The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age 9004128549, 9789004128545

For almost a century scholars have been perplexed by Cypro-Phoenician (or Black-on-Red) pottery. In this study, Dr Nicol

537 103 22MB

English Pages 441 [444] Year 2002

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age 
 9004128549, 9789004128545

Table of contents :
THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE......Page 4
Table of Contents......Page 6
Figures......Page 10
Maps......Page 17
Tables......Page 18
Acknowledgements......Page 19
INTRODUCTION......Page 20
Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery......Page 23
Aims and Methodology......Page 30
Definition......Page 32
BoR II (IV) (Figures 4 & 5)......Page 35
Earliest Appearances of BoR......Page 36
Gezer Tomb 59......Page 37
Beersheba Stratum VII......Page 38
Discussion......Page 39
Other Early Black-on-Red Pottery on the Mainland......Page 41
Phoenician Pottery......Page 44
Late Cypriot and Early Cypro-Geometric Pottery......Page 46
Discussion......Page 48
Conclusions......Page 50
Map 1......Page 51
Map 2......Page 52
Map 3......Page 53
Map 4......Page 54
2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY IN THE LEVANT AND THE NATURE OF ITS TRADE......Page 56
Methodology......Page 58
BoR Juglets (Map 5)......Page 59
BoR Jugs (Map 6)......Page 62
White Painted and Bichrome Pottery......Page 65
Early White Painted Bowls......Page 67
White Painted Pottery Contemporary with BoR (Maps 9-11)......Page 68
Combined Appearances of the Wares......Page 69
White Painted and Bichrome Jug/Juglet Distribution (Maps 9, 10, 12,13)......Page 70
A Comment on Chronology......Page 77
Phoenician Pottery and BoR (Map 15)......Page 79
Aspects of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery Iniports (Map 16)......Page 82
Deposition Contexts......Page 85
The Popularity of BoR......Page 87
The Dynamics of BoR Trade: Open Versus Closed Vessels: (Maps17, 18)......Page 90
Trade in BoR: A Trade in the Vessels or their Contents?......Page 93
The Nature of the Contents - BoR and a Possible Trade in Perfumed Oil......Page 96
Uses and Types of Oils......Page 98
Implications......Page 103
Possible Routes of BoR Trade from Cyprus......Page 104
Cargoes......Page 105
Routes over the Sea......Page 106
The Coast: Ports and Harbours......Page 108
Routes Inland......Page 109
Conclusions......Page 111
3. THE CHRONOLOGY OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY......Page 114
Notes......Page 115
The 10th Century and the Problem of Shishak......Page 116
Megiddo......Page 123
The Stratigraphy......Page 124
Megiddo I: (Lamon & Shipton 1939)......Page 125
The Contexts......Page 127
Other Finds......Page 128
Megiddo II: (Loud 1948)......Page 129
The Contexts......Page 131
Other Finds......Page 132
Discussion of Chronology......Page 133
Hazor......Page 134
Hazor I: (Yadin 1958)......Page 135
Hazor II: (Yadin 1960)......Page 136
Hazor III-IV: (Yadin 1961)......Page 137
The Contexts......Page 139
Other Finds......Page 141
Discussion of Chronology......Page 142
Tell Ta'anach......Page 144
Tell Ta'annek: (Sellin 1904)......Page 145
The Cultic Structure at Ta'anach......Page 146
The Stratigraphy......Page 148
The Contexts......Page 149
Other Finds......Page 150
Discussion of Chronology......Page 151
The Stratigraphy......Page 152
The Contexts......Page 153
Discussion of Chronology......Page 154
The Stratigraphy......Page 155
The Contexts......Page 156
Other Finds......Page 157
Discussion of Chronology......Page 158
Beth-Shan......Page 160
The Iron Age at Beth-Shan: (James 1966)......Page 161
The Contexts......Page 163
Other Finds......Page 166
Discussion of Chronology......Page 167
Tell el-Far'ah (N)......Page 168
Tell el-Far'ah I (Chambon 1984)......Page 169
The Contexts......Page 170
Other Finds......Page 171
Discussion of Chronology......Page 172
Tel Mevorakh......Page 173
(Stern 1978): The BoR......Page 174
Other Finds......Page 176
Tel ˁAmal......Page 177
(Edelstein & Levy 1972): The BoR......Page 178
Other Finds......Page 179
(Guy 1924): The BoR......Page 180
Other Finds......Page 181
Discussion of Chronology......Page 182
The Stratigraphy......Page 183
Other Finds......Page 184
Tell el-Hammeh......Page 185
The BoR......Page 186
Discussion of Chronology......Page 187
The BoR and its Context......Page 188
Discussion of Chronology......Page 189
The BoR......Page 190
Tell Abu Hawam......Page 191
The Stratigraphy......Page 192
Tyre......Page 193
Sarepta I (Area II-Y) (Anderson 1988)......Page 194
Other Finds......Page 195
Sarepta III (Area II-X) (Koehl 1985)......Page 196
Other 10th Century Sites......Page 197
Shishak, Ben-Hadad or Hazael? Identifying the Archaeological Context......Page 120
Section I: Conclusions......Page 200
'Cultic' Contexts......Page 201
Associated Pottery (Figure 14)......Page 204
Establishing 'Phase I' of BoR......Page 211
TABLE A: Well-Stratified, Reliable Loci for 'Phase I' of BoR Chronology......Page 215
TABLE B : Summary of Dating Evidence for Sites with 'Phase 1' BoR......Page 216
Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925-1934: (Lamon & Shipton 1939)......Page 217
Discussion and Chronology......Page 218
Hazor I: Season of 1955 (Yadin et al. 1958)......Page 220
Hazor II: Season of 1956 (Yadin et al. 1960)......Page 221
Hazor III-IV: Seasons of 1957-1958 (Yadin 1961, Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989)......Page 222
Discussion and Chronology......Page 224
Tel Qiri......Page 226
Beersheba......Page 227
Beth-Shan......Page 228
Tel ˁAmal......Page 229
Tell Keisan......Page 230
Tell el-Hammeh......Page 231
Hurvat Rosh Zayit......Page 232
Tel Kabri......Page 233
Tell Kazel......Page 235
Tyre......Page 236
Other Finds......Page 237
Discussion of Chronology......Page 238
Tell Sukas......Page 239
Hama......Page 240
Other Sites......Page 241
Conclusions......Page 243
Map 19......Page 245
Map 20......Page 246
Map 21......Page 247
Map 22......Page 248
Map 23......Page 249
Map 24......Page 250
Gjerstad and the Problem of the Origin of BoR......Page 252
Post-Gjerstad - Reassessments......Page 257
Post Birmingham - Origin of BoR......Page 261
Post Birmingham - Chronology of Cyprus......Page 263
The Scientific Contribution......Page 265
'Deconstructing' Gjerstad......Page 270
A): BoR on the Mainland versus BoR in Cyprus......Page 271
Gjerstad's 'Non-Cypriot' BoR Characteristics......Page 272
B): Gjerstad's Typology of BoR: Does it Fit on the Mainland?......Page 280
BoR Within Cyprus (See Map 25)......Page 284
Applying Gjerstad's Typology at Palaepaphos-Skales......Page 286
The Earliest BoR at Palaepaphos-Skales......Page 287
Other Iron Age Sites in Cyprus......Page 290
'Non-Ceramic' Dating Evidence......Page 300
Absolute Chronology and (Towards) a Reconciliation of the Chronologies of Cyprus and the Mainland......Page 302
Gjerstad's Absolute Dates......Page 303
The Origin and Development of BoR......Page 304
1. The Handle-Ridge......Page 305
2. The Decoration......Page 306
"Imitation" BoR......Page 308
Conclusions......Page 311
The Latest Stage of BoR in Cyprus......Page 312
Cypriot Pottery West of Cyprus......Page 316
BoR in Rhodes......Page 317
BoR in Cos......Page 321
BoR in Crete......Page 324
The Phoenicians of Ialysos? Assessment of the Phoenician Involvement in BoR Trade to the West......Page 330
CONCLUSION......Page 338
APPENDIX I: COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION TABLE OF BoR POTTERY ON THE MAINLAND LEVANT, BY SITE AND PHASE......Page 344
APPENDIX II: IRON AGE CYPRIOT POTTERY ON THE MAINLAND: STATISTICS......Page 358
APPENDIX (III): BoR VESSEL TYPES: CHRONOLOGICAL 'PHASE' ON MAINLAND VERSUS GJERSTAD'S CLASSIFICATION......Page 362
APPENDIX IV: THE EARLIEST APPEARANCE OF BOR POTTERY ATPALAEPAPHOS-SKALES: PROPORTIONS OF BOR TYPES VERSUS WHITE PAINTED......Page 372
Figures......Page 376
Fig. 1......Page 378
Fig. 2......Page 379
Fig. 3......Page 380
Fig. 4......Page 381
Fig. 5......Page 382
Fig. 6......Page 383
Fig. 7......Page 384
Fig. 8......Page 385
Fig. 9......Page 386
Fig. 10......Page 387
Fig. 11......Page 388
Fig. 12......Page 389
Fig. 13......Page 390
Fig. 14......Page 391
Fig. 15......Page 392
Fig. 16......Page 393
BIBLIOGRAPHY......Page 394
INDEX......Page 440
Back Matter......Page 443

Citation preview

THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE

CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST E D I T E D BY

B. HALPERN, M.H.E. WEIPPERT TH. PJ. VAN DEN HOUT, I. WINTER V O L U M E 13

THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE BY

NICOLA SCHREIBER

' 6 8^

BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON 2003

L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Schreiber, N i c o l a , 1971T h e C y p r o - P h o e n i c i a n pottery o f the Iron A g e / by N i c o l a Schreiber. p. c m . — ( C u l t u r e a n d history o f the ancient N e a r East; v. 13) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004128549 1. C y p r u s — A n t i q u i t i e s . 2. Pottery, Cypriote. 3. Pottery, A n c i e n t — C y p r u s . I. Title. II. Series. D S 5 4 . 3 .S34 2002 939'.37—dc21 2002033201

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e Schreiber, N i c o l a : T h e C y p r o - P h o e n i c i a n pottery o f the Iron A g e / by N i c o l a Schreiber. - Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2 0 0 2 (Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; Vol. 13) ISBN 90-04-12854-9

ISSN ISBN © Copyright 2003

1566-2055 9 0 0 4 12854 9

by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The

Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. P R I N T E D IN THF. N E T H E R L A N D S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures, Maps and Tables Acknowledgements

ix xviii

INTRODUCTION

xix

Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery Aims and Methodology Chapter One: T H E INITIAL APPEARANCE Definition Earliest Appearances of BoR Black-on-Red Antecedents? Conclusions Chapter Two:

OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY.

xxii xxix 1

1 5 10 19

T H E DISTRIBUTION OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY

IN THE LEVANT AND THE N A T U R E OF ITS T R A D E

Methodology Results A Comment on Chronology Phoenician Pottery and BoR Aspects of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery Imports Deposition Contexts The Popularity of BoR The Dynamics of BoR Trade: Open versus Closed Vessels Trade in BoR: A Trade in the Vessels or their Contents? The Nature of Their Contents - BoR and a Possible Trade in Perfumed Oil Uses and Types of Oils Implications Possible Routes of BoR Trade from Cyprus Cargoes Routes over the Sea The Coast: Ports and Harbours Routes Inland Conclusions

25

27 28 46 48 51 54 56 59 62 65 67 72 73 74 75 77 78 80

Chapter Three:

T H E CHRONOLOGY OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY.

83

SECTION I : THE 1 0 T H CENTURY

The 10th Century and the Problem of Shishak 85 Shishak, Ben-Hadad or Hazael? Identifying the Archaeological Context 88 Megiddo 92 Hazor. 103 Tell Ta'anach 113 Tel Michal 117 Tel Qiri 121 Beersheba 124 Beth-Shan 129 Tell el-Far'ah (N) 137 Tel Mevorakh 142 Tel 'Amal 146 Mt. Carmel 149 Tell Keisan 152 Tell el-Hammeh 154 Tel Halif 157 Tel Rehov 159 Tell Abu Hawam 160 Sarepta 163 Other 10th Century Sites 166 Conclusions 169 Cultic Contexts 170 Associated Pottery 173 Establishing 'Phase Γ of BoR 180 SECTION I I : THE 9 T H - 8TH CENTURIES

Megiddo Hazor. Ta'anach Tel Michal

186 189 195 195

Tel Qiri

195

Beersheba Beth-Shan Tell el-Far'ah (N) Tel Mevorakh

196 197 198 198

Tel 'Amal Tell Keisan Tell el-Hammeh Lachish Hurvat Rosh Zayit Tel Kabri Tell Kazel Sarepta Tyre Tell Sukas Hama Other Sites Conclusions

199 196 199 201 201 202 204 205 205 208 209 210 212

Chapter Four: T H E O R I G I N OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY Gjerstad and the Problem of the Origin of BoR Post-Gjerstad - Reassessments Post-Birmingham - Origin of BoR Post-Birmingham - Chronology of Cyprus The Scientific Contribution 'Deconstructing' Gjerstad A: BoR on the Mainland versus BoR in Cyprus B: Gjerstad's Typology: Does it Fit on the Mainland? BoR within Cyprus Test-Case: Palaepaphos-Skales Other Iron Age Sites in Cyprus 'Non-Ceramic' Dating Evidence Absolute Chronology and (Towards) a Reconciliation of the Chronologies of Cyprus and the Mainland The Origin and Development of BoR "Imitation" BoR Conclusions

221

Chapter Five: T H E

221 226 230 232 234 239 240 249 253 255 259 269 271 273 277 280

LATER HISTORY OF B O R AND THE QUESTION OF

PHOENICIAN INVOLVEMENT IN ITS DISPERSAL TO THE W E S T

The Latest Stage of BoR in Cyprus Cypriot Pottery West of Cyprus BoR in Rhodes BoR in Cos

281

281 285 286 290

BoR in Crete The Phoenicians of Ialysos? Assessment of the Phoenician Involvement in BoR Trade to the West

293 299

CONCLUSION

307

Appendix I: Comparative Distribution Table of BoR Pottery on the Mainland by Site and Phase Appendix II: Cypriot Pottery Statistics Appendix III: BoR Vessel Types: Chronological 'Phase' on Mainland versus Gjerstad's Classification Appendix IV: The Earliest Appearance of BoR pottery at Palaepaphos-Skales: Proportions of BoR types versus White Painted

341

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

361

INDEX

407

313 327 331

LIST O F FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES

FIGURES Figure

1 - Group of BoR juglets from PalaepaphosSkales 347 Figure 2:1 - BoR juglet from Lapithos tomb 417 (82) (Photo courtesy of K. Kaiser) 348 2:2 - Selection of BoR pottery from Palaepaphos-Skales (Photo by author) 348 Figure 3 BoR I(III) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 349 3:1 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV:9) 3:2 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 10) 3:3 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 13) 3:4 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:3) 3:5 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1) 3:6 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:2) 3:7 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 11) 3:8 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:9) 3:9 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10) 3 : 1 0 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 16) 3:11 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 17) 3:12 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:7) 3:13 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:6) 3:14 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 12) 3:15 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:22) 3 : 1 6 - B o R I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 18) 3:17 - BoR I (III) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVL2) 3:18 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 11) Figure 4: BoR I(IV) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 350 4:1 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 1) 4:2 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL2) 4:3 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL3)

4:4 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL4) 4:5 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 10) 4:6 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:7) 4:7 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:9) 4:8 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 14) 4:9 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15) 4:10 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 16) 4:11 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 17) 4:12 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 19) 4:13 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:20) 4:14 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24) 4:15 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:23) 4:16 - BoR II (IV) jar (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:2) 4:17 - BoR II (IV) jar (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:5) 4:18 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:21) 4:19 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:7) 4:20 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:8) 4:21 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:9) 4:22 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 10) 4:23 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 11) 4:24 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:12) 4:25 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 13) 4:26 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:23) 4:27 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 19) 4:28 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:24) Figure 5: BoR II (IV) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 351 5: 1 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:8) 5:2 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2) 5:3 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6) 5:4 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 13) 5:5 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:9) 5:6 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 10) 5:7 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 11) 5:8 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18) 5:9 - BoR II (IV) flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 17) 5:10 - BoR II (IV) zoomorphic vessel (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:20) 5:11 - BoR II (IV) anthropomorphic jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 15)

5:12 - BoR II (IV) anthropomorphic juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:21) 5:13 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:4) 5:14 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:1) 5:15 - BoR II (IV) amphoriskos (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:2) 5 : 1 6 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 16) Figure 6: BoR III(V) pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 352 6:1 - BoR III (V) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:1) 6:2 - BoR III (V) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:2) 6:3 - BoR III (V) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:11) 6:4 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:6) 6:5 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:7) 6 : 6 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:10) 6:7 - BoR III (V) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:9) 6:8 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:12) 6:9 - BoR III (V) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:13) 6:10 - BoR III (V) krater (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:5) Figure 7: Other Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland Levant 353 7:1 - Pyxis, Beersheba Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:15) 7:2 - Pyxis, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinksi 1983, PI. 143:5) 7:3 - Pyxis, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 27:21) 7:4 - Bottle, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:22) 7:5 - Jug, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4) 7:6 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:21) 7:7 - Amphoriskos, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 19:42) 7:8 - Bowl, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 22:1) 7:9 - Bowl, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 29:14) Figure 8: Other Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland Levant (cont) 354 8:1 - Flask, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 159:7) 8:2 - Flask, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 37:2) 8:3 - Flask, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 20:13)

8:4 - Jug, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 148:1) 8:5 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:8) 8:6 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:14) 8:7 - Spouted jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 35:3) 8:8 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 6 (Dothan 1971, Fig. 74:15) 8:9 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971, Fig. 41:26) 8:10 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971, Fig. 41:22) Figure 9: Phoenician pottery 355 9:1 - Phoenician globular jug (Bikai 1987, PI. V:24) 9:2 - Phoenician globular jug (Bikai 1987, PI. V:67) 9:3 - Phoenician trefoil-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XV:395) 9:4 - Phoenician trefoil-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XIV:357) 9:5 - Phoenician heavy-walled juglet (Bikai 1987, PI. X:161) 9:6 - Phoenician heavy-walled juglet (Bikai 1987, PI. X:162) 9:7 - Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XIII:298) 9:8 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, PI. 11:14) 9:9 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, Pl. XXIV: 12) 9:10 - 'Red Ware' flask (Bikai 1987, PI. 11:2) 9:11 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, PI. 111:21) Figure 10: White Painted and Bichrome I pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 356 10:1 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:14) 10:2 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:13) 10:3 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:10) 10:4 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:12) 10:5 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:1) 10:6 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:4) 10:7 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:3) 10:8 - White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:12) 10:9 - White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:17) 10:10-White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:1) 10:11 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:15) 10:12 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 10)

10:13 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 13) 10:14-White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:13) 10:15 - Bichrome I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14) 10:16- Bichrome I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 15) 10:17 - Bichrome I flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII:22) 10:18 - White Painted I spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 17) 10:19 - White Painted I bottle (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. V:6) Figure 11: White Painted and Bichrome II pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 357 11:1 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:8) 11:2 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:9) 11:3 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII: 14) 11:4 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:5) 11:5-White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII: 16) 11:6 - White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:7) 11:7 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:9) 1 1 : 8 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIV: 1) 11:9 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:8) 11:10-White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 11) 11:11 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 12) 11:12-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 16) 11:13 - White Painted II spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 21) 11:14-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 18) 11:15-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 14) 11:16- White Painted II amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIV:6) 11:17 - Bichrome II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:4) 11:18 - Bichrome II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5) 11:19- Bichrome II spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:9) Figure 12: White Painted and Bichrome III pottery according to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 358 12:1 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVIII: 10) 12:2 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XVIII:9) 12:3 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XVIII:4) 12:4 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX:2) 12:5 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:3) 12:6 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:4)

12:7 - White Painted III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX: 10) 12:8 - White Painted III spouted juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX: 15) 12:9 - White Painted III flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX:17) 12:10 - White Painted III amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XX:5) 12:11 - Bichrome III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XXI: 10) 12:12 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:9) 12:13 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 10) 12:14- Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 11) 12:15 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:12) 1 2 : 1 6 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 13) 12:17 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:6) 12:18 - Bichrome III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 14) 12:19 - Bichrome III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIII:2) 1 2 : 2 0 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIII: 1) 12:21 - Bichrome III amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 1) Figure 13:1 - Corinthian aryballos (Cook 1960, Pl. 10B) 359 13:2 - Cypriot Bichrome jug with ship motif (Hadjisavvas 1995, Figs. 5a, 5b) 13:3 - Map of wind routes in the eastern Mediterranean (Murray 1995, Fig. 4) 13:4 - Terracotta equid from Rhodes,Ialysos Tomb 73 (Mountjoy 1993, Fig. 391) Figure 14: Pottery Associated with 'Phase I' BoR 360 14:1 - One-handled cooking jug, Beersheba Stratum VII (Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:11) 14:2 - One-handled cooking jug, Beersheba Stratum VII (Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:13) 14:3 - One-handled cooking jug, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:3) 14:4 - One-handled cooking jug, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:2) 14:5 - Black-burnished juglet, Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 5:127) 14:6 - Black-burnished juglet, Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 5:128) 14:7 - Black-burnished juglet, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig.8:7)

14:8 - Plain red-slipped jug with ridged rim, Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:7) 14:9 - Red-slipped jug with neck-ridge and thickened rim, Tel Halif (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:7) 14:10-'Hippo'storage jar, Tel 'Amal Strata IV-III (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 8:6) 14:11 - Spouted jar, Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:1) 14:12-Spouted jar,Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:2) 14:13 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2) 14:14 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:1) 14:15 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:6) Figure 15:1 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus 361 (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 123:480) 15:2 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 123:520) 15:3 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 65:349) 15:4 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 65:352) 15:5 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLL12) 15:6 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:7) 15:7 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:4) 15:8 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI: 14) 15:9 - Red Slip I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVI: 16) 1 5 : 1 0 - Bichrome Red I (IV) spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLIL5) 15:11 - Bichrome Red I (IV) spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLIL3) 1 5 : 1 2 - R e d Slip II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XLIII:6) 15:13 - Red Slip I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XXVIL6) 1 5 : 1 4 - R e d Slip I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XXVIL3) Figure 16:1 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, 362 Rhodes, Camiros Tomb XLV (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 151) 16:2 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery,

Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb LI (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 76) 16:3 - Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug, Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb CXXXII (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 139) 16:4 - Juglet with 'spaghetti' decoration, Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb LVI (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 93) 16:5 - Imitation BoR juglet with 'fugitive' slip, Cos, Fadil Tomb III (Morricone 1978, Fig. 467) 16:6 - 'Hellenizing' handle-ridge juglet, Cos, Serraglio Tomb 20 (Morricone 1978, Fig. 282) 16:7 - Bowl showing influence of Cypriot pottery, 'fugitive' slip, Cos, Serraglio Tomb 43 (Morricone 1978, Fig. 468) 16:8 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 2:58) 16:9 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 2:64) 16:10 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXVL69) MAPS

Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Map

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8:

Map 9: Map 10: Map 11: Map 12: Map 13:

Distribution of BoR Pottery in the East Mediterranean Sites in the North-East Mediterranean and Cyprus Sites in the Southern Levant Sites west of Cyprus Distribution of BoR Juglets in the East Mediterranean Distribution of BoR Jugs in the East Mediterranean Distribution of BoR Bowls in the East Mediterranean Distribution of Early (Pre-BoR) Cypriot Pottery on the Mainland Levant Distribution of White Painted Juglets in the East Mediterranean Distribution of White Painted Jugs in the East Mediterranean Distribution of White Painted Bowls in the East Mediterranean Distribution of Bichrome Juglets in the East Mediterranean Distribution of Bichrome Jugs in the East Mediterranean

20 21 22 23 29 32 33 36 40 41 43 44 44

Map 14: Distribution of Bichrome Bowls in the East Mediterranean 45 Map 15: Distribution of Phoenician pottery in Context with BoR in the Southern Levant 49 Map 16: Distribution of LB A Cypriot Pottery in the Levant 52 Map 17: Distribution of BoR Bowls in the Levant (detail) 60 Map 18: Distribution of BoR Juglets in the Levant (detail) 60 Map 19: Distribution of 'Phase Γ BoR Pottery in the Levant 214 Map 20: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Pottery in the Levant 215 Map 21: Distribution of 'Phase Γ BoR Juglets in the Levant 216 Map 22: Distribution of 'Phase 1 ' BoR Bowls in the Levant 217 Map 23: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Juglets in the Levant..218 Map 24: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Bowls in the Levant..219 Map 25: Sites in Cyprus 254 TABLES

Table A: Well-Stratified Reliable Loci for 'Phase 1 ' of BoR Chronology Table B: Summary of Dating Evidence for Sites with 'Phase Γ BoR Table C: Some Examples of BoR Tested with Gjerstad's Characteristics Table D: Gjerstad's Divisions of BoR Types Table E: Chart Showing Relative Quantities of Vessel Types and their Chronological Phases on the Mainland Table F: The Early Tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales Table G: Four Early Iron Age Tombs at Lapithos

184 185 246 250 252 257 261

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is based upon my DPhil thesis 'An Archaeological and Historical Investigation into the "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery of the Iron Age Levant,' Oxford 2000. The altered title reflects my view that this study has important implications for a broader region than the Levant alone. The use of the name 'Cypro-Phoenician' for the pottery is thus to indicate this breadth of scope, rather than to serve as an alternative for 'Black-on-Red', which is to be preferred. A number of people provided invaluable advice and support during the writing of my thesis. I owe special gratitude to Roger Moorey, for his wisdom, clear-sightedness and expert supervision. I would particularly like to mention Vassos Karageorghis, Susan Sherratt, Nicolas Coldstream, Robin Lane Fox, John Boardman, John Baines, Patricia Bikai, Judith McKenzie, George Williamson and Eleanor Robson, and for encouragement along the way, Jenny Morris, Gerald Cadogan, Peter Parr, John Woodhead, Sy Gitin, Barry Gittlen, Nancy Serwint, Jeff Zorn, Aaron Brody, Eric Lapp and Ezra Marcus. The following generously provided me with access to unpublished material: Amihai Mazar, Eilat Mazar, Ephraim Stern, Ayelet Gilboa, Gunnar Lehmann, Yardena Alexandre, Annabelle Zaretsky, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Vassos Karageorghis, Pavlos Flourentzos, Estelle Villeneuve de Montlivault, Karen Excel, Ian Carroll, Kevin Kaiser, Sam Moorhead, and Claude Doumet. I owe a great deal to Somerville College, Oxford, for the Katherine and Leonard Woolley Travelling Fellowship which gave me the chance to spend two years in Jerusalem during 1994 - 1996, and to the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, which was a source of inspiration while I was there. I am also grateful to the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute in Nicosia for exceptionally warm hospitality. In all cases, I use the term 'the mainland' to refer to the Levantine mainland, which for these purposes is taken as the south-eastern part of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. For clarity of reference, I use where possible the original site names adopted by the excavators. Thus 'Tel' in Hebrew and 'Tell' in Arabic.

INTRODUCTION

Since the earliest excavations of the last century in Cyprus and the Levant, scholars have noted the presence of a group of Iron Age wares which stand alone amongst other ceramics of the period. Two different terms are used to describe this pottery, one descriptive: "Black-on-Red," the other cultural: "Cypro-Phoenician." The coexistence of these terms illustrate on the one hand the distinctiveness of this pottery and on the other the prevailing confusion about whence it originally came. The main characteristics of this pottery are the delicate forms in which it is made and its striking geometric decoration. The 'classic' forms of the pottery are single-handled neck-ridged juglets, with flaring lips and flat bases, and large shallow or deep bowls with two horizontal loop handles and flat base. The vessels are unusually fine and made of well-levigated clay, slipped red or orange, usually carefully burnished and painted with thin black horizontal lines, bands and sets of small concentric circles. Some forms are peculiar to the ware, such as the conical juglet with handle-ridge and flat base, while other shapes, such as the krater, the barrel-juglet and many of the bowl shapes, as well as some motifs found on the vessels, show influence of other pottery types of the period. At its latest stages, 'Black-on-Red' ware becomes less easily distinguishable as a 'type' from other finewares. Its motifs and decorative technique converge with a range of other pottery forms, from White Painted (black paint on a pale buff clay) to Bichrome (black and red paint on a pale buff clay) and Bichrome Red (black and white paint on a red slipped clay). 'Black-on-Red' wares have generally been dated approximately two centuries earlier in Palestine than in Cyprus, where it is regarded as beginning in the late Cypro-Geometric period and flourishing in the Cypro-Archaic period, ie 9th-7th centuries BC. In the southern Levant it is seen as almost a trademark of 10th century BC 'early Iron II' assemblages, possibly extending back into the 11th century and in rare cases down into the 8th century BC. Its appearance in Phoenicia has often been regarded as significant; limited excavations in this

region have tended towards later dates, close to those put forward for Cyprus. The appearance of the pottery in fairly late Iron Age contexts, at least until the 7th century, at sites in Cyprus and further west in the Mediterranean is generally accepted, although much of this pottery is believed to consist of local, and often fairly free, imitations. Lastly, the pottery appears in much greater quantities in Cyprus than in the Levant, where it has a broad distribution but occurs in limited numbers. The term 'Cypro-Phoenician,' although less current now than earlier in the century, indicates general assumptions about the origin of the pottery. On the basis of the prominent trading role held by Cypriots and Phoenicians during the Iron Age, as well as the ceramic affinities of this ware to local pottery types of these regions, its origin has generally been assigned to one or other of the regions, or both. The appearance of 'Black-on-Red' wares very often in contexts with other decorated fine wares of the period - eg Cypriot White Painted or Bichrome pottery - has led some to describe a "Phoenician and Cypriote Mischkultur" in which a range of related wares might have been traded together in the same commercial market (Koehl 1985, 24). One assumption arising from use of this term is that it is a trademark ware of Phoenician commercial enterprise, particularly connected with Phoenicians in Cyprus, or that it defines a particular "Cypro-Phoenician" commercial network (Coldstream 1998, 258). Confusingly, other finewares with similar distributions have sometimes been included as "Cypro-Phoenician" wares for this reason (Amiran 1969, 286). The term has also been seen as characterising a particular period of time: a "Cypro-Phoenician" period (eg du Plat Taylor 1959, 87); or simply as synonymous with pre-Iron Age 'east Mediterranean' pottery (eg Albright 1924, 16). Most recently, it has been suggested that the term "Cypro-Phoenician" is appropriate to describe early Iron Age Phoenician Bichrome pottery which has adopted aspects of contemporary Cypriot decoration (Gilboa 1999, 12). In Palestine particularly the use of the term "Cypro-Phoenician" has been found convenient to cover what are regarded as the significant 'imported' wares of the early Iron II period (Amiran 1969, 286). While it should be noted that the term is not used in Cyprus, it remains a concept entrenched in Palestinian Iron Age archaeology (Tufnell 1953, 297; Birmingham 1963, 23; Stern 1978, 52, 62; Culican 1982, 55, 60, 61;

Koehl 1985, 25, 26, 48; Mazar 1985, 81; Bikai 1987, 2; Ben Tor & Portugali 1987, 202; Tappy 1992, 129). The history of this cultural terminology begins early in the last century with J. L. Myres and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter's Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum of 1899. Myres defines the "Graeco-Phoenician Age" as stretching "from the First Introduction of Iron, to the Ptolemaic Conquest of Cyprus in 295 B.C... so named, because throughout it Cyprus was the principal meeting-point of Greek colonists and traders from the West, and of Phoenicians from the East" (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, 21-22). This enormous span of time included Iron Age Black-on-Red ware as well as late Mycenaean-influenced Cypriot types (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, Pl. IV). In 1924, Albright published his excavations at Tell elFul (Gibeah), where he describes "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery concurrent with Aegean Late Bronze Age types and preceding "Philistine" wares (Albright 1924, 16). Albright's use of the term here appears to describe a general region of pottery production. He uses the same terminology in his subsequent Tell Beit Mirsim publication of 1932, but there he also distinguishes a "Cypro-Phoenician" form "of the Iron Age type" which he dates to the 11th century BC (Albright 1932, 54-55, 61). It is from this point it seems that the term "CyproPhoenician" for the Iron Age Black-on-Red ceramic, particularly the small 'perfume'juglet, enters Palestinian archaeology. In 1948, Gjerstad published Volume IV:2 of his Swedish Cyprus Expedition report, in which he set out a typology for the 'Black-onRed' pottery of Cyprus, following Furumark's definition (Furumark 1941, 127). The ware he described corresponded to the Black-on-Red decorated pottery found on the mainland. His typological classification, which included a survey of similar pottery found outside Cyprus in the Levant and Anatolia, served as a basis for future studies of the ware, and the term "Black-on-Red" has since been widely accepted. Gjerstad's corresponding definitions are also used for the related wares, White Painted, Cypriot Bichrome and Bichrome Red (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73, 242-262). Problems remain with this definition as local variants are identified - eg Culican's "Local Blackon-Red" - and scholars attempt to distinguish between 'Cypriot' and 'non-Cypriot' versions of the pottery, following Gjerstad's division (Gjerstad 1948, 270 n.l, 287; 1953, 23; Culican 1982, 55; see Chapter Four). Bikai rightly points out the confusions inherent in this

'cluttering' of the class with "Cypriote, Phoenician and SyroPalestinian Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983,400 n.32). Currently a variety of designations for this distinctive type of pottery are in use (Tappy 1992,129). Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery Few scholars, especially in the Levant, have published or referred to Black-on-Red pottery without attempting to set out their understanding of its origin and chronology. The result is a history of debate on the subject, from the middle of the last century to the present day, and increasing calls for scientific analysis to contribute more conclusive evidence to the issue.1 The main arguments are set out below. In 1932, William Foxwell Albright began the debate with his publication of the pottery from Tell Beit Mirsim, where he asserts that "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery was found in context with Philistine pottery (Albright 1932, 61-62, 72). He states that the "imported Cypro-Phoenician perfume juglet... always occurs in EI I and early EI II deposits in Palestine, and does not descend to a date later than the ninth century... it is absolutely certain that Myres' date for Cyprian specimens of the same category, cir. 700-500 BC is several centuries too low" (Albright 1932, 72). In 1938-1939, Elihu Grant and George Ernest Wright published the early excavations at Beth-Shemesh. They dated Stratum III at the site to the 12th-mid-l 1th century BC, and stated that a "Cypriote" juglet (decorated in Black-on-Red) found in this level "is one of the few in Palestine which can be dated with confidence in the 11th century" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). They further note that this vessel is comparable to pottery appearing in Cyprus "in the early part of Cypro-Geometric I" and accept Albright's lower limit of the 9th century for this ware, though they suggest "it was probably used later than this date in Cyprus" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). In 1948, Einar Gjerstad included Black-on-Red pottery in Volume IV:2 of his Swedish Cyprus Expedition publication. He suggested that it developed in Cyprus from a non-Cypriot prototype that had been 1 The two best summaries of the history of this debate on Black-on-Red pottery are Tappy 1992, 126-132 and Brodie & Steel 1996, 263-264.

imported simultaneously to Cyprus and Palestine from a "third region" which was probably Syro-Anatolia (Gjerstad 1948, 288, 314, 435; 1953, 24). From its first appearance in Cyprus in CyproGeometric IA, c. 1050-950 BC, until the beginning of CyproGeometric III, c. 850 BC, Gjerstad regards this ware as a foreign import (Gjerstad 1944, 99; 1953, 23, 24). The pottery type then continued as a locally made (and exported) type from CyproGeometric III until Cypro-Archaic IIB (Gjerstad 1948, 314). Gjerstad links the development of Black-on-Red pottery with an immigrating people: "From [CG III], the Black-on-Red and Red Slip wares are Cypriote, and represent in shape and decoration a combination of Cypriote and Syrian elements of art... The influence of this pottery extends even to the earlier White Painted and Bichrome wares, so that an entirely new Cypriote art of pottery is formed, characterized by an artistic unification of the foreign and Cypriote elements and indicating an immigration of Syrian tribes to Cyprus at this date" (Gjerstad 1948, 314-315). In 1951, G us Van Beek challenged Gjerstad's chronology, claiming that as this chronology for the Cypriot Iron Age is based on finds of Cypriot pottery in Palestine it is no basis from which to argue against the Palestinian dates assigned to that pottery. He restates Albright's position and claims that "on the basis of the Palestinian evidence... Black-on-Red I must go back to before c. 1025 BC in Cyprus and perhaps before 1050 BC" (Van Beek 1951, 28). He also disputes Gjerstad's denial of the Cypriot origin of the pottery pointing out that it is much more abundant on Cyprus than in any other region, and argues that there is no basis for the Syro-Anatolian migration proposed by Gjerstad (Van Beek 1951, 27). In 1953, Albright published a correspondence with Gjerstad on the chronological discrepancy noted between the ware at Palestinian sites and on Cyprus. Gjerstad reiterates his view that Black-on-Red occurs early in Palestine at the same time as its sporadic appearance in Cyprus, from Cypro-Geometric I, datable c. 1050-950 BC, but that it is manufactured on Cyprus only from Cypro-Geometric III, c. 850700 BC. Gjerstad states that the challenge to his Cypriot dates suggested by the apparent occurrences of Cypriot Black-on-Red in pre-9th century sites in Palestine, can only stand if the material in question is proven to be Cypriot in origin (Albright 1953, 25-26). This he suggests remains in question.

In 1958, Gustavus Swift published the pottery of the 'Amuq sequence in Syria. He re-examined the problems of chronology associated with the Cypriot pottery found in the 'Amuq sites (Tell Tayinat, Tell el-Judeidah and Chatal Hiiyiik) and questioned Gjerstad's claim that the pottery began as a mainland phenomenon before its manufacture was transferred to Cyprus. Swift proposed that the ware was Cypriot in origin, and that Van Beek's high Palestinian dates for Black-on-Red pottery should be lowered and the Cypriot dates raised slightly. He suggests, however, that Gjerstad's view that the pottery was "not made in Cyprus before the ninth century" was probably correct (Swift 1958, 159-161). In 1959, Joan du Plat Taylor re-evaluated the dating of the early levels at the site of Al Mina, at the mouth of the Orontes, in the light of the Cypriot pottery found in them. Woolley had dated Level VIII at the site to c. 700-675 BC (Woolley 1938, 1-30). Du Plat Taylor concludes that Black-on-Red should be subsumed under the group of "Phoenician" wares originating on the southern Phoenician coast and spreading from there to Cyprus (du Plat Taylor 1959, 88). She notes that the Black-on-Red pottery at Al Mina exhibits "at least four classes of fabric, of which the later Slip wares from Levels VII-VI most nearly approach the Cypriot types;" the disappearance of Blackon-Red wares after Level VI indicates that "the Cypro-Phoenician period lasted from the mid-ninth century until the Assyrian invasion in the last half of the eighth" (du Plat Taylor 1959, 75, 77, 87) In 1963, Judy Birmingham reiterated Van Beek's views that Blackon-Red in Cyprus should be dated early, from the 10th century, to correlate with the material in Palestine, chiefly on the basis of the existence of a "homogenous Cypro-Levantine cultural province" during this period. She states that this ware continues in use on the mainland "throughout the ninth... ending in most regions by the end of the eighth" and that its date in Cyprus should be adjusted accordingly, "with late advanced forms only surviving into the seventh." Apart from the later stages of the ware, when it was "widely copied in a variety of Cypriot fabrics," it was a "coastal Phoenician" product, exported to neighbouring areas from the 11th century onwards and "increasing rapidly with the Phoenician 10th century expansion" (Birmingham 1963, 24, 25, 32, 36). In 1963, George Hanfmann published the Iron Age pottery from Tarsus in Cilicia, and distinguished two types of Black-on-Red:

imported and local Cilician, the latter found in kilns at the site. Hanfmann dates 'imported' Black-on-Red, which he suggests has little relation to the local product, to the 11th century and considers "that these small perfume flasks were originated by Phoenicians, perhaps as early as 1100 BC and spread abroad by the Phoenician trade" (Hanfmann 1963, 57). He believes that the appearance of the concentric circle style represents a general change in pottery style at the beginning of the Iron Age, which was adopted earlier in Cilicia than in Cyprus (Hanfmann 1963, 111). In 1968, Frieda Vandenabeele published a discussion of the pottery from Amathus in Cyprus, and proposed a Phoenician origin for Black-on-Red ware, introduced to Cyprus through Phoenician "transactions commerciales" (Vandenabeele 1968, 110). She observed in particular that the burnished examples of Black-on-Red pottery found in Cyprus were specifically Phoenician (Vandenabeele 1968, 111). In 1969, Ruth Amiran, in a broad survey of early pottery in Palestine, stated that current knowledge was insufficient to assign Black-on-Red or any other of the "Cypro-Phoenician" wares an origin "along the coasts of Cilicia, Phoenicia, Israel and Cyprus, where highly developed cultures flourished in the Iron Age," but that the evidence suggested that "this kind of pottery was foreign to the Judaean and Israelite ceramic repertoire and that it was imported from abroad" (Amiran 1969, 286). She notes an increase of this pottery, especially Gjerstad's categories of "Black-on-Red I-II," in the Palestinian chronological periods Iron II Α-B and a decline in Iron II C (c. 800 BC) (Amiran 1969, 286). In 1972, Susan Chapman, publishing pottery from four cemeteries in Syria and South Lebanon, stated that the ware was "unlikely to have originated from the area around Tyre and Sidon" where few examples were found. She observes that it "possibly dates back to the tenth century but the bulk of the material must come from the ninth and eighth centuries" (Chapman 1972, 181-182). She also notes the occurrence of a similar pottery type in the area, perhaps a local imitation, which she calls "Local Black-on-Red" (Chapman 1972, 140, 182). Also in 1972, Moshe Prausnitz published an article on a selection of pottery from the Phoenician cemetery site of Achziv. He argues for the presence of a "proto black-on-red" group that is related to the appearance on the mainland of red-slipped pottery, and from which

the Black-on-Red pottery found in Cyprus develops, but the discussion of the relevant wares and their relationships is brief and unclear (Prausnitz 1972, 156). In 1978, Ephraim Stern published the imported wares found at Tel Mevorakh in some detail, using finds from other Levantine sites to construct a typology of Black-on-Red pottery. He notes regional variations in the forms, and suggests a date range of 10th to 8th centuries BC for the ware on the mainland. In particular, Stern notes that the neck-ridged juglet is "an almost constant component of tenth century tomb assemblages" (Stern 1978, 55). In conjunction with the scientific project of Joseph Yellin and Issac Perlman (1978), he concludes that the origin of the pottery is uncertain, but that it was probably linked with the Phoenician expansion and that there were likely "several contemporary places of manufacture" (Stern 1978, 62). In her studies of Phoenician pottery in Cyprus and in her publication of the Tyre pottery, in 1978, 1983 and 1987, Patricia Bikai attempted to redefine Black-on-Red as an exclusively Cypriot product, distinct from the similarly decorated mainland ware (Bikai 1983, 400 n. 32). Bikai suggests that "true Cypriot Black-on-Red" may have developed from a heterogeneous pottery type she terms "Red Ware," which is found in Cyprus. This shows elements of mainland (ie Phoenician/Canaanite) manufacture but also a "thin black-line decor... that points to the later development of Cypriote Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 400-402). Bikai views all examples of the 'Cypriot' type of Black-on-Red, even when occurring on the mainland, as late, around the 8th century BC, with a relatively short time span (Bikai, pers. comm.). Neutron Activation Analyses were conducted on four samples of Black-on-Red ware from Strata II, V and IX at Tyre and published as an appendix alongside Bikai's study (Bieber 1978). These samples showed a compositional similarity to two sherds of Black-on-Red found in Cyprus, but on the basis of "an overall compositional dissimilarity of this group to the other Cypriot groups and its very general similarity to groups of specimens from Palestine," the author suggests that "this group may be of Syro-Palestinian origin" (Bieber 1978, 88). In 1982, William Culican, in a review of Phoenician pottery, stated that "origins of Cypro-Phoenician Black-on-Red are uncertain, though a growing body of opinion supports, on circumstantial

evidence, an origin in Phoenicia" (Culican 1982, 61). Culican defines two 'traditions' of Black-on-Red found on the mainland, "Local" and "Cypro-Phoenician," the former datable from the 12th to 9th centuries, the latter beginning before the end of this period and continuing to c. 700 BC (Culican 1982, 55-70). In 1985, Amihai Mazar, publishing the few fragments of Black-onRed pottery from Tell Qasile, stated that "most of the juglets and bowls of this ware were found in 10th century BC contexts" and in Cyprus they continue "in smaller numbers" until the 7th century (Mazar 1985, 82). "[TJhe origin of the group remains a mystery. Could it have originated in the Acre Plain and the Carmel region? In any case it must be Levantine in origin, passing to Cyprus with the massive Phoenician immigration there during the 10th century BC, as suggested by Birmingham. The continuation of production of Black on Red ware in Cyprus later than the 10th century BC was the result of this massive Phoenician colonisation" (Mazar 1985, 82 n.220). Mazar further notes: "the relationship between the technique of black decoration on red slip and the origin of the Cypro-Phoenician Blackon-Red group should be considered. It might be argued that the former technique is the predecessor which led to the development of the distinctive Black-on-Red technique, probably somewhere along the Phoenician littoral" (Mazar 1985, 84). In 1987, Melvin Hunt in his discussion of the Tel Qiri pottery (published by Amnon Ben-Tor and Yuval Portugali) concludes "it is clear, given the NAA results from Mevorakh, that separate sources for Cypro-Phoenician and Black-on-Red wares are very unlikely. It seems that the basic chronologies of many sites in one culture or another are off by at least a century. The preponderance of the evidence supplied by Birmingham and van Beek demonstrates that the dates from Palestine are to be preferred" (Hunt 1987, 202). In 1992, Ron Tappy re-examined Kenyon's stratigraphy and chronology of Israelite Samaria, and reviewed the chronology and origin of Black-on-Red pottery which he believed she had misinterpreted (Tappy 1992, 126-132). Tappy restates Mazar's claims for an Israelite origin for this pottery and confirms the 10th century date for the bulk of the pottery put forward by Levantine archaeologists (Tappy 1992, 129 n. 120, 131 ). "The current trend is to view the B-o-R ware as representing a single class of vessel and to direct research to clarifying its place of origin" (Tappy 1992, 127 n.l 14).

Scientific analyses of Black-on-Red have been limited (see Chapter Four, 234-239) for further discussion). In 1978, Joseph Yellin and Issac Perlman conducted Neutron Activation Analyses on a selection of sherds from Tel Mevorakh, comparing them to Black-onRed pottery from three sites in Cyprus. Their results were inconclusive; the pottery from Mevorakh showed similarities to Cypriot wares, but required the blending of various local Cypriot ceramics to gain sufficient correspondence (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 89-90). Also in 1978, Alan Bieber analysed four Black-on-Red sherds from Tyre, but with inconclusive results (see above) (Bieber 1978, 8890). In 1983, J. Matthers, D J. Liddy, G.W.A. Newton, V.J. Robinson and H. Al-Tawel conducted further Neutron Activation Analyses with cluster analysis on Black-on-Red pottery, taking samples from Cyprus, Syria and Palestine. The results were interpreted as indicating several areas of manufacture, including the import of Cypriot wares to Al Mina in Syria, as well as possible different periods of importation between the groups (Matthers et al. 1983, 378-379). In 1996, Neil Brodie and Louise Steel published another archaeometric study of Black-on-Red. This discounts the previous scientific studies on the grounds of their poor sampling range, use of material of unknown provenance, and misleading choice of elements for definition (Brodie & Steel 1996, 271). Using Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, Brodie and Steel examine material from Cyprus, modern Turkey (Al Mina), and sites in Palestine, using both Blackon-Red and local wares as control groups, and conclude that all the pottery was of Cypriot origin. The authors note the presence of two apparent fabric distinctions and draw tentative conclusions about the production and distribution of the wares, attempting to correlate the results of the analysis with Phoenician involvement and settlement on the island in the Iron Age (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274-5). In the Aegean, the appearance of Black-on-Red pottery in the Dodecanese islands and Crete has long been of interest to scholars in indicating the eastward links of Dark Age and post-Dark Age Greece. Research published over the last thirty years by Nicolas Coldstream proposes that Black-on-Red ware is likely to be a product of Cyprus but manufactured under Phoenician influence, especially at Kition from where the Phoenicians exported it (Coldstream 1969, 1982, 1984, 1998). Coldstream views the initial appearance of Black-onRed ware on Rhodes, Cos and Crete as due to Phoenician commerce

with these islands, exploiting a lucrative "unguent trade" (Coldstream 1998, 260). He further suggests that the initial development of the pottery type may have been "influenced by a heavier and coarser Black-on-Red fabric evolved earlier in the southernmost reaches of the Phoenician homeland" (Coldstream 1998, 258). Aims and

Methodology

The implications of the origin and chronology of Black-on-Red pottery are wide-ranging and particularly pertinent to current controversies over Iron Age Levantine chronologies, as well as trade relations in the East Mediterranean during this period. The pottery is distinctive, widely distributed and found in tomb and settlement contexts. Geographically it appears as far west as Crete and the Dodecanese islands, in the Egyptian Delta, Anatolia and in inland Syria as well as throughout the Levant and Cyprus. As is clear from the survey above, past studies of this material have been contradictory, inconclusive and limited in scope and have suffered from the relative regional isolation in which the material has been considered. This book resolves the questions of origin and dating of the material by: • Establishing geographical distribution with association and context. • Establishing a chronology on the basis of key archaeological sites on the mainland. • Investigating the appearance of the ware in Cyprus. • Assessing current scientific data relating to origin. The book also assesses the nature of trade in the ware, its latest stage of production and distribution in the Mediterranean, and its possible implications for the role of the traditional main 'players' in the East Mediterranean, Cyprus and Phoenicia. Chapter One assesses the initial appearance of Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland; Chapter Two assesses the distribution of the pottery on the mainland and its implications; Chapters Three and Four investigate the chief issues of the chronology and origin of the pottery, and, finally, Chapter Five examines its later history and appearance in the west. A database of Black-on-Red pottery has been compiled. This

draws on published and unpublished material and includes sites in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, modern Turkey, Cyprus, Crete and the Dodecanese islands. Where possible the pottery was examined directly. The database is used in assessment of the geographical distribution of the pottery. The chronology of the ware is investigated through examination of the stratigraphical contexts of the pottery at key sites in the Levant and its appearance in Cyprus. Appendix I presents a modified version of the database, including sites from the Levantine mainland. Related material, such as other Cypriot and Phoenician decorated finewares, is investigated stratigraphically and typologically and related to Black-on-Red.

CHAPTER O N E

THE INITIAL APPEARANCE OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY As set out in the introduction to this book, the chief problems of Black-on-Red pottery are those of its origin and chronology. This chapter lays the foundations for subsequent investigation of these issues by examining the background to the appearance of Black-onRed. First, in view of the prevailing confusion over definition of the ware, the chapter defines Black-on-Red pottery as a specific type. Second, it assesses the validity of claims for the earliest examples of this ware at sites on the mainland and establishes a terminus post quern for it. Third, the form, typological development and decoration of Black-on-Red pottery is examined in the light of its initial appearance and the vessel types which might plausibly be its antecedents. The extent to which Black-on-Red pottery bears similarities to Phoenician, Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Cypriot pottery is also assessed. Definition Integral to the question of definition of the Black-on-Red group is the establishment of a single type meaningful as a recognisable and marketable commodity. This requires distinguishing the ware from other similarly decorated types current in the same period, based on a "diagnostic set of design characteristics" (Plog 1990, 63). The existence of a number of so-called 'Black-on-Red' wares has been noted in the preceding survey of past scholarship. Many publications have attempted to borrow from each other in the definition and description of these wares and to postulate the relationships between them. While the pottery type often designated 'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red is, in fact, easily recognisable on examination and has seldom been mistaken for another ware, 'Black-on-Red' continues to be used as a broad classification for a variety of potentially unrelated wares. The

apparent chronological priority of one 'group' of 'Black-on-Red' wares to the 'Cypro-Phoenician' group has increased this confusion, with serious chronological repercussions. One is often assumed to be a forerunner of the other, with the consequent creation of an "early "Black-on-Red"" group (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 77), a "Proto Black-on-Red" group (Prausnitz 1972, 156) and a class of "Local Black-on-Red ware" which "has no immediately obvious relation to the Cypro-Phoenician ware traditionally called Black-onRed" but "could be ancestral or an early parallel" (Culican 1982, 55). The confusion over nomenclature and the interchangeablity of the term 'Black-on-Red' is evident in the publication of Tel Masos, for example, where 'Ashdod ware' is called "a local variant of "Black-on-Red"," and the general dating of this pottery type confirmed by examples of an "early type of "Black on Red" ware" (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 77). The potential confusion over 'Black-on-Red' pottery is due, first, to the simplicity of this definition, and second, to the use of a combination of colours on these wares that was basic to the repertoire of the Levantine potter throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Red and black concentric circles on the bodies of flasks were a common decorative motif in the Late Bronze Age (Amiran 1969, PI. 51:11-15). Red burnished slip was generally rare in the Late Bronze Age but occurs occasionally on chalices and goblets (Amiran 1969, 134; PI. 40:7, 11, 13). Beginning in the late Iron Age I period, however, red slipped and burnished vessels began to appear throughout the Levant, from the regions of Syria and Phoenicia in the north to southern Palestine (Mazar 1985, 83-85; 1998, 373-377). By the Iron II period (10th century onwards) other decorative wares such as Philistine Bichrome pottery had disappeared and the burnished red slip technique became the ceramic hallmark of the region (Mazar 1985, 83-84; 1998, 373-377; Holladay 1990). While the mode of transmission of this technique throughout the Levant remains uncertain, the attractive finish it produced clearly had widespread appeal and its development in different regions is likely to have been related to each another (Mazar 1985, 45, 83-84; Mazar 1998, 376-377). Mazar suggests that the earliest appearance of this technique may have been in the region of Philistia in the southern Levant (Mazar 1985, 45, 83-84; 1998, 376-377). It is likely to have

derived initially from attempts to imitate the surface appearance of copper alloy vessels (cf. Vickers & Gill 1994, 141-144). The application of black paint to the red slipped surface developed naturally alongside the plain red slip technique. In 11th10th century strata at many sites in the southern Levant and in tomb groups in Phoenicia, pottery occurs decorated with bands of black paint on a red surface, either horizontal circumventing the body and neck of a vessel, or as black spirals or concentric circles painted on the interior of bowls (eg. Mazar 1985, 83-84, Figs. 18:18-21, 35: 23, 41:8; Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157). The relationship between these various black painted wares has not yet been satisfactorily studied and is discussed briefly below. It is the resemblance of this 'Black-on-Red' decorative style, however, to that of 'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red that has been responsible for the persistent confusions and lack of precise definition of 'Black-on-Red' pottery. As noted above, one 'Black-on-Red' decorated type stands out amongst these various similarly decorated types. For the purposes of this book, Black-on-Red pottery is defined as the ware described in Gjerstad's typology of 'Black-on-Red' ware in Cyprus (henceforward BoR) (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73). The problematic aspects of Gjerstad's typology, which was constructed for the pottery in Cyprus, are fully examined in Chapter Four. For example, Gjerstad defined a separate category of pottery, the 'non-Cypriot Black-on-Red,' which preceded the pottery of Cypriot origin. This was not included in his typology. The establishment of a single origin for both categories of the pottery would require combining the two into a single group. Also requiring investigation is the extent to which the stratified examples of the pottery on the mainland correspond with the chronology proposed by Gjerstad, in which BoR III (V) follows from II (IV) and I (III). Nevertheless, the pottery type to be investigated in this book is that described by Gjerstad. The following is therefore an abbreviated version of the main characteristics of Gjerstad's BoR pottery. The categories of "BoR I (III)" followed by "BoR II (IV)" represents the location of these pottery types within the overall Cypriot Iron Age pottery sequence. This is further explained in Chapter Four; the divisions are included here simply to indicate Gjerstad's views on the development of the pottery. Gjerstad's typology of BoR focuses on the form and decoration of the wares and incorporates only the

briefest descriptions of their fabric. In general, however, the clay is finely-levigated, with only very small either white or more commonly black inclusions, thin-walled and well-fired. The black line decoration, which sometimes fades to purple or brown, is always carefully applied and the concentric circles are compass-drawn. BoR I (III) (Figure 3) Wheel-made; the clay is reddish-brown; the slip red or reddish-brown, lustrous, or polished; on this slip the ornaments are painted in black, mat colour... The decoration sometimes consists only of encircling lines and bands. The jugs are frequently decorated with intersecting, concentric lines, but isolated, concentric circles, which are placed below the rim of the deep bowls and on the shoulder of the jars, jugs, amphorae, and hydriae, are the most characteristic ornament. (Gjerstad 1948, 68-69).

The main forms belonging in this category are illustrated in Figure 3. The most characteristic types found on the mainland are the deep or shallow bowl with loop handles below the rim or bar handles at the rim, the pedestalled bowl, the barrel-juglet, the handle-ridge juglet and the trefoil-lipped globular-bodied jug (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. XXIV-XXVI).

BoR II (IV) (Figures 4 & 5) Wheel-made; the slip is usually lustrous, but never polished and thinner than that of Black-on-Red I (III); the ornaments on the slip are painted in black, mat colour... 1 The circle style of Black-on-Red I (III) is further advanced in accordance with the development of the circle style in White Painted and Bichrome IV: groups of circles border the circular, intersecting lines: the circles are often connected into vertical or horizontal rows; the outer circle-line is sometimes thicker than the others; the latticed lozenge ornaments have developed into a group of intersecting straight lines. (Gjerstad 1948, 70-71).

1

Note that Gjerstad's observation that this 'second' group of pottery is not burnished ("polished") is not borne out by examination of a large range of this pottery in Cyprus and on the mainland. Evidence of burnishing is present on the majority of BoR pottery throughout the period of its occurrence; where it is not clearly present, the slip is usually lustrous and may have been additionally polished with a cloth or piece of leather. Rarely, and only on late examples of the ware, is the slip entirely matt.

The main forms belonging in this category include the simple-rimmed small bowl with no handles, deep and shallow bowls similar to those appearing earlier and the bowl with carinated rim. Handle-ridge juglets remain especially characteristic, and also in this category are trefoil-lipped juglets, conical juglets and trefoil-lipped jugs (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. XXXVII-XL). BoR III (V) (Figure 6) W h e e l - m a d e ; the slip is usually slightly lustrous or nearly mat, often dark-brown in c o l o u r . . . The decoration is chiefly executed in the circle style, but the ornamental syntax is poor, and the main part of the decoration of the red wares of Type V is in the bichrome technique and is, therefore, found in Bichrome Red II (V). (Gjerstad

1948, 71-72). Few of these late wares have been found on the mainland. The tendency amongst the closed types is towards an increasingly biconical shape or 'heavy' appearance. Bowls tend to be lower and shallower versions of the earlier forms (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII). Earliest Appearances of BoR As seen in the survey of past scholarship on this pottery, an appearance of BoR pottery in early Iron Age contexts at sites in Palestine is at the crux of arguments concerning its origin. If this is the case, either a mainland origin to the pottery must be accepted, against the Cypriot claims, or a serious attempt is required to reassess the low Cypriot chronology so that the period in which the pottery appears on the island is contemporary with its occurrence on the mainland. Chapter Three examines comprehensively the chronology of BoR pottery. Here it is instructive to provide a brief survey of the few early contexts which are claimed to have produced BoR vessels in the 11th century and examine their reliability (Van Beek 1951, 28). This analysis also assesses the stratigraphical relationship of BoR pottery (as defined above) to the other similarly decorated wares of the region. The mainland sites for which an 11th century date for BoR has been proposed are: Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2, Beth-Zur, Gezer Tomb 59, Beth-Shemesh Stratum III, Beersheba Stratum VII and

Shiqmona (Van Beek 1951, 28; Albright 1932, 72; 1943, 9; Sellers 1933, 37, Fig. 31; Macalister 1912a, 330, Fig. 171:6; 1912b, PI. LXXXIV; Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXI:39, PI. LX:22; 1939,133; Herzog 1984, 20-22, 50, Pl. 24:7; Elgavish 1993, 1373-1378). Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2 The debate over the early appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland began with Albright's publication of Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932, 72). The neck and rim of a BoR juglet was found in Silo 43, Locus 12B3, underneath a "stone on which was found a small, but characteristic Philistine crater" (Albright 1943, 9; 1932, Fig. 31:43). A second, complete BoR juglet was found in Room 22 B-4, next to this silo, which Albright dates on the basis of the context of the juglet in the silo (Albright 1932, 72, PI. 51:9; 1943, 9). These two loci belong to Stratum B2; Albright places the end of this stratum at c. 1050, on the basis that the BoR juglet "is not likely to be earlier than cir. 1050 BC" (Albright 1943, 9). A recent attempt to reassess the Iron Age strata at the site fails to take account of the apparent juxtaposition of BoR and Philistine ware in Silo 43, commenting that pottery in the silos is "of a rather homogeneous nature" (Greenberg 1987, 61). The other vessels published from Silo 43 are dated by Greenberg to the 11th century (Greenberg 1987, 75). It is evident that Albright's dating of Silo 43 is not only circular, based on an early date for BoR, but also that the lack of real stratigraphy in the silos, as well as the early excavation and publication of the site, render this early BoR context unreliable. Beth-Zur This site, located near Hebron, was published by Sellers in 1933. A fragment of a possible BoR handle-ridge juglet is published in a photograph of "Early Iron Age Forms" (Sellers 1933, 37, Fig. 31). It is impossible to determine if this is a true BoR juglet, and difficult to see on what basis Van Beek incorporates this vessel into his discussion of 11th century BoR pottery (Van Beek 1951, 28). This evidence is therefore an inadequate basis on which to assess the date of this ware. Gezer Tomb 59 A small fragment of a BoR juglet is published from Tomb 59 at Gezer in association with early Iron Age and Philistine ware (Macalister

1912a, 330, Fig. 171:6; 1912b, Pl. LXXXIV). Although it is not clear whether this tomb had been robbed, it was evidently in use over an extended period with numerous re-interments. Remains of over thirty skeletons were found and "bones and pottery were piled up in complete disorder" (Macalister 1912a, 325). Pottery belonging to this tomb included fragments of Philistine Bichrome pottery, spoon-mouthed pilgrim flasks, basket-handled spouted jugs and an Iron II blackburnished juglet (Macalister 1912a, Fig. 168; 1912b, PI. LXXXIV: 10, 20). The range of the pottery and the state of preservation of the tomb render this context insufficient to provide an indication of date. Beth-Shemesh

Stratum 111

A fragment of a BoR juglet base and, less certain, a BoR rim are assigned to Stratum III at this site (Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXL39, PI. LX:22). A third fragment appears to be White Painted ware (Grant & Wright 1938, PI. XXXVIIL3). The excavators date Stratum III at the site to the 12-11th centuries BC and describe the juglet fragment Pl. LXL39 as "one of the few in Palestine which can be dated with confidence in the 11th century" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). The presence of BoR in Stratum III would make it contemporary with Philistine ware which is dominant in the stratum; other pottery includes wares generally datable to the late Iron I period (eg. Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXI: 37, 31; 1939, 127). No other pottery, however, is published from Room 448 in which the juglet fragment was found and there is no discussion of the loci of any of these fragments. The stratigraphy of this site is generally too imprecise to rely on this early BoR attribution. Beersheba Stratum VII An example of a BoR handle-ridge juglet is published from Stratum VII at this site, from Locus 2307, a floor in Building 2309 (Herzog 1984, 20-22, 50, Pl. 24:7). The excavators suggest a date for this stratum "in the late 11th - early 10th century BCE" on the basis of ceramic parallels with Tel Masos Stratum II and Megiddo Stratum VI (Herzog 1984, 51). Part of Building 2309, however, is noted by the excavators as continuing in use in Stratum VI after the dismantling of the Stratum VII house (Herzog 1984, 20). This suggests that the BoR juglet may have belonged to the later, 10th century Stratum VI. The stratigraphy of the Iron Age levels at Beersheba, including this particular context, is fully discussed in Chapter Three.

Shiqmona This site has not yet been fully published, but preliminary reports indicate the presence of BoR pottery in the latest Iron I level: in a house "probably destroyed in the eleventh century B.C.E." (Elgavish 1993, 1374). In the absence of full publication of this site this finding must remain in question. Discussion These contexts therefore represent the earliest examples of BoR cited from levels on the mainland. The excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim, BethZur, Gezer and Beth-Shemesh were conducted in the first part of the century and the contexts of the pottery under consideration are therefore of very limited reliability. No detailed plans of the settlement loci are published and the Gezer tomb is too disturbed to provide a satisfactory date. The context of the BoR juglet in Beersheba Stratum VII is not wholly reliable because of re-use of the building in which it was found and, while more reliable in terms of modern excavation techniques, the overall dating scheme for the Iron Age levels at this site is problematic. As noted, this is discussed further in Chapter Three, but the excavators' transitional 11th-10th century BC date may be too early. While Shiqmona may possibly provide evidence for an early appearance of the ware, assessment of this site awaits full publication. In considering the position of this early BoR pottery on the mainland, three additional points are to be noted: 1. The absence of BoR in contexts prior to the 10th century at sites where earlier levels are present and well preserved: 2 Hazor Megiddo Tell Keisan Tell Qasile Ta'anach Beth-Shan Tell el-Far'ah (N) 2

(BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR (BoR

appears in Stratum XB, none in XI) in Stratum VA-IVB, none in Stratum VI) appears in Niv. 8, none in Niv. 9) in Stratum IX, none in Stratum X) in Period IIB, none in Period IIA) in Lower Level V, none in Level VI) appears in Stratum Vllb, none in Vila)

For full discussion of the contexts of BoR and the Iron A g e stratigraphy at these sites, see Chapter Three; for Tell Masos which is not included, see Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 80.

Tell Abu Hawam Tel Masos

(BoR in Stratum III, none in IV) (no BoR in Stratum II, dated late 11th-10th century BC)

2. The presence of other Black-on-Red pottery types in strata immediately preceding those in which BoR is present: Tell Qasile Beersheba

(Stratum X) (Strata IX-VIII)

Red slip jugs decorated with black bands, pilgrim flasks and spoonmouthed flasks with black concentric circles on a red slip and basket-handled strainer-spouted jugs with black bands are all assigned to Stratum X at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985, 63-65, 71, 74; Photo 63; Figs. 35:2-3, 36:1, 49:5-6, 50:2). At Beersheba, a redslipped black-painted basket-handled jug appears in Stratum IX, and a red slipped pyxis decorated with black horizontal lines in Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984, Figs. 19:7; 20:15). These pottery types will be further examined below, but their appearance in levels preceding those containing early BoR examples should be noted. 3. The presence of what may be an imported BoR juglet at Lapithos in Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I. Gjerstad describes this vessel, which appears in Tomb 417, as a "Red Slip painted small, depressed oval jug with flat base; narrow neck with handle-ridge; handle from neck to shoulder. Encircling lines round neck and body; one group of concentric circles on shoulder. Mouth missing. Foreign ware. Height 7.6. Inside no. 81 [WPI oval amphora]." (Gjerstad 1934, 230, No. 82, Pl. L). Recent photographs have confirmed that this vessel is a BoR juglet (Figure 2:1). Gjerstad further comments that "all the Cypriote pottery found in this tomb is exclusively of early Type I... which shows that the tomb dates from the early part of Cypro-Geometric I. The three specimens of foreign pottery are noteworthy" (Gjerstad 1934, 232). This context may, therefore, support an early production date for BoR, on Gjerstad's dating of Cypro-Geometric I c. 1050-950 BC (Gjerstad 1948,427). However, the problems of correlation between the Cypriot and mainland chronologies remain to be investigated. This vessel is also further discussed in Chapter Four (261).

Black-on-Red

Antecedents?

As was seen in the introductory survey of scholarship on BoR pottery, the question of the origin of the ware has been addressed either in scientific terms, or on a quantitative or chronological basis. Neutron Activation Analysis and other scientific methods have been employed in attempting to pinpoint regions of production but the results have been inconclusive (Yellin & Perlman 1978, Matthers et al. 1983, Brodie & Steel 1996; see Chapter Four, 234-239). Both other approaches have been unsatisfactory, with the quantitative approach tending to support a Cypriot origin and the chronological generally an origin on the mainland. Little research has yet been conducted on the typological development of BoR, despite recognition of its "Cypro-Phoenician" affinities and the possibility of association with other similarly decorated forms (Mazar 1985, 84). While an increasing quantity of early 'Black-on-Red' decorated wares published from the region of Phoenicia encourages assessment of the relations between these pottery types, pottery from Phoenicia generally comes from tomb groups, which are less reliable than stratified sites (eg. Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). The most reliable 'Black-on-Red' decorated pottery, therefore, in terms of its precedence to BoR is that found at stratified sites in the southern Levant, and these are the focus of the discussion below. The following questions are addressed here: 1. How can BoR proper be related typologically to these early Black-on-Red types? Are there other forms from the preceding period that may have influenced the earliest manufacture of the BoR type? 2. Are there any Phoenician types that could be chronologically as well as typologically significant? 3. How does the earliest BoR relate typologically to Late Cypriot and early Cypro-Geometric forms? Other Early Black-on-Red

Pottery on the

Mainland:

Black-on-Red decoration appears on a fairly narrow range of early

Iron I vessels. A single example of a pyxis decorated with red slip and black horizontally painted lines was found in each of Tel Masos Stratum II (Area H), Beersheba Stratum VIII, and Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:5; Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:15; Mazar 1985, 77, Fig. 27:21) (.Figure 7:1-3). This pottery type, a fairly squat vessel carinated at the shoulder and near the base and with either two lug or loop-handles, was originally derived from a Mycenaean prototype (Amiran 1969, 277; PI. 96). It was already imitated in the Late Bronze Age, and continued into the Iron I period, occasionally decorated with painted bands. It declined by the Iron II period (Amiran 1969, 277; Mazar 1985, 77). At Beersheba, the Black-on-Red decorated pyxis appears in the same locus (1306) in Stratum VIII as another red slipped but undecorated, taller pyxis (Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:16). The excavator notes the scarcity of painted vessels in the succeeding strata at the site, VII and VI (in which BoR pottery appears) and that the ceramic repertoire of Stratum VIII is more closely associated with Stratum IX (the earliest Iron Age stratum) than with VII and VI (Herzog 1984, 46). This suggests that this early Black-on-Red decoration may be derivative of the early Iron Age ceramic tradition (see below). At Tel Masos, the Black-on-Red decorated pyxis appears in the same locus as a Black-on-Red decorated jug in Stratum II: House 314, Room 307 (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4) (Figure 7:5). The jug is not burnished, unlike the pyxis. The Black-on-Red pyxis from Tell Qasile is the only vessel published from the locus (302) in which it is found (Mazar 1985, Fig. 27:21). However a variety of other Black-on-Red decorated vessels are found in Stratum XI at Tell Qasile: a Black-on-Red decorated bottle, which resembles an elongated pyxis (Figure 7:4), bowls (Figure 7:8-9), an amphoriskos (Figure 7:7) and a fragmentary vessel on three feet (Mazar 1985, Figs. 19:42, 22:1, 5, 29:14, 15, 30:22, 31:6). The form and decoration of the bowls and pyxis bear similarities to local Philistine pottery found in the same stratum, while the origin of the bottle shape is less certain. 3 Black-on-Red decoration also appears on pilgrim flasks in the 3

Note however that this bottle shape is paralleled by similar vessels in Cyprus from Cypro-Geometric I, decorated in White Painted and Bichrome techniques, and it may perhaps indicate a similar sphere of influence (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. V:5-6, VIII: 23; Amiran 1969, 277).

Iron Age (Figure 8:1-3). This is again a Late Bronze Age shape which continues into the Iron Age. Lentoid flasks with a black painted concentric circle design on red slip are found at Tell Qasile Stratum X, Ashdod Stratum X and Tel Masos Stratum II (Mazar 1985, 71, Fig. 37:2; Dothan 1971, 159; Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 159:7). In the earlier Stratum XI at Tell Qasile, an example of a variation on this form with a spoon-mouthed rim and two loop handles on the shoulder was found decorated in black concentric circles on a red slip (Mazar 1985, 74, Photo 80; Fig. 20:13). Amongst the other examples of this type from Iron I contexts elsewhere, however, none have been found similarly decorated (Mazar 1985, 74). A development from the original lentoid pilgrim flask is the spherical or globular jug, which sometimes has one handle only. This is also found in Iron I contexts, but only one example is so far known decorated in Black-on-Red (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 148:1) (Figure 8:4). These globular jugs are generally not red slipped and are decorated instead in black or red or a combination of the two colours. The 'Phoenician Bichrome' version of this vessel becomes characteristic of the early Iron Age Phoenician pottery repertoire (Mazar 1985, 74-76; Bikai 1987, 48). Several examples of plain jugs with high neck and flat base have also been found with red slip and black painted horizontal lines (Figure 8:5). Three examples of this type are found at Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Figs. 41:8, 49:5-6). A number of similar jugs in this stratum are decorated only in red slip, including one small example with a faint neck ridge (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:7, 49:7-8; 41:14) (Figure 8:6). A jug with a more pronounced neck ridge and decorated with black horizontal bands on a burnished red slip was found at Tel Masos in Stratum II (Area H) in context with the Blackon-Red pyxis (noted above) (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4). It should be noted, however, that a ridged neck is rare on these Blackon-Red decorated wares, while it is common on the Bichrome decorated globular jugs from the same period which are characteristic of the Phoenician repertoire (Chapman 1972, 150-152, Fig. 3; Bikai 1987, 48). Culican suggests that the jug from Tel Masos should be related to his category of "Phoenician Local Black-on-Red ware" (Culican 1982, 57; and see below). Another early Black-on-Red type is the basket-handled strainer jug (Figure 8:7). This shape, known as early as the Middle Bronze Age,

continues into the Iron Age, and is adopted into the Philistine repertoire of shapes (Amiran 1969, 251; Mazar 1985, 64-65). At Qasile, however, four examples are known of Black-on-Red versions from Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Figs. 35:2-3, 36:1, 50:2). The first three of these were found in the same locus (188) as almost identical jugs with Philistine Bichrome decoration. A parallel example is found at Beth-Shemesh Stratum III (Grant & Wright 1938, PI. LX:18). It should, in addition, be noted that a variety of other Black-on-Red decorated wares are known from levels on the mainland which are contemporary or later than the initial appearance of BoR ware. These are most likely developments from the earlier Black-on-Red wares, or at least related to the same local pottery traditions, but the technique is now applied to the range of forms common in the later period. These later types include "Ashdod ware," which first appears in the 10th century Stratum X at Ashdod and continues throughout Iron Age II at the site in a range of (non-Philistine) forms (Dothan 1971, 97-98, Figs. 74:15; 41:22, 25-27; also Culican 1973, 98) {Figure 8:8-10). Mazar notes the peculiarity of the appearance of this Black-on-Red pottery at Ashdod at a point at which the early Black-on-Red decorated wares had ceased at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985, 83-84). While this is perhaps surprising, this regionality of the Black-on-Red technique suggests that it is an organic development from the introduction of red slip pottery, and it should caution against attempting to relate the origin of BoR pottery to a single production area of earlier Black-on-Red. Phoenician

Pottery

Belief in the Phoenician involvement in the development of BoR is reflected in the designation "Cypro-Phoenician" for this pottery, as has been discussed above. Lack of excavation in the area of Phoenicia, modern Lebanon, however, and the consequent uncertain chronology for Phoenician ware, which is largely typological and based on tomb groups from this region, from Cyprus and from further west, renders it particularly problematic in attempting to assess its relationship to BoR (cf. Gal 1992, 185 n.9). Scholars of Phoenician pottery have been reluctant to align the chronology of these wares with any of the currently available Near Eastern chronologies for the region, relying instead on internal pottery schemes (Culican 1982, 68; Bikai 1987,48 n. 1,50-63).

In general, the shapes of Phoenician pottery bear little resemblance to BoR shapes: the earliest phase of Phoenician pottery is represented by the development of the globular neck-ridged jug which appears predominantly with bichrome or polychrome decoration (Bikai 1987, 48) (Figure 9:1-2). Gradually, however, red slipped vessels become more popular in the Phoenician repertoire. The most common of these are the conical-necked jug with trefoil lip, the heavy-walled juglet and later the mushroom-lipped jug which appears with both Bichrome and Red Slip decoration (Bikai 1987, 49) (Figure 9:3-7). The heavywalled juglet with its flat base, handle from neck to shoulder, faint neck ridge and everted rim (Figure 9:5-6) has in particular been regarded as a significant shape in the development of the BoR juglet (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). None of these red-slipped types, however, appear to precede the introduction of BoR pottery on the mainland (although the earliest examples of trefoil-lipped jugs are probably contemporary with the earliest BoR; see also Chapter Two, 48-51). These vessels cannot therefore be viewed as precedents for BoR. Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus, however, identifies a type of Phoenician ware occurring in early contexts on Cyprus which she designates "Red Ware" and suggests may be a possible predecessor of BoR (Bikai 1983,400-404; 1987, 59-60). This ware is coarse and soft with a thick, dark red slip and is hand-burnished, with painted decoration in "fine black (and sometimes white) lines or circles" (Bikai 1983,401). The forms in which the ware appears are lentoid pilgrim flasks, globular flasks and large "dipper" juglets with trefoil rim (Bikai 1983,401; 1987, 5-6, 59-60, PI. Π: 2-4, 7-9, 10-12, 14, Pl. Ill: 21, 19) {Figure 9:8-11). Bikai notes that only one globular jug with neck-ridge was found in this ware type; this vessel also dates later than the other examples of this type, to Cypro-Geometric II-III (Bikai 1987, 60, PI. XXV:20). The earliest 'Red Ware' vessels in Cyprus are found in context with Late Cypriot IIIB pottery but are more commonly found in Cypro-Geometric I-II contexts (Bikai 1987, 59-60). Both the pilgrim flask and the dipper juglet are common in the Iron I period on the mainland, although the currently limited excavation in Phoenicia precludes our assessment of early Iron Age wares in this region (eg. Amiran 1969, PI. 93, 84:13-15). A limited number of examples of 'Red Ware,' however, have been found in Phoenician tombs on the mainland, probably belonging to early Iron Age contexts and contemporary with the early Black-on-Red pottery in the south,

in the 11th century BC (Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157; Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). The forms in these tombs bear some similarities to those found in the south-pilgrim flasks, a red-slipped jug with black bands similar to that at Tel Masos and a strainer spouted jug with single handle (Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157; Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). As at sites along the southern Levantine coast, Black-on-Red decorated wares continue to appear in the region of Phoenicia in the same period as BoR. Culican's group of "Local Black-on-Red Ware" included Bikai's 'Red Ware' group amongst his early examples of "Local Black-on-Red," but also examples of Black-on-Red decorated "globular jugs with squared-off or rounded rims in the tradition of the (usually smaller) bichrome flasks" (Culican 1982, 59). Culican dates these latter until the mid-9th century (Culican 1982, 59, 68; Abb. 5ac). A number of other (unpublished) examples of Black-on-Red decorated wares in forms that show interesting similarities in motifs to BoR have been found in tombs at Tell er-Rachidiyeh and are tentatively dated later than the 9th century (Doumet, pers. comm.). 'Red Ware' is further discussed in Chapter Four. Late Cypriot and Early Cypro-Geometric

Pottery

Although Late Cypriot pottery was frequently found on the mainland during the Late Bronze Age, there is little in either the forms themselves or their decoration to relate them to BoR. No Late Cypriot pottery was decorated in Black-on-Red. In the Cypro-Geometric period various forms later found on BoR pottery begin to appear on decorated wares in Cyprus. Wide and shallow bowls and the deeper bowl, with two horizontal handles either at the rim or below it, are known in White Painted I ware (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. I) (Figure 10:1-5). These have bands of horizontal dark paint around the bodies of the vessels, and painted handles. The bowl on a raised foot also appears, decorated in the typical White Painted metope design (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. II) (Figure 10:6-7). Jugs are either ovoid or more globular with a low foot and pinched rim, or globular or barrel-shaped with "collar-shaped" rim. A small neck ridge appears on one form of the latter and both types have a single handle (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. 111:12-15, 17, IV:9-13) (Figure 10:8-9, 11-13). Examples of the basket-handled jug with spout and low foot are also present in White Painted I as well as a "squat" juglet

with round base, flaring rim and handle from neck to shoulder (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 1, 15-18) {Figure 10:18,10). Bichrome I ware (Figure 10:15) appears in similar shapes to White Painted I, with the addition of a flat base on the globular jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14, 15) (Figure 9:15). Also present in Bichrome I is a flask with two handles and lentoid body with features of both the pilgrim flask and the barrel juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 22) (Figure 10:17). In White Painted II ware the bowls tend to have flatter, wider bases; those with raised foot become a goblet-type shape (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:7-16) (Figure 11:1-5). The barrel-shaped jugs now have a flared rim and handle-ridge, "the collar-shaped mouth of the White Painted I jugs having been elongated into a funnel, while the rudiment of the collar has been transformed into a handle-ridge, from which the handle runs down to the shoulder" (Gjerstad 1948, 52; Fig. XIII:6-7) (Figure 11:6). Small globular juglets also appear without handle-ridge but with flared rim, flat base and handle drawn from the neck (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. ΧΙΠ: 11-12) (Figure 11:10-11). The footed base of the pinched-rim jugs tends to be elongated and the baskethandled jugs have a more pronounced ovoid body and footed base (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 17-21) (Figure 11:13-14). Bichrome II is again similar to WP II in shape. Among the shapes only assigned to Bichrome II are the globular juglet with flared rim and round base, handle drawn from the neck (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:4), the oval jug with ring base, handle-ridged mouth and flared rim (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5) and the strainer-spout jug with handle from shoulder to neck, which appears for the first time at this stage (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:9) (Figure 11:17-19). A trefoil-lipped jug with flat base and handle from rim to shoulder also seems to be new at this time (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5). White Painted III sees the introduction of the juglet with handleridge which is "influenced from the Black-on-Red I (III) ware" (Gjerstad 1948, 54; Fig. XIX:4) (Figure 12:6). A similar Black-onRed I (III) influence is noted in Bichrome III: the juglet with wide flat base and small body (Gjerstad 1948, 61; Fig. XXIIilO) (Figure 12:13). Another new type is the "sack-shaped jug...which seems to be influenced from the Plain White jugs with a sack-shaped body" (Gjerstad 1948, 61; Fig. XXIII:2) (Figure 12:19). This general survey of the early Cypro-Geometric pottery types, as classified by Gjerstad in his typology of 1948, suggests that there are

possible similarities between the shapes of BoR and earlier ceramic shapes in the Cypriot repertoire. A crucial consideration, however, in the use of Gjerstad's pottery typology in assessment of Cypriot traits to be found in BoR, is his chronology for these pottery types. This generally places White Painted and Bichrome I and II in the 11th-10th centuries BC and fits BoR pottery into a scheme which puts its introduction only at the later stages of these Cypriot wares, in group III. Stratigraphical evidence from the mainland may suggest that BoR is in fact appearing contemporaneously with these early decorated types. The possible example of "foreign" BoR in a CG I context at Lapithos in Cyprus should also be taken into account. These issues are further examined in Chapters Three and Four. Discussion The relationship between the technique of black decoration on a red slip and the origin of the Cypro-Phoenician Black-on-Red group should be considered. It might be argued that the former technique is the predecessor which led to the development of the distinctive Black-on-Red technique, probably somewhere along the southern Phoenician littoral. (Mazar 1985, 84)

It is clear from the survey above of early Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland, in the southern Levant and Philistia, and further north in Phoenicia, that the shapes in which this Black-on-Red pottery occurs bear little resemblance to BoR forms. A few BoR forms, however, possess features also found on the earlier mainland Black-on-Red pottery. These are: 1. The handle-ridge juglet, which is possibly the most common BoR form to be found in early Iron II levels in Palestine, and is noted by Gjerstad as a non-Cypriot type (Gjerstad 1948: 69, Figs. XXV:9-10, Fig. XXXVIII: 9-10) (Figure 3:9). Gjerstad places the handle ridge for the first time in his White Painted II category as a development of the "collar-shaped" rim of the White Painted I style (Gjerstad 1948, 52). The essential features of this vessel type, however, also bear similarities to the globular jug with neck-ridge which appears in early Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland (Figure 7:5). 2. The bottle, which Gjerstad assigns to his BoR II (IV) category and is similar in shape to the pilgrim flask (Gjerstad 1948: Fig.

XXXIX: 17) (Figure 5:9). The pilgrim flask occurs decorated in mainland Black-on-Red style (Figure 8:1-3). 3. The elongated oval 'dipper' style vessel, which resembles the typical Iron Age mainland dippers and the examples found decorated in Bikai's 'Red Ware' (Gjerstad 1948, 69, Fig. XXV: 16) (Figure 3:10, 9:8-9). In general, however, the forms in which BoR appears do not bear a strong resemblance to the early Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland. In the case of the Black-on-Red pottery along the southern coastal region, in Philistia, the shapes and ornamentation of this Black-on-Red ware follow closely the 'Philistine' tradition of decorated wares. This pottery is perhaps best regarded as a local and reasonably popular variant on the later styles of Philistine decoration with which it is contemporary. It also appears from examination of Bikai's 'Red Ware' that this pottery type is a Black-on-Red decorated variant of local Phoenician pottery types in early Iron Age contexts. Nevertheless, the presence of these Black-on-Red decorated vessels in circulation in the period prior to the introduction of BoR should be noted. It must remain a strong possibility that the introduction of red slip, often burnished, to pottery on the mainland in the Iron Age I period was the source of inspiration for the red slip which characterises the later BoR pottery. It is also possible that the combination of black paint on a red slip inspired the decoration of BoR. In assessing the means of transmission of the Black-on-Red decorative technique, the presence of examples of 'Red Ware' on Cyprus should be noted, as well as the presence of BoR in levels succeeding Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland. The transference of the decorative technique could therefore have taken place in either location. Also notable is the similarity between some BoR types and those found in the earlier Cypriot pottery repertoire. Of the main BoR bowl types, Gjerstad claims that four out of six are "of entirely Cypriote tradition," while the two other types appear in the contemporary WP III and Bichrome III wares (Gjerstad 1948, 69, Fig. XXV:2-3). This may be of significance in assessing the means of diffusion of the BoR style. Chapter Two examines the distribution of container versus noncontainer vessels. The possibility that this apparent discrepancy between the common forms of closed vessel, which bear some

similarities to mainland types, and open vessels, which are closer to local Cypriot shapes, suggests that BoR was initially developed as a ware for container vessels and developed in local Cypriot shapes once they had been introduced to the island is considered there. Conclusions This chapter has assessed some of the outer parameters of BoR pottery. It has investigated the apparently early contexts of BoR pottery on the mainland, and established that there is no satisfactory evidence with which to date this pottery to the 11th century BC. A survey of the strata on the mainland in which the pottery first appears suggests that a terminus post quem for this ware can be established in terms of relative chronology. These strata are further investigated in Chapter Three and an absolute chronology proposed. Finally, this chapter has defined the pottery as distinct from other Black-on-Red decorated wares and investigated the relationship of form and decoration between the types. It seems likely that the early Black-onRed decorated wares on the mainland were local variations on the local pottery repertoires of the coastal Levantine regions, and that the similarity between these types and BoR essentially lies only in its decorative combination. These issues are fully assessed in Chapter Four which investigates the origin of BoR pottery.

s:

«5 -J •s s ο to to 02

ίο. U è — ' ΓΛ «β ON ON' rf in CL. M ON 2 ON 3

ω -C

ca —

6

ω 00

S

u

0C3 >J>N

en

»ο ·' Ο

Ο NO

S ^ «Μ



C U CQ

ε ε ON OC u · _r < Ο so c .ε > HI C On Q Ο — CÛ CQ I « ΓΝΐ u ofio*

— Tf

(N ~0000 S2 Ε Ï-S3 — ·U, ^— on ν D» Ρ · < >• U

u υ ζ u as u u. u

1

06

^S)3jSnj' iiaoqj ^Aizqay U9oqd » qaig uaoqj S]Moa qsifl s3nf qaig s}D|3nf qaig

s3nf dAV sja|3nf dM s(Moa «oa s3np «oa S)3|3nr «oa •ojsj 9snqj

« «

b _iUJ—

> CU 00 CL,

ο* Z; 00 u-1 O -n > ÌŠ U IΛ gCJ >· U >· υ

NO



-

sj3|Snf a o a

•OM a s c q j

m

m

r

m





CN (Ν ÍN

ν ω S a -S "5b T> DÛ C ω οCo Coω ooC o J= X X X CIIL. C. û, eu

N

A P P E N D I X II

IRON AGE CYPRIOT POTTERY ON THE MAINLAND: STATISTICS

1) Total Cypriot Pottery on Mainland: 2) Total Cypriot Pottery on Mainland in period of BoR (Phases 1-3):

858 vessels

3) Total BoR of all Cypriot Pottery, including early:

71%

4) Total W P of all Cypriot Pottery, including early: 5) Total Bich of all Cypriot Pottery, including early:

19% 9%

6) Total BoR of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 7) Total W P of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 8) Total Bich of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period:

69% 21%

9) BoR Juglets of Total BoR: 10) BoR Jugs of Total BoR: 11 ) BoR Bowls of Total BoR:

814 vessels

59% 6% 35%

12) W P Juglets of Total WP, including early: 13) W P Jugs of Total WP, including early: 14) W P Bowls of Total WP, including early:

30% 32% 38%

15) W P Juglets of Total WP, during BoR period: 16) W P Jugs of Total WP, during BoR period: 17) W P Bowls of Total WP, during BoR period:

31% 37 % 32%

18) Bich Juglets of Total Bich, including early: 19) Bich Jugs of Total Bich, including early: 20) Bich Bowls of Total Bich, including early:

26% 35% 39%

21) Bich Juglets of Total Bich, during BoR period: 22) Bich Jugs of Total Bich, during BoR period: 23) Bich Bowls of Total Bich, during BoR period:

23% 36% 41%

24) BoR Juglets of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 25) BoR Jugs of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 26) BoR Bowls of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early:

42% 4% 25%

27) BoR Juglets of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 28) BoR Jugs of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 29) BoR Bowls of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period:

45% 4% 26%

APPENDIX (III): BOR VESSEL TYPES: CHRONOLOGICAL 'PHASE' ON MAINLAND VERSUS GJERSTAD'S CLASSIFICATION * * O n l y w h o l e o r c l e a r l y d i a g n o s t i c v e s s e l s in g o o d c o n t e x t s i n c l u d e d .

W h e r e n o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is g i v e n u n d e r G j e r s t a d ' s t y p o l o g y , the v e s s e l is o f r e c o g n i s a b l e t y p e but is e i t h e r t o o f r a g m e n t a r y to a s s i g n a c a t e g o r y or is not a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e t y p o l o g i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s .

* S e e Chapter Three for assessment of chronological 'phase' of B o R p o t t e r y at m a i n l a n d s i t e s .

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological -

'Phase *

Gjerstad's Classification

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 5: 123; Loud 1948, Type 492 (not illus.)

Handle-ridge juglet

12

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II(IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 17:87; Loud 1948, pi. 89:6

Two-handled juglet

6

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. X X X I X : 18

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 8:176; Loud 1948, pi. 88:9

Trefoil-lipped jug

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2 + BoR I (III) Cf. Fig. XXV: 18, 19

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loud I948.pl. 88:6,7

Trefoil-lipped juglet

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIIL23+ Fig. XXXIX:6

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loud 1948, pi. 88:8

Trefoil-lipped squat juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:I8,19

Megiddo VA-IVB

Loud I 9 4 8 . p l . 88:18

Conical juglet

4

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 29:107

Wide medium-deep bowl with low foot, flat looped handles

3

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 30:140

Wide medium-shallow bowl with low foot, horizontal bar handles at rim

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948. Fig. XXXVII: 14

Megiddo VA-IVB

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 32:169

Medium bowl with carinated body, flat looped handles

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL23

Comments

2 of these vessels possibly in Str. VB

Locus 2081

Site &

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

Stratum

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's

Comments

Classification

Hazor IX

Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, pi. CCVIII:38

Trefoil-lipped squat juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:18

Hazor IX-X

Yadin (ed) 1958, pi. XLVI: 1,2

Handle-ridge juglet

2

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Hazor IXB

Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, pl. CLXXV: 18

Deep carinated bowl, no handles (?)

1

1

BoR II (IV) - no exact parallel

Hazor XA

Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, pi. CLXXIV:9

Deep carinated bowl, frags only

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24 (not exact parallel)

Ta'anach Cultic Structure?

Rast 1978, Fig. 93:6

Conical Juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

Stratigraphy less reliable

Ta'anach Cultic Structure?

Rast 1978, Fig. 93:5

Handle-ridge juglel

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Stratigraphy less reliable

Tel Michal XIV

Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.1.1

Wide medium-shallow bowl with flat looped handles (no base preserved)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 10)

Tel Michal XIV

Singer-Avitz 1989. Fig. 7.1.15

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

Tel Michal XIII

Singer-Avitz 1989. Fig. 7.3.10

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Tel Michal XIII

Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.3.11

Conical juglet (with 'eye' & bulging neck)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:9

Rim & neck only preserved

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Comments

Beersheba VI (VII)

Herzog 1984, Fig. 24:7, 30:8

Handle-ridge juglet

2

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. X X X V I I L 9

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 8:3

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Beth-Shan Lower Level V (VI)

James 1966, Fig. 9:2

'Sack'-shaped juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1 6 - o r poss. BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIIL21

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 22:1

Trefoil-lipped jug

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1 8 or poss. BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXIX:2

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 22:9

Barrel-juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:6,7

Beth-Shan Lower Level V

James 1966, Fig. 18:21

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tell elFarah (N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:8

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. X X X I X : 18

Inaccurate drawing

Tell elFarah (N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:9

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIIL9

Inaccurate drawing

Tell elFarah(N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:3

Wide medium-deep bowl, looped handles (no foot preserved)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20

Tell elFarah (N) Vllb

Chambon 1984, PI. 62:7

Amphora

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVI:2

N o neck preserved

Not exact parallel

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Comments

Tel 'Amal IV (-III)

Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 13:19

Handle-ridge juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tel 'Amal IV (-III)

Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 15:10

Small mediumdeep bowl, two flat looped handles

1

1

Tel 'Amal IV (-III)

Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 15:11

Medium-deep bowl, two flat looped handles

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:20

Tell Keisan Niv. 8b-c

Briend & Humbert 1980, Fig. 56:2

Medium bowl with carinated body

1

1

BoR Π (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:23

Tell Keisan Niv. 8b-c

Briend & Humbert 1980, Fig. 56:1

Wide, mediumdeep bowl with looped handles (no base preserved)

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (HI): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Tell elHammeh Loci 117119

Cahill 1989, 36

Handle-ridge juglets

2

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tel Halif tomb

Biran & Gophna 1970

Handle-ridge juglets

5

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Tell Abu Hawam III

Hamilton 1935, PL. XIII:87

Conical juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

Room 18

Sarepta Substratum D-l

Anderson 1988, pi. 34:14

Two-handled juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Neck & handle juncture only preserved

Sarepta Substratum C-2

Anderson 1988, pi. 36:11

Conical juglet

1

2

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: II

Beth-Shan Upper Level V

James 1966, Fig. 13:8

Handle-ridge juglet

1

2

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

BoR II (IV) CF. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXV1L17

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Megiddo IV

Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5:123

Handle-ridge juglet

1

2

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Megiddo III

Lamon & Shipton 1939. PI. 5:123

Handle-ridge juglet

4

3

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948. Fig. XXV: 10 + BoR II (IV) Cf. Fig. XXXVIII:9

Megiddo III

Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 17:87

Two-handled juglet

2

3

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 18

Megiddo IV

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 29:107

Wide medium-deep bowl with low foot. flat looped handles

1

2

Comments

Stratigraphy less reliable

Stratigraphy less reliable

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Megiddo III

Lamon & Shipton 1939, pi. 29:107

Wide medium-deep bowl with low foot, flat looped handles

1

3

Megiddo II

Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 29:109

Bowl with concentric circles (frag. only)

1

3

Megiddo IV

Loud 1948, PI. 91:2

Trefoil-lipped juglet

1

2

Hazor VII

Yadin 1958, PI. L : I 4

Handle-ridge juglet (Frag, only)

2

2

Two-handled juglet (Frag, only)

1

Hazor VIII

Yadin I960. PI. LVIILI2

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL20 (poss. BoR I (III): Fig. XXIV: 13)

Late type but frag. only. Possibly from jar. BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6

Frag, of neck only. poss. conical juglet 2

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948. Fig. X X X I X : 18

Frag, of neck only

Site & Stratum

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Comments

Hazor VII

Ben-Tor ed. 1989, PI. CCXIV17

Very shallow bowl (frag, only)

1

2

Frag, only

Hazor VI

Ben-Tor ed. 1989, PI. CLXXXII:18

Wide medium-shallow bowl, flat looped handles (no base preserved)

1

3

Tel Qiri VB/VI

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 43:10

Wide deep bowl with bar handles frag, only

1

2

Frag only + poss. inaccurate reconstruction

Tel Qiri V

Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 22:18

Simple-rimmed bowl - frag, only

1

3

Frag only + poss. inaccurate reconstruction

Tell elFarah (N) Vlld

Chambon 1984, Pi. 62:5

Shallow bowl with low carination

1

3

BoR II (IV)?

N o exact parallel

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:12, 7, 10

Handle-ridge juglet

3

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Note: Chronolo gy of this site undetermined as site not yet fully published. Possibly belongs in Phase 2.

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:9, 8

Trefoil-lipped juglet

2

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:23 + Fig. XXXIX: 6

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:6

Basket-handled spouted juglet

1

1

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV22

Hurvat Rosh Zayit

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:11

Conical juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 12

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15

Site &

Reference

BoR Vessel Type

Stratum

No. of

Chron-

Vessels **

ological 'Phase'*

Gjerstad's Classification

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Unpublished (Ref. (96-2454)

Conical juglet

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 13

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:4

Trefoil-lipped jug

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2

Hurvat Rosh Zayit - Fortress

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:1

Wide medium-shallow bowl with low foot, horizontal bar handles at rim

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 14

Hurvat Rosh Zayit

Gal 1992, Fig. 5:2

Wide medium shallow bowl with low foot, two looped handles

1

1

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 15

Tyre VIII

Bikai 1978, PI. XIIA:I0, PI. XXIIA:9

Handle-ridge juglet

2

2

Tyre II

Bikai 1978, PI. XIA:21

Medium bowl with carinated body (no handles preserved)

1

3

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24

Hama Niv. Ε

Ingholt 1940, 97-98 PI. XXX:2

Trefoil-lipped juglet

2

3

BoR II (IV) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:23

Hama Niv. Ε

Fugman 1958,252253, Fig. 325

Handle-ridge juglet

2

3

BoR I (III) Cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10

Comments

Peculiar vessel sawn off at waist and drilled with suspension holes

Necks only preserved

A P P E N D I X IV

T H E EARLIEST A P P E A R A N C E OF BOR POTTERY AT PALAEPAPHOS-SKALES:

PROPORTIONS OF BOR TYPES VERSUS WHITE PAINTED (After Karageorghis 1983)

BoR Footed Bowls

«

IN

BoR Plain Bowls