a, A/I-g/3 Grl, n387 B ietak 1 968, * , F ig. 9 , Vienna Condn Good, Measmt Absolute, Length 2 40, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 7, Buttlen 5 5, Bladelen Buttshp Rectangular, Point * Rivets None visible Type *

1 85

Unclassified Cat. No 1 287, Byblos, R . T. I I, n655 Montet, 1928, 1 80, P l. CII, * Condn S light damage, Measmt From publication, Length 2 15, Survlen * , Maxbr 3 6, Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp * , Point Slightly turned up Rivets * Type * S ilver blade, gold leaf covering on handle Cat. No 1 289, Byblos, R . T. I I, n660 Montet, 1928, 1 81, * , * Condn Substantial damage, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Bladelen * Buttshp * , Point * Rivets * Type * S ilver blade, gold leaf covering on handle, 2 others f ragmentary condition from same context Cat. No 1 281, Dhahrat e l-Humraiya, Gr 4 9 Ory, 1 948, 8 6, * , * Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, Length 1 12, Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Buttshp * , Point * Rivets * Type *

B ladelen

Cat. No 1 280, Dhahrat e l-Humraiya, Gr 1 1 Ory, 1 948, 8 1, * , * Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp * , Point * Rivets * Type * Found near to animal bones Cat. No 1 279, Dhahrat el-Humraiya, Gr 2 5 Ory, 1 948, * , * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, 5 12

*

*

in

*

Length * , Survlen * , Buttshp * , Point * Rivets Three rivets Cat.

No

1277,

Ory, 1948, Condn Cannot

Maxbr Type

Dhahrat

Cat.

*

No

Epstein,

Buttlen

* ,

Bladelen

*

el-Humraiya,

Gr

6

Type

1273,

* ,

Buttlen

* ,

Bladelen

No

1267,

Guiges,

1937,

*

* Ginosar,

1974,

Maxbr

* ,

T 4

Fig.18. 6,

*

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Cannot assess, Length * , Survlen * , Maxbr * , Buttlen * , Bladelen Buttshp * , Point Slightly turned up Rivets * Type * 1 of 2 such in tomb Cat.

*

80, * , Jerusalem, Rockefeller assess, Measmt Cannot assess,

Length * , Survlen 1 46, Buttshp * , Point * Rivets

* ,

Lebea, 3 8,

T 1 Ch Fig.4B,

*

B *

Condn Cannot assess, Measmt Length 93, Survlen * , Maxbr Buttshp * , Point * Rivets * Type * Exact form uncertain

For compari son only, * , Buttlen * , Bladelen

*

Cat. No 1243, Tell el-Dab'a, A/I-g/3 Grl, n364 Unpublished, * , * , * , Vienna Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 58, Maxbr 2 4, Buttshp * , Point Slightly turned Rivets * Type * Cat. No 1246, Tell Unpublished, * , * , Condn

Broken

but

el-Dab'a, A/II-m/13 * , Vienna

adequate,

Measmt

Length * , Survlen 1 25, Maxbr Buttshp * , Point Straight Ri .vets * Type * Cat. No 1251, Tell Unpublished, * , * , Condn

Broken

but

1 7,

adequate,

Measmt

el-Dab'a, * , *

P1

* ,

Gr

3/4,

*

n535

* ,

2 ,

Bladelen

*

n2147

Absolute, Buttlen up

A/II-o/21

Gr

* ,

7 ,

Condn Broken but adequate, Measmt Absolute, Length * , Survlen 1 35, Maxbr 2 3, Buttlen * , Buttshp * , Point Slightly turned up Rivets * Type *

513

Bladelen

Absolute, Buttlen

el-Dab'a, A/II-1/16 * , Vienna

Length * , Survlen 1 51, Maxbr 20, Buttshp * , Point Slightly turned Rivets * Type * Cat. No 1258, Tell Unpublished, * , * ,

Buttlen up

Bladelen

*

n4717

Bladelen

*

CURVED SWORDS SURVLEN LENGTH

' Surviving Length' ' Overall Length'

TANG STEM CURVE DEPTHCRV

' Length of Tang' ' Length of Stem' ' Length of Curved ' Depth of Curve'

part

of

Blade'

Cat. No 1293, Byblos R . T. II, N653, Montet 1928, 1 74, Pl. XCIX, * Condn Good, Measmt Relative Length 2 15, Tang 29, Stem 87, Curve 99, Depthcurve 3 6 Gold collar with Inscribed

ornamental

gold

nails

and

gold

pommel.

Cat. No 1291, Byblos Royal Tomb I II, N654, Montet 1928, 177, Pl. C CT, Louvre, Condn Good, Measmt From publication Length 572, Tang 60, Stem 278, Curve 2 34, Depthcurve 92 Prob single burial, but no data recorded Uraeus motif on blade Cat. No, 1292, Byblos Royal Tomb I , N652, Virolleaud 1922, * , Pl. LXVLT, * , Condn Slight damage, Measmt From publication Length 568, Tang 76, Stem 264, Curve 2 28, Depthcurve 8 4 Uraeus motif on blade, gold nails. Insi de sarcophagus, body, handle downwards Cat.

No

1 427,

Tell

Balata

collar, pommel at right side,

Context

and decorative parallel to

Unknown,

Watzinger 1933, Abb. 5 2 right Condn Slight Damage, Measmt From publication Length 452, Tang 4 1, Stem 2 30, Curve 180, Depthcurve 80

5 14

TABLE 1 : CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF MAIN ALLOYING ELEMENTS, ARRANGED BY TYPE ---N . T.

= -

not not

detected

tested

for

trace = no measurement quantity uncertain Further details l isted in Table

are 2 .

( especially Arsenic

in

given,

use

may

available

in

indicate

the

old

published

of

analyses) As-Cu

but

sources

AXES

1 (a)

ITEM

Narrow-bladed Axes

TYPE

TIN

4 03 3 85 3 89 4 05 4 26 4 25 4 48 4 47 4 45 4 46

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

5 .30 9 .17 10.78 6 .70 6 .68 6 .72 8 .10