Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

June 30, 2017 | Autor: Francisco J. Núñez | Categoría: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Phoenician pottery

Descripción

Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie

Offprint RGZM – Tagungen Band 20 Andrea Babbi · Friederike Bubenheimer-Erhart Beatriz Marín-Aguilera · Simone Mühl (eds)

The Mediterranean Mirror Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B. C. International Post-doc and Young Researcher Conference Heidelberg, 6th-8th October 2012

Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums

Mainz 2015

The Conference would not have been possible without the generous support of the undermentioned sponsors

Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Vorderasiatische Archäologie

The Publication of the Proceedings has been generously supported by

Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Vorderasiatische Archäologie

Redaktion: Andrea Babbi, Claudia Nickel, Marie Röder (RGZM) Satz: Dieter Imhäuser, Hofheim a. T. Umschlaggestaltung: Reinhard Köster / Andrea Babbi (RGZM)

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie: Detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

ISBN 978-3-88467-239-6 ISSN 1862-4812

© 2015 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, der Entnahme von Abbildungen, der Funk- und Fernsehsendung, der Wiedergabe auf fotomechanischem (Fotokopie, Microkopie) oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, Ton- und Bildträgern bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Die Vergütungsansprüche des §54, Abs.2, UrhG. werden durch die Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort wahrgenommen. Herstellung: betz-druck GmbH, Darmstadt Printed in Germany.

Contents Andrea Babbi · Friederike Bubenheimer-Erhart · Beatriz Marín-Aguilera · Simone Mühl The Mediterranean Mirror. An Introduction �� 1

Part I – Theoretical Framework Diamantis Panagiotopoulos Adjusting the Compass. The Quest for Mediterranean Paradigms �� 23

Part II – Egypt and North Africa Karl Jansen-Winkeln Egypt and North Africa: Cultural Contacts (1200-750 BC) �� 35 Claus Jurman »Silver of the Treasury of Herishef« – Considering the Origin and Economic Significance of Silver in Egypt during the Third Intermediate Period �� 51

Part III – Cyprus and Near East Susan Sherratt Cyprus and the Near East: Cultural Contacts (1200-750 BC) �� 71 Ayelet Gilboa · Paula Waiman-Barak · Ilan Sharon Dor, the Carmel Coast and Early Iron Age Mediterranean Exchanges �� 85 Francisco Jesus Núñez Calvo Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics �� 111 Artemis Georgiou Cyprus during the »Crisis Years« Revisited �� 129

Part IV – Aegean Region Eleni Konstantinidi-Syvridi Mycenaean Recurrences and the Circulation of Arts, Crafts and Ideas in the Aegean from 1200 to 750 BC �� 149 Ann Brysbaert · Melissa Vetters Mirroring the Mediterranean? Artisanal Networking in 12th century BC Tiryns �� 161

III

Philipp W. Stockhammer Levantine and Cypriot Pottery in Mycenaean Greece as Mirrors of Intercultural Contacts �� 177 Vangelis Samaras Piracy in the Aegean during the Postpalatial Period and the Early Iron Age �� 189

Part V – Italian Peninsula and Sardinia Marco Bettelli Centuries of Darkness? The Aegean and the Central Mediterranean after the Collapse of the Mycenaean Palaces �� 207 Andrea Schiappelli Along the Routes of Pithoi in the Late Bronze Age �� 231 Glenn E. Markoe † Current Assessment of the Phoenicians in the Tyrrhenian Basin: Levantine Trade with Sicily, Sardinia, and Western Coastal Italy �� 245

Part VI – Iberian Peninsula and Balearics Ana Margarida Arruda Intercultural Contacts in the Far West at the Beginning of the 1st Millennium BC: through the Looking-Glass �� 263 Jaime Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez Mediterranean Networks and Material Connections: a View from Eastern Iberia and the Balearic Islands (12th-8th centuries BC) �� 279 Esther Rodríguez González Southwestern Iberian Peninsula Archaeology: Latest Developments in Final Bronze Age-Early Iron Age �� 293 Francisco B. Gomes The West Writes Back: Cultural Contact and Identity Constructs in Southern Portuguese Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age �� 305 List of Contributors �� 319

IV

Francisco Jesus Núñez Calvo

Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Doubtless, one of the most interesting and complicated issues in the history of the Levant is the transition between the Late Bronze and the Iron Age. Regarding the area occupied by the Phoenician cities, information has been recorded in a limited number of sites. This situation, which is somehow shared with the Syrian coast strip, contrasts with the overwhelming volume of data registered in the southern half of the Levant, together with the increasingly information generated in Cyprus. The consequence is an unbalanced and sometimes even biased perception of this phenomenon. Therefore, any attempt to observe it, to understand it and, hence, to offer a conclusive and global interpretation becomes rather complicated not only for Phoenicia, but also for the entire Levant. However, the meagre number of contexts and materials in Lebanon should not hinder our interest in finding an explanation to the evidence of change in the material culture of the Canaanite cities that later became Phoenician. That interest should focus not only on the isolation, description, and later explanation of the diverse factors, as well as internal dynamics and / or external influences, which gave place to those modifications. As a social phenomenon, attention should be paid also to the mechanisms that the Phoenician society counted with to assimilate these stimuli, giving place to precise responses and new situations. At the same time, I also find relevant to know whether the then living people were actually aware of those transformations. I am myself perfectly aware of the complicated character of all these questions. However, it is also clear to me that, as a dynamic entity, each society, either ancient or contemporary, explains best its particular nature and evolution through its own circumstances. The existence of foreign stimuli or influences, whether framed as an »international« phenomenon or not, does not always have to represent a modification or traumatic change in the internal dynamics of the societies that receive them, especially when relevant population movements are not involved. In this context, the collective conventions and customs of these societies filter and mold those foreign elements to make them fit into what may be considered convenient for their particular culture.1 This should have been the case of the people living in the land know as Phoenicia. However, given my work on material culture, I have the impression that many times models, which try to explain phenomena that affected ancient societies, depend too much on theories originated in and intended for other scientific, economic, or philosophical fields; sometimes even ideology is involved in them. As I see it, the result is that the archaeological evidence is forced to adapt itself to these postulations, many times focusing on particular data that leaves aside factors that might condition its application and change the results. Therefore, the same material evidence sometimes becomes rather abstract and dependent on these theories. This situation can of course be explained by the fact that material culture is forced to answer questions that are many times impossible for it to meet.2 Expectations are sometimes too high, and this situation becomes especially dangerous when attention is centered on one particular aspect of a given historical phenomenon or, why not, on one specific participant. Therefore, the questions that arise in this context would be: how can we contextualize and explain the dynamics of the diverse peoples living in the core of the territory that later became Phoenicia? Was it a particular phenomenon, or instead a version of a wider, trans-regional transformation? When did it happen? And, finally, how should it be considered from a sequential point of view?

The Mediterranean Mirror

111

The end of the Late Bronze Age and Phoenician cities The aim of this paper is not to synthesize or discuss the different interpretations offered to this historical phenomenon. Such a task would be even more complicated if the intention is to explain the phenomenon from a Canaanite / Phoenician perspective. However, let us focus on the facts. It seems clear that the collapse of the Late Bronze Age system in the eastern Mediterranean was the outcome of a combination of internal and external factors.3 This phenomenon probably started before the conventional date that marks the beginning of this period: the two battles fought by Ramses III against the Sea People in the 8th year of his reign, around 1190 BC. At the same time, it was gradual, for it seems to have extended itself over the 12th and 11th centuries BC.4 The consequence was a general transformation that affected the socio-economic and political spheres of the entire region.5 Briefly, during the Late Bronze Age the territory located between Rass Chekka in the north and Rass Naqura in the south – whether or not this region was part of Canaan – was occupied by a series of independent cities, which were bound in a complicated relationship.6 These urban centers, of which Byblos and Sidon held a special predominance, represented the center of the economic, religious and political power of the city’s whereabouts. Despite its cultural character and internal organization, the territory occupied by these cities lay at that time under the dominion of the Egyptian Empire. This supremacy allowed Egypt to profit of their activities, act as a judge in disputes among the vassal cities, and ensure them protection from any external threat. At the same time, all these urban centers enjoyed intensive commercial and political contacts with other areas of the Mediterranean, either on behalf of the Egyptian interests, or even through their own initiative. These relations involved not only Egypt and the rest of its dominions in the Levant, but also Cyprus, the Hittite Empire, the northern part of the Levantine coast (at the time under the former’s hegemony), and the Aegean. One consequence of the international crisis that affected the east Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age was the somewhat gradual end of the hegemonic presence and influence of the Egyptian and Hittite empires over the Levant. This new situation also allowed certain protagonists to play more relevant roles – such as the so-called Sea Peoples, the term used for a conglomerate of different population groups of Aegean and probably even of south Italian origin that settled in Cyprus, south-east Anatolia, and certain areas of the Levant.7 Written and archaeological sources inform us especially of the settlement of the Philistines in south Levant, and the foundation of the so-called Pentapolis (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, Ekron, and Ghaza).8 Other written sources clearly inform us of the presence of the Shikila in Tell Dor area (Wenamon’s Tale) and the Shardana in the region of today’s Akko (Amenemope’s Onomasticon). At the same time, a number of culturally different groups expanded themselves over certain regions of the interior and settled there. This was the case of the Arameans in the steppes of central and north Levant, or the Israelites in the hilly country in the south. In any case, with the sole exception of the episode of the king of Ashkelon and Sidon (Justin XVIII, 3.5), texts cannot prove the settlement of any foreign cultural groups in the region occupied by the later Phoenician cities. As mentioned above, written and archaeological documentation regarding the core of the Phoenician territory is unfortunately scarce for this crucial moment. On the one hand, only Tyre, Sarepta, and probably Beirut offer stratigraphic levels corresponding to this moment and, contrary to other areas in the Levant, these cities displayed a relevant continuum. Nevertheless, the absence of clear signs of destruction or break in those cities cannot hide the impression of a general insecurity.9 There would be three elements that may reflect this complicated situation. The first one would be the destruction of Kumidi, the Egyptian capital on the Beqaa Valley and today’s Kamid el-Loz.10 This event represents the sole destruction event registered in the region so far, and can be better explained as a consequence of the abandonment of the city by the

112

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Egyptians, rather than by the action of invaders coming from abroad. The second one would be the reconstruction of the defensive system of Beirut,11 which reinforced the previous fortification of the Late Bronze Age. The third element comes from classical written sources: they mention Justin’s notice of Sidon being attacked by the king of Ashkelon and the later foundation anew of Tyre by the Sidonians. In fact, this episode could be linked either with the Egyptian retreat, or even subsequent conflicts among the diverse regions of the Levant. It is therefore probable that the crisis did not represent a radical new start for those cities that were about to »become« Phoenicians. On the contrary, it seems that it opened a period of reorganization and adaption to a new reality. No doubt, the culture and customs of their societies were crucial to surmount the presumable initial havoc at the end of the Egyptian hegemony, which actually left their hands free to look for new contacts and, hence, business opportunities.12 With or without a foreign factor involved, there are two events which prove that the situation of the Phoenician cities had changed by the end of the 12th century BC. Firstly, Tiglath-Pilesser I, in his incursion in the coast in the fourth year of his reign (ca. 1110 BC), received the tribute of Byblos and Sidon. Secondly, as the Tale of Wenamon shows, in the first half of the 11th century, Phoenician cities were independent and active from a political and commercial point of view. All this leads to the following questions: did all these changes have a reflection in their material culture? How actually was the Aegean influence visible at the time in other areas of the Levant, on the early Phoenician ceramic repertoire?

The nature of the Levantine ceramic repertoire at the end of the Late Bronze Age The material culture of the territory comprehended between the Ammanus ridge in the north to Ghaza in the south displays some sort of culture koiné or thaqafah mushtarakah during the Late Bronze Age.13 In this context, the ceramic repertoire of the different regions shared a similar functional character, most probably derived from the perception that the inhabitants of these areas had of their local pottery and its possible social repercussions. At the same time, its nature was dynamic in manners but strongly traditional in essence. Thus, on the one hand, the repertoire represents the outcome of a dynamic tradition, with typological, morphological and decorative principles that are firmly rooted in the area as far back in time as the Middle Bronze Age.14 On the other, the same repertoire also displayed a permanent open attitude in front of innovations and foreign influences, mostly from Egypt, but also from Cyprus and the Aegean; however, these inputs were quickly absorbed and reinterpreted after local standards. Therefore, it seems that the entire Levant counted with a somehow similar ceramic basis at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Despite this common starting point, local particularities (including social, economic, and political factors), together with the character and extent of the then existing foreign influences, seem to have conditioned the actual nature of the ceramic repertoire at the beginning of the Iron Age. Obviously, the character of the information that these Phoenician sites may provide now is conditioned by new data to come. Nowadays, the stratigraphic evidence related to this episode is actually reduced to a part of Tyre stratum XIV, Sarepta strata G1 and F, as well as the levels related with the remodelling of the defensive system at Beirut. It is clear that this corpus of information cannot compete with the evidence produced by other sites like Ras Ibn Hani,15 Ras el-Bassit,16 Tell Tweini,17 or Tell Kazel 18 in the north, and, especially, with the number of sites excavated in the south, like Tell Abu Hawam,19 Tell Keisan,20 or Tell Dor,21 to mention a few that were closely related with the Phoenician phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is possible to observe a twofold

The Mediterranean Mirror

113

situation in those Phoenician cities. We have already seen, on the one hand, that the probable renovation of the Beirut defensive system at that time may have been a reflection of the problematic situation that followed the end of the Egyptian hegemony over the region and the existence of a foreign menace. On the other, the material culture that mainly Tyre and Sarepta have produced shows nothing but a markedly continuity (see below). Therefore, and despite the presence in Tyre or Sarepta of ceramics related with those Aegean-rooted peoples,22 it is not clear to me if what has arrived to us by now from those places represents the same situation that can be observed in other areas of the Levant, especially in the south. Recent research has indicated that the evolution of the ceramic repertoire in the northern and southern coastal strip of the Levant seems to have been somehow similar, either in typological and decorative terms.23 Besides the endurance of Late Bronze Age traditions, the earliest levels of the Iron Age show the presence of wares that follow the principles of the Late Helladic IIIC middle ceramic repertoire. This phenomenon has recently been reinterpreted not as a sudden occupation of those areas by a foreign cultural group, but as an asymmetric long assimilation process of foreign peoples already present in the area in the Late Bronze Age instead.24 This hypothesis is based mainly on the mentioned continuum existing either in the north and the south between the Late Bronze Age ceramic repertoire, and that of the earliest moments of the Iron Age, which for the Biblical Archaeology corresponds to the Iron 1a period. Focusing on the northern part of the Palestinian coast, which is closely related with the Phoenician cities in later moments, local wares kept traditional typological characteristics, as well as a predominance of monochrome decorations consisting of simple lines in red or black. Only certain containers displayed more complicated decorations, which were also derived from Late Bronze Age schemes. This would be the case of the concentric circles on the body of pilgrim flasks and lentoid jugs on the one hand, and triglyph-like division of the shoulder of certain jugs and jars on the other.25 Typological innovations in those areas seem to be also linked to this foreign influence. There are Cypriot-inspired wares, such as the wavy-band pithoi as well as flasks and jars decorated with the enclosed bands decoration pattern. On the other, there would be a series of productions inspired by Aegean prototypes. These wares, painted as a rule in red or black at this stage, are represented by the deep bowls decorated with antithetic spirals, the carinated bowls or the strainer-spouted jugs. Additionally, it has been also proposed that the presence and influence of these foreign peoples, probably at this stage of Cypriot or even Syrian origin, had reactivated the commercial activities of the southern cities in particular, and probably all Phoenicia in general.26 In any instance, a new horizon of destruction layers put an end to this monochrome horizon in north Israel, an episode that is not represented in the Phoenician cities either. Furthermore, this more or less general event was followed by a new ceramic horizon dominated by the wares of the Phoenician Early Iron Age. This stage is broadly comparable to the Iron 1b of the Biblical Archaeology and was characterized by bichrome decorative patterns.27 As mentioned before, it is not possible to affirm that the same phenomenon really took place in the core of Phoenicia. In fact, the situation could have been somehow different there. Beside the situation shown in Beirut, the ceramic scenery at the end of the Late Bronze Age is characterized in those cities by at least six different but interrelated situations.28 The first was the slow disappearance of certain forms and influences; this was the case, for example, of the biconical jars 29 or the carinated bowls.30 Second, some other forms and types extended their presence into the new period with few morphological and decorative modifications; for example, dippers keep their pinched mouths and sometimes pointed bases 31 or the pilgrim flasks, whose difference regarding previous stages resides basically in certain changes in the form of the neck and mouth.32 Third, a number of foreign ceramic forms that were occasionally incorporated into the local repertoire in the Late Bronze Age still occurred in Early Iron Age contexts; one of the scarce instances is represented by the local version of the Mycenaean alabastron,33 which in Levant is known as pyxis.

114

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Fig. 1 Canaanite wine devices: a bronze wine set from Beth Shan tomb 90 (after Gershuny 1985, pl. 17c). – b-c Late Bronze Age strainerspouted jars from Megiddo stratum VIIB (after Loud 1948, fig. 63, 7-8; approx. scale). – d Philistine variation of the same jar type, Megiddo tomb 37 (after Guy / Engberg 1938, pl. 39, 6).

Fourth, other types experienced an update of their morphological and sometimes even decorative features; such was the case of the lentoid flasks, which now become the neck-ridge jugs,34 storage jars with sharper shoulders,35 or the amphoroid craters,36 whose appearance became more akin to Mycenaean standards. Fifth, it is not clear if the monochrome horizon recognized in southern Levantine sites can be observed in the core of Phoenicia. At least, from the few examples of this period recovered so far, the presence of bi-

The Mediterranean Mirror

115

Fig. 2 Strainer-spouted jugs of Aegean affiliation: a Late Helladic IIIC middle jug from Perati, tomb 21 (after Mountjoy 2001, 102 fig. 271). – b Philistine bichrome jug from Azor (after Dothan 1983, 136 fig. 24). – c Cypro-Geometric I example from Palaepaphos-Skales, tomb 45 (after Karageorghis 1983, fig. LXIII, 16).

116

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

chrome decoration, typical in Canaanite times, still occurs,37 a fact that is not contradictory with the actual presence of decorations only in red, as does occur in other areas.38 However, in my view, the sixth possibility represents the best example of the mechanisms used by the Phoenician society to cope with new situations. It consists of the adoption of foreign forms adapting them to local morphological and decorative principles. No doubt, a prime example is the Phoenician strainer-spouted jug.

An example: strainer-spouted jugs The strainer-spouted jug is one of the paramount Phoenician ceramic forms.39 It is characterized by a globular or piriform body, a long neck, a spout open on its upper side with a strainer-like device at its base, and a handle that connects the shoulder with a point next to the center of the neck, always placed at a right angle to the spout. Its function is not clear, for many hypotheses have been put forward based mainly on the spout and its strainer. Probably, the most extended one would be to serve beer; the strainer would avoid any lump present in the beverage to be poured in the cup.40 Notwithstanding the content, an alternative to the »normal use« of this spout and strainer has been suggested. According to this unlikely hypothesis, the liquid is filtered from the outside by pouring it directly in the spout, after which the content of the jug is served through the mouth.41 However, the presence of tubular spouts with a strainer in their bases (cf. fig. 5d) may serve to reject this possibility. In any instance, and linked or not to these two contradictory methods of use, other functional possibilities have been also proposed: as a watering can, sprinkler, table pitcher, tea pot, container of fragrant specialty oil, and of course, a poly-functional jug.42 The few analyses of ancient organic residues carried out so far are inconclusive. Thus, while an example of the Mycenaean variety recovered in a LH IIIC context at Perati produced what seems to be the residue of a mixture of milk and honey,43 some similar jugs recovered in 6th and 7th century contexts in Uruk contained resinated wine.44 In my view, and awaiting additional trace analysis on Phoenician examples that are in progress, these jugs may have been used to serve wine, among other uses. There are some reasons that may support this hypothesis. One would be of morphological / instrumental nature – the occasional presence of a strainer has been registered in the mouth of some decanters.45 Second, these Phoenician strainer-spouted jugs appear in association with forms and types that are typical in a wine set, for example, containers like craters or domestic amphorae, as well as cups.46 In the third place, these jugs seem to substitute forms employed for that purpose in Phoenician funerary contexts: the decanter or the dipper.47 Wine preparation and consumption has a long tradition in the Levant and in other parts of the Mediterranean, giving place to a practice that probably shared identical or really similar procedures and customs.48 Obviously, this is not the moment to explain their characteristics and possible regional peculiarities, especially because they remain in their most part unknown. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that in the preparation of wine for its consumption there was a general need at some point to strain it.49 The reason could be the presence of sediments and other sorts of impurities in the wine, but it could also be the addition of aromatic herbs and other substances in its preparation. Nonetheless, the nature of the liquid does not represent the sole relevant factor; social habits linked to the consumption also should have played a key role. In the Late Bronze Age Aegean, this task was performed by certain jugs with a strainer-spout (fig. 2a). These particular jugs, classified by A. Furumark as Form 43, were characterized by globular bodies, short cylindrical necks, handles that connect the shoulder to the rim, as well as short open spouts placed on the widest point of the belly and at a right angle to the handle.50 There is no evidence so far in Late Bronze Age contexts in the Levant of imports of this type or any local form imitating it.51 On the contrary, evidence indicates that this function was accomplished there, on the one hand, by certain bronze pierced cup-like

The Mediterranean Mirror

117

devices (fig. 1a),52 and probably also by certain jars characterized by a piriform or biconical body, a wide mouth, a basket-like handle, and an open long spout with a strainer at its base (fig. 1b-c).53 It seems evident, therefore, that the strainer-spout jugs themselves do not represent a genuine ceramic form of the Canaanite / Phoenician ceramic repertoire. Actually, contrary to what Furumark claims,54 the diverse Levantine variations were inspired by the Mycenaean type.55 The first appearance of this form in the Aegean seems to have taken place in the Dodecanese during the Late Helladic III B1, although it seems that their floruit has to be found probably in its Period IIIC Early and Middle (fig. 2a).56 The introduction of this shape in the eastern Mediterranean took place at the very end of the Late Bronze Age and it represents a two-step phenomenon. In the first place, the ceramic repertoire of the Late Cypriot III period adopted it,57 passing from this point in the sequence to the Proto White-Painted corpus,58 and later, to the Cypro-Geometric (fig. 2c).59 Secondly, either connected with the former event or not, this ceramic form was a key member of the Sea People’s ceramic corpus; in particular, it represents T. Dothan’s type 6 of the Philistine repertoire (fig. 2b).60 Regarding the documentation produced in Syria, it seems that this form was not popular there. Beside several examples recovered at Tarsus, a possible Philistine bichrome example has been registered at Ras Ibn Hani, a site that also produced a jug provided of a short spout and Aegean-style bichrome decoration.61 Probably, the oldest examples of these jugs recovered in Lebanese land are local variations of the Aegean prototypes. Actually, this would be the expected situation, given the presence of similar examples in Iron 1a levels in Tell Dor.62 The Lebanese case is embodied by two jugs recovered in the level that comes after the destruction of the Late Bronze city at Kamid el-Loz (fig. 3a).63 These two examples show morphological features that recall Mycenaean prototypes; for example, their short necks and spouts. However, their aspect is rather crude, a feature that also affects their respective decorative pattern, which is reminiscent of schemes visible later in bigger sized containers like the stable amphorae.64 Seven more jugs can be added to the two above. They come from the whereabouts of Tyre, five from a cave near Khirbet Slim and two from Djoweiya (fig. 3b).65 Unfortunately, their original contexts remain unknown,66 and so too their chronology. In fact, even a later date cannot be ruled out. In any case, these jugs display morphological characteristics that actually put them closer to the Mycenaean model than to Philistine productions, especially their globular bodies and short vertical necks. The biggest difference with the Aegean prototype lies in the length of the spout, which is closer to »Phoenician« standards. Also, on the grounds of the decorative patterns employed, only one or two examples may correspond to a sequential stage comparable to that of the jugs of Kumidi.67 Both instances display a scheme based on the presence of triglyph-like elements on the shoulder, which in one case (fig. 3b) display a »fish-scale« motif and an asterisk above the strainer.68 Similar decorations are present in the earliest examples of true Phoenician strainer-spouted jugs and the mentioned instance is also painted in red and black.69 Moreover, the second jug shows a comparable decorative pattern, but simpler and only in red, a relevant aspect that may put this jug closer to early Aegeanizing examples from the south.70 Thirdly, the presence in those batches of certain vessels, which may date from the period that divides the Late Bronze from the Early Iron Age, could also have certain chronological implications.71 However, one of the remaining jugs, despite its morphological affinities with the rest of this group, displays a floral motif on its shoulder that resembles those shown by later actual Phoenician examples (see below).72 Therefore, the combination of elements proving or disproving an early date renders the chronology of these jugs a complicated issue. Roughly from the same sequential moment than the examples from Kumidi or maybe even before it, comes a jug found in the tomb 221A of the cemetery of Beth-Shan (fig. 3c), a context that should be dated at the very end of the Late Bronze Age or the beginning of the Early Iron Age.73 From a morphological perspective, this jug displays a depressed globular body that stands on a ring base, and a long narrow neck topped by

118

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Fig. 3 Aegean-type Levantine strainer-spouted jugs: a from Kamid el-Loz (after Hachmann / Kuschke 1966, 61 fig. 24, 3). – b from Djoweya (after Chapman 1972, 62 fig. 1, 168). – c from Beth-Shan, tomb 221A (after Oren 1973, 234 fig. 47b, 24).

a direct and simple rim. However, its peculiarities are an open spout that is longer than the Aegean-rooted examples and, especially, a handle that connects the shoulder with the lower half of the neck at a right angle regarding the mentioned spout. Additionally, the jug displays a burnished buff slip, while the single ornamental element is a rope-like appliqué along the handle. W. Culican is correct in stating that this Palestinian jug represented the beginning of »a Phoenician tradition parallel to the Philistine beer jugs«.74 According to this author, it seems that the Phoenician version took a particular and not too frequent flask type as a basis. In fact, this jug wactually displays the same morphological features of the Phoenician strainer-spouted jugs, with the exception of the spout, which is obviously absent in this form. It is also relevant that its actual origin remains obscure. Examples appear in Transitional or Early Iron Age Levantine sites like Tyre,75 Megiddo,76 and Jatt – this time in association with an almost identical example displays a spout (fig. 4a and b respectively).77 Even Phoenician examples have

The Mediterranean Mirror

119

Fig. 4 Jugs from Jatt (a-b). – (After Artzy 2006, 50 fig. 2.15, 5-6).

been recorded in Cyprus 78. However, a similar variant also appears in the late Mycenaean,79 as well as the early Cypro-Geometric repertoires.80 In any instance, the Levantine version of this jug evolved throughout the Iron Age, reaching even the Iron 2a period of the Biblical Archaeology.81 With the data at hand, it is not possible to know if the Phoenician variation of the strainer-spouted jugs (such as the examples of Beth-Shan or Jatt) followed the production of examples imitating Mycenaean models (Kumidi, Tell Dor and, probably, Khirbet Slim or Djoweiya). However, true Phoenician strainer-spout jugs appeared fully developed soon afterwards. This is a typical form of P. M. Bikai’s »Kouklia« and the first half of Salamis’ »Horizons«,82 and was registered in Phoenician sites such as Tyre,83 al – Bass 84 Tell erRachidiyeh,85 Khirbet Slim,86 Sarepta,87 Khalde,88 Tell Keisan 89 or Tell Dor,90 only to mention a few instances. Additional examples of this jug also have been registered in Palestinian sites, notwithstanding their actual relationship with the Phoenician phenomenon.91 Nevertheless, it is not always possible to know from the publications if these are local examples or Phoenician imports. It seems that Culican was again correct in noting the evolution of this form. In light of this evolution (leaving aside the variety of body shapes, which goes from globular to ovoid and piriform), it seems that only necks and bases show relevant morphological changes that are chronologically significant. Hence, the earliest examples are characterized by vertical rims displaying simple lips, very similar to those shown by the jugs from which they are derived (fig. 5a-b). From this moment onwards, those necks became gradually taller, while the rims adopted an open stance, resulting in a funnel-like outlook (fig. 5c-d). At the same time, bases are usually annular, higher on earlier examples than on later ones. Regarding their decorative patterns, the typical Late Bronze Age division of the body by using triglyph-like panels is common from the earliest stages of its evolution. This is the same Canaanite pattern that is visible in the aforementioned spouted jars (fig. 1bc). However, in this evolved version, it can display punctual similarities with Mycenaean-related arrangements and motives. In any case, at an early stage it usually combines those triglyphs with a cross-hatched filling and flanked by two or more vertical fillets (figs 3b; 5a-b).92 In some other instances, however, these panels were transformed into a row of equally hatched lozenges. An alternative, maybe of Egyptian tradition or inspiration, was the conversion of these »spacers« into inverted triangles hanging from the start of the neck. Finally, in the latest stages of the evolution, the triglyphs became simple vertical thin bands that are combined with palm-like motifs (fig. 5c), while the presence of red-slipped surfaces has been also attested (fig. 5d) 93.

120

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Fig. 5 Phoenician strainer-spouted jugs: a from Khalde, tomb 166 (after Saidah 1966, 79. 49). – b from Palaepaphos-Skales, tomb 80 (after Bikai 1987, pl. VIII, 118). – c from Khirbet Silm (after Chapman 1972, 62 fig. 1, 168). – d from Tell er-Rachidiyeh, tomb IV (after Doumet-Serhal 1982, pl. XIV, 28).

This basic paneled pattern is complemented by other ornamental motives (fig. 5). First, the lower half of the body, just below the level of the spout, usually displays a broad band in red flanked by two or three parallel fillets in black. The presence at all times of transversal strokes on the upper edges of the spout or on the back of the handle is common, as it is the application of bands and fillets on the upper part of the neck. Finally, the presence of asterisks and other geometrical motifs on the body is also commonplace, especially in the earliest stages of its evolution.94

The Mediterranean Mirror

121

Conclusions To conclude, the influence of foreign people, Cypriot or not, on the early Phoenician cities at the beginning of the Iron Age is a phenomenon that cannot be denied, but should not be overemphasised. In fact, my actual impression is that those cities did not need a foreign stimulus to resume their commercial activities, simply because they had been carrying out these activities since the 3rd millennium,95 and continued to carry them out in later times. All they needed was an opportunity to resume their task properly, and they did it quickly.96 Obviously, the period immediately after the fall of the Late Bronze Age international system represented a moment of recovery and search for a new balance in the region. Necessarily, the presence of new peoples in the area changed the status quo, and altered the workings of existing mechanisms. However, it should be equally evident that the absence of a mightier power was a great advantage. The consequence visible on the archaeological record is that contacts were resumed rapidly, as shown by the immediate presence of Cypriot and Aegean imports in the Phoenician cities 97 and Phoenician materials in other areas, mainly in Cyprus.98 In this scheme, there is a passage period between the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age for Phoenician cities. It is represented in Tyre by stratum XIV and in Sarepta by strata G1 and F, while the true Early Iron Age, represented by the »Bichrome Horizon«, would correspond to Tyre’s strata XIII to XI and Sarepta’s stratum E. During this period of restructuring, the Phoenician ceramic repertoire experienced certain modifications – but never a break. As Anderson notes in his study on Sarepta,99 the Late Bronze tradition lasted in these cities over the first part of the Iron Age.100 Actually, its typological and decorative characteristics were so similar to what had been used before that it is possible to consider the ceramic repertoire of the entire Early Iron Age, including the so-called Bichrome Horizon, as the last phase of the Late Bronze Age. However, as mentioned, it may be wiser to consider this evolutionary stage, which in Israel represents their Iron Age 1a, as a transitional period. On the other hand, but still in this context, I believe that the new influences from abroad, especially those coming from the West, were not simply adopted, but »metabolized« by the Phoenician societies. The consequence was a general updating of the repertoire, a phenomenon that should not be understood as a simple substitution by the new. Rather, the essence of the Phoenician ceramic repertoire remained untouched either in its morphological or its decorative features. This updating implies the reworking of older types and the substitution of others to fit new social requirements. This is exemplified by the case of the strainer-spouted jugs, which shows how Phoenician cities reacted in the face of the new historical situation. However, to understand the issue presented here it would be more convenient to recall the aforementioned spouted biconical jars of Canaanite times. If those jars, later adopted by the Philistine repertoire (fig. 1d),101 were actually used during the Late Bronze Age for the same purpose than that of the Mycenaean spouted jugs, what I see here is the Phoenician adoption of a foreign form (the Mycenaean spouted jug) to accomplish a local custom, adapting it to their particular morphological and decorative principles.102 In other words, a local and traditional shape used to filter wine was replaced under foreign influence by something new, but by using a local shape as a basis for design, and by using local ornamental patterns for decoration. As indicated before, with the evidence at hand, it is not possible to deny that the earliest Phoenician examples followed Aegeanizing models, as the jugs from Kumidi and, probably also from the surroundings of Tyre may indicate. It is neither feasible to know when the traditional spouted biconical jars disappeared from the late Canaanite / early Phoenician repertoire,103 or whether the adoption of this new form led to or was a consequence of a change in the local customs. However, in my view, the most relevant aspect to highlight in this context would be the very quick creation and development of a particular version of the Mycenaean prototype for Phoenician cities. The jugs from Beth-Shan and Jatt may indicate this Hence, despite the relevance and evolution that the ceramic form experienced from this point onwards, this phenomenon could

122

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

be an excellent metaphor for the way these cities and their respective societies reacted to the new historical situation created after the end of the Late Bronze Age. Finally, the update of Canaanite ceramic form giving place to the typical Phoenician ceramic repertoire should be seen as a local manifestation of a wider phenomenon that took place in the entire eastern Mediterranean. For that reason, it has to be interpreted by taking into account the particular nature of the society of these cities, as well as the factors and circumstances that affected them. However, in my view, the amount of information produced in the southern Levant has led to a deformed perception of the entire phenomenon. Therefore, as long as the data recovered in one area remains unbalanced, I think it is necessary to adopt a more cautious approach to the issue.

Notes 1) Vives-Ferrándiz 2005. 2) Sherratt / Sherratt 1998, 333. 3) Liverani 1995. – Klengel 2000. – Aubet 2007. 4) Lipinski 1999. 5) Gitin / Mazar / Stern 1998. – Harrison 2006/2007. 6) Heltzer / Lipinski 1988. – Klengel 1992, 84-180. – Liverani 1995, 426-452; 2003. – Belmonte 2003. – Aubet 2007. 7) See, as a reference, the articles included in: Ward / Joukow sky 1992; Gitin 1998; Lipinski 1999, 3-9; Oren 2000; Harrison 2006-2007; Charaf 2006; 2007; Jung 2009; 2012; Pe drazzi / Venturi 2012. 8) Dothan 1982. – Dothan / Dothan 2002. 9) An interesting analysis can be found in Charaf 2007/2008, 8289. 10) See a general view in Weippert 1998, with older bibliography; Heinz 2000; 2010. 11) Badre 1997, 60-64. The same situation has probably been observed in other areas of the old tel, where the fortification system is preserved, e. g., Bey 020. See Finkbeiner / Sader 1997; Finkbeiner 2001. 12) In this regard, see Gilboa 2005, 51. 13) In Classic Arabic: »shared / common culture«. On this idea, see esp. Kantor 1947. 14) Compare, e. g., Palestine: Amiran 1970, 124-190; central region: Salles 1980; Metzger 1993; Penner 2006; Saidah 2004; Ugarit: Schaeffer 1949, 139-295; Courtois 1978, 222-370; Monchambert 2004. 15) Among other references: Bounni / Lagarce 1998; du Piêd 2006/2007. 16) Courbin 1986. – du Piêd 2006/2007. 17) Bretschneider et al. 1998; 2005; 2008. – du Piêd 2006-2007. 18) Capet / Gubel 2000. – Badre 2006. – Capet 2006/2007. 19) See Balensi 1980 for the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age levels. 20) Briend / Humbert 1980; the earliest Iron Age levels have been analyzed in an unpublished PhD dissertation by Burdajewicz 1994.

21) Gilboa / Sharon 2003. – Gilboa / Sharon / Boaretto 2008 (with further bibliography). 22) Anderson 1988, pls 28, 19; 30, 10, two LH IIIC Early deep bowls from Sarepta strata G1 and F respectively; see also Mountjoy 2001, 174, and Leonard 1996, 118 no. 1757 for the first bowl, and 121 no. 1805, which this author may consider a local production. Regarding the bowl from Tyre, see Bikai 1978, pl. XLI, 19, a Philistine bichrome fragment from stratum XIV. 23) Killebrew 2006/2007. – Gilboa 2006-2007. – Charaf 20072008. 24) Killebrew 2006/2007. – Gilboa 2005; 2006-2007. – Artzy 2007. – Stone 1995. – Jung 2007. 25) Gilboa / Sharon 2003. – Gilboa 2005. – Gilboa / Sharon / Boaretto 2008. 26) Gilboa 1999; 2005; 2006-2007. – Artzy 2007. – Bauer 1998. 27) Bikai 1987, 50-53. See an interpretation of this phenomenon in Gilboa 1998. 28) The instances that will be presented can also be observed in Amiran 1970. See again the analysis of Charaf 2007-2008, 82-89. 29) See, for instance: Salles 1980, 83 pl. 15; Saidah 2004, 102 fig. 48, 4/1; 105/21; 104/21; 80/16. 30) For example: Salles 1980, 88 pl. 20, 1-6; Anderson 1988, 158159 type X-24; 175-176 type K-1. 31) For Late Bronze Age examples see, for instance, Saidah 2004, 101 fig. 47, 7/2; 54/13; 106/21; 89/19; 19/4; 81/17. Early Iron Age examples: Bikai 1978, pl. XXXIII, 17-18. 32) Typical Late Bronze Age examples: Salles 1980, 82 pl. 14, 6; Saidah 2004, 102 fig. 48, 14/4; Early Iron Age examples: Bikai 1978, pl. XXXVII, 3; Saidah 1966, 79 no. 50; 81 no. 54. 33) Late Bronze Age examples: Bikai 1978, pl. XLII, 18; Anderson 1988, 613 pl. 28, 6; Early Iron Age example: Saidah 1966, 77 no. 48. 34) Chapman 1972, 69 fig. 4, 50. – Núñez Calvo 2008a, 309-314; 2008b, 28-32. 35) The reference on this topic is Pedrazzi 2007.

The Mediterranean Mirror

123

36) The evolution of this ceramic form has been analyzed in Núñez Calvo 2010, 52-56. 37) See, for example, Chapman 1972, 69 figs 4, 50. 97; 14, 203. 205. 207; 104 fig. 17, 195. On this issue, see also Núñez Calvo 2008b, 28-32. 38) Chapman 1972, 92 fig. 12, 62. 196-198; 94 fig. 13, 63; 100 fig. 15, 275-277.

61) du Piêd 2006-2007, 170. 174 fig. 9b. M. al-Maqdissi reports a monochrome spout fragment from Tell Kazel, level 2 of Area III (Badre et al. 1990, 90-91 fig. 47k); however, it is not possible to distinguish from the drawing provided if it belongs to the short Aegean type or a later local production. 62) Gilboa / Sharon 2003, 16 figs 5. 7. 63) Hachmann / Kuschke 1966, 58. 61 fig. 24, 3; 65 fig. 25, 4.

39) Given the scope of this paper, I will not offer an exhaustive analysis of this ceramic form in all its aspects. The Phoenician variety has been analyzed to some extent in Chapman 1972, 148-150; Bikai 1978, 41; Culican 1982, 47-50; Bikai 1987, 5862; Anderson 1990, 37-41. See also a synthesis on this ceramic form and its regional particularities in Buchholz 2001.

64) For example Núñez Calvo 2004a, 136 fig. 51, 1; 151 fig. 66, 1; 165 fig. 80, 1.

40) Baramki 1961, 74. – Chapman 1972, 148. – Dothan 1982, 132.

67) Chapman 1972, 62 fig. 1, 3. 168.

41) Tufnell 1953, 320. – Anderson 1990, 40. 42) Anderson 1990. 43) Mountjoy 2001, 128. 44) McGovern 2003, 201. 45) Bikai 1987, pl. XV, 378. See also their presence on the base of certain late Bronze Age decanters (Buchholz 2001, 111 fig. 1h-j). As for the strainer placed inside the neck of a jug that presumably belonged with the »neck-ridge« class (Buchholz 2001, 129 fig. 5a), its functional repercussions may affect only these jugs and not necessarily the form under analysis here. 46) Saidah 1966, 76-82 Khalde tombs 166-167. – Núñez Calvo 2004b, 363 fig. 7, 6. 47) Núñez Calvo 2011, 281-282.

65) Chapman 1972, 61-63 fig. 1, 1-3. 168-169; 64 fig. 2; 66 nos 9-10. The latter two have a tubular spout instead. 66) See, however, Culican 1982, 52 note 24.

68) Chapman 1972, 62 fig. 1, 168. However, see a similar decorative pattern on a decanter, whose position in the sequence should be found in an advanced stage of the Period II of the Phoenician cemetery of al-Bass, which corresponds to the transitional stage that separates the Early from the Late Iron Age, and is broadly contemporary of the Iron Age 2a of Biblical Archaeology. See Aubet 2004; Núñez Calvo 2008/2009, 59-61; 2008b. 69) See, for example, Chapman 1972, 64 fig. 2, 7, from Khirbet Slim; Bikai 1987, pl. VIII, 115-116. 118, from diverse sites in Cyprus. 70) Chapman 1972, 62 fig. 1, 3. 71) Chapman 1972, 68-69 fig. 4, 50; 106-108 figs 18, 211; 19, 212 (both from Djoweiya); 112-113 fig. 22, 84 (from Khirbet Slim); 116. 118 fig. 23, 226 (from Djoweiya).

48) McGovern 2003.

72) Chapman 1972, fig. 1, 1, compare it with Chapman 1972, 64 fig. 2, 4, also from Khirbet Slim.

49) Zamora 2000, 507-509. – Buchholz 2001, 108-109. – McGovern 2003.

73) Oren 1973, 107. 131. 234-235 fig. 47b, 24.

50) Furumark 1941, 30-31. 608-610. 657 fig. 6. 51) The shape is missing in Leonard 1994, with the sole exception of a probable local LH IIIC Middle example recovered at Tel Miqne. See Leonard 1994, 44. 52) Moorey 1980. – Gershuny 1985, 46-47 pls 17-18. 53) See, for example, Loud 1948, pl. 63, 7-8, both from Megiddo, strata VIIB and VIIA respectively; a Hittite example has been presented in Buchholz 2001, 109. 111 fig. 1d. See also late examples in Megiddo Level F-5, which corresponds to Stratum VIA (Finkelstein / Zimhoni / Kafri 2000, 249 figs 11.3, 1 and 6). 54) Furumark 1944, 236. – Dothan 1982, 154. 55) Dothan 1982, 154-155. – Anderson 1988, 37-38. – Kling 1989, 272. – Leonard 1994, 44. – Dothan / Zukerman 2004, 24. 56) Mountjoy 1986, 38. – Kling 1989, 272. – Dothan / Zukerman 2004, 154-155. 57) Anderson 1988, 38. – Kling 1989, 272. – Dothan / Zukerman 2004, 154-155. 58) Furumark 1944, 234-246. – Gjerstad 1944, 79. 59) Gjerstad 1948, 285-286; 1960, 118-119 fig. 12. 60) Dothan 1982, 95. 132-157. 191-194.

124

74) Culican 1982, 47-48. 75) Bikai 1978, pl. XXXIII, 20, from Stratum XIII-1, and pl. XXXVII, 2, from Stratum XIII-2. 76) Finkelstein / Zimhoni / Kafri 2000, 254 fig. 11.7, 4, from Stratum VIB, as well as 259 figs 11.11, 15-16 and 263 figs 11.1415, those three last instances from Stratum VIA. 77) Artzy 2006, 50 fig. 2.15, 5 and 8, the spouted version is fig. 2.15, 6. 78) Bikai 1987, 13-14. 120-126 pls VIII. XXV. 79) Furumark 1941, 31 fig. 6, FS 123, 604, LH IIIC Late. The shape continued into Proto-Geometric times. See Desborough 1980, 313-316. 80) Gjerstad 1948, 49. 61 figs IV, 4-5 (White-Painted I ware); XIII, 11-12. 14 (White-Painted II ware); XVI, 6 (Bichrome II ware); XXII, 9-10 (Bichrome III ware). 81) Gilboa / Sharon 2003, 22 fig. 11, 10, from Iron 1/2 levels at Tel Dor, and 24 fig. 13, 11, from Iron 2a levels from the same site. At the same time, one may wonder if some juglets recovered in contexts of the same date may represent a late and smaller sized (sub) variation of this very shape. See Chapman 1972, 104-105 fig. 17, 75-78; 141-142 fig. 30, 263; Amiran 1970, 256-257 pl. 86, 12-13, from northern Palestinian sites, and 258 pl. 87, 13, from southern sites.

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

82) Bikai 1987, 50-53. 58-62; on the division of P. M. Bikai’s »Salamis Horizon« into two distinct halves, see Núñez Calvo 2008a, 358-372; 2008b, 38-58. 83) Bikai 1978, 34. 41 pl. XXXIII, 19 (?), from Straum XIII-1, pl. XXIX, 3, from Stratum XI, pl. X, 1 (?), from Stratum X-1 and pl. XX, 6. 9 (?), from Strata IX and VIII respectively. 84) Núñez Calvo 2004a, 161 fig. 76, 3. – Aubet / Núñez / Trellisó in print, 195 fig. 2.26, U.97-2; 253, fig. 2.85, Dep. 10-2. – Núñez Calvo in print, 292 fig. 3.45, U.1/2-1 and U.1/2-3. 85) Doumet-Serhal 1982, 120-121 pl. XIV, 8. 28. The latter has a tubular spout instead. 86) Chapman 1972, 64 fig. 2, 4. 6-7; 138 fig. 28, 262. 301, the latter with a tubular spout, and 148-150.

92) On this decorative pattern, see Anderson 1988, 335 Style I; 1990, 38 fig. 2 93) Chapman 1972, 138 fig. 28, 262, whereas no. 301 is a version provided with a tubular spout; Doumet-Serhal 1982, pl. XIV, 8. 28, the last jug also displaying a tubular spout. 94) Anderson 1988, 335 Style II. 95) Aubet 2007, 223-291; 2009, 29-49. 96) Cf. Artzy 2007, 156. 97) Koehl 1985, 45-46. – Nitsche 1986/1987. – Coldstream / Bikai 1988, 38-40. – Anderson 1988, 267-276. – Gilboa 1989. – Waldbaum 1994. – Luke 2003, 31-42. – Maeir / Fantalkin / Zukerman 2009. 98) Bikai 1987, 58-62.

87) Anderson 1988, 621 pl. 31, 10.

99) Anderson 1988, 390.

88) Saidah 1966, 79 no. 49; 81 no. 57.

100) The same phenomenon has been recognized for Megiddo. See Arie 2006, 227.

89) Briend / Humbert 1980, pl. 51, 1 Stratum 7.

101) Dothan 1982, 191-194 type 17.

90) Gilboa / Sharon 2003, 20 fig. 9, 3-6 (Ir1b levels); 22 fig. 11, 11 (Ir1/2 levels).

102) Núñez Calvo 2008a, 194. – Gilboa 2006-2007, 231, points in the same direction.

91) Amiran 1970, 252-253 pl. 84, 11; 268-269 pl. 91, 2; see also Gilboa / Sharon 2003, 20 fig. 9, 3-6; Arie 2006, 206, for Iron 1 levels at Megiddo.

103) See some late examples in Megiddo Level F-5, which corresponds to Stratum VIA (Finkelstein / Zimhoni / Kafri 2000, 249 fig. 11.3, 1 and 6) and is contemporary of Tyre Stratum XIII.

Bibliography Amiran 1970: R. Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (New Brunswick / N. J. 1970).

2009: M. E. Aubet, Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente (Barcelona 2009).

Anderson 1988: W. P. Anderson, Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Publications de l’Universite libanaise. Section des Études Archéologiques 2 (Beyrouth 1988).

Aubet / Núñez / Trellisó in print: M. E. Aubet / F. J. Núñez / L. Trellisó, Catalogue of the Iron Age contexts of the 2002 to 2005 seasons. In: M. E. Aubet / F. J. Núñez / L. Trellisó (eds), The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass II. Archaeological seasons 2002-2005. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors Série IX (in print) 55-257.

1990: W. P. Anderson, The beginnings of Phoenician pottery: vessel shape, style and ceramic technology in the early phases of the Phoenician Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279, 1990, 35-54. Arie 2006: E. Arie, The Iron Age I pottery: levels K-5 and K-4 and an intra-site spatial analysis of the pottery from stratum VIA. In: I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds), Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 24 (Tel Aviv 2006) 191-298. Artzy 2006: M. Artzy, The Jatt metal hoard in northern Canaanite / Phoenician and Cypriote context. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 14 (Barcelona 2006). 2007: M. Artzy, Los nómadas del mar (Barcelona 2007). Aubet 2004: M. E. Aubet, The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997-1999. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors Série I (Beyrouth 2004). 2007: M. E. Aubet, Comercio y colonialismo en el Próximo Oriente antiguo. Los antecedentes coloniales del III y II milenios a. C. (Barcelona 2007).

Badre 1997: L. Badre, Bey 003. Preliminary report. Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum, 1993-1996. Report from the excavations in the city center of Beirut under rehabilitation from the early 1990s. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2, 1997, 6-94. 2006: L. Badre, Tell Kazel-Simyra: a contribution to a relative chronological history in the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343, 2006, 65-95. Badre et al. 1990: L. Badre / E. Gubel / M. al-Maqdissi / H. Sader, Tell Kazel, Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1985-1987. Preliminary reports. Berytus 38, 1990, 9-124. 2005: L. Badre / M.-C. Boileau / R. Jung / H. Mommsen, The provenance of Aegean and Syrian-type pottery found at Tell Kazel (Syria). Ägypten und Levante 15, 2005, 15-47. Balensi 1980: J. Balensi, Les fouilles de R. W. Hamilton à Tell Abu Hawam, niveaux IV et V [Ph. D. diss. Univ. Strasbourg 1980]. Baramki 1961: D. C. Baramki, Phoenicia and the Phoenicians (Beyrouth 1961).

The Mediterranean Mirror

125

Bauer 1998: A. A. Bauer, Cities of the sea: maritime trade and the origin of Philistine settlement in the early Iron Age southern Levant. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17/2, 1998, 149-168.

Culican 1982: W. Culican, The repertoire of Phoenician pottery. In: H. G. Niemeyer (ed.), The Phönizer im Westen. Madrider Beiträge 8 (Mainz 1982) 45-82.

Belmonte 2003: J. A. Belmonte, Cuatro estudios sobre los dominios territoriales de las ciudades-estado fenicias. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 9 (Barcelona 2003).

Desborough 1980: V. R. Desborough, The Dark Age pottery (SMSPG III) from settlement and cemeteries. In: M. R. Popham / L. H. Sackett / P. G. Themelis (ed.), Lefkandi I: The Iron Age: The Settlement and the Cemeteries. British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 11 (Athens 1980) 281-354.

Bikai 1978: P. M. Bikai, The pottery of Tyre (Warminster 1978). 1987: P. M. Bikai, Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus (Nicosia 1987). Bounni / Lagarce 1998: A. Bounni / J. Lagarce, Ras Ibn Hani. I: Le Palais Nord du Bronze Récent. Fouilles 1979-1995, Synthèse préliminaire. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 151 (Beyrouth 1998).

Dothan 1982: T. Dothan, The Philistines and their material culture (New Haven 1982). Dothan / Dothan 2002: T. Dothan / M. Dothan, Los Pueblos del Mar. Tras la huella de los filisteos (Barcelona 2002).

Bretschneider et al. 2005: J. Bretschneider / M. al-Maqdissi / K. Van steenhuyse / J. Driessen / K. van Lerberghe, Tell Tweini, ancient Gibala, in the Bronze Age. Ägypten und Levante 14, 2005, 215230.

Dothan / Zukerman 2004: T. Dothan / A. Zukerman, A preliminary study of the Mycenaean IIIC: 1 pottery assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333, 2004, 1-54.

2008: J. Bretschneider / K. van Lerberghe / K. Vansteenhuyse / M. al-Maqdissi, The Late Bronze and Iron Age in the Jebleh region: a view from Tell Tweini. In: H. Kühne / R. M. Czichon / F. J. Kreppner (eds), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (19 March-3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin). 2: Social and cultural transformations: the archaeology of transitional periods and Dark ages. Excavation reports (Wiesbaden 2008) 33-46.

Doumet-Serhal 1982: C. Doumet-Serhal, Les tombes IV et V de Rachidiyeh. Annales de Histoire et Archéologie 1, 1982, 89-137.

Briend / Humbert 1980: J. Briend / J. B. Humbert, Tell Keisan. Une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1 (Fribourg 1980). Buchholz 2001: H. G. Buchholz, Siebkannen. Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 2001, 107-150. Burdajewicz 1994: M. Burdajewicz, La céramique palestinienne du Fer. I: La contribution de Tell Keisan site de la Galilée Maritime [Ph. D. diss. Univ. Warsaw 1994]. Capet 2006/2007: E. Capet, Les peuples des céramiques «barbares» à Tell Kazel (Syrie). In: Harrison 2006/2007, 187-207. Capet / Gubel 2000: E. Capet / E. Gubel, Tell Kazel: six centuries of Iron Age occupation (c. 1200-612 B. C.). In: G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Leuven 2000) 425-458. Chapman 1972: S. V. Chapman, A catalogue of Iron Age pottery from the cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye and Qasmieh of South Lebanon. Berytus 21, 1972, 55-194. Coldstream / Bikai 1988: J. N. Coldstream / P. M. Bikai, Early Greek pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: some preliminary comparisons. Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1988/2, 35-43.

du Piêd 2006/2007: L. du Piêd, The early Iron Age in the northern Levant: continuity and change in the pottery assemblages from Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani. In: Harrison 2006/2007, 161-185. Finkbeiner 2001: U. Finkbeiner, The Iron Age fortification and city gate: new evidence. In: S. Abouzayd (ed.), Beirut: History and Archeology. Proceedings of the ARAM Twelfth International Conference. ARAM Periodical 13, 1/2 (Leuven 2001) 27-36. Finkbeiner / Sader 1997: U. Finkbeiner / H. Sader, Bey 20. Preliminary report on the excavations 1995. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2, 1997, 114-166. Finkelstein / Zimhoni / Kafri 2000: I. Finkelstein / O. Zimhoni / A. Kafri, The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages from Areas F, K, and H and their Stratigraphic and Chronological Implication. In: I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds), Megiddo III. The 19921996 seasons. The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 18 (Tel Aviv 2000) 244-324. Furumark 1941: A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification. Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 4, XX/1 (Stockholm 1941). 1944: A. Furumark, The Mycenaean IIIC pottery and its relation to Cypriote fabrics. Opuscula Archaeologica 3, 1944, 194-265. Gershuny 1985: L. Gershuny, Bronze vessels from Israel and Jordan. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II, 2 (München 1985).

Charaf 2006: H. Charaf, La céramique Hand Made Burnished Ware (HMBW). Nouvelles découvertes à Tell Arqa. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 10, 2006, 167-181.

Gilboa 1989: A. Gilboa, New finds at Tel Dor and the beginnings of Cypro-Geometric pottery imports to Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 39, 1989, 204-218.

2007/2008: H. Charaf, New light on the end of the Late Bronze Age at Tell Arqa. In: H. Charaf (ed.), Inside the Levantine maze. Archaeological and historical studies presented to Jean-Paul Thalmann on occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 26/27 (London 2007/2008) 70-98.

1999: A. Gilboa, The dynamics of Phoenician bichrome pottery: a view from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316, 1999, 1-22.

Courbin 1986: P. Courbin, Bassit. Syria 63, 1986, 175-220. Courtois 1978: J.-C. Courtois, Corpus céramique de Ras ShamraUgarit. Niveaux historiques de Ugarit. Bronze Moyen et Bronze Récent. In: C. F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica VII. Mission de Ras Shamra 18. Ugaritica VII (Beyrouth 1978) 191-370.

126

2005: A. Gilboa, Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the southern Phoenician coast – A reconciliation: an interpretation of Šikila (SKL) material culture. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 337, 2005, 47-78. 2006/2007: A. Gilboa, Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, with an emphasis on Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: a Tel Dor perspective. In: Harrison 2006/2007, 209-244.

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Gilboa / Sharon 2003: A. Gilboa / I. Sharon, An archaeological contribution to the Early Iron Age chronological debate: alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332, 2003, 7-80. Gilboa / Sharon / Boaretto 2008: A. Gilboa / I. Sharon / E. Boaretto, Tel Dor and the chronology of Phoenician »Pre-colonisation« stages. In: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the homeland: markers in Phoenician chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 28 (Leuven 2008) 113-204. Gitin / Mazar / Stern 1998: S. Gitin / A. Mazar / E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B. C. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan (Jerusalem 1998) Gjerstad 1944: E. Gjerstad, The initial date of the Cypriote Iron Age. Opuscula Archaeologica 3, 1944, 73-106. 1948: E. Gjerstad, The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus, 1927-1931. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV, 2 (Stockholm 1948). 1960: E. Gjerstad, Pottery Types. Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical. Opuscula Atheniensa 3, 1960, 105-122. Hachmann / Kuschke 1966: R. Hachmann / A. Kuschke, Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1963 und 1964. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertums kunde 3 (Bonn 1966). Harrison 2006/2007: T. P. Harrison, Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the eastern Mediterranean: regional perspectives of continuity and change. Scripta Mediterranea 27/28, 2006/2007 (Toronto 2006/2007). Heinz 2000: M. Heinz, Kamid el-Loz: Knotenpunkt überregionaler Fernstraßen und Sitz des ägyptischen Statthalters in der Beqa‘aEbene. Archäologie im Libanon. Antike Welt 31, 2000, 359-368. 2010: M. Heinz, Kamid el-Loz: intermediary between cultures; more than 10 years of archaeological research in Kamid el-Loz (1997 to 2007). Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors Série VII (Beyrouth 2010). Heltzer / Lipinski 1988: M. Heltzer / E. Lipiński, Society and economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B. C.). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May 1985. Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 23 (Leuven 1988). Jung 2007: R. Jung, Die mykenische Keramik von Tell Kazel (Syrien). Damaszener Mitteilungen 15, 2007, 147-218. 2009: R. Jung, Pirates of the Aegean: Italy – the East Aegean – Cyprus at the end of the Second Millennium B. C. In: V. Karageorghis / O. Kouka (eds), Cyprus and the East Aegean. Intercultural contacts from 3000 to 500 B. C. An international archaeological symposium held at Pythagoreion, Samos, October 17th-18th 2008 (Nicosia 2009) 72-93. 2012: R. Jung, Can we say, what’s behind all those sherds? Ceramic innovations in the Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Second Millennium. In: J. Maran / P. W. Stockhammer (eds), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters. Papers of the Conference, Heidelberg, 25th-27th March 2010 (Oxford 2012) 104-120. Kantor 1947: H. J. Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium B. C. (Bloomington / Ind. 1947).

Karageorghis 1983: V. Karageorghis, Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3 (Konstanz 1983). Killebrew 2006/2007: A. E. Killebrew, The Philistines in context: the transmission and appropriation of Mycenaean-style culture in the East Aegean, southeastern coastal Anatolia, and the Levant. In: Harrison 2006/2007, 245-266. Klengel 1992: H. Klengel, Syria, 3000 to 300 B. C.: a handbook of political history (Berlin 1992). 2000: H. Klengel, The »Crisis Years« and the new political system in the Early Iron Age Syria: some introductory remarks. In: G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7 (Leuven 2000) 21-30. Kling 1989: B. Kling, Mycenaean IIIC: 1b and related pottery in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 87 (Göteborg 1989). Koehl 1985: R. B. Koehl, Sarepta III. The imported Bronze and Iron Age wares from Area II, X. Publications de l’Université Libanaise. Section des Études Archéologiques 2 (Beyrouth 1985). Leonard 1994: A. Leonard Jr, An index to the Late Bronze Aegean pottery from Syria-Palestine. Studies in Mediterranean Archae ology 114 (Jonsered 1994). Lipinski 1999: E. Lipinski, »Sea Peoples« and Canaan in transition c. 1200-950 B. C. Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica 20, 1999, 1-36. Liverani 1995: M. Liverani, El antiguo Oriente. Historia, sociedad y economía (Barcelona 1995). 2003: M. Liverani, Relaciones internacionales en el Próximo Oriente antiguo, 1600-1100 a. C. (Barcelona 2003). Loud 1948: G. Loud, Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39. Oriental Institute Publications 62 (Chicago 1948). Luke 2003: J. Luke, Ports of trade, Al Mina and geometric Greek pottery in the Levant. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1100 (Oxford 2003). Maeir / Fantalkin / Zukerman 2009: A. M. Maeir / A. Fantalkin / A. Zukerman, The earliest Greek import in the Iron Age Levant: new evidence from Tell es-Safi / Gath, Israel. Ancient West and East 8, 2009, 57-80. McGovern 2003: P. E. McGovern, Ancient wine. The search for the origins of viniculture (Princeton, Oxford 2003). Metzger 1993: M. Metzger, Lamid el-Loz. 8: Die spätbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 40 (Bonn 1993). Moorey 1980: P. R. S. Moorey, Metal wine-sets in the Ancient Near East. Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, 181-187. Mountjoy 2001: P. A. Mountjoy, Mycenaean Pottery. An introduction. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 36 (Exeter 2001). Nitsche 1986/1987: A. Nitsche, Bemerkungen zu Chronologie und Herkunft der Protogeometrischen und Geometrischen Importkeramik von Tyros. Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 13/14, 1986/1987, 7-49. Núñez Calvo 2004a: F. J. Núñez Calvo, Catalogue of urns. In: Aubet 2004, 63-203.

The Mediterranean Mirror

127

2004b: F. J. Núñez Calvo, Preliminary report on ceramics from the Phoenician necrópolis of Tyre-Al Bass. 1997 campaign. In: Aubet 2004, 281-373. 2008a: F. J. Núñez Calvo, Estudio cronológico-secuencial de los materiales cerámicos de la necrópolis fenicia de Tiro-Al Bass (Líbano). Campaña de 1997 [Ph. D. diss. Univ. Barcelona 2008]. www.tdx.cat/TDX-0124108-190519 (16.12.2014). 2008b: F. J. Núñez Calvo, Phoenicia. In: C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the homeland: markers in Phoenician chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 28 (Leuven 2008) 19-96. 2008/2009: F. J. Núñez Calvo, A snapshot of the Phoenician ceramic sequence: the neck-ridge jug from Tell el Ghassil at the AUB Museum. Berytus 51, 2008/2009, 47-70. 2010: F. J. Núñez Calvo, Referencias secuenciales del repertorio cerámico fenicio metropolitano de la Edad del Hierro Tardío. In: L. Nigro (ed.), Motya and the Phoenician ceramic repertoire between the Levant and the West 9th-6th Century B. C. Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica 5 (Roma 2010) 49-83. 2011: F. J. Núñez Calvo, Tyre-al Bass. Potters and cemeteries. In: C. Sagona (ed.), Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic world. Collected essays. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 36 (Leuven 2011) 277-296. in print: F. J. Núñez Calvo, The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age. In: Aubet / Núñez / Trellisó in print, 256-372. Oren 1973: E. D. Oren, The northern cemetey of Beth Shan (Leiden 1973). 2000: E. D. Oren, The Sea Peoples and Their World. A Reassessment (Philadelphia 2000). Pedrazzi 2007: T. Pedrazzi, Le giare da conservaziones e transporto del Levante. Un studio archeologico dell’economia fra Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca. 1400-900 a. C.). Richerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 2 (Pisa 2007).

Königsgrab (»Schatzhaus«) und »Königliche Werkstatt«. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 63 (Saarbrücken 2006). Saidah 1966: R. Saidah, Fouilles de Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième campagnes (1961-1962). Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 19, 1966, 51-90. 2004: R. Saidah, Sidon et la Phénicie Méridionale au Bronze Récent. Â propos des tombes de Dakerman. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 170 (Beyrouth 2004). Salles 1980: J.-F. Salles, La nécropole »K« de Byblos. Maison de l’Orient. Mémoire 2 (Paris 1980). Schaeffer 1949: C. F.-A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica II (Paris 1949). Sherratt / Sherratt 1998: A. Sherratt / E. S. Sherratt, Small worlds: interaction and identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. In: E. H. Cline / D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B. C. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, University of Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997. Aegaeum 18 (Liège 1998) 329-342. Stone 1995: B. J. Stone, The Philistines and acculturation: culture change and ethnic continuity in the Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of the Oriental Research 298, 1995, 7-32. Tufnell 1953: O. Tufnell, Lachish. III: The Iron Age (London 1953). Vives-Ferrándiz 2005: J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez, Negociando encuentros. Situaciones coloniales e intercambios en la costa oriental de la Península Ibérica (ss. VIII-VI a. C.). Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 12 (Barcelona 2005). Waldbaum 1994: J. C. Waldbaum, Early Greek contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000-600 B. C.: the Eastern Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293, 1994, 53-66. Ward / Joukowsky 1992: W. A. Ward / M. S. Joukowsky (eds), The Crisis Years: the Twelfth century B. C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris (Iowa 1992).

Pedrazzi / Venturi 2012: T. Pedrazzi / F. Venturi, Le ceramiche egizzanti nel Levante Settentrionale (XII-XI Sec. a. C.): aspetti e problemi. Rivista di Studi Fenici e Punici 39/1, 2012, 23-54.

Weippert 1998: H. Weippert, Kumidi. Die Ergebnisse der Augrabungen auf dem Tell Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1963 bis 1981. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 114, 1998, 1-38.

Penner 2006: C. Penner, Kamid el-Loz. 19: Die Keramik der Spätbronzezeit. Tempelanlagen T3 bis T1, Palastanlagen P5 bis P1/2,

Zamora 2000: J. A. Zamora, La vid y el vino en Ugarit (Madrid 2000).

128

F. J. Núñez Calvo · Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Lihat lebih banyak...

Phoenician Early Iron Age Ceramic Interaction Dynamics

Descripción

Comentarios