Anth.340 Ppt. lecture-8: EB IV / MB I Canaan: Decline in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, virtual de-urbanization in Palestine, mainly seasonal camps in N. Sinai, Negev and Palestine, burial customs, pottery, metallurgy, complex collapse & Sinai case study (by G. Mumford; rev Sept. 23, 2016)

ANT 340 / 640: The Archaeology and History of the “Bible Lands”: Ancient (Syria)-Palestine. Notes and images compiled by Gregory Mumford © 2016

Lecture 8: Early Bronze Age IV (Part-3).

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Introduction.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Introduction: • The collapse of almost all urban centres at the end of EB III, ca. 2300-2200 BC, ushered in several centuries of mostly semi-nomadic pastoralists and very much reduced urban life in Palestine.

• Egypt: The turbulent EB IV is matched by a decline in mid-late Dynasty 6 and the decentralization and civil strife of Dyns.7-11: First of Intermediate Advent EB IV: Period • Mesopotamia experiences instability Abandonment and invasions for the early part of this virtually period, ca.of 2230-2130 BC.

urban centres • Syria all suffers variously region by region: - Ebla is destroyed ca.2250 BC (Narim Sin) in Palestine - Byblos & Ras Shamra = devastated a.Byblos soon recovers (less affluent) b.Ras Shamra  similar to Palestine

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Introduction: • The collapse of almost all urban centres at the end of EB III, ca. 2300-2200 BC, ushered in severalof centuries Advent EB IVof mostly Dyn.8 pyramid of Ibi (30 x 30 m base) semi-nomadic pastoralists and very much reduced urban life in Palestine.

• Egypt: The turbulent EB IV is matched by a decline in mid-late Dynasty 6 and the decentralization and civil strife of Dyns.7-11: First Intermediate Period • Mesopotamia experiences instability Late Dyn.6 Egypt: and invasions for the early part of this period, 2230-2130 - ca. Declining … BC.

Nubian mercenaries • Syria suffers variously region by region: in Southern Egypt - Ebla is destroyed ca.22507-11): BC (Narim Sin) FIP Egypt (Dyns.

- Decentralized - Byblos & Ras Shamra = devastated a.Byblos soon recovers (less affluent) - Civil strife b.Ras - Shamra Etc.  similar to Palestine

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Introduction:

CITIES “decline”

• The collapse of almost all urban centres at Mesopotamia: the end of EB III, ca. 2300-2200 BC, - Instability invasions ushered in several¢uries of mostly semi-nomadic pastoralists and very ca. 2230 – 2130 BCE much reduced urban life in Palestine.

Syria: • Egypt: The turbulent EB IV is matched - Decline; destructions; by a decline in mid-late Dynasty 6 and impoverishment; etc. the decentralization and civil strife of Dyns.7-11: First Intermediate Period

• Mesopotamia experiences instability and invasions for the early part of this period, ca. 2230-2130 BC. • Syria suffers variously region by region: - Ebla is destroyed ca.2250 BC (Narim Sin) - Byblos & Ras Shamra = devastated a.Byblos soon recovers (less affluent) b.Ras Shamra  similar to Palestine

Continuity & different material culture EBLA (Tell Mardikh) IIB2 city declines

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Terminology.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Terminology: • This disturbed transitional period has been provided various terms: a. 1961: Wright called it EB IIIB - MB I (Early Bronze IIIB – Middle Bronze I) b. Soon after others labelled it MB I (Middle Bronze I) c. Tufnell termed it “caliciform culture” (naming it after a typical vessel form)

d. Kenyon named it “Intermediate Early Bronze – Middle Bronze Period” e. Mid-1960s: Lapp & Kochavi called it “Intermediate Bronze Age” f. 1968: Lapp re-designated this period “Early Bronze IV” since his work at Bab edh-Dhra produced evidence for greater continuity with EB culture than with the following MB Age.

EB IV/MB I caliciform pottery

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Terminology: g. Oren, Dever, & others subsequently accepted “EB IV”  Hence, terminological chaos has emerged owing to the divergent use of different terms for the same period.

• NOW: many use “EB IV/MB I” to cover the range of most earlier terms: a. EB IV admits the greater continuity with the preceding EB II-III culture. b. MB I avoids the confusion that might otherwise occur from the loss of “MB I” in the subsequent sequence Middle Bronze II … • Otherwise, some literature still uses other terms alongside EB IV/MB I: E.g., “Interlude,” etc.

A. Ben-Tor Text’s chronological table

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Settlement patterns & architecture

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Some large EB III settlements yielded minimal occupation in EB IV (EB4/MB1): - Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Jericho.

• E.g., Megiddo stratum XIV: - Impoverished structures well-spaced apart in a small unfortified village. - Temple 4040  small shrine (above EB III circular altar/platform) • Many other small villages & seasonal Major sites in Palestine: camps emerge in EB new III locations most earlier, adjacent cities) -(replacing Minimal occupation in EB IV:

• Several villages appear near/adjacent E.g., major Megiddo becomes shift?) to earlier tells (population

impoverished village

• E.g., Jebel Qaaqir (Shephelah): - Housing represents & huts E.g., Beth Shancaves  impov. - Large cemetery lies beside the site

E.g., Jericho  impoverished

Megiddo Stratum XIV (EB IV / MB I)

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Some EB III EB IIIlarge  EB IV:settlements yielded minimal occupation in EB IV (EB4/MB1) - Population shift to new areas: - Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Jericho.

with smaller sites • E.g., Megiddo stratum - Seasonal camps XIV: - Impoverished structures well-spaced - Small villages apart in a small unfortified village. Sometimes near shrine former --Temple 4040  small Jebel Qaaqir cave in the Shephelah large (above EBtell. III circular altar/platform) • Many other small villages & seasonal camps emerge in new locations (replacing most earlier, adjacent cities)

• Several villages appear near/adjacent to earlier major tells (population shift?) • E.g., Jebel Qaaqir (Shephelah): - Housing represents caves & huts - Large cemetery lies beside the site Jebel Qaaqir: dwelling cave

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • E.g., Dahr Mirzbaneh (near Ain Samiya): - A large campsite / seasonal village - An adjacent large spring (E. Ephriam) - Several cemeteries around the site • E.g., Valley of Rephiam: - Stone-built houses on natural terraces along an adjacent river bank.

• The existence of other EB IV/MB I settlements has been inferred from the discovery of many cemeteries from this time period. • Hence, the EBIV/MBI settlement and cemetery distribution at, beside, and apart from earlier tells diverges from the preceding EB Age pattern.

Region near Ain Samiya

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • E.g., Dhahr Mirzbaneh (near Ain Samiya): IV settlement in Rephiam: -EB A large campsite / seasonal village Seasonal camps & cemeteries --An adjacent large spring (E. Ephriam) - Several cemeteries around the site • E.g., Valley of Rephiam: - Stone-built houses on natural terraces along an adjacent river bank.

• The existence of other EB IV/MB I settlements has been inferred from the discovery of many cemeteries from this time period. • Hence, the EBIV/MBI settlement and cemetery distribution at, beside, and apart from earlier tells diverges from the preceding EB Age pattern.

Various views of Rephiam / Refiam

Terraced slopes

Bab edh-Dhra‘: Example of terrace housing

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • In addition, the EBIV/MBI has yielded another unexpected settlement pattern in a more arid period than before:

- Seasonal encampments appear in the more arid regions of the Negev-Sinai, focusing in N. Sinai & central Negev. • Although nomadic pastoralists have apparently resided in these regions continuously (according to anc. texts), the archaeological record has yielded particularly strong evidence for the EBIV/MBI period.

Mt. Yeroham: EB IV/MB I, 5 sq. km

• Intensive surveys throughout these Marginal regions: regions, especially 1967-1982, found - several Strange of many 2 - 5appearance acre settlements and (1000+) IV seasonal camps 100s of smallEB seasonal camps (1000+) = 1 acre: stone buildings forming “wall” in marginal areas that lacked L-2: 30 rooms: > benches, hearths; kiln. such traces in EB III. L-1: round huts, animal pens, 8 tumuli.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • In addition, the EBIV/MBI has yielded (N) Sinai Peninsula & Negev: another unexpected settlement pattern a more “sudden” arid period appearance than before: - inYields

- Seasonal encampments of 1,000+ seasonal appear campsin the more arid regions of the Negev-Sinai, - focusing Some permanent fortified in N. Sinai & central Negev.

villages

• Although nomadic pastoralists have in these regions - apparently Rangingresided from 2-5 acres: bands continuously (according to anc. texts), - theThey vary regarding duration, archaeological record has yielded and span EB evidence IV collectively. particularly strong for the EBIV/MBI period. • Intensive surveys throughout these regions, especially 1967-1982, found several 2 - 5 acre settlements and 100s of small seasonal camps (1000+)

1000 + EB IV/MB I seasonal campsites

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • The numerous smaller camps usually contain several dwelling huts and animal pens. • The less common larger camps have several dozen huts: E.g., Beer Resisim; En Ziq; a site south of Mamshit: Kibbutz Mashabei Sadeh. • Beer Resisim (& other sites): - This settlement has at least 15+ huts with a population around 75? persons - Most Negev camps had round huts measuring 2-4 metres in diameter

Small - larger seasonal camps: stone for the roof-pillar -- AAcentral few to 15+slab rough stone huts - The huts had either stone slab-roofing

- ori.e., 20 to 100 persons. a form of brush-roofing.

-- Huts Animals pensor(pastoralists) lay in rows, family(?) clusters - Some huts have 2 to 5 rooms.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • The numerous smaller camps usually E.g., Beer Resisim: contain several dwelling huts and -animal 15+pens. huts = 75+ persons

Circular roughlarger hutscamps have • -The less common dozen huts: -several Different layout than E.g., Beer Resisim; En Ziq; a site south EB II seasonal camps Sadeh. of Mamshit: Kibbutz Mashabei • Beer Resisim (& other sites): - This settlement has at least 15+ huts with a population around 75? persons - Most Negev camps had round huts measuring 2-4 metres in diameter - A central stone slab for the roof-pillar

- The huts distinct had eithercentral stone slab-roofing Lacking or a form offocus brush-roofing. courtyard (of EB II sites) - Huts lay in rows, or family(?) clusters Rooms clustered by family?

- Some huts have 2 to 5 rooms.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • The numerous smaller camps usually Beer Resisim rough huts stone contain several dwelling andhuts: - animal Stone slab walls pens.

-• The Central stone larger pillar camps have less common - several Branch & brush dozen huts: roofing Resisim; En Ziq; a site south - E.g., 2-5Beer rooms/hut of Mamshit: Kibbutz Mashabei Sadeh. • Beer Resisim (& other sites): - This settlement has at least 15+ huts with a population around 75? persons

Beer Resisim: EBIV/MB I stone hut

- Most Negev camps had round huts measuring 2-4 metres in diameter - A central stone slab for the roof-pillar

- The huts had either stone slab-roofing or a form of brush-roofing. - Huts lay in rows, or family(?) clusters

- Some huts have 2 to 5 rooms.

Beer Resisim: EBIV/MB I stone hut

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Har Yeruham: - A small camp on a ridge top with several square chambers. - Possibly roofed with woollen cloth. - Adjacent stone-walled animal pens

- A neighbouring shrine (“high place”) - Most burials are placed in stone-built tumuli near Yeruham: & sometimes in the sites. E.g., Har

EB-II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: Ridge-top encampment - EB II sites appear in small numbers, - Square chambers forming way-stations connecting Arad with copper mining in South Sinai.

- Rough stone walls and - EB woolen IV/MB I sites concentrate cloth roof(?) mainly

in the northern Sinai & central Negev.

- Animal pens

- EB IV/MB I site distribution patterns appears to beHigh totallyplace unrelated to the - Nearby (shrine) EB II copper mining & transit routes.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Har Yeruham: - A small camp on a ridge top with several square chambers. - Possibly roofed with woollen cloth. - Adjacent stone-walled animal pens

- A neighbouring shrine (“high place”) - Most burials are placed in stone-built tumuli near & sometimes in the sites.

EB II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: - EB II sites appear in small numbers, forming way-stations connecting Arad with copper mining in South Sinai. - EB IV/MB I sites concentrate mainly in the northern Sinai & central Negev. - EB IV/MB I site distribution patterns appears to be totally unrelated to the EB II copper mining & transit routes.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Har Yeruham: - A small camp on a ridge top with several square chambers. - Possibly roofed EB withIIwoollen cloth. - Adjacent stone-walled animal pens

- A neighbouring shrine (“high place”) - Most burials are placed in stone-built tumuli near & sometimes in the sites.

EB II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: - EB II sites appear in small numbers, forming way-stations connecting Arad with copper mining in South Sinai. - EB IV/MB I sites concentrate mainly in the northern Sinai & central Negev. - EB IV/MB I site distribution patterns appears to be totally unrelated to the EB II copper mining & transit routes.

EB II South Sinai EB II site distribution

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Har Yeruham: - A small camp on a ridge top with several square chambers. - Possibly roofed with woollen cloth. - Adjacent stone-walled animal pens

- A neighbouring shrine (“high place”)

EB IV/MB I

- Most burials are placed in stone-built tumuli near & sometimes in the sites.

EB II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: - EB II sites appear in small numbers, forming way-stations connecting EB IV sites  N. Sinai Arad with copper mining in South Sinai. - EB IV/MB I sites concentrate mainly in the northern Sinai & central Negev. - EB IV/MB I site distribution patterns EB IV sites Central Negev appears to be  totally unrelated to the EB II copper mining & transit routes.

Negev-Sinai EB IV site distribution

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • Har Yeruham: - A small camp on a ridge top with several square chambers. - Possibly roofed with woollen cloth. - Adjacent stone-walled animal pens

- A neighbouring shrine (“high place”) - Most burials are placed in stone-built tumuli near & sometimes in the sites.

EB II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: - EB II sites appear in small numbers, EB IV settlement pattern forming way-stations connecting Arad = with TOTALLY different than EB II copper mining in South Sinai. - EB IV/MB I sites concentrate mainly in the northern Sinai & central Negev. - EB IV/MB I site distribution patterns EB IV/MB I sites in the Central Negev appears to be totally unrelated to the EB II copper mining & transit routes.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • EB II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: - EB II housing displays a “broad-room” & circular hut placed around a central courtyard. - Most EBIV/MBI dwellings represent single circular chambers that are not placed around a courtyard. - Their arrangement differs from EB II, probably reflecting another form of lifestyle more similar to Neolithic sites - The physical remains of EBIV/MBI Negev: settlements & dwellings imply Beer (a) An egalitarian & tribal society: Resisim i.e., similar housing and small camps. (b) Nomadic pastoralists: EB IV i.e., transitory camps in environment conducive to seasonal flock movement - N. migration to Hebron Hills? (mc ident.)

South Sinai: Nabi Saleh EB II

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC

Egalitarian & tribal society

Settlement pattern & architecture: • EB II vs EB IV settlements in Negev: - EB II housing displays a “broad-room” & circular hut placed around a central courtyard. - Most EBIV/MBI dwellings represent single circular chambers that are not placed around a courtyard. - Their arrangement differs from EB II, probably reflecting another form of lifestyle more similar to Neolithic sites

Nomadic pastoralists

- The physical remains of EBIV/MBI settlements & dwellings imply (a) An egalitarian & tribal society: i.e., similar housing and small camps. (b) Nomadic pastoralists: i.e., transitory camps in environment conducive to seasonal flock movement - N. migration to Hebron Hills? (mc ident.)

N migrations to Hebron Hills?

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • EB IV settlements in Negev-Sinai: - The apparent EBIV/MBI shift of more people to the peripheral regions of the Levant remains unexplained. - During the slightly milder, moister EB III (2900-2300 BC), the peripheral regions exhibit virtually no occupation. - In the drier climate of EBIV/MBI, these peripheral regions suddenly become visibly “populated”: i.e., denser pop.! - Meanwhile, fertile areas of Palestine become much less densely settled, having sufficient land for pasturage.

GM: Perhaps, in part, the onset of drier climatic conditions in Palestine forced the de-population of many cities now no longer able to be supported, in-turn shifting others into semi-arid fringes.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • EB IV settlements in Negev-Sinai: EB apparent III - The EBIV/MBI shift of more city to the peripheral regions of people the Levant remains unexplained. - During the slightly milder, moister EB III (2900-2300 BC), the peripheral regions exhibit virtually no occupation. - In the drier climate of EBIV/MBI, these Insufficient resources for cities peripheral regions suddenly become visibly widely “populated”: i.e., denser pop.! Small, scattered camps - Meanwhile, areas of Palestine drawing on fertile fewer resources …

become much less densely settled, having sufficient land for pasturage. GM: Perhaps, in part, the onset of drier climatic conditions in Palestine forced the de-population of many cities now no longer able to be supported, in-turn shifting others into semi-arid fringes.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • EB IV settlements  in Transjordan: - In the hills & plateaus of Transjordan, along the more fertile N-S belt, several large agricultural settlements materialize in EBIV/MBI: - Iktanu - Khirbet Iskander - ‘Aroer - Ader • These site also retain more EB III traits

• Khirbet Iskander measures 8 acres Re-settlement elsewhere … - It contains a large fortification wall - It retains ‘broad-room’-style houses - The pottery is initially EB III in style (following western Palestinian types), but evolves into a Transjordanian form of EBIV/MBI pottery. • Hence, Transjordan may have become a refuge for EBIII pop. leaving Palestine

Shaar Ha-Golan: EB IV / MB I settlement

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Settlement pattern & architecture: • EB IV settlements  in Transjordan: - In the hills & plateaus of Transjordan, along the more fertile N-S belt, several large agricultural settlements materialize in EBIV/MBI: - Iktanu - Khirbet Iskander - ‘Aroer - Ader • These site also retain more EB III traits

• Khirbet Iskander measures 8 acres - It contains a large fortification wall - It retains ‘broad-room’-style houses - The pottery is initially EB III in style (following western Palestinian types), but evolves into a Transjordanian form of EBIV/MBI pottery. • Hence, Transjordan may have become a refuge for EBIII pop. leaving Palestine

Khirbet Iskander

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Burial Customs.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • The burials & possessions form the main source for studying EB IV/MB I. • Three distinct burial customs were in use across Palestine during this time: 1. Shaft tombs in W. Palestine 2. Megalithic dolmensin Golan Heights & Upper Galilee 3. Surface tumuli Central Negev • Each tomb type houses one, or a few bodies, vs. EB I-III communal burials (i.e., housing much smaller numbers).

• The bodies are found in articulated or secondary placement (disarticulated). • EB I-III communal burials reflected an urban lifestyle, while the smaller EB IV groupings may reflect semi-nomadic populations (using a central cemetery)

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • The burials & possessions form the main source for studying EB IV/MB I. • Three distinct burial customs were in use across Palestine during this time: 1. Shaft tombs in W. Palestine 2. Megalithic dolmens in Golan Heights & Upper Galilee 3. Surface tumuli Central Negev • Each tomb type houses one, or a few bodies, vs. EB I-III communal burials (i.e., housing much smaller numbers).

• The bodies are found in articulated or secondary placement (disarticulated). • EB I-III communal burials reflected an urban lifestyle, while the smaller EB IV groupings may reflect semi-nomadic populations (using a central cemetery)

Mt. Yeroham, Negev: EB IV / MB I tumulus plan & section 80 tumuli on one rock spur in the area

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • The burials & possessions Bab edh-Dhra’form the main source for studying EB IV/MB I. • Three distinct burial customs were in use across Palestine during this time: 1. Shaft tombs in W. Palestine 2. Megalithic dolmens in Golan Heights & Upper Galilee 3. Surface tumuli Central Negev • Each tomb type houses one, or a few bodies, vs. EB I-III communal burials (i.e., housing much smaller numbers).

• The bodies are found in articulated or secondary placement (disarticulated). • EB I-III communal burials reflected an urban lifestyle, while the smaller EB IV groupings may reflect semi-nomadic populations using a central cemetery

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Shaft tombs generally are the most common tomb type in EB IV/MB I: - a. Vertical rock-cut shafts - b. Underground burial chambers - c. Some variations in detail by region • E.g., Ain Samiya: - Circular, cylindrical rock-cut shafts - Shaft may reach 6 m depth - Side-chambers number one or two - Stone slabs seal side chamber entry

• E.g., Shaft-tombs elsewhere: - Shaft may = square/irregular section - Shafts may = shallow with small cave - Shafts may lead to a few rect.-rooms - Caves usually had 1-3 bodies with a few pottery jars, copper dagger and/or a spear (males), and beads (females). - Adjacent variant tomb types may reflect chronological or tribal difference

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Shaft tombs generally are the most common tomb type in EB IV/MB I: - a. Vertical rock-cut shafts - b. Underground burial chambers - c. Some variations in detail by region • E.g., Ain Samiya: - Circular, cylindrical rock-cut shafts - Shaft may reach 6 m depth - Side-chambers number one or two - Stone slabs seal side chamber entry

• E.g., Shaft-tombs elsewhere: - Shaft may = square/irregular section - Shafts may = shallow with small cave - Shafts may lead to a few rect.-rooms - Caves usually had 1-3 bodies with a few pottery jars, copper dagger and/or a spear (males), and beads (females). - Adjacent variant tomb types may reflect chronological or tribal difference

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Negev Hill Country: - Bodies placed in circular, stone-built tumuli with a central chamber. - A few items normally accompany the body.

- Clusters of tumuli often occur on ridge tops, usually near a settlement. Mt. Yeroham tumuli & camp on ridge - The EB IV/MB I Negevites favoured high overhanging ridges that would silhouette the tumuli against the sky. - Some tumuli also occur in settlements between houses. - Tumuli are often found empty, suggesting temporary holding areas with a subsequent transfer elsewhere: i.e.,Initial primary burials  secondary.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Golan heights & Upper Galilee: - EB IV/MB I megalithic “dolmens” are usually made with two or more “legs” supporting a horizontal slab (“table”). - In-turn, these structures would often be engulfed by stones to create a surface tumulus. - Despite their early appearance in the Chalc. Transjordan, their use in the Golan & Upper Galilee definitely date to EB IV/MB I.

- Dolmens mostly contain one body in a secondary burial (disarticulated). - NOTE: The dolmens are similar to ones in Bronze Age Europe, but the significance of this similarity remains uncertain. They are wider spread in Golan Heights: the Levant -- Europeandolmens influence? …

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Golan heights & Upper Galilee: - EB IV/MB I megalithic “dolmens” are usually made with two or more “legs” supporting a horizontal slab (“table”). - In-turn, these structures would often be engulfed by stones to create a surface tumulus. - Despite their early appearance in the Chalc. Transjordan, their use in the Golan & Upper Galilee definitely date to EB IV/MB I.

- Dolmens mostly contain one body in a secondary burial (disarticulated). - NOTE: The dolmens are similar to ones in Bronze Age Europe, but the significance of this similarity remains uncertain. They are wider spread in Golan Heights: tumulus the Levant -- European influence? …

Variety of designs for dolmens

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Golan heights & Upper Galilee: - EB IV/MB I megalithic “dolmens” are usually made with two or more “legs” supporting a horizontal slab (“table”). - In-turn, these structures would often be engulfed by stones to create a surface tumulus. - Despite their early appearance in the Chalc. Transjordan, their use in the Golan & Upper Galilee definitely date to EB IV/MB I.

- Dolmens mostly contain one body in a secondary burial (disarticulated). - NOTE: The dolmens are similar to ones in Bronze Age Europe, but the significance of this similarity remains uncertain. They are wider spread in the Levant -- European influence?

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: • Golan heights & Upper Galilee: - EB IV/MB I megalithic “dolmens” are usually made with two or more “legs” supporting a horizontal slab (“table”). - In-turn, these structures would often be engulfed by stones to create a surface tumulus. - Despite their early appearance in the Chalc. Transjordan, their use in the Golan & Upper Galilee definitely date to EB IV/MB I.

- Dolmens mostly contain one body in a secondary burial (disarticulated). - NOTE: The dolmens are similar to ones in Bronze Age Europe, but the significance of this similarity remains uncertain. They are wider spread in the Levant -- European influence?

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Burial Customs: External links???

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: Links to Europe??? • Golan heights & Upper Galilee: - EB IV/MB I megalithic “dolmens” are usually made with two or more “legs” supporting a horizontal slab (“table”). - In-turn, these structures would often be engulfed by stones to create a surface tumulus. - Despite their early appearance in the Chalc. Transjordan, their use in the Golan & Upper Galilee definitely date to EB IV/MB I.

- Dolmens mostly contain one body in “Megalith” distribution a secondary culture burial (disarticulated). - NOTE: The dolmens are similar to ones in Bronze Age Europe, but the significance of this similarity remains uncertain. They are wider spread in the Levant -- European influence?

European megaliths (including dolmens) ca.4,800 - 1,200 BCE vs. Chalcolithic dolmens: ca. 4,300 – 3,300 BCE EB IV / MB I dolmens ca.2,300 - 2,000 BCE

?

EB Dolmen link = very tenuous! EB Age E.Med. trade with Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran-Af, Anatolia, Cyprus, Palestine, and Egypt.

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Pottery.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Pottery:

NORTH

• EB IV/MB I pottery subdivides into 3 main groupings: 1. Transjordanian pottery 2. Northern pottery 3. Southern pottery

• Dever argued that these regions can be subdivided, but this may reflect specific workshops at a sub-tribal level. • Other forms cross the three groupings, forming an overall linkage that defines the pottery assemblage as Palestinian.

- Goblets - Amphoriskoi - “Teapots” - Lamps

(several types) (small 2-handled jars) (spouted pot + handle) (4 spouts = marker!)

• Most vessels are handmade --still • Potter’s wheel = for var. small vessels

TRANSJORDAN SOUTH

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Pottery: • EB IV/MB I pottery subdivides into 3 main groupings: 1. Transjordanian pottery 2. Northern pottery 3. Southern pottery

• Dever argued that these regions can be subdivided, but this may reflect specific workshops at a sub-tribal level. • Other forms cross the three groupings, forming an overall linkage that defines the pottery assemblage as Palestinian.

- Goblets - Amphoriskoi - “Teapots” - Lamps

(several types) (small 2-handled jars) (spouted pot + handle) (4 spouts = marker!)

• Most vessels are handmade --still • Potter’s wheel = for var. small vessels

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC 1. Transjordanian pottery: • Occurs mostly in settlements east of Dead Sea: e.g., Bab edh-Dhra‘ • Related to EB III forms & decoration Phase-1: frequent red slip & burnishing Phase-2: disappearance of red slip

• Other groupings virtually lack the red slip and burnishing. • The absence elsewhere of the phase-1 red slip & burnishing may actually reflect a hiatus (gap) in this period in the two other groups.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC 2. Northern pottery: • 2 sub-groups are visible in this corpus: a. Upper Galilee (Qedesh Cave and Ma‘ayan Baruch cemetery) b. Jezreel Valley (cemeteries near Megiddo; Hazorea; Beth-Shean).

• It extends as far south as Wadi Far‘ah • It also displays some EB III features: - Ledge-handle  folded form - Globular jars stay popular

• Short globular jars with pinched spout are typical for Northern forms. • Large mugs also typify this grouping. • Jar necks often have punctuate dec. • Some pottery has plain pale red slip, and pale red-painted bands/circles. • Some imported Syrian Black Ware jars

EB IV /MB I Northern pottery

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC 3. Southern pottery: • Only minor variations appear by region

• This group encompasses the Sinai, Negev, coastal plain, Shephelah, Jordan Valley, & central hill country: - Light buff fabric - Plain: No slip; no painted decoration. - Incised designs: horizontal and wavy parallel lines (from a 5-toothed comb) - Applied knobs + decorative handles - Common pottery forms: a. Flat bowls b. Amphoriskoi (small 2-handled jars) c. “teapots” d. Goblets (several types) e. Cups f. Lamps with four spouts (marker!) g. Tall jars without handles • More distant from EB3 than groups 1-2 • “Hole mouth” cooking pots from EB III.

EB IV /MB I Southern pottery

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC 4. Syrian imported pottery: • Despite the apparent impoverishment of EB IV/MB I, several imported Syrian vessels appear at Qedesh & Megiddo: - “teapots” & goblets - Wheel made - Black or grey fabric - White-painted horizontal bands - White-painted wavy lines

• Similar forms occur in North Syria: Pottery from E.g., Hama strata J1-4 Palace at Tell Mardikh (Ebla) phaseGIIA-B

Tell Mardikh • The differences may suggest a South (Ebla): Syrian origin: Damascus & Lebanon

– similar to • Previous theories included migrants imports at Megiddo, • The pottery is definitely imported, Qadesh, but locally made copies do occur in etc. Northern & Southern Palestine. • Current ideas suggest trade

EB IV / MB I caliciform pottery from Megiddo with some Syrian imports

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC 4. Syrian imported pottery: • Despite the apparent impoverishment of EB IV/MB I, several imported Syrian vessels appear at Qedesh & Megiddo: - “teapots” & goblets - Wheel made - Black or grey fabric - White-painted horizontal bands - White-painted wavy lines

• Similar forms occur in North Syria: E.g., Hama strata J1-4 Tell Mardikh (Ebla) phase IIA-B • The differences may suggest a South Syrian origin: Damascus & Lebanon • Previous theories included migrants • Current ideas suggest trade(!)

• The pottery is definitely imported, but locally made copies do occur in Northern & Southern Palestine.

EB IV /MB I Syrian pottery

in North Palestine and Syria

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Metallurgy.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: • Copper still represents the main metal of use (bronze is very rare in Palestine) Weaponry: • Burials yield the dominant types of metal tools, namely weaponry: - Daggers: A longer tang and some Middle Bronze (= EB IV)holes handle Iattachment

- Spearheads:Develop a short blade and long hooked tang (maintaining handle’s integrity during use). - Spear butts: Long, narrow & pointed (with a curled point) . - Axe heads: Now “eye”-shaped from earlier E-style crescents (parallels in Lebanon).

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: • Copper still represents the main metal of use (bronze is very rare in Palestine) Weaponry: • Burials yield the dominant types of metal tools, namely weaponry: - Daggers: A longer tang and some handle attachment holes

- Spearheads:Develop a short blade and long hooked tang (maintaining handle’s integrity during use). - Spear butts: Long, narrow & pointed (with a curled point) . - Axe heads: Now “eye”-shaped from earlier E-style crescents (parallels in Lebanon). MB weaponry in general

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: • Copper still represents the main metal of use (bronze is very rare in Palestine) Weaponry: • Burials yield the dominant types of metal tools, namely weaponry: - Daggers: A longer tang and some handle attachment holes

- Spearheads:Develop a short blade and long hooked tang (maintaining handle’s integrity during use). - Spear butts: Long, narrow & pointed (with a curled point) . - Axe heads: Now “eye”-shaped from earlier E-style crescents (parallels in Lebanon).

EB IV/MB I: spear- / javelin-heads with a hooked tang for attachment to a handle

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: • Copper still represents the main metal of use (bronze is very rare in Palestine) Weaponry: • Burials yield the dominant types of metal tools, namely weaponry: - Daggers: A longer tang and some handle attachment holes

- Spearheads:Develop a short blade and long hooked tang (maintaining handle’s integrity during use). - Spear butts: Long, narrow & pointed (with a curled point) . - Axe heads: Now “eye”-shaped from earlier E-style crescents (parallels in Lebanon).

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: Toggle pins: • Long toggle pins of copper display various types derived from Syria.

Copper ingots: • Copper ingots have narrow, elongated forms. • They concentrate at southern sites, probably reflecting resources in casting EB IV/MB I metal smiths: • Dyn.12 tomb at Beni Hasan illustrates a nomadic family of Asiatic metal smiths travelling by donkeys with a bellows(?) and copper ore.

• This slightly later depiction probably reflects theGibeon nature Tomb of EB 15 IV/MB I metal smiths, who travel to various places, functioning somewhat like tinkers.

“Similar” examples of MB 2B/C toggle pins from Gibeon

(MB I examples = rare)

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: Toggle pins: • Long toggle pins of copper display various types derived from Syria.

Copper ingots: • Copper ingots have narrow, elongated forms. • They concentrate at southern sites, probably reflecting resources in casting EB IV/MB I metal smiths: • Dyn.12 tomb at Beni Hasan illustrates a nomadic family of Asiatic metal smiths travelling by donkeys with a bellows(?) and copper ore.

• This slightly later depiction probably reflects the nature of EB IV/MB I metal smiths, who travel to various places, functioning somewhat like tinkers.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: Toggle pins: • Long toggle pins of copper display various types derived from Syria.

Copper ingots: • Copper ingots have narrow, elongated forms. • They concentrate at southern sites, probably reflecting resources in casting EB IV/MB I metal smiths: • Dyn.12 tomb at Beni Hasan illustrates a nomadic family of Asiatic metal smiths travelling by donkeys with a bellows(?) and copper ore.

• This slightly later depiction probably reflects the nature of EB IV/MB I metal smiths, who travel to various places, functioning somewhat like tinkers.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Metallurgy: Toggle pins: • Long toggle pins of copper display various types derived from Syria.

Copper ingots: • Copper ingots have narrow, elongated forms. • They concentrate at southern sites, probably reflecting resources in casting EB IV/MB I metal smiths: • Dyn.12 tomb at Beni Hasan illustrates a nomadic family of Asiatic metal smiths travelling by donkeys with a bellows(?) and copper ore.

• This slightly later depiction probably reflects the nature of EB IV/MB I metal smiths, who travel to various places, functioning somewhat like tinkers.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC The ‘Ain Samiya goblet: • A shaft tomb at ‘Ain Samiya yielded an exceptional (unique) silver goblet. • The piece bore repousse-applied decoration: i.e., pressing outward of design elements (humans & animals).

• Its unparalleled appearance in a shaft tomb implies that it was rarely ever placed with burials, but that it could reflect an “elite,” albeit still uncommon, possession. • The motifs display two males wearing Sumerian-style sheepskin kilts and holding a 12-petalled disk with a face above a chain/necklace between them. • A serpentine figure lies below, while a fantastical 2-faced creature with one human torso, and two lion bodies, is feeding plants to another serpent.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC The ‘Ain Samiya goblet: • A shaft tomb at ‘Ain Samiya yielded an exceptional (unique) silver goblet. • The piece bore repousse-applied decoration: i.e., pressing outward of design elements (humans & animals). • Its unparalleled appearance in a shaft tomb implies that it was rarely ever placed with burials, but that it could reflect an “elite,” albeit still uncommon, possession. • The motifs display two males wearing Sumerian-style sheepskin kilts and holding a 12-petalled disk with a face above a chain/necklace between them. • A serpentine figure lies below, while a fantastical 2-faced creature with one human torso, and two lion bodies, is feeding plants to another serpent.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC The ‘Ain Samiya goblet: • Yadin interpreted the scene as relating a (later) Mesopotamian creation myth, enuma elish that may originate in 3rd mill. B.C. • In the myth, Tiamat bears serpentine dragons, which poison Marduk (a god).

• The left figure may represent Marduk (a double-headed deity). • The story relates Marduk’s technique of nullifying some poison, given to him (via serpentine dragons), by using a particular plant as a cure. • The right scene may portray part of Tiamat’s body, after she was killed by Marduk and became the sky. • Another idea suggests Marduk’s assistants are catching Tiamat in a net. • Original deity may be diff. than Marduk

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC The ‘Ain Samiya goblet: • If indeed the goblet reflects this Mesopotamian creation myth, it may have multiple levels of meaning: • GM: a goblet intended to nullify any potential poisons for the drinker?

• Purely decorative?, but reminding the goblet’s initial owner of a favourite creation myth. • A ritual item that somehow found its way to Northern Palestine (e.g., loot). • N. Syria copied Mesopotamian art in the late 3rd mill. BC, yielding similar forms & manufacturing techniques for goblets (albeit undecorated). • The goblet’s appearance underscores Palestine’s widespread contact even in a period of supposed “impoverishment”

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Transportation.

EB IV/MB I modes of transportation: wagons, carts, donkeys, & on foot. Model wagon in buff pottery from site of Hammam (Syria)

Ca. 2200 BC (EB IV/MB I)

Mesopotamia: The Royal Standard of Ur: war side ca. 2,750 BC

• SUMER: Horse-drawn,

4-wheeled battle wagons (proto-chariots)

• Horses appear in very rare contexts in Palestine as early as the Chalcolithic period (ca.4,300 – 3,500 BC).

• There is no evidence for any real usage of horses in EB Age Pal.

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Chronology.

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Chronology: • The cross-cultural link formed by the presence of Syrian caliciform pottery in Palestine aids in relative-abs. dating

• The same type of pottery occurs at Ebla (N. Syria) prior to and after the destruction of Palace G: ca. 2,250 BC. • Caliciform pottery in Syria spans ca. 2,300 – 2,000 BC. • The dates applied to EB IV/MB I, are actually better pinpointed by: a. The end of EB III b. The advent of MB IIA • Late EB III is dated around early Dyn.6 ca.2,300-2,250 BC (poss. temp. Pepi I). • MB IIA dates approximately to the advent of the Middle Kingdom, as early as mid-late Dyn.11: ca.2,050-2,000 BC.

Palace G pottery from Ebla

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Chronology: • The cross-cultural link formed by the presence of Syrian caliciform pottery in Palestine aids in relative-abs. dating

• The same type of pottery occurs at Ebla (N. Syria) prior to and after the destruction of Palace G: ca. 2,250 BC. • Caliciform pottery in Syria spans ca. 2,300 – 2,000 BC. • The dates applied to EB IV/MB I, are actually better pinpointed by: a. The end of EB III b. The advent of MB IIA • Late EB III is dated around early Dyn.6 ca.2,300-2,250 BC (poss. temp. Pepi I).

Cross-cultural connections and dating material culture 

• MB IIA dates approximately to the advent of the Middle Kingdom, as early as mid-late Dyn.11: ca.2,050-2,000 BC. 2,300/2,250

 2,050/2,000 BCE

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Interpretation of the situation ...

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • The implications of drastic shift from an EB II-III urban society to a non-urban, semi-nomadic EB IV/MB I society have been variously debated: • 1960s-70s various scholars proposed an invasion of a West-Semitic seminomadic peoples from Syria: the “Amurru” (Mar.tu: “westerners”). (Dyn.12 Beni Hasan scene names a sand-dweller: Ab-Sha [Amorite name]) • Another idea proposed they simply migrated into an existing vacuum. • Albright: theorized that the “Amorite” migration represented the period of the Hebrew patriarchs (Genesis traditions).

Earlier “invasion” / migration theories

‘Am3w = “Asiatics” chief = Ib-sha

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • 1960s, Lapp & Kochavi proposed that the EB IV/MB I population represented an Indo-European off-shoot from late 3rd mill. BC migrations toward Europe. - They drew on Schaeffer’s 1930s idea that some burials at Ras Shamra, with items later dated to EB IV/MB I, represented Indo-Europeans. - They noted EB IV/MB I similarities to the Indo-Europeans via … a. the tumuli b. frequency of metal items in tombs c. the dolmens (a marker in Europe)

• Dever, Richard, & others more recently refute such invasion theories:

Indo-European offshoot theory

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • Dever, Richard, & others more recently refute such invasion theories; they note - EB IV/MB I has indigenous traits

- Pottery & metal weaponry develop locally from EB III (they = not foreign!) - EB Age settlements in Sinai-Negev precede EB IV/MB I settlements. (BUT = different & much earlier!) - Phase 1 findings in Transjordan do continue EB III pottery, etc. - Transjordan also yields a continuation of some settlements & material culture in EB III traditions. - The EB IV/MB I change in lifestyle, society & subsistence strategy can be explained via climate change and EB III collapse: NOT ethnic migrations

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • Caution: Since archaeologists are now tending to refute most migration theories, one should keep in mind that migrations sometimes did/do occur. • In the case of Transjordan, Mazar and others have noted the great similarity between EB IV/MB I findings there and

- Pal. EB III urban centres & lifestyle - Pal. EB III burial practices - Pal. EB III material culture • Hence, a possibility emerges that this enclave might represent a refuge for a segment of the EB III population from West Palestine: i.e., a migration east …

Perhaps = limited migrations, or shifts, in EB III populations EB IV / MB I sites in Transjordan

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: a. EB III socially stratified urban centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps b. EB III complex fortified cities  mostly unfortified camps (new sites)

c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs  reduced shrines; no reservoirs. d. EB III city-state political infrastructure  pastoral and agricultural society e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  virtually no international trade g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more individual/fewer burials • Admittedly = continuity as well: pottery, Cu items, burial customs, BUT >change!

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: life stratified non-urban a.Urban EB III socially urban life centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps b. EB III complex fortified cities  mostly unfortified camps (new sites)

c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs Could  reduced shrines; no reservoirs.

an urban society d. EB III city-state political infrastructure easily shift to society  pastoral and agricultural a non-urban e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture society? f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  NO CHOICE  virtually no international trade

ADAPT OR DIE(!)

g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more Note:individual/fewer Even “urban”burials EB III

many=farmers, etc. • had Admittedly continuity herders, as well: pottery, Cunot items, burial >change! (= quite ascustoms, drastic BUT as for “us”)

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: a. EB III socially stratified urban centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps

Urban life  non-urban life

b. EB III complex fortified cities  mostly unfortified camps (new sites)

c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs  reduced shrines; no reservoirs. d. EB III city-state political infrastructure  pastoral and agricultural society e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  virtually no international trade g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more individual/fewer burials

Rock platform at Mt. Yeroham “High Place” • Admittedly = continuity as well: pottery, (Bamah) Cu items, burial customs, BUT >change!

Tell Yarmut

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: a. EB III socially stratified urban centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps

life  fortified non-urban b.Urban EB III complex cities life  mostly unfortified camps (new sites) c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs  reduced shrines; no reservoirs. d. EB III city-state political infrastructure  pastoral and agricultural society e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  virtually no international trade g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more individual/fewer burials • Admittedly = continuity as well: pottery, Cu items, burial customs, BUT >change!

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: a. EB III socially stratified urban centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps b. EB III complex fortified cities  mostlylife unfortified camps (new sites) Urban  non-urban life

c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs  reduced shrines; no reservoirs. d. EB III city-state political infrastructure  pastoral and agricultural society e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  virtually no international trade g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more individual/fewer burials • Admittedly = continuity as well: pottery, Cu items, burial customs, BUT >change!

Beth-Yerah granary

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: a. EB III socially stratified urban centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps b. EB III complex fortified cities  mostly unfortified camps (new sites)

Urban life  non-urban life

c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs  reduced shrines; no reservoirs. d. EB III city-state political infrastructure  pastoral and agricultural society e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  virtually no international trade g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more individual/fewer burials • Admittedly = continuity as well: pottery, Cu items, burial customs, BUT >change!

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • EB III-IV change = dramatic in W. Pal.: a. EB III socially stratified urban centres  mostly egalitarian seasonal camps b. EB III complex fortified cities  mostly unfortified camps (new sites)

c. EB III cities with temples & reservoirs Urban life  non-urban life  reduced shrines; no reservoirs. d. EB III city-state political infrastructure  pastoral and agricultural society

Tell Kinneret

e. EB III agricultural surplus economy  more focus on herding & agriculture f. More international ties, abeit rel. few,  virtually no international trade g. EB III family burials in shaft-tombs  more individual/fewer burials • Admittedly = continuity as well: pottery, Cu items, burial customs, BUT >change!

Har Yaruham tumulus

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Interpretation: • Mazar argues that, in the balance, it does not seem logical to accept that the widespread changes were adopted by the indigenous EB III population. • He argues that, if one does not believe in foreign incursions, the adjacent EB III pastoral nomads may have inherited control of the region after urban centres collapsed.

• He suggests that some ‘city folk’ may have been absorbed into such groups, adopting some EB III traits into an otherwise semi-nomadic society. • However, the answers remain unclear, and it is evident that EB III ended with a dramatic “collapse” in Palestine, and lesser and different changes elsewhere (globally!). HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

Perspective from Egypt’s late Old Kingdom

2008: Recent discoveries at Tell Ras Budran: A late Old Kingdom fort in South Sinai. Gregory Mumford (Dept. of Anthropology & Social Work, SBS-UAB) Co-director: Sarah Parcak (UAB) Funded by: • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, • NASA-UAB LGHO funding • NSF-Advance Program funds • Private donors (D. Baker; B. Cahill; M. Yasuda).

Supported by: • The Supreme Council of Antiquities, • American Research Center in Egypt, • Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations (University of Toronto), • Dept. of Anthropology & Social Work University of Alabama at Birmingham

Ras Budran

BACKGROUND: Old Kingdom Dyns.3-6 (c. 2700-2200 BC)

Mendes

Old Kingdom Sinai expeditions: • “Royal missions” from palace • Turquoise & copper mining • Average = 1,400 personnel (+/-) • Maritime transport (e.g., 5 ships) • Overland component (donkeys) • 250 km distance (8-10 days) • Normally in summer • Guides & “interpreters”? (‘w) Wadi Maghara

Egyptian objectives in South Sinaitic (since Predynastic): Copper: Statuary; tools; furniture; containers; fittings; weapons; other items.

Malachite: Pigment; Cosmetic

Turquoise: Jewellery

El-Markha Plain: Tell Ras Budran (Site 345) *1967 Rothenberg

1. The Discovery

2002, 2004, 2008 U. Toronto & UAB

*

Tell Ras Budran: C14 dates from charcoal samples from fort floor & later campsite Earliest phase Fort floor C14

Later phase Campsite C14

Abs. dates for end of Old Kingdom (Late Dyn.6 to Dyn.8)

2090 2100 2110 2120 2130 2140 2150 2160 2170 2180 2190 2200 2210 2220 2230 2240 2250 2260 2270 2280 2290 2300

2090 2100 2110 2120 2130 2140 2150 2160 2170 2180 2190 2200 2210 2220 2230 2240 2250 2260 2270 2280 2290 2300

Selected publications with various dates

Campsite 2180

50 years 2230 Fort floor

campsite campsite campsite Fort floor Fort floor Fort floor

2150 BCE Baines and Malek (1980) 2168 BCE Franke (1988) 2170 BCE Silverman (1997) 2180 BCE Shaw-Nicholson (1995) Seton 2195 BCE Beckerath (1994) Franke (1988) 2200 BCE Grimal (1992); Andreu (1997) 2225 BCE Spanel (1990) 2250 BCE D’Auria (1998) Aldred, Butzer, Kemp

2297 BCE Redford (1997)

c.2200 BC global climatic event  var. effects

ca. 2,350 to 2,200 cal. years BC: Possible change in circulation of Atlantic currents may have induced weak monsoons contributing to “decline”/”collapse” within Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Turkey, Mesopotamia, etc.

Ca.3000-2200 BC: increasingly drier environment

Less rain in Ethiopia

Lower Niles

Fewer crops

Famine

Ca.2170 BC +/- 30 = late OK drought

SYRIA: ca. 2250-2000 BC Early Bronze Age IVB: (Late Old Kingdom-FIP Egypt) • BYBLOS J1/2 & EBLA IIB2 cities

CITIES “decline”

Cities re-occupied (immediately), albeit less prosperous & some diff.

Continuity & different material culture EBLA (Tell Mardikh) IIB2 city declines

BYBLOS city plan

PALESTINE: ca.2350-2000 BC Early Bronze Age IV (“MB I”) (Late OK-FIP Egypt: Dyns.6-11) • Most settlements abandoned! - Seasonal campsites, etc. • Nomadic / Pastoral existence: - Different material culture. Beer Resisim seasonal campsite

CITIES “disappear”

Early Bronze IV sites in Palestine ca.23502000 BC

Different material culture

Late Old Kingdom: Troubles along E. Frontier Repelling Fenkhu

? Km-wr

Ras Budran

Dyn.6 (advent of Early Bronze IV): • 1,000+ Bedouin seasonal camps • Some Asiatic settlements in Sinai • Egyptian raids into Sinai-Palestine • Massacres of Egyptian expeditions (e.g., Red Sea; Lower Nubia) • E. Frontier forts (Km-wr L. Timsah) • S. Sinai fort (Ras Budran)

Egyptian expeditions massacred!

Location:

Egypt’s Northeast Desert, the Sinai Peninsula, and Southwest Palestine.

Dyn.6: Pepy-nakht, governor of Elephantine “The Majesty of my lord sent me to the land of the Asiatics, to retrieve for him (the body of) the unique friend, captain, and expedition leader, An-ankhti, who had been building a ship there, for (going to) Punt, when the Asiatics, who-dwell-upon-the-sand (Hryw-Š‘y), slew him along with the army-detachment that was with him.”

Late Old Kingdom-First Intermediate Period views about Bedouin: (Dyns. 6-10: ca. 2200 – 2040 BC) BEDU: “He has never settled in one place, but plagued by want, he wanders the desert on foot, He has been fighting ever since the time of Horus, He neither conquers, nor can he be conquered, He does not announce the day of fighting, But is like a thief whom society has expelled.”

Background to Old Kingdom (Dyns. 3-6) and EB III-IV Levant

Dyns.5-6 texts: • Increasing Egyptian attacks against Sinai-Palestine

Egyptian miners sent to South Sinai accompanied by armed escorts

DYNs.3-6 Direct Egyptian exploitation

Wadi Kharig MEMPHIS

Fortified/defendable mining camps

Minimum reconstruction of fort: 4.5 m high wall (with 1 m high screen wall)

Original entry

Later literary & propagandistic texts cite Asiatic invasions: Could there be some truth to this? Teaching for King Merikare (FIP): “These foreigners were like a sealed fortress, which I had surrounded and besieged. I caused the Delta to strike them, I captured their people and seized their cattle to the point the Asiatics detested Egypt.”

Prophecies of Neferty (MK on FIP): “Foes have arisen in the East, Asiatics have entered Egypt. We have no (border) fortress, for foreigners now hold it” Admonitions of Ipuwer (MK on FIP): “Foreigners have overrun the whole of Egypt” “… foreign aliens have come into Egypt” “… nomads are (now) experts in the professions of the Delta”

ASIATICS

D. Redford’s excavations at Mendes reveal turmoil in a late OK Delta town Could this reflect Asiatic incursions?

Naos MENDES

*

Drawing: S. REDFORD

* Naos Tell Rub‘a (Mendes): Old Kingdom temple platform D. B. Redford excavations: Multiple bodies dispersed at the base of a layer of burnt soil, brick and other debris. • Plague pit? • Victims of a massacre?

Tell Rub‘a (Mendes): Old Kingdom West “Mastaba” in Unit AL-K Interior: 1 cm thick, black charred plaster; later: multiple burn layers

*

Drawings: G MUMFORD

Unexcavated S.-half of Rm-1

Phase-2 floor

Tell Rub‘a (Mendes): Unit HF (1999). Site sup.: G. Mumford (postdoc. under D.B. Redford)

Late Old Kingdom – FIP house: Phase-2 destruction. • Ash covered floor and red-burnt wall faces • Soot-coated & crushed pottery on floor • Burnt wall-collapse debris filling room

door

--- niche

niche

S.-half of Rm 1: Phase-2 floor

Summary statements: • Extant textual-pictorial sources, and growing archaeological evidence

 suggest internal & external factors played a greater role in decline of Dyn.6–FIP 2300-2000 BC

• However, such activities remain only part of multiple factors contributing to & coinciding with the Old Kingdom’s “collapse”/decline (ca. 2200 BC)

• Intensifying Asiatic activity in Sinai ca. 2300 BC - explains perceived & actual need for a fort - clarifies the importance of turquoise & copper … • It now seems climate played a more significant role in the “collapse”of the Old Kingdom and EB III

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS:

EB IV / MB I (Intermediate Period): -

Date:

ca. 2300 – 2000 BC

-

Lifestyle:

Collapse of virtually all urban centres in Palestine owing to various factors: a. Global climate change (drought; famine); b. internal strife between city-states; c. external Egyptian raids into Palestine; d. deforestation;

Seasonal camps appearing throughout Palestine and in marginal / fringe areas: a. 1000+ sites in Northern half of Sinai and in central-north Negev. b. Some EB IV/MB I settlements in Transjordan: perhaps derived from EB III W. Palestine.

EB IV / MB I (Intermediate Period): -

Religion:

High Places near seasonal camps

-

Technology: Most pottery vessels still handmade, with a few being wheel-made. Caliciform pottery characterizes EB IV/MB I Some imported black/grey Syrian ware pottery in Northern Palestine Copper weaponry dominates metal items found in EB IV/MB I. E.g., fenestrated axes

-

Trade:

Minimal trade: some Syrian vessels in Northern Palestine

-

Artwork:

Minimal artwork: Ayn Samiya goblet (Syro-Mesopotamian derived).

-

Burials:

Shaft tombs (shaft to subterranean chamber[s]); megalithic dolmens; surface tumuli. Disarticulated/secondary burials, including “warrior” burials (i.e., males with weaponry)

Early Bronze Age: EB Age IV (“MB Age I”) (2,300 – 2,000 BCE):

More on dolmens: External links???

EB IV / MB I: ca. 2300 – 2000 BC Burial customs: Links to Europe??? • Golan heights & Upper Galilee: - EB IV/MB I megalithic “dolmens” are usually made with two or more “legs” supporting a horizontal slab (“table”). - In-turn, these structures would often be engulfed by stones to create a surface tumulus. - Despite their early appearance in the Chalc. Transjordan, their use in the Golan & Upper Galilee definitely date to EB IV/MB I.

- Dolmens mostly contain one body in “Megalith” distribution a secondary culture burial (disarticulated). - NOTE: The dolmens are similar to ones in Bronze Age Europe, but the significance of this similarity remains uncertain. They are wider spread in the Levant -- European influence?

European megaliths (including dolmens) ca.4,800 - 1,200 BCE vs. Chalcolithic dolmens: ca. 4,300 – 3,300 BCE EB IV / MB I dolmens ca.2,300 - 2,000 BCE

?

Neolithic innovations spread to Greece & Balkans: 7,000–5,800 BC

8,500 – 7,500+ BC crop  animal domestication

W-demic diffusion: corroborated by DNA evidence

Late Neolithic lifestyle continues spreading from Greece to Italy & the Balkans: ca. 6,000–5,700 BCE, alongside obsidian trade (frequently from island sources)

6,000 – 5,750 BC

6,100 – 5,900 BC 6,400 – 6,200 BC

6,000 BC

5,200? BC

7,000 – 6,000 BC

The next phase of agricultural colonization, diffusion, & acculturation

i.e., 5,500–4,100 BC emergence of Impressed Ware pottery along coast & inland.

Impressed ware pottery

Impressed ware pottery

Potential Chalcolithic links between Anatolia (+Near East) and W. Europe: Gradual settlement of Aegean islands: early Neolithic, late Neolithic & EB Age Early Neolithic: ca. 7,000 – 6,000 BCE

Middle Neolithic: ca. 6,000 – 5,500 BCE

Late Neolithic: ca. 5,500 – 4,500 BCE

Final Neolithic: ca. 4,500 – 3,600 BCE

7,000  3,600+/2,100 BCE process

Early Bronze Age: ca. 3,600 – 2,100 BCE Crete: = Early Minoan Cyclades (islands): = Early Cycladic Mainland Greece: = Early Helladic

Archaeogenetics: the spread of domesticated, Near Eastern crops.

i.e., Making a case for introducing Near Eastern crops via demic diffusion Near Eastern domesticated crops (strains of wheat & barley) etc.  Europe

THUS: We do know of western diffusion to Europe in the Neolithic to Chalcolithic periods, BUT did this include “dolmen”-type burials in Chalcolithic? EB Age =???

Possible connections between EB Age Palestine & W. Europe: Indirect!

Early Bronze Age: Early Helladic / Early Cycladic / Early Minoan. Arrival of the “Greeks”:

Issues: - The arrival point in Greece of the people who become the classical Greeks is highly debated: -

i.e., When/How did a sub-group of Indo-Europeans “arrive” in Greece?

-

Some scholars argue against “antiquated” notions of “migration” or “invasion.”

-

For example, did Greeks appear after EH II and form EH III?

-

The Late Bronze Age Mycenaean Linear B tablets contain prototypes of the Greek Language. i.e., Greek = present.

EB Dolmen link = very tenuous! EB Age E.Med. trade with Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran-Af, Anatolia, Cyprus, Palestine, and Egypt.