The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 50)

THE

JORDAN SOME

SURVEY,

VALLEY

1953:

UNPUBLISHED SOUNDINGS

CONDUCTEDBY

JAMES

MELLAART

ALBERTLEONARD,JR.

Volumne

50

THE JORDAN VALLETY SURVEY, 1953: SOMEUNPUBLISHEDSOUNDINGS CONDUCI'EDBY JAMESMEIIAART

THE ANNUAL OF THE AMERICANSCHOOLSOF ORIENTALRESEARCH Volume 50 Editedby Eric M. Meyers and William G. Dever

Some

Survey,

Valley

Jordan

The

1953:

Unpublished Soundings

Conducted

by

James

Mellaart

by

Albert Leonard,Jr.

Eisenbrauns Winona Lake,Indiana

? 1992 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Libraryof Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData Leonard,Albert. The Jordan Valley survey, 1953: some unpublishedsoundings conducted by James Mellaart/ by Albert Leonard,Jr. p. cm. - (The Annual of the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch; v. 50) Includesbibliographicalreferences (p. ). ISBN 0-931464-72-2 1. Excavations (Archaeology)-Jordan River Valley. 2. JordanRiver Valley-Antiquities. 3. Mellaart,James. I. Mellaart,James. II. Title. III. Series. DS101.A45 vol. 50 [DS154.9J6] 91-36535 933-dc20

To Alex and Barbara

Contents Introduction ....................................................................

1

Chapter 1. Jiftlik ...............................................................

5

Chapter 2. Tell El-Mafjar ........................................................

9 24 Chapter 3. TellJam id ........................................................... 34 Chapter 4. Tell Esh-ShunehMashaweh ............................................ 64 Chapter 5. Tell Abu Habil ....................................................... 6. Umm Hamad Tell ........................................... 77 Chapter esh-Sherqi 103 Chapter 7. Tell El-Mefaliq ....................................................... Appendix ...................................................................... 109 Bibliography .................................................................... 113 Plates . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Introduction

During the springof 1953 the Departmentof Antiquities,on behalfof the Departmentof Water Resourcesand AgriculturalDevelopmentof the HashemiteKingdomof Jordan,conductedone of the first archaeologicalimpact studies in the Levant:the Point IV IrrigationProject.The archaeological fieldworkof this project,which consistedof the recordingand samplingof more than a hundredsites in the YarmoukandJordanValleys,was carriedout by Henri de ContensonandJames Mellaartunder the supervisionof G. LancasterHarding.In additionto the preparationof collectionsfrom the surface of individualsites, the JordanianDepartment of Antiquitiesat that time allowed surveyprojectsto conductbrief soundings(usuallylimited to five days) to be made at the more promisingsites in order to establisha stratigraphicalsequencethat would add the verticalcontrolof excavationto the impressions derivedfrom the horizontalsamplingof the surface. Suchsoundingswere carriedout at seven sites. Alone, de Contensonexcavatedat Tell es-Saidiyeh Tahta on the south bank of the Wadi Kufrinjewhile de Contensonand Mellaartworkedtogether at Tell esh-Shuneh Meshaweh ("ShunehNorth") overlookingthe Wadi 'Arab;and at Tell Abu Habil abouthalfwaydown the JordanValleyon the East Bank.Mellaartworkedby himselfon the West Bank at Tell el-Mafjar(Tell el-Ghubur),just to the south of the Umayyadremainsof Khirbetel-Mafjar,and at Tell Jiftlik on the northernside of the Wadi Farcah;and on the East Bank at Tell Jamid on the southernbankof the YarmoukRiver,at Tell Umm Hamades-Sherqi,north of the JordanRiver/Wadi Zerqaconfluence,and at Tell el-MefaliqoppositeTell Umm Hamadon the southernside of the Zarqa (Figure 1). Unfortunately,the publicationof this importantwork has been quitecheckered.Althougha brief note appearedin the Revue Bibliqueof 1954, it was not until 1960 that de Contenson'ssoundings reachedprint (de Contenson 1960a). In 1962 a preliminaryreport (written seven years earlier)was publishedon the sites surveyedby Mellaart,which was followedin 1964 by the resultsof de Contenson's survey, a truncatedversion of a manuscriptprepared in 1954. Subsequently,de Contenson continued to involve himself in the study of the ancient culturesof Syria-Palestine,but Mellaart's attentionwas drawnto Anatolia,and the resultsof his importantwork in the JordanValleyremained unpublished.In Marchof 1980, in the spirit of cooperationthat pervadedthe FirstConferenceon the History and Archaeologyof Jordanconvened at Oxford by HRH Crown Prince Hassan bin Talal, Mellaartturnedover to the present authorthe publicationresponsibilitiesfor his work at these seven important sites.

Workon this volumewas initiallyfundedin part by the WeldonSpringFundof the Universityof which allowedthe authorto visit Jordanin the spring of 1982 to view Mellaart's Missouri-Columbia, East Bank sites and to studysome of the materialfrom the excavationsthat was storedin the Citadel Museum in Amman. The many successesof this trip were due largelyto the help and kindnessof Professor Khair Yassine of JordanUniversity.The bulk of this manuscriptwas written in Amman duringthe 1983-1984 academicyear while the authorwas on a researchleave from the Universityof Missouri.A grant from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities(administeredby the American Schools of OrientalResearch) allowed the author to take advantageof the many resourcesof the AmericanCenter for OrientalResearchin Amman. 1

2

Introduction

m. tSH

sHtNEH

a IA51L ABU

T. UMM HfH^D T. MAFALlQ

T H R.UBBA

Fig. 1. Sketchmap of the JordanValley,showingsites soundedby Mellaartin 1953 (1.Mellaart).

Introduction

3

While in Jordan,I was fortunateto have the help and supportof Dr. AdnanHadidi,then director of the Departmentof Antiquities,and other membersof the departmentincludingDrs. Ghazi Bisheh and Fawzi Zaydine.All of these gave freely and kindlyof their time and expertise.My work at the Citadel Museum in Amman was greatly facilitatedby its director,Miss Sirnan, and its curator, Mr. Musa. I have also had the pleasureof discussingthe topicof my researchwith manyscholarswho shared their knowledgequite willingly.I especiallywish to acknowledge(alphabetically, without titles) Ellen Alten (Universityof Missouri-Columbia); Ghazi Bisheh (Departmentof Antiquities,Jordan);William G. Dever (Universityof Arizona);Doug Esse (Universityof Chicago);AdnanHadidi (Departmentof Antiquities,Jordan); Svend Helms (Jawa Excavations);Basil Hennessey (University of Sydney); Moawiyah Ibrahim (YarmoukUniversity); Zeidan Kafafi (YarmoukUniversity); David McCreery (A.C.O.R.);Walter Rast (ValparaisoUniversity);James Sauer (A.C.O.R./A.S.O.R.);Thomas Schaub (IndianaUniversityof Pennsylvania);Kevin Thompson (Universityof Missouri-Columbia); and Khair Yassine (JordanUniversity). The artifactsillustratedhere were drawnoriginallybyJames Mellaartwith assistance-in a few theof drawings, instances-by G. LancasterHarding.Mellaartalso began the inking a task that was Lois Kain completed(alphabetically)by (Universityof Arizona)who was in chargeof the final plate production,and CynthiaRomy (University of Arizona) who gave tremendousassistanceduring all phases of the project.All other illustrativematerialhad been lost in the fire that destroyedMellaart's house in Istanbul. Finally,specialgratitudeis due to the excavator,James Mellaart,for meeting with me on many occasionsand undergoingwhat must have, at times, seemed like an interrogation. Albert Leonard,Jr. Universityof Arizona January,1985

Since the basic manuscriptof this work was completed (January1985), two of Mellaart'ssites have been the focus of renewed excavationand publication:Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Helms 1984 and 1986), and Tell es-ShunehNorth (Gustavson-Gaube1985 and 1986). I thankboth of these excavatorsfor discussingthe resultsof theirwork with me. Relevantpublishedcomparandafrom these recentexcavationshave been incorporatedinto the present manuscript,along with pertinentmaterial from the publicationsof En Shadud(Braun1985), Babedh-Dhra (Schaub1985),Jericho(Kenyon and Holland 1981, 1982, 1983);and Pella [TabaqatFahel] (McNicollet al. 1982,Hennesseyet al. 1983).In addition, one should consult four important scholarlysyntheses of major periods representedin Mellaart'ssoundings:those by Esse (1984), Hanbury-Tennison(1986), Kafafi(1982), and Sauer(1986) are now available.Unfortunately,the finalpublicationof Shiqmim(Levy 1987) reachedthe authortoo late for incorporationinto this text. Albert Leonard,Jr. Universityof Arizona March,1987

4

Introduction

Since this manuscriptwas acceptedas an A.S.O.R.publication,severalother publicationsrelevant to Mellaart'ssoundingshave appeared.They consist of both reportson new fieldworkand synthetic studies of pertinent periods and geographicalareas. The following excavation/surveyreports are especiallyimportant:those on Abu Hamid (Dollfus et al. 1986), Bab edh-Dhra (Schauband Rast 1989),Jarash(Hanbury-Tenison1987),Jebelel-Thawab(Kafafi1985, 1986),Tell Nebi Mend (Mathias and Parr 1989), NorthernNegev and Sinai (Gilead1990),Tiwal esh-Sharqi,the cemeteryof Mellaart's Tell Umm Hamad(Tubb1990), and the Wadiel-Yabis(MabryandPalumbo1988).Essentialsyntheses are those of Esse (1991), Joffe (1991a & b), and Ward (1991). The author'sown workon the Chalcolithic"fine"ware from Kataretes-Samra-but encountered first by Mellaart in his sounding at Tell Abu Habil (see below PI. 22:2,3,5)-has now appeared (Leonard1989), and shouldbe consultedin connectionwith the reportsof similarlydecoratedpottery from Tel Tsaf on the West Bank (Gophnaand Kislev 1979; Gophna and Sadeh 1988-1989). As of March 1990, GrahamPhilip (BritishInstituteat Amman) and Douglas Baird (Edinburgh University)were planningto resumeexcavationat the cruciallyimportantsite of Tell esh-Shuneh(N) that had been begunby Mellaartand continuedby Gustavson-Gaube (1985, 1986).Recently,Doug Esse and P. K. Hopke conductedneutron activationanalysis(NAA) on samples of Khirbet Kerak ware from the type site itself, as well as other sites in Palestineand the 'Amuq Plain. Their preliminary resultsassociatea migrationof people with the productionof this distinctivepottery (Wolff 1991: 535 and note 31). In retrospect,this continuedactivityat sites dug by Mellaartand on problemsassociatedwith the material excavatedin his soundings of the 1950s serve to demonstratethe debt of gratitudethat archaeologistsof the 1990s owe to James Mellaartand to all of those who were connectedwith the Point IV IrrigationProject. Albert Leonard,Jr. Universityof Arizona September,1991

Jiftlik

Introduction The site of Jiftlik (fig. 1) is situatedon the northernside of the Wadi Far'ah(N), "extending about 100 m west of the Jiftlik junctionwith the JerichoRoad ... and about 1 km along the road to Damiyeh"(Mellaart1962: 133). The site was not actuallyexcavatedby Mellaart,but ratherthe artifacts presentedhere were selectedfrom a section cut throughthe site duringroadwidening activities.The archaeologicaldeposit at Jiftlikwas estimatedto be between 1 and 2 m in depth, includingsome stone foundationsthat were visible in the cutting.The site is describedas a "typicalstraggling,undefended chalcolithicsite" (Mellaart1962: 133).

The Pottery (Plate 1) The ceramicmaterialcollectedby Mellaartconsists of 27 fragments,which are presentedhere primarilyaccordingto shape, with a discussionof fabricand decorationincludedwhere appropriate. Coronets. Morphologically,the most diagnosticform in the smallJiftlikcorpusis the "coronet" (pi. 1:15-17), which immediatelyassociatesthe Jiftlik materialwith the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon. Specifically,accordingto Hennessy (1969: 9), the coronet occursmost frequentlyin the upper strata (his PhasesA-D) of occupationat Ghassul,equivalentto LevelsIVA and IVB of the earlierexcavations at this Chalcolithictype-site(Mallon1934;Koeppel 1940;North 1961).The appearanceof the coronet at Jiftlik also integratesthe present pottery sample with assemblagesfrom Arad V, Gezer XXVI, 'Affula,Azor, MegiddoXIX-XX, Meser I-III, and the Beershebasites.' Churns. A second unique and characteristicelement in the pottery of the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon is the churnor "birdvase" (Amiran 1970: 33-34). In additionto its barrel-shapedbody and functionalhandleplacement,the neck of this form usuallyexhibitsa ratherdistinctive,sinuousprofile similar to that seen in pl. 1:2. Certainlysuch an undulatingneck is not exclusiveto the churn,2but since it is most common on churns, I am proposing that pl. 1:2 be identifiedas a churn.3If this interpretationis correct,the incisedbandbelow the rim wouldbe most unusualon a vessel type whose decorationusuallyconsistsof bandsof red-brownpaint.4Two other neckfragmentsfromJiftlikmight also be from churns:the slightlyoutsplayedpl. 1:1 with an externalbandof paint at the rim, and the more articulatedpi. 1:21, again with the exteriorof the rim highlightedby a painted band.5 Handles. The two horizontally-piercedlug handles (pi. 1:26, 27), decoratedwith bands or splashes of red paint applieddirectlyto a buff surface,also relatethe Jiftlikdeposit to other GhassulBeershebasites.6Suchsimple handlesappearon a varietyof ceramicshapes,7so the specificvessel type from which these pieces came is uncertain.The same can be said for the verticallyattached"notched" handle (pl. 1:25),but judgingfrom its size, and the parallelsnoted here, it appearsto have come from a large storage jar or pithos.8 Bowls. The bowls of the Jiftlik assemblage are predominantly "V-shaped"or straight-sided and appear either undecorated (pl. 1:8) or embellished with a rim-band of reddish paint applied to the interior (pl. 1:10), exterior (pl. 1:11), or both (pl. 1:12, 13). The shape and method of decoration of these bowls are typical of the assemblages from the sites that have produced coronets and churns.9

5

6

Jiftlik

None of the hemisphericalbowls, whichbecomeso predominantin depositsof Kenyon'sProto-Urban period, are found at Jiftlik.10In fact, even the slightly roundedbowl-forms of Chalcolithicdate are absent,11althoughthis is probablynot an importantfactorin a sample of this size. A minor variationon these straight-sidedbowls can be seen in pi. 1:5-7, 9, and possibly 10, where the potter appearsto have given a slight outwardpull when finishing the rim of the vessel. This slight flourishis not uniqueto the workshop(s)that suppliedthe ancientcommunityatJiftlik,for it can also be seen at Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16:8619). The bandof pendanttriangleson the interiorrim of pl. 1:9 againtiesJiftlikto the site of Ghassul, where Hennessy (1969: 7) notes it is most popular in his Phases C and D, equivalentto the later phase of the GhassulIV assemblageof the earlierexcavators.A similaruse of the pendant triangle motif is known at other sites, both on ceramicand lithic vessels.12 Basins. A variantof the straight-sidedbowl, pl. 1:14, large enough to be considereda "basin," exhibits a slightly outsplayedand flattenedrim that contrastssharplywith the more pointed rims of the majorityof the smaller,open forms. Largevessels with similarrims are known from a varietyof Chalcolithicsites, and the carelessdrip of paint, the resultof its applicationin too liquida state, is as common a phenomenonon basins and bowls as it is on other forms of the period.13 Holemouthjars. At Jiftlik there are two vessel types that can be classifiedwithin the general categoryof "holemouth"jars:pl. 1:18, 19, which presentstraightprofilesand relativelyplain rims, and pl. 1:20, which exhibits an inturnedprofile with a thickenedrim. The two simpler forms find their closest parallelsat Ghassul,where Amiran sees the first appearanceof the type, rather than at the Beershebasites, where the upper bodies of the holemouth jars tend to be much more rounded.14 Unfortunately,the absenceof this form at Neve Ur and the Golan sites15does not allow present commentas to whetheror not this straight-profiledholemouthhad a specificgeographicaldistribution. The thickenedrim (pl. 1:20) is also problematic,for althoughthe "piecrust"rim is at home on many types of Chalcolithicvessels, the combinationof the rim and the decorationof the Jiftlik piece is difficultto parallel.The closest examplescome from StratumV at Aradand StratumII at Meser,both vessels having been coveredcompletelywith a red wash.16 Necked jars. Three of the fragments from Jiftlik can be grouped together and discussedas necked jars of varying shape and proportion:pl. 1:3, with double handles and impressed cordon decoration;pl. 1:4, decoratedwith wide bands of deep red paint; and pl. 1:23, an undecoratedvessel with straightneck and slightlyoutsplayedrim. A fourthjar rim (pl. 1:22) was describedby Mellaartas wheelmadeand may be intrusivein the present collection. Impresseddecoration,as on pl. 1:3, is describedby Hennessy (1969: 9) as common on large storage jars at Ghassul from his Phase G onward,and its utilizationas a decorativedevice is well documentedin the work of the earlier excavatorsat the site (cf. among others North 1961: fig. 15:8026; Mallon 1934: fig. 50:5, 53, 54; etc.). The shape of this vessel, however, with a pair of antitheticallyplacedhandlesconnectingthe neckand shoulder,is not easy to parallel.Again,the closest examples come from the early work at Ghassel.17 PI. 1:4 and 23 may be from the same vessel type, differing only in size and the presence of decoration.Generalcomparandafor the undecoratedpl. 1:23 are includedhere only for the sake of completeness.18 the Jiftlikfragment,pl. 1:4, is similarto pl. 1:23,with the additionof broadbandsof paint. Hennessy (1969: 7) found such decorationto be most common in his Phases C and D at Ghassul,where similar forms embellishedwith bands of paint usuallyhave the shorter, and much

Jiftlik

7

more concave,neck profiles (Hennessy 1969: figs. 6:6 and 7B:3) that are also more common in the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 5:1-8, 11). Perhaps the closest parallel to the Jiftlik example is to be foundamong the surfaceartifactsfrom Neve Ur, locatedto the north of Jiftlikon the West Bank of the JordanRiver. Summary The presence in the Jiftlik corpusof coronetsand churn fragments,the preferencefor straightsided (as opposed to hemispherical)bowls, and the simplicityof the holemouthand neckedjar forms, all combine to indicate an assemblageeasily integratedwith the Ghassul-Beershebahorizon. This completelysupportsMellaart'sinitial in-field identificationof Jiftlikas a "typical... Chalcolithicsite," which accordingto currentviews would be dated ca. 3800-3300 B.C.

Notes I Cf. Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 5:11-15); Gezer,FieldI, Stratum14 (= GeneralStratumXXVI) (Dever 1974: fig. 1, and pp. 4-5), as well as Macalister's"Y-shapedcups"from the same site (Macalister1912: 142); cAffula(Sukenik1948: pl. 1:4);Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 40:20, 21); Megiddo (Loud 1948: pl. 92:18-31 [Stratum XX], pl. 96:11-19 [Stratum XIX]); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 5:8 [StratumIII], fig. 7:1-5 [StratumII], and fig. 8:12 [StratumI]; and Dothan 1957: fig. 4:2); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 10:9, 10); Tell Abu Matar (Perrot 1955: 82); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:6-13 [StratumI], fig. 16:11-24 [Strata II-III]). 2 For this neck on other vessel types,cf. the Beersheba area (de Contenson 1956: fig. 10:12, where enough of the body is preserved to show that it is not a churn); Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. V:3, which might come from a similar jar);and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. I:23 [LevelXVIII], where a similar neck appearson a vessel with an impressed bandat the junctionof the neckand shoulder).At Megiddoa sinuous neck is added in a reconstructionof a tall, twohandled jar from Level XX, but the evidence upon which this reconstructionwas basedis not given. 3 Churnswith profilessimilarto pi. 1:2can be paralleled at Arad StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 5:7, 8); the Beersheba area (de Contenson1956:fig. 9:9); HorvatBeterStrataII-III (Dothan 1959a:fig. 16:1);Meser StratumII (Dothan 1959b: fig. 7:8); and Wadi Ghazzeh Site 0 (Macdonald1932: pl. XXXIX:19);and Tell esh-Shuneh(N), LevelI (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 5:3;unnoticedby the excavator,but identifiedas a churnby Amiran, 1970: 33, n. 20), and LevelII (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 12:6;identificationsuggestedby Elliott 1978: 51); and possibly Tell es-Saidyehel-Tahta (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 33:15). 4 1 know of no other churn with an incised band of decorationat the neck.Mellaartmade an intriguingreference to "crisscross"in his descriptionof the fabricof this piece, which may indicatethat it also bore painteddecoration.This sherdwas not availablefor studyin the Amman Museum.

5 Possible supportingevidencefor interpretingpl. 1:21

as the neck of a churn comes from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956:fig. 9:9; but againstthis cf. fig. 10:12,where enough of the lower portion of the vessel is preservedto indicatethat it is not a churn);and the cylindrical-necked jar from Neve Ur (Perrot1967:fig. 16:7). For a jar (not a churn)with a neck similarto pl. 1:1 cf. HorvatBeter,StratumI (Dothan 1959a:fig. 9:21). 6 Cf., among others, Ghassul,Phase B (Hennessy 1969: fig. 7a:14 [squat jar]); Arad V (Amiran 1978: pl. 4:7, 8 [handlesonly]); Meser,StratumIII (Dothan 1959b:fig. 5:4 [evertedrim jar]), StratumII (fig. 7:16 [evertedrim jar],fig. 7:21 [handleonly]); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967:fig. 15:13 [squat jar], fig. 17:5 [everted rim jar]); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 34:7-9 [filter-neckedbottles], fig. 40:3 [everted-rimjar], fig. 40:6 [handleonly]); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956: fig. 11:2-10 [squat jars], fig. 12:15-26 [handlesonly]); and HorvatBeter,StratumI (Dothan1959a:fig. 10:22-36[handles only]), StratumII-III (fig. 15:12-15 [squatjars],fig. 17:1-7, 13-19, 22-24 [handlesonly]). The squat jars noted here, together with their taller variant,also occurin the distinctive"GezerCreamWare"(cf. Amiran1955:fig. 1; 1970:fig. 5:7, 8). 7 Similar"handles"also functionas securingdevicesfor the doors on some of the ossuariesfrom Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 21:2, 3, etc.). 8 Cf. Ghassul(Mallon1934: fig. 54; North 1961:fig. 18, E 2-3 "-080" and "-100" levels); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 17:7);Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 40:1-3 [with an excellent unpublishedparallelat Sahabfor 40:1; personalcommunication by M. Ibrahim]); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 1:5, 6; fig. 12:29, 30); Horvat Beter, StratumI (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:39),StratumII-III (fig. 17:2-4); and the Golan (Epstein 1978:fig. 11, bottom row, fig. 12, bottom on left). 9 Cf. the sites and sources presented in nn. 1 and 3 above;and Tell Far'ah(N), "GrottoU," (de Vaux 1957: fig. 1:4-6).

8

Jiftlik

10Cf., among others, the numerous examples from JerichoTomb A94 (Kenyon 1960:figs. 10, 11). Note also the "suddenappearance"of the much more roundedbowls in contextssuch as Arad,StratumIV (Amiran1978:pl. 7). 11For instance,those publishedfrom AradV (Amiran 1978: pl. 1); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 12:2, 7, 13, 15, etc.). The "rippled"profile (pl. 1:12) causedby a thickening and/or thinning of the wall of the vessel is also quite common on the bowls of the period;cf. Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 12: 11, 21, 23, 24, etc.), and many of the other sites referredto in nn. 1 and 3 above.This should probably be consideredas a simple vagaryof productionand not as an independent(or intentional)"type." 12 Pottery:Ghassul(Hennessy 1969:fig. 7a:12,pi. VIIIb [painted on a bowl]); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 38:5 [incised on a fenestratedstand]); and Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 5:89,95, 98, etc.). Stone:Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 43:2 [cup ?], Perrot and Ladiray1980: fig. 77:2); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 5:15 [bowl ?], StratumIII); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 11:18 [bowl ?], StratumI; fig. 19:1 [bowl ?], StratumII-III); JerichoVIII (Garstang1936: pl. XXXIII:17);Gezer,Field I, Stratum14 (Dever 1974:pi. 39:4); and the elaboratelydecoratedbowl fromJammasin(Tel Aviv) (Isserling1952:fig. 2). 13For the shape, cf. GhassulPhase A (Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:1). Hennessy (1969: 9) notes "largervarietiesof bowls with simple bevelledrims and ornamentmostly confinedto thin horizontalbandson the rim ... occuronly in the upper two phases"(i.e., A and B); Arad StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:3); Meser, a variant (?) (Dothan 1959b:fig. 6:9; Stratum II); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 8:1-4, 8, 9); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 7:23, 24 [StratumI]; possibly related are fig. 8:2, 7-9, with similar profiles but impressedor "pie crust"rims [StratumI]); and possiblythe Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 11: second from top on right, fig. 12:secondrow on right). For the drippedpaint, cf. GhassulPhase B (Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:2); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:7); Arad, StratumV (Amiran 1978:pl. 1:1,4); Azor (Perrot 1961:fig.

37:27); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: figs. 6:12, 7:6); HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 13:17). 14Amiran 1970: 24. For Ghassul see, among others, Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:7 (Phase A), fig. 6:5 (Phase B); North 1961: fig. 16:B2:2;and Mallon 1934:pl. 43:35. For the Beersheva region,cf. de Contenson1956:figs. 2:10-12, 3:1-6, 10. Fig. 3:11 is the closest to theJiftlik holemouths.Holemouth jars with rounded upper bodies are not, however, absent from Ghassul (cf. Mallon 1934: fig. 46; Koeppel 1940: pls. 77:5,96:7). 15The storagevessels from both of these areasseem to prefer the pronounced,outsplayedrim: Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 17:1-3, 5); while at the Golan sites the heavy, thickenedrim predominates(Epstein 1978). 16 "Pie crust"rims: cf., among others, Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16:B2:2;fig. 17: 22, 25, 26, etc.); Arad,StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:6); Gezer,FieldI, StratumXIV (Dever 1974: pl. 2:1-3); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 38:1, 8, 16, 18); Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. III:1);the Beershebasites (de Contenson 1956: fig. 1:2-5); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 7:25;8:2, 6-10, etc.). Red wash: cf. Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 6:5); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 6:13); and Tell Umm Hamad (Helms 1986:fig. 16:1). 17 Mallon 1934: fig. 50:3,pl. 43:3 (with referencesto a later type, p. 110); Koeppel 1940: pl. 77:7. Cf. also Megiddo XX (Loud 1948: pl. 2:32); Tell es-Saidiyehel-Tahta (de Contenson1960: fig. 33:16); Tell Delhamiya(Amiran 1977: fig. 2:4); and Beth Shan XVIII (FitzGerald1935: pl. 1:25 [with rope molding at neck and the sinuous profile of a churn],pl. I:10,from "pits"[p. 6]). 18 Ghassul,Phase E (Hennessy 1969: fig. 8b:9;Koeppel 1940:pl. 79:11);Arad,StratumV (Amiran1978:pl. 5:3, and the narrower-neckedpl. 6:8); A5ffula(Sukenik1948:pl. IV:4 [with a shorter neck], pL V:1 [with impresseddecoration similar to Jiftlik No. 3]); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 5:9, the exception to the more outsplayed,less verticalneck on most of these jars);Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 9:25); and possiblythe Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 6a: lower left).

Tell

El-Mafjar

Introduction Tell el-Mafjar,the second site soundedby Mellaarton the West Bank of the Jordan,is located about 100 m south of the impressiveremainsof the Umayyadbuildingprogramat Khirbetal-Mafjar (Hamilton 1959). The "tell"(fig. 2) is actuallya ratherflat site extendingfor a distanceof about150 m east-west along the northernbankof a small wadi.Its north-southdimensions,however,are uncertain due to the tremendousamount of erosion that had taken place at the northernlimits of the site, between it and the Arabic ruins. The Stratigraphy of Trench I

Mellaartconducteda single sounding(his TrenchI) at Tell el-Mafjar,approximatelyin the center of what was then preservedof the ancientsite. The excavationareawas orientedslightlywest of north (fig. 3) and measured just under 5.0 m ("N-S" by 4.50 m ("E-W"). Virgin soil was reached at a depth of about 2.0 m below the surface.

The plan of Mellaart'swork (fig. 3) shows a sequenceof threepits cut into the naturalsoil and an undescribed section of walling (?) protruding from the "west"balk at an evidently higher and unrelated

level. SectionA-B (fig. 4) includestwo of these pits, and it appearsthat the deepercentralpit was cut into the shallowernorthernpit. Mellaartdescribesthe natureof the materialexcavatedin his sounding as basicallyhaving the characterof rubbishpits, but their possibleoriginaluse as (seasonal?) shelters was not lost to him, and similaritiesbetween the northernand centralpits at Tell el-Mafjarand the "stepped entryway" formed by Pits 1 and 2 at Tell Abu Habil (see below) were noted.

Mellaartexcavatedthe centralpit and the materialaboveit in six layers,of which Layers1, 2, and 3 are open deposits that combine to form the equivalentof "top soil" in the centralpit and over the northern pit. Below this, the pebble scree that forms the interface between Layers 2 and 4 may possibly have served as an occupational surface, perhaps in conjunction with the "step" provided by the

northern pit, but this is far from certain.Below this pebble scree, Layer4, composed of soil and charcoal,lies above Layer5, which consistsof lenses of clay in an ash matrix.This seems to argueat least Layer5 was depositedintentionally.The basal level in the centralpit, Layer6, is describedas a hard,clayeysoil which, in additionto charcoal,containedfragmentsof mudbrickthat exhibitedstraw casts.This last featureof Layer6 suggeststhat mudbrickarchitectureexistedsomewherein the vicinity of the excavatedarea and may indicatethat walls of such materialwere used in conjunctionwith the cuttingsin the virgin soil. A similarsituationappearsat Tell Abu Habil.Whetherthe sequenceof pits excavatedby Mellaartat Tell al-Mafjarwould have requiredany permanentsuperstructure, with its central"chamber"ca. 3.20 m wide and from 1.50 to 1.80 m deep, is difficultto say.The cuttingsalone, or in conjunctionwith perishablematerialsuch as skins or brush,could have been sufficientto offer protection from the vagaries of climate in the Jordan Valley. The Pottery (Plates 2-5)

The Mafjarcorpusof pottery consists of slightly over 100 fragments.The pieces are predominantly handmade,less than 10% of the sample being identifiedby the excavatoras having been "wheel-made"(they are: pl. 2:1, 10, 11, 24, 25, 34; pl. 3:1, 20; pi. 4:19, 20). This is a technique 9

Tell El-Mafjar

10

TO JERICHO

WADI

TRENCHI

.1:0::]

< N

TO KHIR BET EL-MAFJAR 100 m

Fig. 2. Tell el-Mafiar.Sketchmap of the site from the excavationnotebook,showingthe locationof TrenchI (solid squarein center of mound).No. 1 marksthe locationof "AuniBay'sHouse"and No. 2 recordsa "lowbump with Byzantinethrough Arabic"material.Auni Bay was the Director of the Department of Antiquitiesof the Kingdom of Jordanat the time of Mellaart'swork (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

previouslysuggestedfor the simpler forms of Chalcolithicand earlierpottery.1The majorityof the pieces are plain, althougha small percentageare decoratedwith a red slip (coveringeither the entire surfaceor restrictedto a band at the rim), a line of incisionsor slashes,an impressedcordon(usually applied at or just below the rim), or a combinationof these decorativeelements. Bowls. A varietyof straight-sidedor V-shapedbowls are present in the assemblageand occur either plain (pl. 2:3-5, 8,0, 11) or covered with a red wash (pI. 2:1, 2, 6, 9). To one (pl. 2:2) a horizontalbandof incisionshas been addedbelow the rim, before the applicationof the wash as on a similarbowl from Pella (McNicollet al. 1982:pl. 105:1).The base has been preservedon only one of these bowls (pl. 2:6), and the profiledrawingsuggeststhat it had been formedon a mat. Both in form and surfacetreatment,such bowls are common at the type sites of Ghassuland Beersheba,as well as in contemporarydeposits such as those at Jiftlik,discussedabove,and Arad.The incisedband on small open forms (pl. 2:2), however, is not common.2 Bowls with roundedprofiles are less frequentthan the straight-sidedvarietyat Tell el-Mafjar,a featurethat is characteristicof the Ghassul-Beersheba assemblage.Certainlysuch simple curvedforms as those illustratedhere (pl. 2:31-35) do appearin most Chalcolithicdeposits,but, with the possible exceptionof pl. 2:34, they do not approachthe smooth hemisphericalshapesthat becomeso numerous in Proto-Urban/EBI contexts such as JerichoTomb A94 and Arad StratumIV.3 A form morphologicallyintermediatebetween the straight-sidedand roundedbowls (pl. 2:33) exhibits a slight convexityin the upper part of the vessel wall and a gentle concavityjust above the (mat-impressed?)base. This profile is most frequentin Chalcolithicdeposits,but is not exclusiveto this period, for publishedexamples are found in both earlierand later contexts.4The combinationof this form with a mat-impressedbase is known from Garstang'sexcavationson the Jericho tell (Garstang1936: pl. XXXII:33B). The bowl fragmentsof unknown diameter (pl. 5:1, 4) exhibit a three-dimensionalimpressedcordondecoration.The closestparallelsfor these bowls come from Horvat 'Usa nearAcco,where they Bronze"horizon (Ben-Tor1966:fig. 4:2, 3). Relatedpieces display are datedto the "Chalcolithic/Early of dates.5 a similar range The rims of two other bowls display a "bevelled"exterior profile (pl. 2:24, 25), while one (pl. 2:25) is slightly inverted as well. Both are describedas being wheel-made.The slightly inverted

11

Tell El-Mafjar

N

A

J

t

SECT iON

'

FLOORPLEVEL

3

0

.,

r

t.

L S,

I

. 4

S M.

2

Fig. 3. Tell el-Maf/ar.Plan of TrenchL SectionA-B can be seen in fig. 4 (J.Mellaart).

B

A

0

I

ZM

Fig. 4. Tell el-Mafjar.SectionA-B of TrenchI. For the locationof the section,see fig. 3 (J.Mellaart).

12

Tell El-Mafjar

and bevelledrim of pl. 2:25 can be foundamong Kaplan's"Chalcolithicremains"at cEin el-Jarbaand in contemporary contexts at Gezer XXVI and 'Affula.6 A very similar profile embellished with a "pie

crust"rim has been found at Arad V (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:6) and Horvat Beter StratumI (Dothan 1959a:fig. 8:6), while more invertedforms are also datedto the Chalcolithicperiod.7It is quitepossible that what we have in the fragmentfrom Mafjar(pi. 2:25) and the similarpieces noted elsewhereis an embryonicstage of a rim type that gains attention in the Proto-Urbanperiod on the Jericho tell strataat Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 4:13) and the Ai (Hennessy 1969:8, pl. 11:7)and related"pre-urban" Sanctuary (Callaway 1972: fig. 5:22, etc.). This form continues to represent a type-fossil for much of

the later part of the EarlyBronze Age. Cups. There exists in the Mafjarassemblagea seriesof small,roundedforms (pl. 2:12-22) that, becauseof their size (diametersca. 0.05-0.10 m) are here arbitrarilyconsideredas "cups."In addition to their size, these vessels also vary in profile,rangingfrom shapes that narrowtowardthe rim, as do some of the larger holemouth jars, through shapes with a reasonablyvertical wall, to those that present a slightlyoutsplayedrim and a sinuousprofile.The variancewithin the Mafjarpieces is slight and often subtle,and they are thereforediscussedhere as a group.Decorationon these cups is simple. They can be either plain (pl. 2:14, 20) or coveredwith a red to red-brownslip on the exteriorsurface that is usuallycontinuedover the rim to form a horizontalbandon the interior(pl. 2:12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21). The fact that the two undecoratedcups are both formed from a "sandyred ware,"as opposed to the buff fabric of the slipped majority,may indicate that a red exterior surface was the desired slip on pl. 2:22, similarto the others appearanceof all of the vessels of this class.The "yellow-brown" in many ways,may be the resultof improperfiring.It is also possiblethat pl. 2:16,which exhibitsonly a thin band of red wash on the rim, belongs only morphologically-and not functionally-with the other vessels with which it is here grouped,a hypothesisthat may be strengthenedby its being by far the largest of the group. The identificationof appropriatecomparandafor these little cups is unfortunatelyhamperedby the fact that none of the bases of Mafjarexamples are preserved,but similaritiescan be found with equallysmall, open vessels at a sufficientnumberof sites to establishtheir relativeposition within the developmentof the fourth millenniumB.C.ceramicrepertoireof Syria-Palestine.8 Largebowls. One "family"of vessels can be seen to span the divisionbetween open and closed forms (pl. 4:13-19). Slightly angularin their upper body profile, they present themselves as closed forms morphologically,but their rather wide mouths make them open forms functionally.For this reason they are consideredhere simply as large bowls. In additionto their shape, this group is tied together by the decorativeattention given to their rims, which are either scored with a band of diagonalincisionsor modeledin the familiar"piecrust"fashion.One vessel (pl. 4:19) seems to form a bridge between these and the more open variantsof the biconicalholemouthjars.All are fashioned from a buff fabric,which is either left plain (pl. 4:13, 17) or coveredwith a red slip on the exterior surface (pl. 4:14, 18, and possibly 16) or both the exterior and interior surfaces(pl. 4:15). All are describedas being handmadewith the exceptionof pl. 4:19, which is said to exhibitwheel-markson its interior.

In general,each example demonstrates,to some degree,a thickeningand outsplayingof the rim which may,with the exceptionof the undecorated("wheel-made")example (pl. 4:19), be the resultof the decorativetreatmentaffordedthe rim.Specifically,however,four subgroupsmaybe isolatedfor the purpose of the present discussion. 1. Vessels with a thickenedand horizontallyflattenedrim with inciseddecoration(pl. 4:13, 14). 2. A similar form with a shallow channel running aroundthe top of the rim (pl. 4:18).

Tell El-Mafjar

13

3. A type whose body thickensas it approachesthe rim, which is slightlybevelledon the interior and decoratedwith incisionson the exterior (pl. 4:16). 4. A form similar to the straight-profiled,biconicalholemouth jars with a slightly invertedrim, either incisedwith diagonalincision (pl. 4:15), or modeled into pie crust form (pl. 4:17). In spite of the individualfeaturesof these subtypes,the group as a whole would fit most comfortably with Chalcolithicassemblages.9 Holemouthjars. This common domesticvessel appearsat Tell el-Mafjarin manysizes and in a variety of shapes. The simplest are those that present a straight or slightly convex upper profile (pl. 4:4, 8, 9, 10, 11) and representundecorated,thin-walledvessels of biconicalform. Such shapes, which are among the simplest closed forms to fabricate,are well representedin occupationalcontexts of the Chalcolithicperiod,10while specific parallels for the handle type and placement on vessels similarto pl. 4:8 can be found at Gassuland the "Chalcolithic" levels of Garstang'sexcavationson the tell.11 Jericho Fragments of two other simple, plain-rim holemouth jars (pl. 4:1, 12) display even greater convexityin the upper body and must come from vessels of globularor piriformshape. As with the less-roundedjars discussedabove, this form is easily documentedat sites of the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon, and although their use may begin "earlier"at Ghrubbaand continue slightly into ProtoUrban/EBI, their main floruit is the Chalcolithicperiod.12 Another thin-walledholemouth jar (pl. 4:3) exhibits what might be consideredto be a rudimentaryform of the "cutrim" that is thought to make its first appearancein the Proto-Urban/EBI period.13It should be noted, however, that the Mafjarpiece does not display the internalthickened rim that is a very importantcharacteristicof the type.14 ("bulbous"or "inward-rolled") Another holemouthjar from Tell el-Mafjarexhibits an elementaryform of this thickenedrim and in this respect stands out sharplyfrom the rest of the assemblage.Although this piece 4:2) (pl. standsvery much as a harbingerof the morphologicaldevelopmentthat the holemouthjarunderwent during the individualphases of the ensuing EarlyBronzeAge, the rimtypedoes occurin Chalcolithic assemblagesat Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1961: figs. 1:8; 2:21, 37) and in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 6:2), while it appears in the "originalsoil" of cAi in Phase I of Callaway's reexcavationof the site, where its Chalcolithicancestryis also noted (Callaway1972:6, fig. 15:9). Of the two other plain vessels includedhere among the holemouthjars,pl. 3:17 might be more correctlyassociatedwith more open forms (similarto Epstein 1978:fig. 6A, with incisions?),while the relationshipbetweenpl. 4:19 and the classof largebowls has alreadybeen noted. Fourfragments(pl. 4:5-7, 5:2) have been providedwith a bandof impressedplasticornamentation, and, although the shape and angle of the individualrims may vary, they are discussedhere together on the basis of their decoration.Impressedcordonsappliedto the walls of large vessels are well known at Ghassul(among others, Mallon 1934: fig. 53), but the applicationof such bandsbelow the rims of holemouthjarsmay indicatesomethingmore specific. The type and placementof applieddecorationon holemouthjars at Arad,absenton this form in ChalcolithicStratum V, appear suddenly-and in quantity-in EB I Stratum IV (Amiran 1978: pl. 8:12-23) and remain a populardecorationon this form throughoutthe subsequenthistoryof the city (Amiran 1978: pl. 20:2-14, 51, 54). At 'Ai the combinationappearsin EB I Phase II (Callaway 1972: 66, fig. 20:17, 20) where molded decoration again enjoys a long period of popularityon holemouthjars.The laterend of this popularityis echoedin the EB II depositsof GezerXXIII (Dever 1974:27, pl. 8:1-3, FieldI, StratumXI). In spite of this apparenttilt towardthe laterpartsof the Early Bronze Age spectrum,it should be noted that the individualforms of the Mafjarassemblageare

14

Tell El-Mafjar

difficultto parallel,especiallyin these later EarlyBronze deposits, and that the rim forms at Mafjar seem to be simple and un-evolved.15The applicationof impressedcordonsbelow the rims of holemouth jars can be found in "earlier"deposits at Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1961: fig. 1:9, 12, etc., D" classof "chalcolithique moyen");and with the recentrecognitionand formulationof a "pre-urbaine potteryby de Miroschedji(de Miroschedji1971: 38-40, fig. 14), in which appliedand moldeddecoration plays an importantrole, the Mafjarexamplesmay be seen more clearlyin an "earlier"light. The last two fragmentsconsideredin this category(pl. 4:20, 21) differmarkedlyfrom each other in the profilesof their rims, but both appearto come from vessels of biconicalform and both exhibit lugs or bosses on the upper portion of their bodies.Discussionof the two pieces (which couldnot be located in the Amman Museum) is hamperedby the absenceof informationon the exact shape of these appendages. PI. 4:21 is from a thick-walledbiconicalvessel exhibitingtwo "lugs"(lug handles?)just below a roundedrim. The fact that these handleswouldbe well placedto assist in moving the vessel when hot suggeststhat this is a cookingpot ratherthan a storagevessel.Their position,well abovethe (hypothesized) carination,wouldshelter them from directheat when the vessel restedon or abovethe fire.On a storagejar,it wouldbe more functionalto place the handleslower on the body,nearerto the center of gravity.This simple but highly practicalform has an ancestrythat begins and is well representedin the Neolithic Period.16But despite the fact that lugs and bosses appearon vessels rangingin size and sophisticationfrom coronetsto pithoi at Chalcolithicsites such as Ghassul,it is difficultto find close parallels for the position of the handles on the Mafjarpiece in contemporarycontexts. In fact, in Area 188 at Jericho, additionto the (fairlysimilar)vessels excavatedby Garstangin his "Chalcolithic" of set rims below the rounded holemouth conventional the jars from 'Affula only ledge-handles just can be citedhere.17 and displaysa thinner vessel The second of these pieces (pl. 4:20) is describedas "'wheel-made" wall with a small lug (or pair of lugs) just above the point of carination.In this case, the appendages may be decorativeratherthan functional,but certaintyon this point is impededby our ignoranceof the shape (and breadth)of the lug. The top of this rim has been flattenedhorizontally,a featurethat is not uncommonin Chalcolithicdeposits.18Likewise,althoughsmall, antitheticallyopposed,unpiercedlugs can be found on vessels from Ghassul,the combinationof rim-form and lug-type and placementis difficultto parallel,with the possibleexceptionof a jar from "GrottoU" at Tell Far'ah (N).19 Jars with outsplayedrims. Fragmentsof several vessels with outsplayedor everted rims are includedin the Mafjarcorpus,but in spite of this morphologicalcommon denominatorthese pieces come from a varietyof vessels of quitedifferentsize and appearance. The rim of pl. 3:5 exhibits a pronouncedinterior swelling, a featuresharedby pl. 3:6 from a vessel with a higher, more vertical neck. Chalcolithicparallels for this rounded-as opposed to angular-swelling are known in the Beershebaregion,but the type appearsto be absentat Ghassul.A similar rim is publishedfrom EB IB Stratum13 (Field I) at Gezer,20but its stratigraphicalposition (makeupfor an earthen surface)might allow an earlierdate. The neck and rim from a smaller but relatedjar (pl. 3:1) can also be paralleledin Stratum14 at Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 1:28). Two vessels (pl. 3:4, 7) demonstratea more sharply outsplayedor everted rim with a correspondingangularthickeningof the vessel wall where the rim joins the body.Evertedrims from the Ghassuland Beershebatype-sites displayneither the degree of attenuationnor the angularityof the inner profile evidenceby pl. 3:4, the thinnerof the two Mafjarpieces.Basicallysimilarrims, however, can be identifiedin Chalcolithiccontexts at several other sites.2'Confusingthe searchfor legitimate comparandais the fact that the internal thickeningseen in the profiles of some Proto-Urbantwo-

Tell El-Mafjar

15

handledjars is more likelyto be the resultof the pressureinvolvedin attachingthe handleto the rim than the fashioningof the vessel itself.22 The larger and thickerwalled pl. 3:7, which appearsto be from a large pithos with outsplayed rim, finds its best parallelsfrom Chalcolithicsites in the easternJordanValley,at Pella (Smith 1973: pl. 34:717,730) and Tell esh-Shuneh(N) (de Contenson1960:fig. 12:5,LevelII), both with impressed decorationrather than the plain ridge of the Mafjarpiece. The shape, however, is not unlike the "heavyflaringrims"from Proto-Urbanlevels (PhasesQ-N) on the Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967:8 and pl. 2:6). Two fragments(pl. 3:2, 3), althoughthey exhibit a rim that can be describedas outsplayed,come from jars that seem to have relativelystraight,vertical necks. The rims of these vessels share an internalmodulation,which if typologicallysignificantis difficultto parallel,23 but pl. 3:3 may simplybe a thicker,more outsplayedvariantof a shapeknown fromJiftlik(pi. 4:5, 6). As reconstructed,pi. 3:20 is an elongated,bag-shapedvessel with straight sides tapering to a gently outsplayedrim, exhibitingtwo largehandlesattachedjust abovethe point of carination.Similar examples of high, straightnecks are difficultto find, but the closest parallelsare from WadiGhazzeh sites A, H, and possiblyD2.24Pl. 3:22,with its straightupper-bodyprofile,may be a smallervariantof pl. 3:20,while pl. 3:21, with its slightlymore rounded"shoulder," may representan intermediateform between the two. NeckedJars. The Mafjarassemblagealso includesa varietyof relativelyclosedforms which are discussedhere underthe generalheadingof narrow-neckedjars,or bottles.On the whole, these pieces exhibit a relativelystraightneck,but they vary considerablyin individualprofiles.The simplest forms are thickwalled (pl. 3:18, 19) and are also the least specific.25 Pl. 3:9, 13, and 14 are smallerin diameter,thinnerin vessel-wall,and more subtlein profile.The "rippled"profile of pl. 3:9 may be accidental,although the same effect is given by the rim of a wider-mouthedjar from Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 15:10 [StratumII-III]). Pl. 3:14 exhibitsa very slightlyoutsplayedneck and rim that blend almost imperceptiblyinto the shoulderof the vessel; of the wall of the neck is noticeable.At Ghassulrims with this kind of the lightest thickening onlyf sinuous profile, when present at all, appear to be restrictedto jars with much wider apertures,but similarlymodulatedrims are present on vessels of similar dimension in the Beershebaregion. At HorvatBeterthe typeoccurson jarsas well as on one vessel identifiedby the excavatoras a churn.26 Pl. 3:13, also with a slightlyoutsplayedrim, is closelyrelatedto pi. 3:14,but its more verticalneck emerges from the shoulderas a fairlydistinct morphologicalfeatureand is accompaniedby a slight thickeningat the point of transitionbetweenthe neckand shoulder.Jarswith a comparablypronounced junctionare much less easy to identifyin Chalcolithiccontexts than they are in later deposits of the Pl. 3:15 may be a simplervariantof this form. Proto-Urban/EBI horizon.27 Two fragments(pl. 3:8, 10) are from jars with shorternecks.Pl. 3:10, with its tip reconstructed, is reminiscentof the "bowrim,"a type that is characteristic of Kenyon'sPotteryNeolithic B atJericho and 2 1979: Phase of Moore's Late Neolithic 46, fig. 7:1) (Kenyon period (Moore 1973: 57ff.). The exact position of the bow rim within the Neolithic and EarlyChalcolithicsequence,however,is still uncertain(Moore 1973: esp. 60-61), and bow rims dated "Neolithic,""Chalcolithic," or "transitional" appear at a numberof sites.28The fact that the bow rim is not found in deposits of the GhassulBeershebahorizonmight indicatea position at the earlierend of the chronologicalspectrum.The bow rim of the Neolithic/Chalcolithicperiods should not be confusedwith a much different rim-form describedwith the same name by Callaway(1972: 66 and fig. 19:25) at 'Ai and Hennessy (1967: 8, pl. 11:15)at Jericho,dated to the Proto-Urban/EBI period.In the earlierform, the suggestionof the

16

Tell El-Mafjar

"bow"is given by the convex exterior and concave interiorof the rim, while in the later form the interiorline of the rim is convex (i.e., the exact opposite),while the exteriorline can varymarkedly.It as the standardbow rim, and the neck should also be noted that the Mafjarpiece is not as "globular" appearsto be constrictingtowardthe rim, a featureof some jarsfrom cAffula(Sukenik1948:pi. IV:1, 7(?)) and En Shadud(Braun1985:PotteryType 26, fig. 23:8, 10, p. 145). PI. 3:8 is from a vessel with the narrowestneck in the Mafjarcorpus. Like the taller-necked pl. 3:13, it displaysa pronouncedinternaljuncturebetween the neck and shoulder,while the slight convexityof the innerprofileof the rim is similar,but less extreme,than on the 'Ai andJerichopieces discussedabove.The dosest parallelfor the form againcomes from CAffula.29 Pl. 3:16, with a red wash on its exteriorsurface,is includedhere becauseof the narrowdimension of its mouth.It might,however,be more correctlyclassedwith the holemouthjars.30 SpoutedBowl or Jar. A single fragmentof a spoutedvessel (pl. 5:3) occursin the presentgroup. Becauseof the smallness of the fragmentand the fact that, as drawn by the excavator,it seems to "droop"in a mannernot usuallyencounteredin the type, the size and type of the originalvessel are uncertain.A stance more closed than that representedhere is probablymore appropriatein order to give the spout a more upwardtilt. In the Chalcolithicperiod, when spouted vessels bear painted decoration,this is most often confined to a simple band aroundthe rim, while in EB IB (Proto-UrbanB) the shape is often the object of "line group"decoration.31Occasionally,in the Beershebaregion, the rim will be thumbimpressed(de Contenson1956: fig. 8:6, 19) but the actualapplicationof a cordon,such as seen on the Mafjarexample, appearsto be a later feature,appearingat cAi in EB II and III contexts (Callaway 1972: figs. 38:19, 58:23, 63:24) and Umm Hammad in EB I/II Stage 4 (Helmns1986: 34, fig. 11:9). Whetheror not the absenceof this combinationof featuresearlieris fortuitousis difficultto determine. Certainly,both the spout and the applieddecorationwere well known individuallyin the Chalcolithic period.32 Stands. The fragmentson pl. 3:23, 24 are from vessels often identifiedas chalices,pedestaled bowls, incense burners,or simply (as here) stands,and the attempt to furtherdefine the functionof these fragments is resisted.Such vessels are quite popular during the Chalcolithicand EB I/ProtoUrbanperiods,in stone as well as in a wide rangeof ceramicfabrics,includingthe gray-blacklustrous ("Esdraelon")ware of EB I, which may in fact be craftedin imitation of their stone counterparts. Decorationon the two pieces from Mafjaris simple, confinedto a horizontalridge above the base of pl. 3:24 and an impressedcordonappliedto the "waist"of pl. 3:23.The latterpiece is much more easy to parallelthan the former.33 Handles. Three basic categoriesof handles appear in the Mafjarassemblage-lug, ledge, and loop-with a certaindegreeof internalvariationwithin eachgroup. Lug handles are the simplest form in the corpusand are undecoratedexcept for pl. 5:11, which exhibitsa "scoredsurface."Unpiercedlugs areencounteredin the earliest(Neolithic)pottery-producing culturesin Syria-Palestine,while lugs,piercedeither horizontallyor vertically-perhaps more to assist in securing some type of lid than to perform the functionof true handles-occur in almost every Chalcolithiccontextof any size. They continueto remaina strongfeatureof the ceramicrepertoireinto the Proto-Urban/EBI period,after which they graduallyrecedein popularity.Both single (pl. 5:7-9, 11, 13, 16) and double(pl. 5:10) lugs occurat Tell el-Mafjar,but becauseof the varietyof vessel types on which lug handlescan appear it is impossible,with the exception of the two relativelystraightsided bowls (pis. 2:23, 5:5), to determine the shape of the vessels on which these lugs were once appended.34

Tell El-Mafjar

17

Three examplesof ledge handlesoccurin the Mafjarassemblage,two (pl. 5:19,20) of the "plain" varietyand one of the impressedtype (pl. 5:21). All three are of a buff fabricand are undecorated.In the past, variationswithin this genre have been assignedvaryingdegreesof chronologicalsignificance, a view that has been less rigidly applied in recent years (Amiran 1970a: 35-40). In general, ledge handles begin in the Neolithic, occur in the Chalcolithic,and begin to evidence a great deal of popularityin the EB I/Proto-Urbanperiod,a position that they enjoyedthroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age. There is, unfortunately,nothing in the small sample of plain ledge handles from Mafjarthat would indicatea chronologicalrangemore specificthan "Chalcolithic-Early BronzeI." Plain loop handles,such as those illustratedhere (pl. 5:12, 14-18), present another form with minimalchronologicalsignificance,andeven the two more specificexampleswith impresseddecoration (pl. 5:22, 23) for which parallels can be cited aid little in refining the chronologicalsetting of the Mafjarassemblage.35 Miscellaneous. Seve fragments from the present collectiondo not fit easily into any of the categoriesdiscussedabove. PI. 2:26, a semi-closedform with a vertically-piercedlug handle on the shoulder,is difficultto interpretwithout a betterunderstandingof how muchof the vessel is actuallypreserved.It might have been part of one of the squat jars with multiple lug-handles that are ubiquitousin Chalcolithic deposits.36 Fourbases in a bufffabricexhibit similardiametersand shapeof the lower vessel wall. PI. 2:30 is plain; pl. 2:28 exhibits a mat-impression;pl. 2:29 is thumb-impressedon the exterior;and pl. 2:27, coveredwith a brownwash, is describedas being "pockmarked."37 The piercedbody of pl. 3:11 representsa small strainingvessel, a type unknownto the present authorin Chalcolithicor EarlyBronze contexts.38The body fragmenton pl. 3:12 has been "dimpled" but not actuallypierced. In addition to the ceramic vessels discussedabove, the Mafjarcollection also includes three fragmentsof small terracotta animalfigurines(pl. 5:25,26, and 27). Althougha specificidentification of these quadrupedsis uncertain,they do indicatethe presencehere of a type of figurinewell known at Ghassul(cf. amongothersHennessy 1969:fig. 11:4-6; North 1961:pl. X:8323,8728).

The LithicAssemblage The lithic assemblagefrom Tell el-Mafjarconsistsof four stone vessels (pls. 2:7, 5:28, 32; 5:29), as well as two "roundels"or "spindlewhorls"(pl. 5:30, 31). The material,identifiedby the excavator, includesboth white limestone and serpentine,but unfortunatelythese pieces are chronologicallynonI spectrum.Eight chipped diagnosticand wouldbe at home at many points along the Chalcolithic-EB stone tools are also recordedin the excavationnotebook.They includethree sicklebladeswith "blunted backs,"two polishedaxes, two chisels (one with cortexretained),and a side scraper.Unfortunately,no illustrationsof these pieces have survived.

PolishedBone Tools Eight examplesof polishedbone tools (pl. 5:24a-h) completethe assemblageof materialculture from Tell el-Mafjar.Similartools, which possiblyservedas awls,borers,or gravers,are well known at horizon.39 many sites of the Ghassul-Beersheba

Summaty Mellaart'sTrenchI at Tell el-Mafjar(figs. 3, 4) revealeda sequenceof fill-depositswithin a series of pits dug into the naturalsoil. The thin layerof topsoil (Layer1) can be combinedwith Layers2 and

Tell El-Mafjar

18

3, as all three are open loci. The centralirregularcuttingwas filledby a successionof deposits (Layers 4-6); if this pit was originallyutilized for habitationor storage, the materialfrom Layer6 would provide a terminus ante quem for that phase of its use. The top of the uppermostof the centralpit deposits (Layer4) is separatedfrom Layer2 by a scree of pebbles,and this stratigraphicalinterface seems to continueacrossthe pit, being indicatedin the easternpart of the excavationby the Layer3/4 soil change. This layer 2-3/4 division would representthe only other time at which the cutting(s) could have been used for occupation,a circumstancethat might be suggested only if there was a substantialdifferencebetweenthe materialaboveand below this interface. For the date of the actualcuttingof the pit we have no directarchaeological evidence,but Layer6 contains material (straight-sidedbowls, small cups, cups, modeled holemouth jars, and lug handles) that suggests that it was filledwith materialdatingto the end of the Chalcolithicperiod.The cutting must either be of that date or earlier,but it is impossible to be more specific.The three deposits in the central pit (Layers4-6) share the straight-sidedbowls and small cups, while similarlydecorated r Layers nwould in Layer seem to tie the three deposits together and s holemouth j ar appear indicateeither a relatively"quick"filling of the pit or a common sourcefor the fill-materialelsewhere on the tell. If the small "wheel-made"bowl (pl. 2:24) from Layer5 is actuallya later EarlyBronze piece, one might posit a filling of the central pit with late Chalcolithicdebris during the Early BronzeAge. The materialabove the Layer2-3/4 interface,which might have served as an occupationfloor, also producedstraight-sidedbowls and holemouth jars with decoratedrims similar to those found below. Other featuresfound both above and below this "surface"are lug-handles,plain ledge-handles, and (chronologicallyindeterminate)bone tools. In fact, the only classes of objectsthat appearexclusively on either side of this hypothetical"surface"are the small cups, backed sickle blades, and "roundels"in the lower deposits,and the two fragmentsof "stands"foundabove it. Such a separation of artifactsdoes not appearto be chronologically significant. Because of several common denominatorsin the material above and below the Layer 2-3/4 interface,it would seem most likely that the finds in TrenchI do representa cuttingmade sometime late in the Chalcolithicperiod that was subsequentlyutilizedas a rubbishpit and completelyfilledover a short span of time. This would agree with Mellaart'snotebookimpressions.As to when this filling operation took place, we can only suggest, based on the presence of an Early Bronze bowl rim (pi. 2:25) on the surfaceand a similar (and possiblycontemporary)fragmentfrom Layer5 (pl. 2:24), that it occurredin the earlypart of the EarlyBronzeAge.

Tell El-Mafiar:TrenchI Layer 1 2 3 4 5 6

Description Brownsurfacesoil Soft grayash Soft brownearth,but harderthan Stratum2 Hard,grayish-buffsoil with charcoalspecks Ash layerwith clayor mudbrickstreaks Hardbuffsoil with clayand mudbrick(with strawcasts) fragments

Period

Tell El-Mafjar

19

Tell El-Mafjar:ArtifactIndex Layer 1 Layer 2

None

Layer 3

PI. 2:4 Pl. 3:8,24 PI.4:3,4,6, 16 PL.5:10, 14, 21, 23, 32

Layer 4

PI. 2:3(?), 10, 14, 16, 20, 32, 34 Pl. 3:12, 13, 16, 22 PL4:1, 7, 21 PI. 5:20,24f, 25, 27, 30, 31

Layer 5

PI. 2:1, 3(?), 6, 11, 15, 19, 24 PI. 3:1, 7 PI. 5:2,4, 24d, 24e

Layer 6

Pl. 2:5, 13, 17, 26, 33, 35 Pl. 3:3, 5, 9, 15 PI.4:9, 12 PI. 5:17, 19, 24a, 26

PI. 2:8, 9, 23, 27, 29-30 P1.3:2,4, 6, 11, 14, 17-21, 23 PI.4:2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-20 Pl. 5:1, 3, 5-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 24b, 24c, 24g, 24h

Notes 1 At GhassulHennessy (1969: 7) notes evidencein his Phases C-A (i.e., Ghassul IV) for the finishing of some vessels on a "tournette,"and Mellaart (1956: 29) thought that the use of the wheel was "common"in the assemblages of the earlier excavations at that site. At Horvat Beter, StratumI bowls are saidby Dothan to have been "thrownon a wheel or tournette"(1959a: 12), a technicalaspectthat he also comparesto GhassulIV (p. 13). Cf. also the bowl with "tracesde tournage"from Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:1, p. 224). But these vessels, properlyspeaking,were finished, not "thrown,"on a slow wheel In additionto the utilizationof the potterswheel in the Chalcolithicperiod,de Vaux (1970: 511-12) sees evidenceof its use "for necks and small vases" in Jericho VIII, while Moore (1973: 45, 57) recordsthat "many(pots) are finished by turningon a mat"in his Late Neolithic Phase 2 (equivalent to JerichoPNB). 2 Hennessy (1969: 9) notes that inciseddecorationwas common in his excavationsat Ghassul"in all phases from G upwards,but confined to large storage jars and vats." Cf., however,the bowl on fig. 8b:3 (Phase E) with a doublerow

of crescent-shapedincisions(punctures?).Inciseddecoration on more roundedbowls appearsat Ghassul(North 1961:fig. 17:4) and Meser (Dothan 1957: fig. 2:11; StratumI). Open forms with multiple incised wavy bands appear to be frequent in the Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 12, etc.), a technique also at home in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 12:4, 5) and elsewhere.Ghrubbapresents a bowl with a band of some sort of horizontal"dragging"(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:8), possiblyfrom an earliercontext. 3 Cf. the referencesto Jerichoand Arad in the chapter on Jiftlik,n. 10 above.The hemisphericalform of the Mafjar bowl (pl. 2:34) can be paralleledat Meser (Dothan 1957:fig. 2:11). Exceptions to the numerical inferiorityof rounded bowls in Chalcolithiccontextsmay be seen at Tell Turmusin the Huleh Valley(Dayan 1969: fig. 6) and at the Golansites (Epstein1978). 4 For Chalcolithicexamples,cf. Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:1); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 8:5; StratumI); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956: fig. 6:11, 13, 19, 20); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:figs. 7:6, 16; 12:10,17, 21, etc.; StratumII). A bowl with similarconcavityis published

20

Tell El-Mafjar

by Kaplan (1958a: fig. 8:22) from his "Neolithic"(Jericho IX) LevelIV at TeluliotBatashi. Bowls from Proto-UrbanA Tomb A94 at Jericho(Kenyon 1960: fig. 12:3,4) and the cave at Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 13:71, 14:96) have a similarconcavityof the lower body form.Arqubel-Dhahralso providespieces with similar concavityand (PUB/EB IB) painted decoration(Parr 1956: figs. 13:82,14:84,etc.). 5 Cf. Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16:17,8601); Tell eshShuneh(N) (de Contenson1960:fig. 10:12,13;andGustavsonGaube 1985: 73, fig. 9:22; Tell es-Saidiyeh el-Tahta (de Contenson 1960: fig. 32:18); Munhata (Tsori 1958: fig. 3: right). At Ai this decorationappearson thickerbowls with more verticalprofiles (Callaway1972: fig. 20:17, 20) in the (pre-urban)Phase II of the sanctuary. A similar decorationon a basalt bowl with outsplayed sides is known from Rosh Hanniqra,StratumII (Tadmor 1959: fig. 6:37). The pottery in this level is said to date to "EarlyCanaaniteI ... while still continuingthe traditionof the Chalcolithicperiod"(p. 81). 6 'Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969a: fig. 4:5 and p. 112); Gezer (Dever 1974: pl. 1:22, and possibly pl. 2:16; FieldI, Stratum14); and Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. VI:42). 7 Affula (Sukenik1948:pLVI:39-41, 43); HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 13:16;StratumI-Il), where its presence is noted as being "of special interest"(p. 26); and the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 8:15, 16). Possiblyto be relatedare those from Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:1; Phase A), with a rim-channel;and from Rosh Hanniqra StratumII (Tadmor1959:fig. 6:31). 8 Cf. Meser (Dothan 1959:fig. 5:6); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960:fig. 24:2;larger,but similarin shape);Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:3 and 5:5, a goblet similar in profile but with an oval mouth [Phase A]; fig. 6:8, "holemouth," and 6:9, a round-mouthedgoblet [Phase B]; the diameterof either fig. 6:8 or 6:9 must be recordedincorrectly: cf. p. 11; fig. 7:10, especiallyfor pl. 2:12 [Phase B]; fig. 8:1 [Phase D]; and possibly fig. 9b:7 [Phases G, H, I]). The type, usuallywith straightersides, is known from the earlier excavations at Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 42:2; Koeppel 1940: pls. 79:4, 96:3; and possibly North 1961: fig. 17:8652 [with double lug-handle] and 17:8164); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 16:11); Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 3:3); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 4:4 [squatter,but similarin diameter]);and Tell Abu Matar(Perrot 1955:fig. 16:11, p. 81). For its "earlier"appearanceat Ghrubba,cf. Mellaart1956: fig. 4:22; and at WadiRabah,Kaplan 1958b: fig. 5:5. Similar are Hennessy's "small, narrow necked,baggy shaped jars" (1967: 8, pl. 11:17,his jar type "V"-only the upper portion is preserved),which he sees first appearingat Jerichoin the Proto-Urban,Phase Nii destruction,but which might also belong to the precedingPhase M (p. 8). For the positionof Phase M, cf. Hennessy 1967: 10. stratigraphical 9 The best parallelfor subgroup1 comes from Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IX:4, 5), while vessels from Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 7b:6 [Phase C], with a painteddecoration) and the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956:fig. 1:2)

might be consideredsimilar"in spirit."Cf. also the "earlier" example from Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:24) with horizontallugs on the shoulder. Good parallelsfor subgroup2 come from a numberof sites: Meser (Dothan 1957:fig. 3:5 [StratumII]); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 39:11); 9Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. IX:13 [more open and thumb-impressed]);Benei Beraq(Kaplan1963:fig. 9:6); and Horvat Beter StratumI (Dothan 1959a: fig. 9:8 [thumbimpressed]). A plain rim similar to subgroup3 can be seen in an examplefromAzor (Perrot1961:fig. 41:2). For subgroup4, pl. 4:15 can be paralleledat Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:7); while the best example for pl. 4:17 comes from Jericho in Garstang's"Chalcolithic" Tomb 355 (Garstang1935:pl. XLII:17).For the pie crust rim on more open forms, cf. the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 8:3, 18, etc.); more distant parallelscome from Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:9 [Phase A]; North 1961: fig. 18: E2-3 [-140]). Cf. also the pie crust rim from Gezer XXVI, Field I, Stratum 14 (Dever 1974: pl. 2:1-4) of Chalcolithic date. 10The distinctionbetweenthe straightand slightlyconvex variantsmay be contrived,but: (a) For the straighterpl. 4:9, cf. Ghassul (Hennessy 1969:fig. 6:5 [Phase B], fig. 8b:8 [Phase E], and possiblyfig. 9a:4 [Phase F]; North 1961: fig. 16:8552, etc.); Tell eshShuneh (N) (de Contenson 1960: fig. 12:2 [Level II]); and Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson 1960: fig. 26:10 [Level III]). Similarprofilesare illustratedfrom Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: figs,4:26, 5:98,etc.). (b) For the rounderpl. 4:10, 11, cf. Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:7 [Phase A]), 8a:6 [Phase D]; Arad,StratumV (Amiran 1978:pl. 3:6); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960: fig. 26:12 [Level III]); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 3:11); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 14:2 [StratumII-III]). For possibly earlier parallelsat Ghrubba, see Mellaart1956:fig. 6:107,etc. (c) For the "flatter"pl. 4:15, cf. Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 8a:5 [Phase D]; North 1961: fig. 16:8552); and HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 18:24[StratumII-III]). 11Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 47; Koeppel 1940: pls. 78:5, 96:4). Similar,but with a squarerim, is the example in Mallon 1934 (fig. 45:51). Hennessy's work at the site produceda similarlyshapedvessel with low, unpiercedlugs(?) at the spot where the Mafjarpiece has handles(Hennessy1969: fig. 6:5 [Phase B]); Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XLII:19).Cf. also Tell Umm Hammad(Helms 1986:37, fig. 12:8,Stage2). 12Ghassul (Koeppel 1940: pls. 77:5, 96:3, 7; Hennessy 1969:fig. 8b:2 [Phase E]); GezerField I, Stratum14 (Dever 1974: pls. 1:6, 2:6, 3:5); Arad, Stratum V (Amiran 1978: pl. 6:2, 3); Megiddo XX (Loud 1948: pl. 1:16-18); 'Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. III:18); Tell Delhamiya (Amiran 1977: fig. 4:1); Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 13:2 [= Helms 1981: fig. B4:10]); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 3:1- 3, andpossiblythe moreclosedfig. 2:10-12); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 8:15, 18 [StratumI], fig. 14:1, 16 [Stratum II-III]). For the "earlier"Ghrubba,cf. Mellaart 1956:fig. 4:34, 35, etc

Tell El-Mafjar Callaway(1972: 60) notes that this roundedform is the oldest holemouth form in his Proto-UrbanB Phase I at the cAi Sanctuaryand emphasizes its Chalcolithicheritage. In both Phase I at cAi and StratumIV at Arad,Callawaysees this type giving way to the thickerrim forms (cf. fig. 15:7-9) of his Phase II, the later of the two pre-urbanphases at cAi. For contemporarydepositsat other sites, cf. p. 61. 13For the techniqueof the cut-rimholemouth,cf. Callaway 1972:66-67. I cannotcommenton the technicalprocess by which pl. 4:3 was formed, since the piece could not be locatedin the Amman Museum. Callaway(1972: 66) states that the cut rim is the most common type of rim decorationon such forms in the EB I Phase II (Wall R building) of his reexcavationof the cAi Sanctuaryand refers (p. 67) to Hennessy'swork on the tell material from Jericho,where it begins in Phase Oi of the Proto-Urbanperiod. 14 "Bulbous" rims are one of the featuresthat are said by Dever (1974: 16, pl. 1:11) to supplantthe simple rounded (Late Chalcolithic)holemouthsat Gezer in Field I, Stratum rims are also describedas appear13 (EBIB). "Inward-rolled" ing more frequentlyin Phase II of Callaway'swork at the Ai Sanctuary(Callaway1972:66). This thickened rim is alreadypresent in Callaway's earliestlevel (Phase I) at Ai (Callaway1972:fig. 15:7,8) and appearsas early as the Proto-UrbanPhase P at the Jericho tell on "collarrims,"and Phase Oi on "cutrims" (Hennessy 1967: 8). The collar rim of Jerichoequals the "railrim" of Gezer (and other sites), where it appears first in deposits from EB IB Stratum 13 in Field I (Dever 1974: pl. 4:8, 9). Note, however, the holemouthwith the thickenedrim from (Chalcolithic)Stratum14 at Gezer (pl. 1:11).Similarthickening of the rim is alreadyapparenton examples from such deposits as Stratum I at Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 8:4). 15For the profile of pl. 4:5, cf. Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. VI:12 [plain]). The taperedrim of pl. 4:6 can be foundat Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:5); Tell Umm Hammad (Helms 1984:fig. 14:14,StageII);and Tellesh-Shuneh(N) (GustavsonGaube1985:77, fig. 12:43),all with raiseddecoration.PI.4:7 finds good parallelsat Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux and Steve 1947:fig. 1:6 ["eneolithiquemoyen,"also good for the decoration of pl. 4:6], fig. 2:5 ["eneolithiquesuperieur"]);and for the squared-offrim, cf. Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 40:18); and the combinationof rim and decorationat 'Affula(Sukenik 1948:pl. IX:11). Cf. also Ben ShemenTomb 506 (Perrotand Cadiray1980:fig. 132:7);andTell esh-Shuneh(N) (GustavsonGaube 1985: 74, fig. 10:30). For the profile of pl. 5:2 no suitableparallelsare known to the presentauthor. The similaritiesbetween the rim of pl. 4:7 and Callaway's"squaredor flattenedrim"(Callaway1972:61, fig. 15:9) at Ai (Phase I) shouldbe noted. For holemouthswith "rope moulding"cf. p. 60. 16Moore 1973: fig. 6:1-3, from Pottery Neolithic A (Moore'sLate Neolithic Phase 1) Jericho.For good parallels to the Mafjarpiece, cf. also Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958a: fig. 7:10 [and 7:8, 12 for variants], equated with Garstang'sJericho Level IX); Munhata (Tsori 1958: fig. 2,

21

center left); and Lod (Kaplan 1977: fig. 3:2 [but with a smallerdiameter]). 17 For Jericho,cf. Garstang1935: pl. XLI:8, 10, 12. Cf. also round bosses from his "Chalcolithic"Strips 1-4, pl. XLII:28-31, and for 9Affula,Sukenik 1948: pl. III:15a,16a, 17a. Similar pieces appear later at Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 5:1), which are said to be "the most common shape, occurring in all trenches"of the citadel excavations.They are dated to the EB-MB period (Helms 1975: 24; fig. 5:1 = Helms 1981:fig. B1:1 ["potteryfrom the MiddleBronzeAge Citadelcomplex"],p. 222). 18 Cf. 'Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. IX:6 [impressedrim]); Rosh HanniqraStratumII (Tadmor1959: fig. 6:20); and in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956: fig. 2:5). Perhaps also relevant is a fragment from Phase II at Ai (Callaway 1972: fig. 18:28), which, although not as flattened as the Mafjarexample, is seen by Callawayas "bentto a horizontal stance anticipatingthe drooping,in-turnedrim-form found in Kenyon'sEB I atJericho"(p. 66, with referencesto Hennessy 1978). 19 For Ghassul,cf. Mallon1934:fig. 46; Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:5. Cf. also, on a more roundedform from Ghrubba, Mellaart1956: fig. 4:21. For Tell Farcah,cf. de Vaux 1957: fig. 1:8. 20 For the Beershebaregion,cf. de Contenson1956:fig. 2:3. For possibly similar rims, cf. also those from Tell elSaidiyeh el-Tahta (de Contenson 1960: fig. 33:5); Affula Jericho (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:31); and the "Chalcolithic" Tomb 355 (Garstang1935:pl. XLII:5).For Gezer,cf. Dever 1974: pl. 3:9. This fragment comes from material below Surface4143, which containedChalcolithicpottery (p. 102). The closeness of the sequenceis indicatedby the fact that some of the ChalcolithicStratum14 floorsseem to have been reusedduring the life of the EB IB Stratum13, and Dever notes that there was "probablynot even a periodof abandonment precedingthe EarlyBronzeI occupation"(p. 14). 21 Compare, for instance, Ghassul (North 1961: fig. 18:8686);the Beershebasites (de Contenson 1956: fig. 1:5, 7); and HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 9:15 [StratumI] on a smallervessel).One vessel from this site is, however,closer to the Mafjarexample-fig. 15:18 (StratumII-III).The best examples come from Tell Farcah (N) Tomb 9 (de Vaux 1951:fig. 4:6); Tell es-Saidiyehel-Tahta(de Contenson1960: fig. 33:12); and 5Affula(Sukenik1948: pl. IV:29). For other possibilities,cf. Tell Turmus(Dayan 1969: fig. 5:3 [less inverted]); MegiddoXX (Loud1948:pl. 1:15 [less pointed]); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 17:2 [much sharper], and fig. 17:3 [closerto MafjarIII:4]);Jawa (Helms 1975:fig. 13:5,6 [both with a point at the inner transition from body to rim]). Ai seems to present a sequencefor smaller vessels with everted rims: a transitionalpoint, but no thickeningin pre-urbanPhases I and II (Callaway1972: figs. 15:3, 17:11), with the combinationof point and thickeningappearingin Phase III,the firsturbanperiodat the site (fig. 27:17). 22 Compare,for instance, the jar from Jericho Tomb A94 (Kenyon 1960: fig. 14:12) with similar vessels from "eneolithique"Tombs 11, 12 and 13 at Tell Farcah (N)

22

Tell El-Mafjar

(de Vaux 1951: figs. 6:15, 11:24, 27; and de Vaux 1952: fig. 10:15), where more than one profile drawingfor each piece is offered. 23The type of modulationon the rim of the narrower pl. 3:2 may be seen in a small jar from the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956:fig. 6:6). Possiblyrelevantto pl. 3:3 is a bowl from MeserStratumII (Dothan 1959b:fig. 6:11). 24Site A (Macdonald1932: pl. XL:31 [drawnwithout handles]). Cf. also the photograph on pl. XXIII:23 (with handles),which is closer to the example from Tell el-Mafjar. Site H (Macdonald1932:pLXL:71,with verticalburnishing). Site D2 (Macdonald1932:pl. XXXVIII:5,a two-handledjar with similarattenuationof the bodyshape,but in this case it appearsbelow the handles). 25 Cf. for pl. 3:18, Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 9a:5 [Phase F]); and possibly Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 5:5);and Tell Turmus(Dayan1969:fig. 5:1). 26For Ghassul,Hennessy 1969: fig. 7b:3 (Phase C) and possibly fig. 6:6 (Phase B); and North 1961: fig. 18 (E2-3, -080). For the Beershebaregion, cf. de Contenson 1956: fig. 5:5. A similar rim appearsat Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:44). For the rim on jars at Horvat Beter,cf. Dothan 1959a: fig. 9:22 (StratumI) and fig. 15:3 (StratumII-III). For the vessel identifiedas a churn,fig. 16:3 (StratumII-III). 27 A very similar profile appears on a jar from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956:fig. 5:9). Cf. also a vessel with straighterneck from Arad, StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 6:8). Cf. also the "bottle"from Trench TT1 at Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 9:2); and two vessels from the EB I Cave 4 at Givatayim(Sussman1966:fig. 9:18,24). The treatmentof the rim/shouldertransitionis similar on a variety of jugs and jars from Bab edh-Dhra (Schaub 1973: fig. 17:10, 22, 27:026, etc. [EB IA], fig. 50:1102 [EB IB]). At Ai, with the exceptionof one example with more sharply defined junction (Callaway1972: fig. 17:28 [Phase II]), fragmentsof possiblysimilarvessels in the lower strata (pre-urbanPhases I and II, and first-urbanPhase III) are not preserved to the point of transition,thereby making any comparisonsbetweenthe Mafjarand cAipieces impossible. 28 In addition to the Jericho material (Kenyon 1979: 46), compareexamplestermed"Neolithic"at Ghrubba(Mellaart 1956: fig. 4:39-42; fig. 4:41, the closest to the Mafjar rim, is describedas "wheel-made")and also the example in stone from a Neolithic deposit at Kabri (Prausnitz1966: fig. 6:3). Similar rims assigned (in varyingdegrees) to the Chalcolithicperiod come from: Jericho (Garstang1935: pl. XL:3-5); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson 1960: fig. 23:2 [Level I]); Tell esh-Shuneh (N) (de Contenson 1960: fig. 6 [Level I]); Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1955: fig. 4:1, 3, and de Vaux 1961:fig. 1:2,4, 5); WadiRabah(Kaplan1958b:fig. 5:8 [with the "bow"extendedbelow the junctionof the neck and shoulder]);Newe Yam (Prausnitz1977: fig. 2:11); Lod (Kaplan 1977: fig. 6:9); 9Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. IV:1-3, 5); Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 5:4); cEin el Jarba and TeluliotBatashi(Kaplan1958a:fig. 10:13[LevelIII]).

29Sukenik1948: pl. IV:12.This type may representan embryonic stage in the development toward the narrowmouthed jars with a "triangularsection neck and rim" that appear on the Jericho tell in Phase L of Kenyon's EB I period (Hennessy 1967:p. 10 and pl. IV:36).The absenceof intermediatestages at Jerichocouldthen be explainedby the "total absence"of narrow necks of bottles and jugs in the Proto-Urbanphases (p. 8). 30Similarlyshaped vessels are known from Tell eshShuneh (N) (de Contenson1960: fig. 12:3); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960:fig. 25:7);JerichoTomb 355 (Garstang 1935: pl. XLII:9); Ghrubba(Mellaart 1956: fig. 4:46); the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 3:17); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 9:21, 24 [Stratum I]); and the Golan(Epstein 1978:fig. 12: top row centerand right). 31 Cf., among others, for the plain Chalcolithicdecoration: Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 7b:13 [plus festoons on fig. 6:1]); and for the EB IB/Proto-UrbanB "line group" decoration,cf. Bab edh-Dhra (Schaub1973: 265 and fig. 49 [type 1070a-h]), where the absence of the form in EB IA/Proto-UrbanA is noted (p. 275). 32 In additionto the pieces from Ai cited in the text, support for-and occasionalexceptions to-the statements made here can be found,inter alia, in the referencesto the following sites: Ghassul (North 1961: fig. 16:10d, fig. 16:8644);Arad, StratumIV (Amiran 1978: pl. 10:7 [cf. also examples from Stratum III: pl. 14:12; and Stratum II: pl. 42:1-4, 6-11]); Meser (Dothan 1957: fig. 4:10 [Stratum II]) and Dothan 1959b:fig. 8:18 [StratumI]); the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: figs. 3:7, 8; 4:1-3; 7:4); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:1 [StratumI] and possiblyfig. 14:17 [Stratum II-III]); the Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 12, upper left [Rasm Harbush]);Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 13:3); Azor (Perrot 1961: figs. 39:10, 40:4); Givatayim(Sussman 1966: fig. 9:11, 12, 26 [Cave 4]); Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 23:12,21 [Phase II]); Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XLII:1,2, 4 Tomb 355]); Kenyon 1960:figs. 17:24[Proto["Chalcolithic" Urban Tomb A114], 23:22 [EB I Tomb A108]), and later examplesin tombs throughoutthe BronzeAge. 33Similar treatmentto that given on pl. 3:23 is especially frequent on pieces from Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1949: fig. 8:32 [Tomb 5, "eneolithique"];de Vaux 1951: fig. 12:13[Tomb 12, "eneolithique," gray-blacklustrous];de Vaux 1952:fig. 12:17 [Tomb 14, also gray-blacklustrous];de Vaux 1955:fig. 5:24 ["chalcolithique superieur"];andde Vaux1961: Cf. also Ghassul 23 2:22, superieur"]). ["chalcolithique fig. (North 1961: fig. 17:26, and possibly 16:14/24); the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 10:6); and Tell ejsh Shuneh (N) (Gustavson-Gaube 1985: 83, fig. 16:79A). Applied and impresseddecorationon other parts of similar vessels can be seen in the Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 13a [on the bowl]) and at Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:60 [on the base]). A band of inciseddecoration,as opposed to a "rope moulding,"at the waist of these vessels is known from Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:15); and a similarlyplacedband of punctatesis known-from Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 56:4) and Tell Delhamiya(Amiran1977:fig. 3:2).

Tell El-Mafjar 34For pieces similarto pl. 5:5,cf. cAffula(Sukenik1948: Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 5:77); and WadiGhaz1:3); pl. zeh Site A (Macdonald1932:pl. XXIII:24).PI. XL:33 ("No. 31") may be from a churn;cf. 35 ("No. 51"). PI. 2:23 is more difficultto parallel,and the excavator's descriptionof it as "doubledlugged"is difficultto reconcile with the drawing. 35Cf. Beth Shan (Tsori 1977: fig. 3:12); Tell Farah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 1:33); and Wadi Ghazzeh Site B (Macdonald1932:fig. XXXIX:27). 36For the type, and the internalvariety,cf., inter alia, the many examples from the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 11:1-10), which usuallyhave a more pointed rim, and also from Pella (McNicollet al. 1982:91, pl. 105:6). 37Decorationsimilar to pl. 2:29 can be found at Jawa on a base of slightly largerdiameter(Helms 1981:fig. B5:4).

23

For the decorationof pl. 2:27 cf. Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 17:8670); Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. 1:8, 9); and Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934: fig. 8:Z ["stage"VII]). For "gouging"on Neolithicpottery,cf. Tsori 1958:pl. III:Alower right (from el-Munhata),and pl. IV:A center right (from Khirbetes-Soda). 38The piercedbodyandhandledatedto the Chalcolithic from Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. 1:10) was actuallyfound on the surfacebeforethe startof excavation. 39 Cf., inter alia, Ghassul(Mallon1934:fig. 30:6, 11, 13, 14; North 1961: pl. X:B8231, B8372; Hennessy 1969: fig. 11:1-3, 7-9); Tell Turmus(Dayan 1969:fig. 9:16, 17); ?Ainel Jarba(Kaplan 1969a: fig. 14:2-4, 6-8); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: figs. 11:21 [StratumI] and 18:41-46 [Stratum II-III]). Perhaps earlier are those from Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan1958a:fig. 9:14-18.

Tell

Jamid

Introduction Of the sites testedsolelyby Mellaart,the northernmostis Tell Jamid,locatedon a sharplimestone outcrop above and just to the south of the el-Maqarin station of the famous Hejaz railway. The site commands a strategic position at the confluence of three wadis that unite to form the Yarmuk River, which then flows westerly to the Jordan Valley (fig. 1). Jamid was studied by the German scholars

Schumacher(1913: 114-23) and later Steuernagel(1926: 142-45) in the early part of this century, then visited by Glueck (1951: 122-24), who considered Tell Jamid (his site No. 88) to be exceedingly

important,noting from the surfacefinds that the major period(s) of occupationseemed to be "EB I-II," with the possibilityof a continuationinto EB III.Tell Jamidand its environswere subsequently included in the surface surveys of de Contenson (1964: 30-31) and Kerestes et al. (1978: 121-22, Site No. 14), both of which have expanded our knowledge of the early history of the site. The most conspicuous feature of Tell Jamid when visited by Mellaart was its basalt enceinte

constructedof both hewn blocks and boulderslaid without mortar (fig. 5). In general, the wall is describedas having been preservedto a maximumheight of two courses,with the exceptionof a short e it is slightly better stretch (ca. 3.0-4.0 m) on its southwer preserved. The bottom course of the wall was observed to be in the best state of preservation on the steep northern face of the tell, while on the eastern side the wall had been quite severely damaged by erosion. In fact, basalt blocks,

evidently fallen from this wall, are describedin Mellaart'snotebook as littering the slopes of Tell Jamid.Faint tracesof the gatewayto the ancientcity were detectedby Mellaartat the southernedge of the mound,where advantagewould have been takenof the more gradualslope of the terrain.At least one tomb had been cut into the naturalrock just to the southeastof the suggestedgateway. Within the enceinte,especiallyin the centerof the tell, "massesof fallen stones"from undatable constructionswere recorded,while partiallystandinghouses of the "Turkishperiod"were noted near the easternedge of the tell. Mellaartalso describedseveralholes (possiblycut as wells) which had been dug into the top of the mound, revealinga maximumdepth of debrisof about 1.50 m, althoughhe noted that the archaeologicaldeposit could be deeper elsewhereon the site. Mellaartconductedtwo soundingsat Tell Jamid:TrenchI on the easternside of the tell, just to the north of the ruinedTurkishbuildings;and TrenchII in the centerof the northernedge of the site.

The Stratigraphyof TrenchI The stratigraphyof Trench I is fairlyclear from the excavationnotebook:below a dark topsoil (Layer1) a deposit of gray earth mixed with stones (Layer2) was encountered,just above the pebbly conglomerateof the naturalsoil. The ceramicmaterialfrom Layers1 and 2 is describedas havingbeen "mixedEB I-II," and the excavationin Trench I was terminatedwhen work was shifted to the more promising northernpart of the site. The archaeologicalfeaturesin this one-day sounding,however, were never drawn.

The Stratigraphyof TrenchII TrenchII, evidentlywithin the enceinte,was excavatedfor a longer periodthan TrenchI and was more fully recorded,but unfortunately,only the plan of the soundingis preserved(fig. 6). Trench II 24

Tell Jamid

SPRING

X

TRENCH

TRENCH SPRING x

25

RIVER YARMOUK

~

L-TRENCH

GATE ?/

TOMB Fig. 5. TellJamid.Sketchmap of the site from the excavationnotebook.North is at top (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

exhibited a stratigraphysimilar to that of Trench I: a dark topsoil (Layer 1) above a stratum of gray-whitesoil (Layer2), which in this case includedconcentrationsof huwwarchips,with the natural rock conglomeratebelow. Here Mellaartexcavatedthe foundationsof a portion of a multi-room structurewith minimum (exposed)dimensionsof ca. 8 x 8 m. The walls of this buildingare described as having been constructedof large dry-laidblocksof basaltwith similar smaller stones in between. Only the basalcoursewas preservedat the time of excavation,and it is expresslyrecordedthat these walls were laiddirectlyon Layer2 and did not cut into that stratumin any way.Foundationtrenches,if they existed, are thought to have been destroyedby plowing. Since only the foundationcourseof the walls survived, there were no remains of the associatedoccupationsurface(s),nor was there any evidence for the nature of the superstructureof the building.The plan of this building is most interesting,but for ease of referencein the present discussionarbitrarynumbershave been addedto the walls and "installations" of Mellaart'soriginaldrawingof the structure(fig. 6). Wall 1, judging from its 0.75-0.80 m width (slightly wider where it has slipped) and its close proximity to the scarp,must representone of the major exteriorwalls of the building.Its exposed exteriorlength of more than 6.5 m indicatesthat we are dealingwith a fairlysubstantialstructure.At its southeasternend, Wall 1 is bondedat a right angle into the slightlynarrower(ca. 0.60 m) Wall 2, which in turn is bondedat a right angle into the short and (in places) still narrower(ca.0.50-0.60 m) Wall 3. These three walls partiallydefine the room/area of which Installations1 and 2 were a part. This room would have originallymeasuredat least 6.0 x 2.0 m, but it was possibly reducedto ca. 4.5 x 2.0 m when Wall 9 was butted againstthe interiorface of Wall 1.1Wall 3 is bondedat a right angle into Wall 4, which runs to the southwestfor ca. 3.0 m to a point where it makes an uncertain

26

Tell Jamid

11

SCARP

I I i ',

SCARP

IWALL 9

2

N

.. %-%, ,-WALL 8 INST3 WALL 4.

^2^I1

~

\--^ BLOCKING WALL,

r

WALL

f

\

MUDBRICK.,,

7-WALL ..,..

WALL5-.

-

WALL6

Fig. 6. Tell jamid. Plan of the basalt structure in Trench II (]. Mellaart and L Kain).

junctionwith two other walls:Wall 5, a narrower(ca.0.40 m) wall runningto the northwest;and Wall 6, a wider (ca. 0.55 m) wall running to the southwest.Wall 5 appearsto have buttedagainstWall 4 (although this is not indicatedon the drawing) and may bear the same (secondary)relationto it as Wall 9 does to Wall 1, but this is far from certain.Wall6 also offers minimalexposurebut the slightly wider (ca. 0.60 m) Wall 7 must be consideredto have joined its (Wall 6) inner face defining the (ca. 1.40 x 3.0 m) enclosurethat housed Installation3. The natureand purposeof the mudbrickelement on the southeasternside of Wall 7 is problematic.It seems to have been set upon a stone socle and hence representspart of the superstructureof the building,but the excavationnotebooksspecifically either in stone or mudbrick,was found.Equallypuzzlingis state that no evidenceof the superstructure, the "blockingwall" (here Wall 8) that seems to connect the patch of mudbrickwith the junctionof

Tell Jamid

27

Walls 2 and 3. The orientationof Wall 8 is completelydifferentfrom any other wall in the structure and is one of the best argumentsfor the presenceof "phasing"within the building. in orderto distinguishthem The three archaeologicalfeaturesthat are here termed"installations" from the walls of the structureare also difficultto interpret.At firstglance they would appearto have been domestic work areas,centeredaroundsuch utensils as the quern in Installation3, the grinding stone(?) in Installation1, or the large oval stone in Installation2. To function in this manner, would have to have been associatedwith the occupationalsurfaceof the however,these "installations" building,but again the excavationnotebooksspecify that no such floors were found. Although in size the plan of the excavated portion of the basalt building at Tell Jamid is impressive,attention should also be paid to the fact that the junctionsof Walls 2 and 3 and Walls 3 and 4 appear to have served as buttresses,suggesting a fairly substantialsuperstructure(second storey?) for the building.It should also be noted that (at least) the foundationsof the structurewere built of basalt. This should not be viewed simply as the utilizationof local material,for the more easily-workedlimestonewas also readilyavailablein the area.The buildersat Tell Jamidintentionally selectedthe harderstone.

The Pottery (pl. 6-7) Bowls Bowl with horizontally-flattenedrim. Two wheel-made bowls exhibit horizontallyflattened rims: pl. 6:6 with traces of a plain red wash, and pl. 6:7 with a polished red wash. The former representsa fairly steep-sidedvessel with what might be consideredto be an elementary(morphologicallyratherthan chronologically)form of Hennessy's "hammerrim" since both the interiorand the exteriorof the Jamidrim projectslightly.On the Jerichotell, hammerrims are said to appearin Phase L (his EB I) and continue with some modificationthroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age. Good examples of the form are known from cAi in Phases V (EB IIB) and VI (EB IIIA), while lesser parallels may be noted in Jericho Tomb D12 and the cave at Arqub el-Dhahr.2These are vague similaritiesto a bowl from Mellaart'sPeriod V at Tell esh-Shuneh in a fabricdescribedby him as Khirbet Kerak Ware (see below, pi. 14:7). The secondfragment(pi. 7:7) may be associatedwith Hennessy'sEB IIA (Phase H) "bowlwith flat rim and highly polished red slip" or his EB IIB (Phase G) "broadbowl with plain, flat rim" (Hennessy 1967: 12 and pi. VI:61,62). It does, however,seem to be in the initialstagesof showing the of rim profile evident in bowls from the slightly laterJerichoTombs D12 and F4. At "triangularity" cAi similartriangularrims appearin (EB I) Phase III,and later in (EB IIB) Phase V and in (EB IIIA) Phase VI.3Attention shouldalso be calledto similaritiesbetween the Jamidpiece and "grain-washed" vessels from Mellaart'sPeriod IV at Tell esh-Shuneh (see below, pl. 11:18, 20, 21) and bowls from Period V said by him to be of KhirbetKerakWare (see below, pi. 13:3, 5). Bowl with in-turnedrim. Fourbowls displayin-turnedrims (pl. 6:4, 5, 8, 9). PI. 6:8, coveredon both surfaceswith a red wash, presents a profile that is only slightly in-turned and is similar to (although slightly more open than) Hennessy's "deepstraight-sided... bowl... with bevelled rim" that appearsatJerichoin tell depositsof (EB IIA) PhaseJ, but it is also similarto more shallowvessels that he sees as characteristicof EB IIIA.4In Period V levels at Tell esh-Shuneh,Mellaartexcavated bowls with similarprofilesin what he identifiedas KhirbetKerakWare (see below, pl. 13:2 and 14:6 and referencesto similarforms in "local"fabrics).

28

Tell Jamid

The other three vessels of this type (pl. 6:4, 5, 9) presentan externally"bevelled"profile,but this is achievedby elongatingthe rim and subsequentlysplayingit towardthe interiorof the vessel. All three are wheel-madeand differ mainly in the color of the slip and the surfacetreatment.These are Hennessy's "carinatebowls with sharply in-turned rim," which are found in Jericho occupational deposits as early as the Proto-Urbanperiod (Hennessy 1967:8, pl. 11:12).The form continues to develop throughoutthe EarlyBronze Age and is found in Mellaart'sPeriod V at Tell esh-Shunehin concertwith Khirbet Kerak Ware (see below, pl. 12:16 and references). rim. PI. 6:1, a wheel-madebowl with an exterior Bowl with in-turnedand horizontally-flattened red wash, presents a rim that has been turned in and then flattened horizontally.This type is essentiallyHennessy'sbowl with "horizontalrim that projectsin,"to which he assigns an initial date of EB I. The form continuesto enjoypopularitythroughoutthe EarlyBronzeAge, appearingin Jericho Tomb D12 alongsideKhirbetKerakWare5and,accordingto Mellaart,in KhirbetKerakWareitself in PeriodV at Tell esh-Shuneh(cf. below,pl. 14:4,with referencesto parallelsin localfabricsat a variety of sites throughoutthe EarlyBronze Age). Bowl with internallythickenedor "foldedover"rim. The Jamidcorpuspresentstwo fragments (pl. 6:2, 3) with internallythickenedrims that appearto have been achievedby folding the rim back againstthe inside of the vessel. Both are wheel-madeof a buff fabric,while pl. 6:2 possesses a red slip on the exterior.Unlike the other open forms from the site, this bowl is difficultto parallel,and only isolatedexamples can be cited.Two deeperbowls from (Proto-Urban/EBI) Phase II at 'Ai exhibit a technicallysimilar rim, while very close examples appearthere in (EB IIIB)Phase VII, as well as at Tell Yarmouth,also in late EarlyBronzedeposits,and in phasesG-I of the CAmuq sequence.6 Jars A numberof fragmentsrepresentthe necks of jars, ranging from simple to complex. Suitable comparandafor the individualvessels,however,are often elusive.7 Necklessjars with verticalor outsplayedr ims.The simplest of these forms is pl. 6:19, with a thin verticalrim, practicallyundistinguishedin thicknessfrom the shoulderof the vessel. Such a basic shape in a plain brownfabricis not a distinctivechronologicalindicator.Externally,pl. 6:16 presentsa similarverticalprofile,but the vessel wall is much thicker,and the concavityof the interioris rareon vessels decoratedin the "bandslip" manner, which is how the Jamid sherd is described.A single parallel,perhapsalso decoratedin "bandslip" can be cited from Level XIV at Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935:pl. IV:19).The tall, slightlyoutsplayedrims of pl. 6:18, 20 are much more suitableto jugs than jars,especiallythe one-handled"stump-based"jugs (exemplifiedat Jamidby pl. 7:23, 24), for which the smooth curve of pl. 6:20 and the more abrupttransitionof pl. 6:18 can be readilyparalleled.8 Comparandawith vessels with wider aperturescan be found in JerichoTombs D12 (for pi. 6:20) and F3 (for pi. 6:18).9Pl. 6:20, however,is said to have been decoratedin the "bandslip"technique. PI. 6:25 exhibits an S-shaped profile from the shoulderto the extremityof the lip without any noticeablethickeningof the vessel wall. This thin, sinuousprofile is present on a jar from Jericho Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960: 73, 143, fig. 47:4 LtypeC.4.a]) and in general the Jamid fragmentapproximates what Hennessy called the "typicalEB III jar form" (Hennessy 1967: 23, pl. XIII:7,shown in CombedWare).The remainingtwo fragmentsin this category(pl. 6:26, 27) are characterizedby rims that are splayedbacksharplyin relationto the angleof the shoulderand a thickeningof the vessel wall at the point of transitionbetween these two morphologicalelements.Vesselswith this combinationof featuresappearthroughoutthe EarlyBronzeAge, appearing,inter alia, in Phases II, III, and possibly

Tell Jamid

29

IV at 'Ai and in GezerGeneralStrataXXV-XXIII, while its appearancein the laterpart of the Early Bronze Age is indicatedby its presence in Jericho Tomb D12. A similar profile is also seen in the 'Amuqon cookingpots of Phase G.10The punctateand inciseddecorationon pl. 6:27 can be foundon EB II jarsat Arad,in the Kinnerethtomb,and on some of the 'AmuqPhaseG cookingpots previously cited.11

Necked jars with outsplayedrims. Four vessels (pi. 6:17, 22-24) share sufficientverticality between the shoulderand the rim to allow them to be classifiedas "neckedjars."Generallysimilar forms are known from most of the EarlyBronze Age, but the present discussionwill be limited to specificparallelsfor the individualpieces of the Jamidcorpus.PI. 6:23 exhibitswhat might almost be consideredan embryonic"bead"rim. It is not, however, as distinct a featureas Hennessy's "curled over"rim that appearsatJerichoin EB IIIAPhaseF (Hennessy1967:13, pl. VII:70),or his "overhanging rim"that becomescommonduringthe same period/phase(Hennessy 1967: 13, pl. VII:71),nor does it (as drawn) fold over as do some of his EB IIIBtypes (Hennessy 1967: pi. IX:93a).Perhapsthe most specificparallelscan be foundin GezerGeneralStratumXXIII (EB IIB) and laterat Tell Yarmouthon a jar with combed decoration.This featurealso appearsat Beth Shan in a deposit assignedto Level XIII.12PI. 6:24 differsfrom the latterin that its neckhas been pulledout more and and the edge of the rim has either been flattenedor given a slight bevel so that the lower edeedge of the rim projectsslightly beyondthe line of the upperedge of the rim. This treatmentis especiallyfrequenton largejars (often with taller necks) from Arad II (Amiran 1978: pl. 34:1, 8; 35:6; 40:1, 6, as well as others). PI. 6:17 exhibits a markedverticalityin the neck,abovewhich the rim has been outsplayed.This is similarto a vessel from Mellaart'sTell esh-ShunehPeriodsIV (pl. 12:2,6) and V (pl. 12:8),the last of which may have been decoratedwith "bandslip" decoration.PI. 6:22 appearsto come from a jar with relatively tall neck and thickened,outsplayedrim. Althoughgenerallysimilarto an EB IIIBtype from the Jericho tell (Hennessy 1967:pl. X:102), preciseparallelsfor theJamidfragmentare scarce. PI. 6:22 presents a profile that seems to have been achievedby bendingthe rim over and against the exterior of the vessel. Relatedpieces appearin EB II and EB III deposits at cAi (Callaway1972: figs. 46:1, 2; 57:1; 61:24; and 1980: fig. 131:37, 132:21) and in EB IIIB deposits on the Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967:pl. X:102). Neckedjars with "bead"rim. Threejar rims (pl. 6:13-15) are includedhere with some hesitation underthe headingof "bead"rims. All three are on vessels (of unknowndiameter)with short,vertical necks.The nearestto a truebead-rimis pl. 6:14, which can be comparedwith Hennessy's"curledover" rims that are found on jars with taller necks in (EB IIIA) Phase F of the tell sequenceat Jericho (Hennessy 1967: 13, pl. VII:70)and on a shorter-neckedvessel from the cave at Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 72, fig. 17:211). PI. 6:15, with a more triangular"bead"on a slightly taller neck, finds vague parallelswith vessels from Jericho Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 74, 108, fig. 35:42, type D.4.B) and Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 72, fig. 17:210). PI. 6:13, with a very short neck and an even more pronouncedtriangularityin the "bead,"is decoratedin the "bandslip" technique.Its closest parallel comes from LevelXIII at Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:11). Neckedjars with horizontallyflattenedrim. Of the three jars (pl. 6:10, 11, 21) with horizontally flattened rims, pl. 6:10, 11 can be discussedtogether since the rim of pl. 6:10 is simply a "pushed down"variantof that on pl. 6:11. PI. 6:10 might be considereda more angularvariantof Hennessy's "overhangingrim"of (EB II) Phase G in the Jerichotell deposits,togetherwith similarrims known from Arad and Ai.13 The best parallelsfor the more flattenedpl. 6:10, however,come from Khirbet Kerak, where they appear in "MetallicWare,"which would agree with the excavator'sdescription

Tell Jamid

30

("hardfired")of the Jamid pieces. More roundedforms are known from cAi, Tell Yarmouth,and Arad.14

PI. 6:21, a horizontallyflattenedrim of a differenttype, is more easily paralleledon jugs/juglets than on jars (JerichoTomb F4; Kenyon 1960: fig. 46:49, 56, etc.). Similar rims on larger aperture vessels, however,can be found in JerichoTomb A114 (Kenyon 1960: 73, 179, fig. 68:21 [type C.5.a] and the cave at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:200). Attention should also be called to an apparently earlier jar from Tell Umm Hamad es-Sherqi (see below, pl. 27:13). Miscellaneous jars. PI. 6:12, with "band slip" decoration, is difficult to parallel, and only a single example from Beth Shan Level XIV can be offered here (FitzGerald 1935: pl. IV:12). Holemouth Jars

The holemouthjarsfromJamidare reviewedhere accordingto five arbitrarycategories.Unfortunately most of these rim types are not very diagnostic,and all seem to have enjoyed a sustained popularitythroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age. Becauseof this, comparisonsare limited for the most part to the site of 'Ai, from which a wide varietyof types in a long chronologicalsequencehas been published.15 Plain, rounded rims. Holemouth jars with simple rounded rims such as pl. 7:6, 7 occur at 'Ai from (Proto-Urban/EB I) Phase II through (EB IIIB) Phase VII. Internally bevelled rims. Two holemouth jars present rims that have been bevelled internally (pl. 7:9, 10). These can also be paralleled at 'Ai throughout the Early Bronze Age, appearing in Phases II through VIII. Internally bevelled rim with inner "channel." PI. 7:1 and 8 display the bevelled rims of the

group just mentioned but have in additiona slight concavityor "channel"to the extremity of the rim/lip. Holemouthjarswith this featureare foundat 'Ai from Phase I throughPhase VIII. Horizontally flattened rims.

Three fragments are from holemouth jars with rims that have been

flattenedhorizontallyto varyingdegrees (pl. 7:2, 4, 11). These can be paralleledat 'Ai from (ProtoUrban/EB I) Phase II through (EB IIIB) Phase VI. Miscellaneous. Two holemouth rims do not fit into the above categories. PI. 7:5, which displays

only the slightestupturnat the tip of the rim,can be paralleledin materialfrom Mellaart'ssoundingat Tell Abu Habil (see below, pl. 11:14, 15), for which Chalcolithic(Ghassul-Beersheba) comparandaare offered.The profile and stanceof pl. 7:3, with appliedcordondecoration,is best comparedwith a rim from Beth Shan Level XIV, but applied cordon decorationon holemouth jars lasts throughoutthe Early Bronze Age. Jugs/Juglets

Two one-handledjugs (or juglets) are present in the assemblagefrom Jamid:pl. 7:23, with a slip. Both vesselswere burnished.Althoughpossibly heavyred slip, andpl. 7:24,with an "orange-buff" EB I this as (Hennessy 1967: 22), jug type is most characteristicof the later EB II appearingas early and EB III periods.Unfortunately,neitherof the Jamidvessels is complete,which makes comparison difficult.However,basedon the slimnessof profile (and slight concavityin the lower bodyof pl. 7:23), the placement of handle from shoulder to rim (on pl. 7:24), and the lack of raised decoration at the

junctureof the shoulder and neck (on both vessels), an EB II rather than an EB III date seems appropriate(Hennessy1967:49-51 [EB II] vs. 71-72 [EB III]).

Tell Jamid

31

CombedWare Five fragmentshave been "decorated" in a mannerthat has changedthe textureof their exterior surfaces.PI. 7:12 is describedby the excavator as having been "scored,"while pl. 7:15-18 were "(pattern)combed."Hennessy notes that "haphazardcombing"on storage jars (more similar to pl. 7:12) appearson the Jerichotell as earlyas (Proto-Urban)Phase L (Hennessy 1967:9, 31, pls. 111:28 and XXV), and a holemouthjarfrom Meserbearsdecorationsimilarto the Jamidpiece (Dothan 1957: 225, fig. 3). The more regulardecorationof pl. 7:15-18 is, of course,the CombedWarecommonduring EB II-III in Palestine,which was frequentlyexportedto Egypt.Although it seems most likelythat all of the Jamid fragmentsare from jars with opposing handlesat mid-body(Amiran 1970a:59, photo 52), we cannotbe certain.This is unfortunate,since for Hennessy "isolatedsherdsare difficultto place in this fabric,and it seems that the only criterionis the shape of the jars"(Hennessy 1967: 23 n. 152; cf. also his remarkson CombedWare,pp. 52, 72-73). Miscellaneous The two small fragmentsof paintedware (pi. 7:20, 21) and the three ledge-handles(pl. 7:13, 14, 19) do not add significantlyto the chronologicalrefinementof the Jamidcorpus.The tiny fragmentof a ribbedstand (pl. 7:22) in KhirbetKerakWare,however,is a certainindicatorof the EB IIIperiodat the site.16

Summary Trench I, consisting of two strata without any indicationof architecture,was describedin the notebooks as representing "mixed EB I-II" material. The upper layer (1) in this trench is the equivalentof topsoil,and the four sherdsillustratedfrom here rangein date from EB I to EB II. It is in the lower layer(2), however,that the mixing becomesmore apparent,with EB I grainwash/band-slip appearingwith EB II (and later)pattern-combeddecoration. Trench II presented a similar two-layerstratigraphy.Here Layer1 also representstopsoil and displaysthe mixing seen in the upperstratumof TrenchI, includingthe presenceof grainwash/bandslip. The large basaltstructureis said to have been foundedon the lower layer(2), a graypottery-rich soil deposit, the material from which should provide the terminuspost quem for this impressive building.As noted by the excavator,with the exception of a few (intrusive?)sherds decoratedwith EB I grain wash/band-slipdecoration,the potteryfrom Layer2 is more uniformlyEB II, as indicated by the inverted-rimbowls, stump-basejugs, and at least one of the pattern-combed(in this case, "scored")vessels. Unfortunately,none of the floors associatedwith the buildingwas preserved,and thus Layer2 is not actuallysealed.Surfacefinds,which includedone fragmentof a KhirbetKerakWare stand, showed no pottery definitelylater than EB III, which would seem to suggest that the basalt buildingat Jamidwas built in late EB II at the earliest,or possiblyearlyin EB III at the latest.Since no evidence for later Bronze Age occupationof the site was detectedby Mellaart(post-EarlyBronze potteryconsistedof "medievalArabicpainted"wares and Turkishpipe fragments),the structuremust have been abandonedsometimein the EB IIIperiod. The earliest people to settle on Tell Jamid must have arrivedduringEB I; the excavatornoted that no Chalcolithicpotterywas foundeither on the surfaceor in the lower strata,and thus the users of the EB I potteryseem to have been the firstto utilizethis strategicallyimportantsite.17

32

Tell Jamid Jamid:ArtifactIndex TrenchI Layer 1 Layer 2 TrenchII Layer 1 Layer 2

PI. 6:7-10 PI.6:5, 6, 12, 16, 17,22,25,26 Pl. 7:13-18 PI. 6:2-4, 13-15, 18-21 Pl. 7:2, 3 Pl. 6:1, 23 P1.7:1,4, 8-10, 12, 19, 21, 23, 24

Notes 1If the sequential characterof the combination of bonded and butted walls can be extrapolatedto apply to foundations,Mellaart'sreferenceto "twowalls (that) abuton the south side of the wide wall"(here, Wall 1) must refer to what are here termed Wall 9 and Installation1. A case for interpretingInstallation1 as a wall with a comparativewidth of ca. 0.60 m (cf. Wall 2, which would run parallelto it on the southeast) can be made by "removing"the three stones in its southern angle with Wall 1, but in this case the oval grindingstone (doorsocket?)visibleon the plan wouldhave formed part of the foundationof the wall. If we are in fact dealing here with a secondwall, this wouldpresent evidence for a furtherreductionin the length of this room. 2Jericho Tell (Hennessy 1967: 10, pl. IV:30; 15, pl. X:98); Ai (Callaway1972: 29, figs. 44:11 [Phase V], 61:5 [Phase VI]); JerichoTomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 59, 111, fig. 36:15 [type 0.2.b, "platter"];55, 118, pl. 38:12 [type D.4.a, bowl];andArqubel-Dhahr (Parr1956:fig. 14:86,117). 3Jericho(Kenyon 1960:Tomb D12-60, 98, fig. 33:24 [type P.2.a];Tomb F4-55, 129, fig. 43:9 [type D.3.a]). Kenyon offers what is basicallya relative chronologyfor her EarlyBronze tombs (Kenyon 1960: 52-53). Hennessy considersTomb F4 to be contemporarywith his EB IIIAPhase F (Hennessy 1967:21, chart).Tomb D12 containedKhirbet Kerak Ware (Kenyon 1960: 60, 120-21, fig. 38:27-35). 'Ai (Callaway1972: 29 [chronology]and figs. 26:18, 45:5, 56:15 and 60:10). 4 EB IIA:Hennessy 1972: 12, pl. VL:56.Hennessynotes, however,that the form mayhave originatedas earlyas (EB I) Phase L (1972: 12, 21, chart). EB IlA: Hennessy 1967: 22, pi. XIII:1;cf. the wide bibliographycitedin the notes on p. 22. 5 Hennessy 1967: 19, pl. XI:4. For JerichoTomb D12, cf. Kenyon 1960: 55, 97, figs. 33:2 (type D.2.b) and 38:9 (type D.l.b).

6

'Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 20:11, 14; 1980: fig. 129:2,4, 9, etc.); Tell Yarmouth(Ben-Tor 1975b;fig. 6:5); the Amutq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: Phase G, figs. 202:1, 2, 4, [Plain Simple Ware] and 216:1 [Simple Warewith OrangeBrownSlip and Burnish];Phase H: figs. 271:6 [Plain Simple Ware], 272:1 [Simple Ware with Orange-BrownSlip and Burnish];and PhaseI: figs. 312:10,314:1 [SimpleWare]). 7 Hennessy notes the difficultiesin ceramicallydefining the middlerangeof the EarlyBronzeAge on the Jerichotell "from fragmentsof bases and necks"(Hennessy 1967: 20), while Kenyon prefers only to suggest a relativechronology for the sequenceof her Early Bronze tombs. For the difficulties involved in separatingEB II from EB III at Arqub el-Dhahr,cf. Parr 1956:62. 8 At Jerichothe curveof the form representedhere by pl. 6:20 can be seen as early as the Proto-Urbanperiod (Hennessy 1967:pl. XIX:4, XXXI:1, 3) and as late as EB III (Hennessy 1967: pl. VII:84c).It also appearson the Palestinian jugs found in Egyptiantombs, includingthose of the so-called "AbydosWare" (Hennessy 1967: pls. XXXIXXLIV:passim). The more abruptchange of directionof pl. 6:18 appearson jugs at Jerichoin EB IIIA (Hennessy 1967: pl. VII:75a)and on the exampleshe illustratesfrom SanctuaryA at cAi (pl. XIV:17). 9JerichoTomb D12 (Kenyon 1960:60, 120, fig. 38:27, a Khirbet Kerak Ware bowl [type R.l.a]). Note also its appearanceon a large imitation Khirbet Kerak Ware onehandledcup from Tomb F4 (type A.3.a, Kenyon 1960: 133, fig. 44:15). Tomb F3 (Kenyon 1960: 73, 153, fig. 53:1 [type C.2.a]). 109Ai(Callaway1972: figs. 17:9, 10 [Phase II, ProtoUrban]; 27:15 [Phase III, EB I]; and 37:15 [Phase IV, EB IIA]; Gezer (Dever 1974: 4-5 [chart], pls. 3:5 [XXV, EB IB]; 5:3, 7:7 [XXIV, EB IIA], and 10:7 [XXIII, EB IIB]). Possibleearlierversionsof this form can be seen in deposits

Tell Jamid of Hennessy's EB I on the Jericho tell (Hennessy 1967: pl. IV:35); Jericho Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 108, fig. 35:51 [type B.l.b]); cf. also examples from Tell Yarmouth(BenTor 1975b:fig. 6:16) and possiblyCAffula(Sukenik1948:pl. IV:32);the Am,uq(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960:292, fig. 232:5). 11Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 37:4, 5); Kinnereth(Amiran and Hass 1973: pl. 6:35); and the Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960:292, "pottersmarks"). 12 Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 10:23,and possibly24); Tell Yarmouth (Ben-Tor 1975b: 66, pl. 8:3); and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:9). 13Jericho(Hennessy1967:13, pl. VI:65);Arad (Amiran 1978:pl. 40:5 [StratumIII-II]); and 'Ai (Callaway1972:259, fig. 61:28 [Phase VI]; and possiblyCallaway1980:fig. 111:36 [PhaseVI]). 14 Khirbet Kerak (Esse, personalcommunication,inter alia, EB II deposits in Phase III of Trench M); Ai (Callaway 1972:fig. 37:19 [PhaseIV]); Tell Yarmouth(Ben-Tor1975b: fig. 10:6);andArad (Amiran1978:pl. 53:19 [StratumI]). 15 A. plain, roundedrims:Callaway1972:cf., inter alia, figs. 18:5,6 (PhaseII);28:23,24 (PhaseIII);38:11, 16 (Phase IV); 46:17-19 (Phase V); 62:5, 8, 11 (Phase VI); and Callaway 1980:fig. 133 (PhaseVII).

33

B. internallybevelled rims: Callaway1972: figs. 18:26 (Phase II); 28:9, 10, 29:5 (Phase III):38:17 (Phase IV); 48:3 (Phase V); 63:8, 11, 67:11 (Phase VI); and Callaway1980: figs. 133:20,134:8,16 (PhaseVII), and 141:25(PhaseVIII). C. bevelledrims with channel.Callaway1972:figs. 15:9 (Phase I); 20:19 (Phase II); 30:6-9 (Phase III); 38:21, 22 (Phase IV); 48:4, 5 (Phase V); 63:12, 13, 17, 18 (Phase VI); andCallaway1980:figs. 136:18,21 (PhaseVII), 141:15(Phase VIII). D. horizontally-flattenedrims: Callaway 1972: figs. 18:20,20:16 (Phase II); 28:24 (Phase III);47:2, 48:12 (Phase V); 62:22 (Phase VI); and Callaway1980: fig. 88:11 (Phase IV). E. miscellaneousrims:FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:12,from Beth Shan XIV. They also appearin EB II StratumI at Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 52:24) and EB IIIB Phase VII at CAi (Callaway1980:fig. 137:10-16,etc.). 16 For ribbedstands in KhirbetKerakWare,cf. below, pls. 18:16,18,20,21; 19:1,15), fromMellaart'sLevelV at Tell esh-Shuneh. 17 Mellaartdoes note, however,that the WadiYarmouk was "inhabited"earlierthan EB I, as shown by the presence there of Mousterianpoints and at least three stations with signs of Neolithicflint-workingdetectedby de Contenson.

Tell

esh-Shuneh

Mashaweh

Tell esh-Shuneh Mashaweh ("ShunehNorth"), a site measuringca. 800-1000 m east-west by 100-150 m north-south,is locatedon the northernbank of the Wadi 'Arab (fig. 1). Alreadyin the early 1950s Shuneh North, describedby Mellaart(1962: 131, 133) as "probablythe most important site" in his survey area and "one of the most importantearly sites in the JordanValley,"had been severely damagedby canal and road constructionand settlement occlusion.In fact, de Contenson's attention was first called to the potential of the site during the building of the crossroadsat the southern end of the town, which revealedover 200 m of horizontalarchaeologicaldeposit. Here, de Contenson(1960a: 12-31; 1960b;1961) placedhis sounding(TrenchI), which producedartifactsand architecturethat he attributedto both "Middle"and "Late"Chalcolithicand the EB I and II periods. Mellaart,on the other hand, chose the western end of the tell for his work (fig. 7). Here he began excavationin three "trenches"(II, III,IV), all of which he dug to the EB III/KhirbetKerakphase of the site. He was able to reachvirgin soil, however,only in Trench II. In his field recordsMellaartequatedthe term layerwith stratumand the term level with period. For the sake of consistencythese equationsare followed here. It should also be noted that in dealing with the lower levels of Trench II, the "north-south"orientationof Mellaart'ssection drawings(fig. 12) has been utilized in the present discussion.These are not, however, to be consideredprecise compass directionssince, as fig. 11 illustrates,Section A-B is nearer NE-SW and Section C-D is actuallya "dog-leg."

The Stratigraphyof TrenchII Level I The artifactsfrom Level I, which representthe earliest remains excavatedat Tell esh-Shuneh, were found only in the bottom strataof de Contenson'ssounding (Trench I) and have been amply describedin the reporton his work at the site (1960a: 13-20). Contemporarymaterialwas not found in Mellaart'ssoundings(TrenchesII-IV) in the western part of the site.

Level II Mellaartexcavatedhis Trench II in a series of "layers"of which Layer20, the lowest, was virgin soil. Above this was a soft, ashy Layer 19, which included"masses"of pottery.Associatedwith this layer the notebook records two walls, L and M. Although Wall L is not indicatedon any of the preservedplans or sections,Wall M is (fig. 12), and it appearsto be an east-westwall ca. 1.45 m wide at the base and preservedto a height of ca. 0.90 m. It was constructedof mud brickset on a single course stone sockle that was built into a shallow foundationtrench dug into the virgin soil. Since pottery-richLayer19 is not cut by WallM, it must representeither slow accumulationor deliberatefill on both the "northern"and "southern"sidesof the wall.This situationsuggeststhat the buildersof the structureof which Wall M formeda part utilizedthe virgin soil as their occupationsurface;they thus representthe firstoccupantsof the westernend of the site for whichexcavationhas providedevidence. 34

35

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

WADI ARAB

ROCKS

I

TO IRBID

Fig. 7. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). Sketchmap of the site from the excavationnotebook,with detail (inset) of the western end of the tell showing the locationof TrenchesII-IV (solidarea). TrenchesII-IV were later combinedand dug to virgin soil as Trench II. No. 1 marks a small mound with Roman materialon the surface;No. 2 recordstwo small moundsproducing "Medievalto Arabic"sherdson the surface;and No. 3 callsattentionto a large section of the ancienttell that had been dug awayshortlybeforeMellaart'sworkat the site (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

36

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

Fig. 8. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). Photographof Round House 0 takenapproximatelyfrom the west duringexcavation(J.Mellaart).

Level III The major architecturalfeatureof Level III is Round House 0 (fig. 8), which is situatedto the "south"of the earlierWall M and was actuallybuilt on (or more probablyinto) Layer19, as Mellaart definitelynoted the presenceof this materialbelow the Round House floor (figs. 10, 12). Associated with this Level are four walls (fig. 9): Wall N in the southerncornerof the square;Wall 0, the curved wall of the RoundHouse itself;and WallsP and Q not otherwisedescribed,but which may be the two "wing walls"that flank the entrywayof the house on its western side. The stratigraphicrelationship between Wall N and the Round House is, unfortunately,impossibleto ascertainwithout appropriate section drawings.The relationshipof the two "wingwalls"to the roundstructureis also problematic, but on both the plan (fig. 9) and SectionC-D (fig. 12) they appearto butt against(perhapsat a higher level than) the western side of the RoundHouse and thus were probablybuilt subsequentto the main construction. Round House 0 measuresmore than 4.5 m in diameterexternally,with an internalliving space just under 3.0 m (fig. 9). The (0.70 m wide) wall is built of mud bricks,which vary greatly in shape and size, laid on a single(?) coarse stone sockle.Unlike its predecessorWall M, the Round House is

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

o -

-

2

37

3

M. ~~~~1~

Fig. 9. Tell esh-Shuneh (North). Plan of RoundHouse 0 from Level III in TrenchII. SectionC-D appearsin fig. 12, and SectionE-F appearsin Fig. 10 (J.Mellaart).

founded on debris (Layer 19) rather than on virgin soil. No foundationtrench was indicatedor recordedfor this building. Mellaartnoted severallayersduringthe excavationof Level III,seven of which consistedof ash and soil build-upoutsideRoundHouse 0 (18a-14, and 11), and fourof which representedlayersinside the structure(13-11). Layer 11 and its subdivisionsis alwaysproblematic.Layer13, the occupation surface,is not furtherdescribedin the notebooks,but it appearsfrom all of the drawings(especially SectionE-F, fig. 10) to have been madeof plasterthat formeda curbwhere it met the walls.There is some suggestionfrom SectionC-D (fig. 12) and the plan (fig. 9) that the walls of the buildingmight also have been coveredwith a thin coatingof a similarmaterial.A flat stone foundslightlyoff-center

38

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

/ /

'

, i

/

\

/

,/

\

A

/ /

/j ./

/

/ /

I \I

\ \

i

5ELrIoN s_E,, :LO0c, ........ ,,','.

E'

",,

19

L A ~A4y

Fig. 10. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). SectionE-F throughRoundHouse 0 in LevelIII,TrenchII (J.Mellaart).

on this floor suggestedto Mellaartthe type of roofingsystem illustratedin fig. 10. To the north of the base for the centralroof support,a small assemblageof intactand fragmentarypotterywas foundon the floor (Layer13), partiallycoveredby a thickdeposit of ash (Layer12). The floor,pottery,and ash were subsequentlysealedby a collapseof the walls of the RoundHouse. This processis representedby the subdivisionsof Layer 111and culminatedwith the main (ash) Layer11, which was, accordingto the excavator,later "troddenin" and used as an occupationfloor in the succeedingphase. The deposit outside and against Round House 0 is much thickeron the "northern"side of the structureand here revealsa series of alternatingsoil (Layers18, 16, and 14) and ash (Layers18a, 17, and 15) deposits, some of which could have served as occupationsurfaces.As in the case with the deposits within Round House 0, the sequenceoutside the structureis cappedby ash Layer11 of the succeedinglevel, which was traceableacrossthe entire sounding,sealingbelow it the remainsof Round House 0 as well as the top of Wall M, which must have remainedvisible duringmuch of the history of the Round House. Level IV Layer 11, the thin but extensive ash deposit that covers the entire sounding, represents the absoluteend of RoundHouse 0 (figs. 10, 12). Althoughit is interpretedby Mellaartas the lowest floor of Level IV, there is no known architectureassociatedwith this surface,and contemporarybuildings,if they ever existed, must lie outside the excavatedarea.Above the ashy Layer11 is a deposit of brown earth (Layer10) upon which is superimposeda thin screeof gravel (Layer9), which might possiblybe the ephemeral remainsof an occupationsurface.Above Layer9 is a second earth deposit, Layer8, apparentlysimilar to Layer10. Associatedwith Layer8 is the enigmatic"WallK" visible in Section C-D. From the drawing, Wall K seems to be an "east-west"wall one row wide and (possibly) preserved to a height of two courses above the gravel "floor"of Layer9, but there is insufficient informationto be more certainor specific.

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

39

Other layerswere also includedby Mellaartin his LevelIV: Layer7, possiblya gravelfloor similar to Layer9;2 Layer6, a hard,buff soil layer;and Layer7a, a localizedashy deposit in the centerof the sounding.The first two of these layershave much in common with the other strataof Level IV, but Layer7a is especiallyproblematic.The locationof this patch of ash, directlybelow the hearth of the LevelV building,suggeststhat Layer7a was in some way associatedwith the later installation,but the stratigraphicconnectionbetween the two remains ambiguous. Level V Level V, consistingof five layersand their subdivisions,was separatedby the excavatorinto two major sub-phases(figs. 11, 12): Level Va, lower, with considerablearchitectureunited by a stamped clay floor (Layer5) with its make-up (Layers5a and 5b-not indicatedon section drawings) and deposit (Layer4); and Level Vb, upper, consisting of a second clay floor (Layer3a) and deposits between it and the topsoil (Layer1). Level Va. The architectureof LevelVa can be discussedmost convenientlyin three groups (fig. 11): a centralunit consistingof Walls D, E, and K; a southernunit comprisedof walls F, G, H, and I; and an eastern unit that includesWalls B and C. The centralunit is comprisedof a seriesof walls (especiallyD and E) that produceda rectangular element with its long axis oriented approximatelynortheast, with a shallow (ca. 0.75 x 1.20 m) "annex"on the south containinga rectilinearsherd-linedhearthwith a small hole or pit south of it.3 The locationof the entranceto the main (ca. 2.0 x 4.10 m) room of this complex is unknown,but it was possibly positioned in the gap in the wall indicatedby Mellaarton the plan, to the west of the A-B Section Line (see arrow).4At any rate, the hearth appearsto be less relatedto the rectangular room than to the open courtyardand the architecturalunit to the south. The southernunit (WallsF, G, H, and I) in great part mirrorsthe plan of the adjacentcentral unit, with the exception that the large rectangularroom of the latter appearsto be dividedinto two smaller rooms (by Wall H). There is no evidencefor a hearthin the southernunit, and the placement of the doorwayscan only be hypothesized. The similaritiesin orientationand plan between the centraland southernunits, as well as the probabilitythat the clayfloor (Layer5) indicatedin both sections"south"of Wall F coveredthe open area between Walls E and G, suggest that this in fact is a single architecturalcomplex. The easternunit is representedby a single well-definedstone wall (WallB) excavatedto a length of ca. 3.0 m and describedas having been built of boulder-sizestones, without a foundationtrench.At the time of excavationit was preservedto a height of fourcourses.To the east of WallB are the scant tracesof WallC, recordedsimply as the "fragmentaryremainsof a poor wall."The relationshipof this wall to the better preservedWall D is not clear from the plan and is confusedby the section (C-D), where two walls, both evidentlyfoundedat a lower level (than B), are shown to the north of Wall B. Plaster and what appearsto be (part of ?) a secondhearthare also noted on the plan to the north of the wall, but more cannot be said with certainty.That the Wall B structureshould be consideredan integralpart of the architectural complexto the west can be demonstrateoby the fact that the stamped floor connects Walls B and D. clay (Layer5) The problematicpoints regardingthe relationshipof WallsB throughI, which can be seen in the section drawings,shouldbe noted.WallsB, D, E, and F are all directlyassociatedwith the clayfloor of Layer5, built (without foundationtrenches)5directlyon Layer6 (or its equivalent)6of the preceding Level IV. The clay Layer5 would then represent an intentionaldeposition of a standardizedfloor, which, as noted above, seems to integratethe variousarchitecturalelements of this phase. It is not

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

40

B I

N

*

POST4 OL I :T.' `>, . _/

A ':

I_

K

4EArRTH

,. -';7

r

A

0I

2 1.

3 ..

4 I

M.

Fig. 11. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). Plan of the largebuildingfrom Level V in TrenchII. (J.Mellaartand A. Leonard,Jr.).

41

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

I-

0CF z co

0\ 0 0 ?s 0

0 ..,

0 0 0

0

fj 0 o 0

0 *I

0 Es

0

.^) 0 0 0 00 0

I x

'-S

0

0i *0

I_

0I (Nj

E

42

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

clear,however,whetherLayers6, 5a, and 5b (5a and 5b do not appearin the sectiondrawings)should be consideredtogetheras a single stratigraphicunit, with localizedvariations(i.e., a filling operation) carriedout by the Level V buildersin order to achievesuch a remarkablylevel floor.7 The second majorproblemwith the architectureof this phase is the apparentcoincidenceof the LevelV hearthbeing built almostexactlyabovethe earlierlevel IV ash lens (Layer7a). It seems better to associatethe Layer7a ash lens with the laterphase,but a definiteattributioncannotbe made at this time.

Level Vb. Level Vb, the upper subdivisionof Level V, is characterizedby a second clay floor (Layer3a), which againappearsto covermost of the excavatedarea.SectionA-B indicatesthat at least WallsB and D of the earliercomplexwere utilizedin this secondphase,but WallE had definitelygone out of use by this phase, since Layer4, consideredby Mellaartto be "occupationaldebris,"entirely covers its remains.The subdivisionof this debris into Layer4a and 4b (SectionA-B) is not easy to understand.That these layersappearimmediatelyto the south of Wall D may indicatelater digging that resultedin the rediscoveryand reutilizationof Wall D by capping it with a mudbrickwall, as is apparentin SectionA-B. In additionto the incorporationat this time of the earlierWallD, a bolsteringof WallB seems to have taken place by the buildingof a narrower(ca. 0.20 m wide) wall againstat least a portion of its southernface (cf. plan and SectionA-B). Unfortunately,we cannotcommentfurtheron the natureof the plan of the Level Vb buildingof which the reused Wall D and the strengthenedWall B were elements.The demise of the structure,however,can be seen in the debris(Layer3) that accumulated on and finallycoveredthe Layer3a floor andthe remainsof its architecture. In additionto the two majorsubdivisionsof this phase (Va and Vb), resumedbuildingactivityon the site is evidencedby Wall A with a "posthole"(LayerIa) nearbyto the east (fig. 11). This angle of walling differs dramaticallyin orientationfrom the precedingstructures,and in fact its foundation trenchis said to have cut into Layer3 debristhat coveredthe laterphase of that construction.No floor was found associatedwith this wall, but the ceramicssuggestedto Mellaarta date for the structure within the parametersof the Level V horizon.Mudplasterfragmentsin a matrixof soft brown earth (Layer2) were seen as evidenceof the structure'sdisintegration,afterwhich the whole was coveredby surfacesoil (Layer1).

The CeramicAssemblage The ceramicartifactsfrom Mellaart'sexcavationsat Tell esh-Shunehare presentedhere according to the four periods/levels (II-V) into which the excavatorsubdividedthe resultsof his soundings.In the terminologyof the early 1950s they are: PeriodII, LateChalcolithic;PeriodIII,EB Ib; PeriodIV, EB II; and Period V, EB III. The "MiddleChalcolithic"Period I, identifiedby de Contenson in his soundingat the site (de Contenson1960a:13-20), was not encounteredby Mellaartat Tell esh-Shuneh. Period/Level II The Period II assemblageconsists of both open and closed forms in a variety of shapes and surfacetreatments. Small Bowls. Small thin-walledbowls or cups appearin two types:those with a hemispherical shape (pl. 8:16) and those whose profilesexhibit a slight carinationin the upper body wall (pl. 8:14, 15). The shape of the former,with a red wash on the interiorthat continuesover the lip to present a horizontalband at the exterior rim, can be easily paralleledin the Proto-Urbantomb materialfrom

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

43

Jericho,but the absenceof the lower portion of the vessel makes it difficultto assign it to a specific position within Kenyon's type-seriesof the form.8PI. 8:14 and 15, both decoratedwith a red wash, exhibit an incipientcarinationsimilarto that found on Hennessy'sProto-Urbanbowl type VI, which first appears on the Jericho tell in Phase Oi (Hennessy 1967: 8, pi. 11:6),but which seems to be unrepresentedin the contemporaryJerichotombs.Other "early"examplesof this type can be foundat Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1948: fig. 6:13; 1961: fig. 3:35, 38), but the type does continueinto the fully urbanizedphases of the EarlyBronzeAge.9 LargerBowls. Three of the larger bowls present relativelystraight-sidedprofiles (pl. 8:8, 12, 17). All three are of a buff fabric,varyingportionsof which have been treatedwith a red wash. Both hand- and wheel-manufactureare evidenced.The exterioredges of the rims of pl. 8:8 and 12 have been slightly "flattened,"giving the impression of a very slight carination.This may have been accidentalor done in imitationof formssuch as pl. 8:14, 15.10 PI. 8:11, of a buff fabriccoveredwith a dull blackwash, displaysa stronglyin-curvedrim that occursfrequentlyin Kenyon's Proto-Urbantype-seriesof bowls from the Jerichotombs. The shape can also be paralleledon the tell at Jerichoby Hennessy'scontemporarybowl type III and is common at Tell Farcah(N).11 Four wheel-madevessels (pl. 8:9, 10, 18, 19), predominantlyof a buff fabricwith a red or black wash,12share a sharplyinvertedrim. Rims of this type, which enjoya sustainedpopularitythroughout the EarlyBronzeAge, appearin Proto-Urbandepositson the Jerichotell on both shallow and deeper bowls (Hennessy 1967: 8, pl. 11:7[type VII]; 11:12[type XII]). The deepest of these is relatedby Hennessy to bowls of Kenyon'stype-seriesfrom the Jerichotombs and,judgingfrom the stances,it is to this class that the Tell esh-Shuneh fragmentsshould be assigned.These vessels, which may be forerunnersof (or variati oson) the more standard"platter,"are known from a numberof sites in contexts comparablein date with the Jerichoexamples.13Chalcolithicantecedentsfor this rim-type may be seen in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956:fig. 8:15, 16). Holemouth Bowls. Fourfragments(pls. 8:13, 21, 22 and 9:4) represent"holemouthbowls,"i.e., to those on holemouth jars,but on more open forms. All are describedas they display rims simrnilar wheel-made.Pls. 8:22 and 9:4 are said by the excavatorto have been decoratedin the "grain-wash" ("band-slip")technique,a style that has been consideredfor almost half a centuryto be a diagnostic featureof the "NorthernCulture"of Palestineduringthe EB I (Proto-Urban)period.14PI. 8:13 bears (a band of?) slashes below the exterior of the rim, while pl. 8:21 combines these two types of decorativetreatment.15 SpoutedBowls. A wheel-madebowl with incurvingprofile (pl. 9:1) displaysa short cylindrical spout high on the vessel wall. The exteriorof the rim of this spoutedbowl has been given a horizontal bandof diagonalslashesbefore its red surfacewas coveredwith a buffwash and subsequentlypainted with a linear design in red. Spoutedbowls and jars have a Chalcolithicheritage(de Contenson1956: figs. 3:7, 8; 4:1-3; 8:6, 19, etc.), but linearpainting in this manneron a light-coloredgroundis more indicativeof the "line-group" or "band-painted" decorationof the Proto-UrbanB/EB IB period.16 Holemouthjars. Six fragmentscome from vessels sufficientlyclosed to be termed holemouth jars ratherthan bowls (pls. 8:20; 9:11-14, 11:15).These jars are predominantlywheel-made,and the majority(pls. 9:11-14, 11:15) are decoratedwith a horizontalband of slashes at, or more frequently just below, the rim, a type of decorationthat is quite popularon holemouthjars at sites on the East Bank of the JordanRiver.'7PI. 9:12 exhibits the combinationof "grain-wash"over slashes that we

44

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

have seen to be ratherspecific to Tell esh-Shuneh (N). PI. 9:13, 14 are describedby the excavator as being of a "cracklyware," which might relate these pieces to similarly describedpieces from KhirbetKerak. Morphologically,the jars with slashed decoration(pls. 9:11-14; 11:15) and the closely related holemouthbowls discussedabovefind theirclosestand most frequentparallelseast of the Jordan(cf. n. 17). The thickenedrim of pl. 8:20 is known from de Contenson'ssoundingat the site, 'Affula,and possibly'Ai.18 Everted-RimJars. The materialfrom Mellaart'sPeriodII depositsalso containeda largenumber of jarswith short rims evertedto varyingdegrees (9:7-10, 15-19). Buff fabricsand wheel-manufacture categorizethis group,which exhibitsrims that are everted,slightlythickened,and flattenedon the top (pl. 9:8, 9, 15, 19), and also rims that present a "wavy"profileforminga shallowchannelthat perhaps functionedas a lid-device (pl. 9:10, 16, 17, 18).19Decorationconsists of plain red, brown, or black washes (pl. 9:10, 16-19); a brownwash appliedover a bandof small punctates(pl. 9:9); and the more elaborate"grain-wash" (pl. 9:8, 15), whichprobablyindicatesan EB I datefor these pieces. PI. 9:25 is includedhere for the sake of convenience.The exteriorof its thick,rolledrim has been emphasizedwith a horizontalband of impressions,and the vessel itself has been decoratedwith a red-brown"washypaint"in a mannerdescribedby the excavatoras "northernpainted."Althoughthe origin of this jar type may be seen in a thinner-rimmedversion from Hennessy's Proto-Urban sequenceon the Jericho tell (Hennessy 1962: 8, pl. 11:13),more specificparallelsfor the Tell eshShunehpiece are foundin EB I contexts.20 Juglets. The base fragmentin the composite reconstructionof pl. 9:21 presents an (evidently) string-cutbase.Jugletscoveredwith a red wash are well known from Kenyon'sProto-Urbantombs at Jericho,but with the possibleexceptionof her type D.1 ("flat,sharp-cutbase")this fragmentdoes not fit easily into her type series of the form (Kenyon 1960: 13-16; 1965:7, 8). Rims and upper bodiesof two similarvessels (pl. 9:5, 6) displaythe same buff fabricand red wash.The highlyburnishedsurface of pl. 9:6 links this piece more with the jugletsfrom Tell Far'ah (N) than those fromJericho,where burnishingis less frequentlydocumented(Kenyon 1960:5). Three rim fragmentswith partialhandles attached(pl. 9:23-25) shouldalso be placedhere. Miscellaneous. Fourfragmentsare includedunderthis generalheading.PI. 8:7 is from a small, open form (cup?) with (single?) loop handle attachmentat the rim. The angle of the handle distinguishes the vessel from the series of jugletsdiscussedabove,but the slashes on its plain, buff surface may relatethe piece to the holemouthbowlspresentedearlier.2' Two body fragments (pl. 9:2, 3) display vertical stripes in red paint and should probablybe associatedwith the "line-group"(or "band-painted") decorationof EB IB. A single fragmentin a grayburnished/blackfabricthat seems to be EsdraelonWare(pl. 9:20) can be paralleled with "knobbed"vessels in that fabric assigned to Period III Layer 15 (see below, pl. 8:1, 2). Period/LevelIII (RoundHouse 0) The majorityof vessels from Mellaart'sPeriodIII at Tell esh-Shunehconsistsof open forms. CarinatedBowls. The most numerousvessel type in the Period III assemblageis a small bowl with carinatedprofile (pl. 10:1-4, 6-9, 12-14). The degreeof carinationvariesfrom the slight bend in the vessel wall of pl. 10:14to the more sharplydefinedkeels of pl. 10:7,8, etc. All eleven examplesare wheel-madeof a buff fabric.The color of the wash is almost equallydividedbetween red and brown,

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

45

with one bowl displaying a color between the two. Five of these vessels exhibit string-cut bases (pI. 10:4,6, 7, 9, 13) while pl. 10:8 is said to have a "potter'smark."Two of these bowls (pl. 10:8, 13) are describedas havinglime concretions;if these concretionsare on the interior,they may indicatethe functionthat the bowls had served before they were sealed in this deposit. If the lime deposits also were on the exterior,they may suggestthat the bowls were in a refusecontext. Carinatedbowls from Proto-Urbanand EB I contextson the Jerichotell displaya concavityabove the point of carinationthat is absentin the Tell esh-Shunehbowls.Unfortunately,carinatedforms are the exception among the plethora of small bowls from the contemporaryJericho tombs, although some similaritieswith the Shunehpieces can be seen in the EB III (KhirbetKerak)Tomb D12. This suggests a potentiallylong chronologicalrange for these bowls, since some affinitiescan also be found with Chalcolithicforms as well as with vessels from Early Bronze contexts prior to JerichoTomb D12.22

PI. 10:1exhibitsa certaindegreeof verticalityabovethe base,which is intriguinglyreminiscentof the small silver bowl from Tomb 12 at Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1951:587, 589, fig. 13:1;pl. XXVIIa, with a ceramicparallel,fig. 13:2,attributedto JerichoLevelV ["EBI"]). Bowls with IncurvedRim. Four vessels from the Period III deposit exhibit rims that are invertedor in-curvedto varyingdegrees (pl. 10:23, 25, 26, 28). All are wheel-madeof a buff, gritty fabric,as are vessels of similarform in PeriodII levels (pl. 8:11, 18, 19). Most are coveredwith black wash,which furtherassociatesthem with the PeriodII pieces. PI. 10:25 displaysa very slight curveat the tip of the rim. Althoughits base is missing,this rim type can be comparedwith some of the bowls in Kenyon'sProto-Urbantype series from the Jericho tombs. Most similarto the Shunehpieces is round-basedB.2.a (Kenyon 1960: 11, esp. fig. 11:7,from Tomb A94). PI. 10:24admittedlydoes appearto be deeperthan most of the bowls from this sequence. The rims of pl. 10:23,28 are more sharplyincurving.PI. 10:23,which forms the morphological transitionto the other two bowls, is similar to pl. 8:11 from Period II and can also be paralleledin Proto-Urbancontextsat Jericho.PI. 10:28,of similarprofile,comes from a vessel that is an essentially deepervariantof manyof the shallowbowls of Kenyon'sProto-Urbantomb series (Kenyon 1960: 11, fig. 9:3, 5). This deeper form is known in roughly contemporarydeposits at several other SyroPalestiniansites.23 The rim of pl. 10:26 is more sharplyin-turnedthan the examplesof relatedvessels in PeriodII (pl. 8:9, 10, 18, 19), for which Proto-Urban/EBI comparisonshave been cited above,and parallelsfor the present piece are also to be found in many of the referencedcontexts.24The form and its matteblackwash, however,still seem to anticipatethe main line of the "platter"form that is sucha hallmark of the fullyurbanizedEarlyBronzeAge. EsdraelonWareBowls. Five bowls were identifiedby the excavatoras EsdraelonWare(pl. 8:14, 6). The originaldrawingsidentifythe provenienceof these vessels as "1.15?," but since de Contenson (not Mellaart)dug TrenchI, they are interpretedhere as coming from Trench II, Layer15, a context assignedto Period IIIby the excavator.Another fragmentof EsdraelonWare,pl. 9:20, is said to come from basal Layer 19, while pl. 8:5 was found on the surface.They are all grouped together in this sectionwith vessels of like fabric.Three (pls. 8:1, 2; 9:20) are similarto the "type1"vessels of Wright and other authorsdiscussedbelow with similarshapes from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(pl. 24:5, etc.). Both de Contenson (1960a: 21, fig. 9:1, 2) and Gustavson-Gaube(1985: 52, fig. 15:75a-c) encounteredthe shape in their respectiveexcavationsat this site. PI. 8:4 may possiblyhave come from one of the less ornate "type 3" bowls, also attested at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (see below). PI. 8:5, with its thin line of carination,is not easilyplacedwithin the establishedEsdraelonWareseries,

46

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

but might be relatedto a ridgedvariantof similarfabricknown at Meser (Dothan 1957: 221, fig. 2:1) and 'En Shadud(Braun1985:fig. 19:3,5). PI. 8:3, if correctlyreconstructedby the excavatoras having an outsplayed,flaringrim (of a jar?),wouldbe unique.25 Jars with EvertedRims. Three necklessjars present short, sharplyeverted rims (pl. 10:5, 11, Where described,they are wheel-madeof a buff fabricand coveredwith a reddishwash/slip that 21). fired blackon the exteriorof pl. 10:5 and was appliedin the "grain-wash"("band-slip")manneron the largerpl. 10:21.Although their profilesare not as extreme as some of the everted-rimjars from the PeriodII deposits,they are of the same genre, and the presenceof "grain-wash" decorationin both groups (PeriodII-pL 9:8; Period III-pl. 10:21) supportsthe analogy.PI. 9:7, with a simple everted rim, is decoratedwith red paint applied directlyto the buff fabric.The form can be paralleledin Kenyon's EB I phases of the Jericho tell, and the painted decorationcomplementssuch a date (see n. 19, above). HolemouthJars. The upper portionof a large holemouthjar was foundon the floor of Round House 0 (pl. 10:22). Wheel-made of a buff fabric,it has been coveredwith a reddishwash in the "band-slip"technique.Its roundedrim, with exterior ridge below, can be closely paralleledat Beth Shan,cAi,and cAffula.26 One HandledJuglets. Pls. 9:22 and 10:17-19are obviouslyone-handledjuglets.Two are described the excavatoras hand-made(pls. 9:22, 10:18) and two as wheel-made(pl. 10:17, 19) of a buff clay. by The surfaceof pl. 10:19 has been left plain, while pl. 10:17, 18 is coveredwith a red slip/wash, which in the cases of pls. 9:22 and 10:18 has been burnished.Two of the jugletspresent string-cutbases (pl. 10:18,19), as does pl. 9:21 from PeriodII. Although varying in size, all four juglets share a short, slightly everted rim above an inverseconicalupperbodyand,where preserved,a moderatelyhigh loop-handleand flat base.Sucha combination should suggest inclusionin types C..a or D.3.a of Kenyon'sProto-Urbanseries of juglets from the Jerichotombs (Kenyon 1960: 15, 16, from Tombs A94 and A114). The conicalprojectionor knob on the bodyof pl. 10:19 is in line with other forms of plasticdecorationon jugletsfrom Proto-Urban funerarycontextsatJericho.27 Spouted Vessels. Fragmentsof two tubular-spoutedvessels are present in the Period III assemblage (pi. 10:16,20). Both are describedas hand-madeof a gritty,buff fabricand coveredwith a red wash. The shape of the spout of pl. 10:20and its placementjust abovethe point of carinationof a vessel with biconicalprofile are morphologicallyclosest to a fragmentexcavatedby Mellaartat Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (pl. 29:13) discussedbelow, where parallelsat Tell Farcah (N) and Beth Shan are noted.PI. 10:16appearsto be from a similarvessel,but one with a softerprofile. Miscellaneous. Three ledge handlesmake up the miscellaneousmaterialfrom Mellaart'sPeriod III deposits (pl. 12:28,31, 32). They are all relativelyplain and appearto be morphologicallynondiagnostic,with the exceptionof the "potter'smark"on pl. 12:28. Period/Level IV Thirty-two fragments were registeredand drawn from deposits assigned by Mellaart to his PeriodIV. Small Bowls. This ratherarbitrarygroupingconsists of small, open forms within which three morphologicaldistinctionscan be observed:pl. 11:3,with evertedrim;pl. 11:2,with sharplyin-turned rim; and pls. 10:24, 27 and 11:4, 5, 17, with more roundedprofile. All, however, share their size,

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

47

wheel-made manufacture,and a (predominantlygritty) buff fabric.A red or brown wash has been appliedto all exceptpl. 11:3. Pl. 11:3 exhibits a concave string-cutbase and, accordingto the excavator,wheel markson the exteriorof the vessel indicativeof manufactureon a fast wheel. The use of the fast wheel makes this piece exceptionalin the present context,for althoughthe use of the wheel is attestedon bowls from the Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho,it is confined to the rims, the bodies being handmade28and the bases plain.29The use of the wheel is not mentioned in the descriptionof the open forms from the transitionalJerichoTomb A108 (Kenyon 1960:83,fig. 23:1-7), but wheel-formedrims occurin Tomb A127 (Kenyon 1960:87, fig. 25:1-8). In fact,althoughwheel-madebodiesare documentedin the Early ri Bronze AgeAge F-se cho (Kenyon 1960: inter alia,Tomb F4, fig. 43:13, 15, 27, etc.), it is in and the disturbed only confusingTomb D12 (which containsKhirbetKerakWare) that one finds string-cutbases;and this techniqueis foundexclusivelyin Kenyon'sEarlyBronzebowl types L, M, 0, and P (Kenyon 1960:98, 109-11, 120). Unfortunately,Kenyondoes not utilizethe string-cutbase as a diagnosticcriterionin formulatingher type series,but she does considerthese types to be late in the sin EarlyBronzeAge sequence, especialy light of the overwhelmingpredominanceof her Type L bowls in Garstang'sJerichoTomb 351 (Kenyon 1960:80 and references). PI. 11:2presentsa profilesimilarto vessels alreadydiscussedfrom PeriodsII (pl. 8:11) and III (pI. 10:23),for which Proto-Urbanparallelshave been cited.Of the three bowls with roundedprofiles,pls. 10:24 and 11:17, with very slightly in-turnedrims, might be comparedwith a similar vessel from a PeriodIIIdeposit (pl. 10:25),while pls. 10:27and 11:5,exhibitinga more in-curvedprofile,are related to two differentvessel types from both PeriodII (pl. 8:11) and PeriodIII (pl. 10:28).In profile,pl. 11:4 couldbe considereda miniatureversion of the holemouthbowls that have been discussedabovewith the PariodII material(pl. 9:4). Larger Bowls with Flattened Rims. Five rim fragments come from larger bowls sharing a slightly thickenedand horizontallyflattenedrim that projectsslightly into the interiorof the vessel (pl. 11:1, 18-21). These vessels readilyseparatethemselvesinto two subgroups:the more rectangular profiledpl. 11:18-21, and the curvilinearpl. 11:1.Where described,these vessels are wheel-madeof a buff/brown,gritty fabric,and while each vessel has been given a coatingof slip or wash the distinctive "grain-wash"("band-slip")techniquepredominates(pi. 11:18,20, 21). The key to the group of rectangular-profiled bowls is pI. 11:21, which can be comparedwith Hennessy's EB I bowl with "horizontalrim projectinginwards,"a form closely akin to his "hammer rims"that firstappearon the Jerichotell in Phase L.30Bowls with similarly"in-turned"rims appearin the pre-urbanPhase II of the cAiSanctuary(Callaway1972:65, fig. 16:24) and the firsturbanstratum (IV) at Arad (Amiran 1978: 42, pi. 8:2). This internalprojection,however,becomesmore attenuated in EB II and III,emphasizingthe earlyform of the Tell esh-Shunehpiece.The fact that pl. 11:21,with its embryonicinternalprojection,is decoratedin the "grain-wash"techniquealso indicatesan early date, and the less extreme (or less developed)pl. 11:18,20, also decoratedwith "grain-wash,"should follow suit. The morphologicallysimilar pl. 11:19, with a "polishedself-slip," can be considered contemporary,as well as pl. 11:1,with its more curvilinearprofileand plain red wash. Holemouth Bowls. Five vessels present plain or simple rims similar to those found on holemouth jars,but on more open forms.All of these bowls are wheel-madeof a buff,grittyfabric.PI 11:6, 12, 14, and 23 are decoratedin "grain-wash"("band-slip")manner. PI. 11:12 combines a band of slasheswith the "grain-wash," a decorativecombinationthat also appearson PeriodII vessels (pls. 8:21, a treatment considered 9:12), specificto Tell esh-Shuneh(N).

48

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

PI. 11:14, 23 share the simple rim of similarlydecoratedPeriod II vessels (pl. 8:21, 22), while pl. 11:22 has a horizontallyflattenedrim that is also reminiscentof Period II forms (pls. 8:13, 9:4). PI. 11:12 is probablyrelatedto this lattergroup. Pl. 11:6 is essentiallya largerversion of pl. 11:5 (cf. Glueck 1951: 427, pl. 120:1, from el-Fakhar[98], dated "EB";and Braun 1985: fig. 14:9, 14, Pottery Type 1, from cEnShadud). Holemouth Jars. Three rims come from vessels sufficientlyclosed in form to warrantconsiderationas holemouthjars ratherthan bowls (pl. 11:9, 11, 13). All are wheel-madeof a buff fabric with plain surfaces,exceptfor pl. 11:9,which is coveredwith a red-brownwash. PI. 11:10, 13 present simple, roundedrims. On the former piece a small pellet of clay has (apparently)been addedto the bodyof the vessel just below the rim, in a position often markedby an impressedcordon on jars of this type.31PI. 11:9 can be associatedwith a rim from de Contenson's soundingat Tell esh-Shuneh(de Contenson1960a:22, fig. 11:1,LevelII), while pl. 11:15 is similarin profileto a groupof PeriodII holemouthjarswith similarslasheddecoration(pl. 9: especially11, 14). EvertedRim Jars. The PeriodIV assemblagealso includestwo markedlydifferentvessels, both of which exhibit everted rims (pl. 11:16, 24). Handmadepl. 11:16 of a buff fabric,from Mellaart's vessel from de Contenson'ssoundingat excavations,can be comparedin form to a "gray-burnished" the site (de Contenson1960a:21, fig. 94). In generalappearance,fabric,and "grain-wash" decoration, pl. 11:24 resemblesa jar from the Round House deposit of Period III, but the slightly everted and horizontallyflattenedrim of the vessel is even more closelyrelatedto the everted-rimjarsof PeriodII (especiallypl. 9:7, 8, 15), some of which are also decoratedin the "grain-wash" technique. NeckedJars. Two jarspresent simple necks that are the resultof the bodyof the vessel having been pulled up almost to (pl. 12:1), or slightlypast (pl. 12:5), the vertical.Both are wheel-madeof a buff fabricand decoratedwith a red or brown slip, which in the case of pl. 12:1 has been appliedto a polishedcreamsurfacein roughlyhorizontalbands.Althougha Chalcolithicancestryis evident for the general form (de Contenson1956: figs. 4:13, 15; 6:4, etc.), EarlyBronzeexamplesof both types were excavatedat the site by de Contenson.32 P1. 12:2, 6, both wheel-made of a buff fabric,possess a short neck that terminatesin a slightly outsplayedrim. PI. 12:2 has been given a brown wash, and the exteriorof the rim appearsto carrya shallow groove. The surfaceof pl. 12:6, however, is plain, with a horizontalband of "fingernail" impressionsmarkingthe shoulderof the vessel.33Althoughthese two pieces are morphologicallyquite close, the internalprofileof pl. 12:6exhibitsa slight verticalitythat will be met with againin PeriodV (pl. 12:8).34

PI. 12:3,which displaysa burnishedred slip, also exhibitsa "rolled"rim that has been foldedover and down, but not completelyagainstthe vessel wall. This jar may be relatedto a type that appearsat 'Ai in Phase II,Tell Far'ah (N) in AncienBronzeI, and at Beth Shan in LevelXIII.35 Jug/juglet. Three rim fragments(pls. 10:10, 11:7, 8) exhibit a red wash over a buff fabricand are tentativelyidentifiedhere as jugs or jugletsbecauseof their relativelynarrowapertures.Pls. 10:10 and 11:8 have a very short, slightly outsplayedrim such as seen on vessels of similar size in EB II deposits at Arad,while that of pI. 11:7 is much more elongated.The handledoes not rise above the rim of pl. 11:7, as it does on the many vessels of this type in the Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho (Kenyon 1960: figs. 12, etc. [Tomb A94], 18 [Tomb A1 14]), and the betterparallelsare found in the laterEarlyBronzetombsD12 and F2. Similarjugs from Aradhave a muchhigherhandle. The fragmentof the "stumpbase"jug with burnishedred slip (pl. 12:4) is much too small to permit chronologicallyvalidcomparisons.

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

49

Miscellaneous. PI. 12:7 is a fragmentof a base from a vessel of unknowndiameter.A white slip had been appliedto the vessel before the painteddecoration,a practiceencounteredat cAi,Arad,and elsewhere (cf., inter alia, Ai: Callaway1972: figs. 33:19-27 [Phase III],42:30-35 [StratumIV], 46:13, 57:6 [Phase V], 66:10-13, 15, 16 [Phase VI], and Callaway1980: fig. 123:22 [Phase VII]; Arad: Amiran 1978:pls. 11:12-14, 16 [StratumIV], 33:15 [StratumII]). A single example of a roughlycylindricalhandle completes the ceramiccorpusfrom Period IV deposits (pl. 10:15).It is of buff fabric,coveredwith a red-brownwash, and the tip has been pierced for suspension.Although it couldbe identifiedas the handleof a spoon/ladle akin to those found in Chalcolithicassemblages,similarlypierced handles are present, though not common, in Megiddo "Stages"VI-V, where they are consideredto be from open bowls (Engbergand Shipton 1934: 10 and chart:handletype C). Period/Level V Excavationsin PeriodV strataproduceda large collectionof ceramicartifactsin which the vast majoritywere made of the distinctiveKhirbetKerakWare,and the slight minoritywere executedin "local"fabric(s). Non-Khirbet Kerak Ware. Nineteen fragments comprise that part of the assemblagethat was not identifiedas Khirbet Kerak Ware by the excavator.They includebowls, neckedjars, and holemouth jars. Bowls. The six bowls of local fabricdrawnby Mellaartexhibit rims that are in-turnedto some degree (pl. 12:16-21). Similarvessels from PeriodIV depositsat this site have been discussedabove. with in-turnedor invertedrims appearthroughout Althoughplatters,bowls, and "platter-bowls" the entire Early Bronze Age (Amiran 1970a: 41-77 passim), both Hennessy and Kenyon note a transition from taller, thinner rims in EB I to profiles closer to pl. 12:16 during EB II at Jericho (Hennessy 1967: 19). Similar rims are known from EB II contexts at Gezer and in the Kinnereth tomb, as well as in later (EB III) deposits at Jericho,'Ai, and Rosh Hanniqra.36With the possible exceptionof pl. 12:17,none of the Shunehpieces exhibitsthe concavityof the exteriorvessel wall that is commonlyfoundbelow the rim of many EB III platterbowls,37but vessels similarto pl. 12:17 are stratigraphicallyassociatedwith such distinctive forms at cAi and Arad and with earlier (EB II) materialat Gezer.38PI. 12:19 can be paralleledat cAi in both EB II and EB III contexts,39while the form of pl. 12:20,where the tip of the rim is just beginning to emerge as an independentmorphological element, appearsin contemporarydeposits at that site and possiblyalso at Gezer and Arad.40 PI. 12:21 is similarboth to Kenyon's type D.4.a from the Jerichotombs (Kenyon 1960: 87, fig. 25:5, Tomb A127) and to a form that Callawaysees appearingat cAi in Phase V (EB IIB) (Callaway1972: 196, fig. 45:7). PI. 12:18 is difficultto parallel,but if drawn with a more open stance it could be associatedwith EB Il forms from 'Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 73:4 [Phase VIII]; Callaway1980: fig. 108:25,26 [Phase VI], fig. 129:15,18 [Phase VII]). All of the Shunehpieces are simplycoveredwith a wash or slip that has at the most been smoothedor polished.None exhibitsthe pattern-burnishthat is so distinctive,especiallyon EB III vessels of similar form, but the lack of this decorativetreatment should not be considereda valid chronologicalindicator,since both plain and elaboratelyburnished vessels often appearin the same contexts.41 Neckedjars. Of the six neckedjars from PeriodV strata,pi. 12:10 is the simplest,exhibitinga short neck that is the resultof pulling the rim up slightlypast the vertical,as has been seen previously on PeriodIV jars(pls. 11:16,12:5).The neckof pl. 12:11is higher and presentsa concaveprofilewith

50

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

a rim that, to judgefrom the fielddrawings,has been paredor beveled,as have some jarsfrom 'Ai and to pl. 12:8,with a verticalneck that is foundon possiblyArad.42PI. 12:9, 12 seem to be transitional43 another Period IV vessel (pl. 12:6), a shape that appearsthroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age at Ai.44 The "band-slip"decorationof this piece appearsto be more common with similarlydecoratedvessels in Period IV deposits, but it should be noted that at 'Ai jar necks are still being decoratedwith punctates and incisions (as pl. 12:9, 12 and the Period IV pl. 12:6) well into the EB III period (Callaway1972:fig. 74:2 [PhaseVIII];andCallaway1980:fig. 139:21,26 [PhaseVII]). The neck of a large jar with elaborately"sculpted"rim (pl. 12:13) finds numerousparallelsin MetallicWareand other fabricsat a numberof sites, includingTell Yarmouth,Arad,Rosh Hanniqra, cAi,and KhirbetKerak.45 Holemouthjars. Of the holemouth jars, pl. 12:22 is describedby the excavatoras being of a fabric,while the remainder(pl. 12:23-27) are said to be made of a buff,gritty ware, "gray-burnished" the surfacesof which were left plain, with the exception of pl. 12:23, which showed tracesof once having been covered with a red wash, and pl. 12:27, which has been given a horizontalband of incision.Morphologically,they can be subdividedinto three groups:those with simple, taperingrims (pI. 12:23,25); those with "squared"rims (pl. 12:22,24, 26); and those with a horizontallyflattened rim (pl. 12:27). The first subgrouprepresents a simple form that is common throughout,but not restrictedto, the EarlyBronze Age.46The second subgroup(pl. 12:22, 24, 26) is only slightly more diagnostic.The Tell esh-Shunehforms are nearerto the plain (unswollen),flattenedrims that appear on theJerichotell in Phase L (EB I) and continueto Phase D (EB IIIA) (Hennessy1967: 11, pl. IV:30) than to the version that appearsin PhaseC (EB IIIB);in Phase C, althoughthe rim is still squared,the final few centimetersof the interior of the rim have been noticeablythickened.47The last rim, pl. 12:27, is not easy to parallel,but in form and inciseddecorationit is more reminiscentof vessels from some of the lower strataat Shuneh. Holemouth Bowl. PI. 11:11 is a more open form and shouldbe considereda holemouthbowl. Its surface is plain, with the exception of a band(?) of diagonal slashes below the rim, and its horizontallyflattened rim is similar to Period II (pls. 8:13, 9:4) and Period IV (pl. 11:22) pieces discussedabove. The Khirbet Kerak Ware. The most striking feature of the ceramic assemblagefrom Period V depositsat Tell esh-Shunehis the preponderanceof KhirbetKerakWare.This distinctivepotterytype was first noted and describedby Albrightat the type site KhirbetKerakat the southernend of the Sea of Galilee (Albright 1926: 26), and with the equivalent"Red-BlackBurnishedWare"of the CAmuq (Phases H and I) and other contemporarySyrian sites (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 358-68, 398-403, 458-59), has becomean importantdiagnosticfeatureof the EB IIIperiod. Mellaartobserved Althoughmost authorsconsiderKhirbetKerakWareto be a handmadefabric,48 that while the majorityof the vessels in this fabricat Tell esh-Shunehwere handmade,some of the smaller bowls (such as those with flattenedrims) appearedto have been formed on the fast wheel, suggestinga coexistenceof manufacturingtechniquesthat might also have been present atJerichoand in the CAmuq.49

The Khirbet Kerak Ware from Tell esh-Shunehis arrangedhere in groups determinedby the morphologicalfeaturesof the individualvessels or sherds. These subdivisionsare not intended to represent an attempt at a true classificationof this fabric but are only a device to facilitate the discussionof this specificassemblage.

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

51

1. Bowlsand cups The majorityof forms in this fabricare bowls and cups and includeshapes that are "classic"to KhirbetKerakWareas well as others, identifiedby the excavatoras KhirbetKerakWare,that appear to be more closelyrelatedto the fabricof the localceramicrepertoire.Only 15 fragmentsof this group were locatedin the Amman Museum(cf. Appendix),and the present authordoes not believe that all of the sherds approximating"local"shapes measureup to the qualityof the sherdsof more standard KhirbetKerakforms. Shallow bowl with plain, roundedrim. Morphologically,the simplest open form is the hemisphericalbowl with plain or roundedrim (pl. 13:11-17),a type that was relativelyfrequentat the type site of KhirbetKerakand also appearsin Red-BlackBurnishedWarein the CAmuq,where it is saidby the excavatorsto have been more common in Phase I than in Phase H. Less preciseparallelscan be foundat Tabarael-Akradin the plainerexamplesof Hood's Type 15, andpossiblyalso at Ras Shamra, 'Affula,Jericho,and 'Ai.50 Shallowbowlwith horizontally-flattened rim. Slightlymorecomplexarebowlswith horizontallyflattened rims (pi. 13:1-10), some of which have been providedwith vertically-piercedlugs applied (horizontally)justbelowthe rim (pl. 15:7,25). While commonat Tell esh-Shuneh,plainbowlswith this rim in KhirbetKerakWaredo not enjoya wide distribution.They occurat Tabarael-Akrad(Type 15) alongside a similar vessel with an unpierced lug51 and in the cAmuq in unpierced and horizontally-

piercedvariants(BraidwoodandBraidwood1960:361, fig. 281:7,8 [PhaseH]). In localfabric,bowls with similarrims appearin EB II PhasesH and G on the Jerichotell. This is essentiallyKenyon'sbowl type D.4.a from theJerichotombs,appearingin TombA127 at the beginning of EB II and in Tomb D12 alongsideKhirbet Kerak Ware.Similarvessels are known from cAi, in associationwith imitationKhirbetKerakWare,and from EB IIIcontextsat Rosh Hanniqra.52 Doubly handles such as those on are also found on in "local" F2 at D12 25 bowls tombs and piercedlug pl. 15:7, Jericho.53 Shallowbowl with in-turnedrim. Three fragments(pls. 13:18, 19; 14:9) representsmall bowls with in-turnedrims that are much shallowerand possess thickervessel walls than Hennessy'sclass of "curvedbowl with in-turnedrim,"which he illustrateswith examples from cAffulaand the 'Amuq (Hennessy 1967:76, pl. LXIII:3,9). The shape is also known at Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:76, fig. 18:1,2). A few parallelsfor the Shunehbowls can,however,be foundamongthe less typicalsherds from the 'Amuqsites.54PI. 14:7,8 seem to form a transitionto two bowls (pls. 13:20,14:6)thatpossess rims that might almostbe termed"beveled."All fourof these vessels are much more representativeof local forms,and none finds readyparallelsin assemblagesof KhirbetKerakWarefrom other sites.55In fact, if the stanceof pi. 14:7 were more open, the resultingshape (with the slight concavitybelow the rim) wouldfit perfectlyinto the localrepertoire.56 The bowls thatexhibitthe "beveled"rim are,in the localfabric(s),essentiallymoreopen variantsof forms that appearon the Jerichotell in Phase J (or possibly L) (Hennessy 1967: 12, pl. VI:56) and assumeprofilesmorecloselyrelatedto the Shunehpiecesin PhaseH (Hennessy1967:12,pl. VI:60,and the Proto-Urbanform on pl. 11:7).Similarvessels are known from occupationalcontexts at cAi, Rosh Hanniqra,Gezer,andArad,and in funerarydepositsatJerichoandKinnereth.57 Bowl with in-turnedand horizontally-flattened rim. Fourbowl fragmentsexhibitrims that have been in-turnedand subsequentlyflattened(pl. 14:2-5). As with the precedinggroup, such shapes are

52

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

much more allied to the local ceramic development and are not representativeof the "classical" KhirbetKerakWareforms. Morphologically,this type is related to Hennessy's (local) bowls with "horizontalrims which projectin" that begin in EB I deposits on the tell at Jerichoand somewhat later in the Jerichotombs. Their geographicalas well as chronologicalrange is wide throughoutthe EarlyBronzeAge and can be paralleled,interalia,at cAi, Gezer,Rosh Hanniqra,Arad,and the Kinnerethtomb.58 Carinatedbowl with verticalupper body. Twelve examplesof carinatedbowls with (relatively) verticalupperbodiesare presentin the assemblagefrom Tell esh-Shuneh(pls. 14:16,17; 15:10,15, 21; the hallmarksof any KhirbetKerakWareassemblageand,with 17:1-3, 9, 16-18). This form is one ofthe the relatedvariantsdiscussedbelow,exhibitsa wide geographicaldistribution.For the first time in the fluted fluted decoration(pl. 17:1-3, 16-18) so typicalof this ware Tell esh-Shuneh corpus the ribbedand "omphalos"base. appears,while the two intactvessels (pls. 15:15,17:9)exhibitthe characteristic Basically,the shape is relatedto Amiran'sType 4, Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 16a,Hennessy's "simplebowls with upright sides,"and Kenyon'sEarlyBronze Age bowl type R.5.a that appearsin JerichoTomb D12. It is also quitecommonin PhasesH and I in the CAmuq.59 Carinatedbowl with in-turnedupper body. Related to the precedingshape ("carinatedbowl with verticalupper body")is anothergroup of bowls (pls. 12:15;14:12-14; 15:1-6, 24; 17:13-15) that exhibit an in-turningof the vessel wall above the carination.The angle thus formed can range from slight (pls. 14:12, 15:2, etc.) to severe (pls. 15:6, 17;15,etc.), with the majorityof the pieces falling betweenthese two extremes.Some (pl. 17:13-15) are decoratedwith the standardribbeddecoration. This subtypeis distinguishedby Hood (1951: 134, fig. 7) at Tabarael-Akradby the b-variantof his Type 16. The form is frequent at Khirbet Kerak itself, and a single example from the early excavationsat cAi has been identifiedby Amiran.In the cAmuq many of the examples of "verticalsided bowls"are of this type with inclining upper body.They differ from Hennessy's "curvedbowl with in-turned rim" in that on the Shuneh examples the transitionpoint is quite well markedand much lower on the vessel than on Hennessy'stype.60 Carinatedbowl with outsplayedrim. The third variant of the carinatedbowl noted in the Shuneh assemblage(pls. 14:10-11, 15; 15:11-14, 19-20, 22-23) is characterizedby its slightly outsplayedrim, which may occuron vessels with vertical(pls. 14:10, 15:19,etc.) or in-turned(pl. 15:14, 22, etc.) upper bodies.The rims of several of the Shuneh pieces are similar to those on (probably) deeper vessels of Hood's Tabarael-Akrad Type 14. Related forms occur at Khirbet Kerak, Ras Shamra,the 'Amuq,andJericho,all in standardKhirbetKerakWarefabric.61 Bowl with S-profile. The bowl with S-shaped (or cyma reversa) profile (pls. 15:8-9, 16-18, 26-27; 16:9, 14-17) is a classicin the KhirbetKerakWarerepertoireand one that can be viewed as a "development"of the last two bowl types. In these vessels the wall above the carinationhas been turnedin and the rim outsplayed(more markedlythan on the precedingform) to form a distinctive S-shaped profile.When decorated,the Shunehexamplesdisplaya knob (or knobs) slightlyabove the point of carination(pi. 16:9, 14-17), a device that seems to be the most popularway of embellishing this particularform at other sites. The base, where preserved,is an omphalosbase that appearsto be for this type of bowl. characteristic This shape is essentiallythat of Amiran'sType 2 and can be includedin Hennessy'sgroup of "small bowls with marked shouldersand flaring rims."Morphologicallysimilar, but proportionally different,are the vessels that illustrateHood's Tabarael-AkradType 13.62These bowls present a wide distribution,having been found at Jericho,'Ai, Beth Shan, 'Affula,Khirbet Kerak,Tabarael-Akrad, Ras Shamra,and the cAmuq.63

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

53

One-handled cup/jug. Three one-handled open forms (pl. 16:1-3) appear in the Shuneh assemblageof Khirbet Kerak Ware. Morphologically,the shallowerversion (pl. 16:1, 2) is directly relatedto the precedinggroup of S-profile bowls and the two examplescouldbe regardedas "cups," while the deeper version (pl. 16:3) is akin to some of the deeper S-profile jars to be discussedbelow and might be interpretedas a "jug." Small one-handledcups are includedby Amiran in her Type 2, by Hennessy in his "bowlswith markedshouldersandflaringrims,"andby Hood in his Tabarael-AkradType 13.64The form is not as common as similarvessels that were not equippedwith (or did not preserve)a handle,but they have been found at Jericho,Megiddo,and the cAmuq,all in true Khirbet Kerak or Red-BlackBurnished Ware,and it is imitatedin localfabricsatJerichoand cAi.65 The deeper "jug"(pl. 16:3) can be associatedwith Amiran'sType 1, Hennessy's "deepcup or small jug,"and Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 17.66Likethe shallower"cup,"this form is limitedin its distribution,appearingatJericho,KhirbetKerak,'Affula,Ras Shamra,and the CAmuq.67 Spouted cup. The S-profile cup with tubularspout (pl. 16:11) and the fragmentof a similar spout (pl. 19:25)in like fabricpresentus with a form that is difficultto parallel.Hood recordedbut did not illustratea short tubularspout (in an unburnishedfabric)from "KhirbetKerakWare levels"at Tabarael-Akrad,which he thought "mayperhaps be a stray from some earlierlevel" (Hood 1951: 137). A single "semisphericalcup with cylindricalspout"is known in Red-BlackBurnishedWarefrom the CAmuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960:364, fig. 284:13),but here the spout is attachedat the rim and not at the point of carinationas is the case with the Tell esh-Shunehpiece. 2. Jars Jar with S-shaped profile. Deeper, more closed forms here defined as "jars"appear in both small and largevariantsin the Shunehassemblage(pls. 16:20,21; 17:4-6, 10-12). Both sizes are richly decoratedwith the raiseddecorationcharacteristic of the ware. The smallervessels (pl. 17:4, 5) exhibit a carinationat a point on the vessel high enough to be considereda "shoulder."In the present corpus the rims are only slightly outsplayed.The form is similarto examplesincludedin Amiran'sType 2, Hennessy's"smalljars,"andpossiblyHood'sTabara el-AkradType 17a.68They have been attestedatJericho,Beth Shan,possiblyat Ras Shamra,and in the and they may have influencedlocalforms at 'Ai andJericho.69 CAmuq, The largerjars in this category(pls. 16:20,21; 17:6, 10-12) are handlelessversionsof Amiran's Type 1 and fit nicelywithin Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 18. Vesselsthat are similarto the Shuneh pieces in form and decorationare includedby Hennessy in his categoriesof "largedecoratedjars"and These large "largejars with elaboratefluted decoration,"for which he sees a northerndistribution.70 have been at found Beth Shan,'Affula,Tabarael-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and the Amuq.71 jars Large,neckedjar. The Shunehcorpusincludesother largejars (pl. 16:5-8, 18, 19) in which the neck appearsas a more definite morphologicalentity and not simply as a segment of the continuing curve from body to rim, as was the case in the precedinggroup. PI. 16:12, 13 may be considered transitionalbetweenthe two types. This group is not easilyassimilatedinto previoustypologies(Amiran1952;Hood 1951;Hennessy 1967) and has a ratherlimited (and northern) distribution,having been attestedat Khirbet Kerak, Tabarael-Akrad,and in the CAmuq.72 Related to these is pl. 16:4, with a much narrowerneck that might be consideredpart of a "bottle."Althougha parallelis known from KhirbetKerak(Esse,personalcommunication:TrenchE, Phase V), the shape seems to lie beyondthe mainstreamof forms in this fabric.

54

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

"Holemouth"jars. Eleven fragmentsare from vessels that are here (with hesitation) termed "holemouth"jarsbecauseof the simplicityof the rim profile.The fact that they can be highlydecorated (pls. 17:19-21; 18:1-3, 9-11) as well as plain (pl. 17:7,8, 20) couldargueagainsttheir singularuse in domesticcontexts,as is usuallythe case with "holemouth"jars.Validcomparandacome only from the type site of KhirbetKerak,while less satisfactoryparallelsoccurat Tabarael-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and in the CAmuq.73

or "stand" 3. "Vase-support" One of the most distinctiveshapes in the KhirbetKerakWareassemblageis the tall vase-support or stand. Examplesof this type from Tell esh-Shunehcan be dividedinto four subgroups:(a) those that are plain in form and without decoration;(b) those plain in form that exhibit horizontally-fluted decorationon all or part of the exterior surface;(c) those with fenestratedsides; and (d) those with internallugs below the "rim." Hennessy discussesall variantsof this form undera single heading,"waistedpot stands,"as does Hood under his Tabarael-Akrad Type 20, "vase support."Only Amiran subdividesthe form, her Type 6.74

Plain vase-support. The plain vase-support(pl. 18:4-8, 17), often difficultto distinguishfrom lids in an assemblageof sherds,is Amiran'sType 6a. It occursat KhirbetKerak,Arqubel-Dhahr,Ras Shamra,and possibly'Affula.75 Decoratedvase-support. Six vase-supportsin the present assemblageare decoratedwith horizontal fluting (pls. 18:18,20, 21; 19:8,9, 15). As in other decoratedexamplesof this class,the fluting may be continuousover the entire objector confinedto bandsof flutingaccentingthe upper,middle,or lower zone. Vessel-supportswith fluted decorationform Amiran's Type 6b (Amiran 1951: 92-93, fig. 1:6 [second from left], from 'Affula) and appear also at Beth Shan, Arqub el-Dhahr, 'Affula, KhirbetKerak,Tabarael-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and the CAmuq.76 Fenestratedvessel-support. Two fragmentsof vessel-supportsfrom Tell esh-Shunehare fenestrated.One (pl. 18:19) appearsto be from an undecoratedstand,while the other (pl. 18:16) displays the fluteddecorationof the precedingclass.The fenestratedstand forms Amiran'sType 6b, which she illustrateswith a single example (a standwith triangularapertures)from Beth Shan.77This appearsto be the only parallelin Syria-Palestinefor the two Shunehvessel-supports. Vessel-supportwith internallug(s). Three of these standsexhibita lug(s) on the interiorof the form,just below the "rim,"evidentlyto assistin stabilizingthe vessel that the objectsupported.Two of these are plain (pl. 19:2, 3), and the other is decorated(pl. 19:1). Such a form is not includedin Amiran'stypeseries(Amiran 1952), and the only parallelknown to the present authoris one with horizontalflutingfrom Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 19, pl. VII:7). 4. Lids Knobbedlids with a conicalprofile appearfrequentlyin the assemblageof KhirbetKerakWare from Tell esh-Shuneh (pl. 19:4-7, 11-14, 16). On most of these pieces the knob is solid,while in one instanceit has been piercedhorizontally(pl. 19:14). The knobbedlid is Amiran'sType 7 and Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 21. Hennessy also treats them as a group, noting their rarity outside of Syria and northern Palestine.78They have been found at

Beth Shan (piercedand unpierced),'Affula(piercedand unpierced),KhirbetKerak (pierced),Tabara el-Akrad(unpierced),Ras Shamra(pierced),and the 'Amuq(piercedand unpierced).79

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

55

5. Vesselswith incised(andfilled) decoration In additionto the ribbedand fluteddecorationthat is characteristic of KhirbetKerakWare,a few objects exhibit decorativepatterns achievedby pre-firing incision that was subsequentlyfilled with white.80This treatmentseems to be limitedto three shapes:vessel-supports,lids, and "andirons." The two fragments in the present corpus (pl. 19:17, 18) could be from either of the first two forms. Although rare, incised Khirbet Kerak Ware has been noted at Beth Shan on a stand, at 'Affulaon stands,at Tabarael-Akradon lids, and in the 'Amuiqon lids and stands.81 6. "Andirons" The "andiron"(pot-stand or fender), Amiran's Type 8, is representedby three undecorated fragments (pl. 19:21-23).82Similarpieces are known from cAi, Beth Shan, Khirbet Kerak, Tabara el-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and the cAmuq.83 7. Miscellaneous Several vessels and objects that cannot be convenientlygrouped complete the Khirbet Kerak Wareassemblagefrom Tell esh-Shuneh. Two slightlyconcavebases are from large jarsof uncertainform (pl. 18:13, 15). Two fragments (pl. 18:12, 14) appearto come from flat-bottomedjugs, a shape known but not frequentin this fabric (Amiran 1951:92, fig. 1:5 [her Type 5]; Hennessy 1967:78-79, pl. LXXIII).A small omphalosbase is decoratedwith a pattern-burnishedgrid (pl. 19:20). While pattern-burnishingis common on the "local"fabricsof this period,it has also been noted on KhirbetKerakWareat Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935: 19, pl. VIII:5),Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:49), andJericho.84 A bag-shapedvessel with a horizontally-pierced "lug"that rises above the rim (pl. 16:10) and a secondlug, evidentlyfrom a similarpiece (pl. 19:19),are also difficultto parallel. The objectillustratedin pl. 19:24 (stampseal,gamingpiece,token?)is unique. Summary Mellaartidentifiedfive majorlevels or periodsof occupationat Tell esh-Shuneh,the upper four of which (PeriodsII-V) were present in his Trench II. In this section these units will be reviewed, beginningwith the lowest (TrenchII, PeriodII). Period/LevelII, the earliestoccupationin TrenchII, consistsof a structurecut into the virgin soil representedby WallsL and M, the latter,at least,being a 1.50 m mudbrickwall builton a stone sockle. Associatedwith these walls is Layer19 (found on both the northernand southernsides of Wall M), representingeither accumulationassociatedwith the demise of that structureor deliberatefill subsequent to its destruction.The ceramic material from Layer 19 contained an abundanceof pottery, domestic as well as finer wares. The red-washedjuglets and inverted-rimbowl fragmentsfrom this assemblageare at home in both Proto-Urbanand EB I contexts.Largerbowls decoratedwith bandsof slashes or incisionsare common, as are similarforms that have been furtherembellishedin the EB I grain wash ("band-slip,"Northern Painted)manner.A spoutedbowl displayscombinationof slashes andpainteddecoration("band-painted," "line-group")of Proto-UrbanB/EB IB type.A small fragment of an EsdraelonWare bowl adds furthersupport for an EB I date for the basal Period II layer in TrenchII. Period/LevelIII is comprisedof the archaeologicallayersassociatedwith Round House 0, both within the structureandwithout.The materialfrom insidethe buildingwill be reviewedfirst. The main deposit in Round House 0 was foundon its floor (Layer13) and in an ash lens (Layer in 12) the northernpart of the structurethat might representthe remainsof a hearth.It should be

56

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

noted that the problematicLayer11a, above these depositsbut still within the walls of the building,is assigned by the excavatorto his (subsequent)Period IV, where the material from that layer is discussed. The floor of the roundhouse producedeleven intactcarinatedbowls, some with string-cutbases. Unfortunately,bowlsof similarform and manufacturehave a wide chronologicalrange.They are noted in Chalcolithicdepositsby Dothan at HorvatBeterand in the Beershebasites studiedby de Contenson, as well as in much latercontextssuch as Kenyon'sJerichoTomb D12, which extendswell into the EB III period. The one-handledjuglets, however, may be more specific, for they can be paralleledin Proto-Urban/EBI tomb depositsatJericho,a date for this depositthat is supportedby the presenceof storagejarsdecoratedin the "band-slip" grain-washtechnique. Outsidethe Round House assignedby the excavatorto his PeriodIII,a small amountof pottery was detectedin Layers14-17. At least the lowest three of these (Layers15-17) are indicatedon the plans on both sides (north and south) of the Period II Wall M, but the pottery evidently was not separatedby location,which lessens the chronologicalsignificanceof these layers.The four fragments from Layer17 and the single sherd from Layer16, however, all find at least generic parallelsin the more securedeposits assignedto PeriodsII and III.The five fragmentsfrom Layer15, if they did in fact come from this small ash lens, are of EsdraelonWare,a fabricalreadyencounteredin Period II Layer19. The two bowl rims from Layer14, a deposit that runs over the earlierWall M, are also of types encounteredearlier.All this implies that there is not muchchronologicaldifferentiationbetween the PeriodII andPeriodIIIdeposits. Period/LevelIV, Layer11 completelyseals the excavationareaaccordingto SectionC-D (fig. 12). Of the three sherds specificallyrecordedfrom Layer 11, one (pl. 11:24) is decoratedin the "grainwash"manner,a techniquethat relatesit to materialfrom the earliestlayer (Layer19), in Trench II. Layer 1la, within the walls of the Round House, still remains confusing, but the three sherds (pl. 10:10,24, 27) found in it are not distinctiveand would not greatlyaffectour understandingof the chronologicalsequencein TrenchII. The upper strataof Period IV consist of Layers6 through 10, the lowest three of which (Layers 8-10) cover the entire excavationareain SectionC-D (fig. 12). From the lowest of these strata(Layer 10), the excavatorillustratedfour sherds:three decoratedin "grain-wash"and one combining"grainwash" with incisions. If this is the complete (or a representative)sample, it is either supporting evidencefor an early (EB I) date for the deposit in the Round House, or evidenceof mixing, perhaps due to intentionalleveling of this part of the site. Only one sherd from Layer9 is illustratedby the excavator,a layerwhich he interpretedas a possible gravel floor preservedfor over 7 m in the N-S section (fig. 12). This sherd also appearsto be more representative,in its form and painteddecoration, of the EB I depositsbelow.The assemblageof three sherdsfrom Layer7, also interpretedas a possible gravel floor, is chronologicallynon-diagnosticand (if anything)looks backwardto EB I. Surprisingly, no artifactsare recordedas coming from the (ca. 0.10-0.50 m thick) Layer8, which contains the enigmaticWall K. Of the PeriodIV deposits,Layer6, which containedthe largestamountof pottery, exhibits bowls and holemouthjars that look backwardto PeriodsII and III contexts,but also for the first time shows materialin (or approaching)EarlyBronze II, such as the neckedjars and the small fragmentof a stump-basedjug. Period V deposits, upon or in which at least some of the walls of the basalt building were founded,compriseLayers1-5b in TrenchII. Certainlythe KhirbetKerakWare,which forms the major hallmarkof the ceramicmaterialfrom this building,indicatesa date in the EB IIIperiod,but very little of the non-KhirbetKerak Ware pottery for which section drawings survive actuallycomes from TrenchII. The situationis furtherexacerbatedby three facts:the stampedclayfloor (Layer5) produced

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

57

only the rim of a holemouth jar that has definite parallels in the EB I levels below; Layer 4, sealed(?) by Floor 3a south of Wall D (but sketchy to the north between Wall D and the addition to Wall B), presented only a single plain ledge-handle; and only two sherds come from Layer 3, which is the equivalent of topsoil south of Wall D (fig. 12). Based on the artifacts and their stratigraphic position, then, we can only place the date of the basalt building in EB III, as early in that period as the presence of the Khirbet Kerak Ware will allow.

Tell Esh-Shuneh TrenchII Stratum/Layer 1 la 2 3 3a 3b 4 4a 4b 5 5a 5b

Description Surface,blackearth,disturbed. Post-hole. Light-brownearth.WallA. Light-graymudbrickfragmentsand stones.Pit with brownearth. Occupationaldebrisin pit. Clayfloor. Plasterstreaks,graywall debris. Ashy brownsoil in Room 1, buffsoil and mudbrickin Rooms 3 and4. Plasterstreak Pocketof soft brownearthin Room 3. Stampedclayfloor.Partlyburnedin Room 4. Hearthin Room 4. Floormakeup.Hearthmadeon basisof sherdswith clayon top. Burntred earthunderWallD.

6 7 7a 8 9 10 11 111 112 11a

Hardbuffearth. Gravel.Floor(?). Blackclay. Brownearth. Gravel.Floor(?). Brownearth. Destructionof RoundHouse 0. Ash layertroddenin and used as floor. Brownearth. Pocketof ash. Burntdebrisof RoundHouse 0. Cakinedbrick,daub,and ashes. Non-trodden.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18a

RoundHouse 0. Ashes (hearth?),potteryon RoundHouse floor. RoundHouse 0. The occupationfloor. Successiveoccupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse, buffearth. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse, soft green-grayash. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse;buffearth. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse;soft, green-grayash. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse:buffearth. Grayash floor,up to stone foundationof RoundHouse 0.

19

Soft, brown-blackearthwith muchash. ExtendsunderRoundHouse 0. WallsL and M. Virgin soil.

20

Period/Level

V

IV

III

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

58

Tell esh-Shuneh:ArtifactIndex Trench II: Layer 1 Layer la Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 3a Layer 3b Layer 4 Layer 4a Layer 4b Layer 5 Layer 6 Layers 6-10 Layer 7 Layer 7a Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 Layer 11 Layer 111 Layer 112 Layer 11a Layer llb Layer 12 Layer 13 Layer 14 Layer 15 Layer 16 Layer 17 Layer 18 Layer 18a Layer 19 Layer 20 Trench III: Layer 2 Layer 3 Trench IV: Layer 2 Layer 3 l" "eP.3 12:26,27 "Rm.3-4" 12:12 "RHO" 10:17-20 Provenience ? 8:9 "Period V"

none none none 12:13, 15 none none 12:30 none none 11:11 11:2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21; 12:2, 3, 4, 6 11:1, 7, 14, 22; 12:5, 29 11:5, 17; 12:7 none none 12:1 11:6, 12, 20, 23 10:15; 11:13, 24 none none 10:10, 24, 27 10:21, 22, 28 10:1-4, 6-9, 12-14 none 10:25, 26 8:1-6 10:23 9:7, 21, 22; 10:5, 11 none none 8:7, 8, 10-22; 9:1-6, 8-20, 23-25; 10:16; 11:15, 25; 12:28, 31, 32 none 12:10, 11 12:8, 9, 21-23 12:16 12:14, 20, 24, 25

12:17-19

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

59

Notes 1Only Layer11a appearson the drawings,but an 111 and 112 appear in the notebooks.Without any doubt,Layer 11 is a confusingdepositas recorded. 2 In the notebooks Mellaart interprets Layers9-7 as successiveoccupationsassociatedwith WallK. This seems to imply a reuse of Wall K after Layer8 had accumulatedor been deposited. 3 In the notebooksthis is referredto as "Room4." 4 This is a problematicarea, however, for the A-B section line seems to be the limit of the excavations,and hence these walls may only have been tracedon the surface, rather than having been completely excavated.The outer Wall K on these plans adds to the confusion,since another WallK appearsin SectionC-D in LevelIV. 5 The combinationof the plasterstreak(Layer4a) and pocketof soft brownearth (Layer4b) againstthe "southern" face of Wall D looks very much like a foundationtrench to the presentauthor. 6 The position, relationships,and meaningof Layers5a and 5b are not entirelyclear. 7 Khirbet Kerak pottery is said to have been found underWall B. This architecture,therefore,tied togetheras it is by the Layer5 clay floor, should not be taken to indicate the first appearanceof the people associatedwith Khirbet KerakWareon the site. Accordingto the notebooks,"Combed Ware"was foundin the Layer5a floor makeup. 8 Kenyon 1960: 11-13; 1965: 6-7. The present piece might best be associatedwith the round-bottomedtype A.4.c with gently curvingsides. 9 At Jericho(Hennessy 1967: pl. V:52, "carinatedbowl with offset rim" [p. 11], which is new in Phase K [still in Kenyon'sEB I] but which might actuallybelong to the succeeding[EB II] PhaseJ [p. 11]); the Kinnerettomb (Amiran and Hass 1973: fig. 6:31 [EB II]; Ai (Callaway1980: fig. 90:15, 16 [Phase V]); and possibly Gezer (Dever 1974: fig. 5:30 [EB IIA, Field I, Stratum12]). Cf. other possibleoccurrencesat Horvat cUsa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 4:13);Azor (BenTor 1975a:fig. 6:2); and 'Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. VI:53). 10A similar rim appearedin the "MiddleChalcolithic" Level I of de Contenson'ssoundingat Tell esh-Shuneh (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 3:18). Cf. also Gezer Field I, Stratum 14 (Dever 1974:pl. 3:4 [Chalcolithic]);andpossiblya similar form at Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 16:15), from his pre-urban Phase II. 11Jericho Tombs (Kenyon 1960: 11-13; 1965: 6-7). The angle of the body of the Tel esh-Shunehpiece suggests comparisonwith the deeperbowl types B.1.c,B.2.a,etc.;Jericho Tell (Hennessy 1965:pl. II:3,"smallshallowbowls with in-turnedrim" [p. 8]); Tell Far'ah (N), inter alia (de Vaux 1947: fig. 2:28 ["eneolithiquesuperieur"];1949: fig. 13:3, 5 (Sukenik1948:pl. VI:14). ["eneolithique"]);cf. also CAffula 12 Note that pl. 8:9 is of a black gritty fabricthat Mellaart parallelsto pl. 8:6, a sherd that he includedwith the EsdraelonWare pieces. I have not seen either of these two sherds.

13Jericho (Hennessy 1967: 8), where Type XII from the tell is comparedwith Kenyon's tomb Type A.I.a. The more curvedprofileof pL8:18 might actuallybe considereda transitionalform between the roundertomb forms and the more angularvessels from the tell. At Arad Stratum IV, note the "profiled"rim of one example(Amiran1978:pL8:2, 10), and the pairof shallower vessels (pl. 8:4, 5), from which Amiran suggests that the "platters"may have evolved (p. 42); cf. also Amiran (1970a: 43, 55; pls. 9:7, 11:3,4); cf. Azor (Ben-Tor1975a:fig. 6:1, 5); Ai (Callaway1972:fig. 16:18,20, 22, etc. [Phase II];Callaway 1980: fig. 68:16, etc.); Tell FarCah(N) (inter alia, de Vaux 1948:fig. 1:2 ["eneolithiquemoyen"];1961:fig. 3:28 [Ancien Bronzeperiode 1]); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 13:16 [StrataII-III]); Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 4:13 [EB IB Stratum 13]); Tell esh-Shuneh (N) (Gustavson-Gaube1985: fig. 8:19a-b); and Arqub edh-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 13:58, 69, 70). 14 For the terminology,technique,andbasicallynorthern distributionof this classof pottery,cf. Albright1926:28-29; 1960: 72; Wright 1937: 44-45, 62; Engberg and Shipton 1934:28; Glueck1946: 3-20; 1951:458; and Amiran 1970a: 42. For its appearance,but rare occurrence,in Proto-Urban (Phase Ni) depositson the Jerichotell, cf. Hennessy 1967:9. Cf. also at En Shadud,Braun1985:figs. 14:14,21:16. 15 "Grain-wash" decorationis addedto a punctatepattern on a vessel from Megiddo(Engbergand Shipton 1934: 25, fig. 9); but the combinationof the "grain-wash"and slashes appearsto be specificto Tell esh-Shuneh(N); cf. pl. 9:12, etc.; and possibly Tell edh-Dhiyabeh (150) (Glueck 1951: pl. 137:14), discussedunder materialfrom Tell Deir SacanehMekhlediyeh(112), 462. 16 For a succincthistory of this type of decoration,cf. Dever 1974: 17 n. 43. Hennessy (personalcommunication) at Pella,which helps to notes similarvessels in "grain-wash" tie together the incision plus "grain-wash"(pi. 8:21, 9:12, etc.) and the incisionplus "line-group"(pl. 9:1) decorationat Tell esh-Shuneh.Cf. also at Jawa (Helms, TechnicalStudies [forthcoming]:B5.5),with paint;and Bdbedh-Dhra(Schaub 1973: fig. 49), with paint, but most have largerspouts (EB IB). Similarbowls are includedin cEn ShadudPotteryType I (Braun1985:32, fig. 14:1,6). 17 The closest West Bank parallels to the Tell eshShuneh (N) jars are from cAffula(Sukenik1948:pl. III:1-3, 5, 8, etc.). Cf. the minorityposition held by holemouthjars with slashed or incised bands at Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 5:15 [Ancien Bronze I]; de Vaux 1961: fig. 2:3 superieur");and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: ("chalcolithique pl. IV:5 [Level XIV]). In contrast,comparetheir frequency at sites east of the JordanRiver surveyedby Glueck(1951: el Fakhat (98): pl. 120:3, 6 ["EB I-II," pp. 426-27]; Sibya (121): pl. 129:4, 7 ["EBI," p. 449]; Tell Deir SaCaneh Mekhlediyeh (112), a site with a tremendousquantity of "grain-wash"sherds:pl. 133:8-13 ["EBI,"pp. 458,462]; Tell edh-Dhiyabeh(150): pl. 138:3-4 [discussedunderTell Deir

60

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

Sa'aneh Meklediyeh,p. 462]; and Ameidat:pl. 139:24, 25 ["EBI-II,"p. 425]). 18de Contenson1960a:fig. 11:1. Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. III:21,22); and CAi(Callaway1980:fig. 69:12 [Phase III]). Good parallelsare also to be found at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,i.e.,for pl. 9:13,cf. Helms 1986:41, fig. 16:2,4; for pl. 9:11-14,cf. Helms 1984:45, fig. 11:15. 19 The basictypeis equivalentto a form thatfirstappears on the Jerichotell in Phase L of (Kenyon's)EB I date.It also includesvariantswith slightlyflattenedtops (Hennessy 1967: 10, pl. IV:35). The Chalcolithicancestryof this rim can be seen in formsfrom the Beershebaregion(de Contenson1956: fig. 1:7,8, etc.). PI. 9:15 might better be considereda variantof Hennessy'sProto-UrbanjarType 1 (Hennessy 1967:8, pl. II:14). It is knownfrom Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(Helms 1984: 46, fig. 12:2). Rims generally similar to pl. 9:10, etc., are published from Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:21-24); Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. IV:26 [Level XV]); and Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor1959:fig. 5:22 [StratumI]). Possiblyrelatedto the type are vessels from 'En Shadud (Braun 1985: fig. 20, PotteryType 17B); Tell Deir SaCaneh Mekhlediyeh(112) (Glueck 1951: pl. 133:14 [and possibly 134:9,10] dated"EBI"[pp.458,461]); Arqubel-Dhahr(Parr 1956: fig. 16:184); and Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958: pl. 11:6).Pl. 9:18 is well paralleledby a sherdfromGustavsonGaube'swork at the site (1985:figs. 7:6c, 12:49). 20 Cf., inter alia, Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:fig. IV:17 [Level XIV]); Rosh Hanniqra (Tadmor 1959: fig. 6:1-4 [Stratum 1, Early"Canaanite" I]); cAffula(Sukenik1948:pl. D. Esse); IV:38-42);KhirbetKerak(personalcommunication, and cEn Shadud(Braun1985: 115, 144, fig. 23:4-7 [rail rim pithos]. Cf. also de Contenson1960a:fig. 14:11for a similar rim from his soundingat Tell esh-Shunehin a level he dated to EB II (p. 29). Note, however,his caveatfor distinguishing betweenhis LevelsIV (EBII) and HIl(EB I) (1960a:30, 31). 21Possiblyrelatedare forms from Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1952: fig. 10:11 ["'eneolithique superieur,"tombe 13]); or Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor1959:fig. 6:39 [StratumII]). 22 For the concavityabove the carination,cf. Hennessy 1967:8, Proto-Urbanbowl Types II:4and II:6.Differentalso is the profile of the (Kenyon's) EB I carinatedbowl with offset rim (pl. V:52 andp. 11). The closestparallelto the Tell esh-Shuneh bowls in the Jericho tombs is Kenyon's ProtoUrbanbowl Type D.l.c, of which a single exampleappearsin Tomb A114 (Kenyon 1960: fig. 17:19). For Jericho Tomb D12, Kenyon's EarlyBronze Type L.2.band L.3.b (Kenyon 1960:58, andpl. 36:8-10).Althoughthis tomb is describedby Kenyon as having been "completelydisturbed"(p. 94), the presenceandpercentageof L-typebowlsareconsideredby her to indicate a late date in the Early Bronze sequence (cf. especiallyp. 80, with referencesto Garstang'sJerichoTomb 351). For Chalcolithicparallelsin the Beershebaregion,cf. de Contenson1956: fig. 6:11-13, 19, 20; and possiblyat Horvat Beter, Dothan 1959a: fig. 7:11 (StratumI). Other later examples come from Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1952: fig. 12:8 ["eneolithiquesuperieur,tombe 14]; Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr

1956: fig. 13:18, 82); Wadi Ghazzeh Site D2 (MacDonald 1932:pl. XXXVIII:7);Meser(Dothan 1958:fig.8:6 [Stratum I]); and Bdbedh-Dhra (Schaub1973: fig. 43, type 0702 [EB IA]). 23 Cf., inter alia, Megiddo(Engbergand Shipton 1934: 13 ["holemouthbowls,"13A]StagesVII-IV); Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 14:99, 101); Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1949: fig. 8:10 [with handle, "eneolithiquesuperieur,tombe 5]); Affu/a (Sukenik1948:pl. VI:1). 24 Cf.,inter alia,Arad IV (Amiran 1978:pl. 8:4, 5); and Ai (Callaway1972:65, "platterbowls";fig. 15:2 from Phase I is closer to the Tell esh-Shunehpiece than are the Phase II examples [figs. 16:26-29, 17:1-5]; all are said to be "attributableto newcomersin EB IB"[p. 70]). 25 Cf. also the atypical forms from de Contenson's sounding at Tell esh-Shuneh,which are describedas "grey burnished"(de Contenson1960a:fig. 9:3-6 and p. 21 ["Late Chalcolithic" LevelII]). 26Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. IV:9 [Level XIV]); Ali (Callaway1972:fig. 19:1 [Phase II], fig. 30:5 [Phase III]); and Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. 111:40). 27 Cf., inter alia, the "knob" (Kenyon 1965: fig. 4:12) and "nipples"(Kenyon 1965: fig. 4:17) from Tomb K2i, as well as the "horizontalbars"on a juglet from Tomb A94 (Kenyon 1960:fig. 14:6). 28This is the exception in Tomb A114(A) (Kenyon 1960: 43, fig. 17:16), but quite common in Tombs KI, K2, andA127 (Kenyon 1965:15-32). 29Exceptionsto this statementcan be found in Tomb A94, but there the exteriors of the bowls show a matimpression (Kenyon 1960: 25, fig. 9:3) or incised lines (Kenyon 1960: 27, fig. 9:17, 18). Never are the bases stringcut, nor, with the exception of the first example cited, do these marksindicatethe typeof manufacture. 30 Hennessy 1967: 20, pl. XI:4. This slight projection separatesthe present group from the simple flattenedrims that appear on the Jericho tell in EB II Phase H (p. 12, pl. VI:61) and Phase G (p. 12, pl. VI:62).Cf. also cEnShadud (Braun 1985: fig. 15:12, PotteryType 4). For the "hammer rim,"which projects from the vessel wall on both the exteriorand the interior,cf. Hennessy 1967: 10, 20, bowl Type I (pl. IV:30). The "hammerrim" is similar to Kenyon'sEB bowl Type C.1l.c.(Kenyon1960:54, fig. 25:4). 31 Cf. also Glueck 1951: pl. 123:10, from Khirbet ,Ain Riyashi,dated "EBI" (p. 436, with references);cEn Shadud (Braun1985:fig. 18:8-11),on small bowls of similarprofile; and Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Helms 1984: 50, fig. 16:2;1986:41, fig. 16:12).A latervessel fromAradcombines both the pellets and the cordon (Amiran 1978: pl. 51:11 [StratumII]). 32 de Contenson 1960a. For pl. 12:1, fig. 5:2, which, although illustratedwith "MiddleChalcolithic"material,is describedas having fallen from EB contexts (p. 16). See also similarpieces from:Arad IV (Amiran 1978:pl. 12:10);Tell edh-Dhiyabeh(Glueck1951:pl. 137:10,discussedundermaterial from Tell Deir SacanehMekhlediyeh,p. 463); and Affula (Sukenik1948:pi. IV:5).

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh 33For pl. 12:6, fig. 14:7,dated "EarlyBronzeII"(p. 30, where the lack of major differencesbetween his Levels III and IV is noted). See also Arad IV (Amiran 1978:pl. 12:20). Hennessy (1967: pl. XX) illustratessimilar simple rims on ledge-handledjars from both Proto-UrbanPalestinianand Egyptiandeposits. 34This feature,if indeed it should be considereddiagnostic, occursearly at 'Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 17:18 [Phase II]). Cf. also 'Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:16); Tell edhDhiyabeh (150) (Glueck1951: pl. 137:1, p. 462); and Arad III (Amiran1978:pl. 15:28,which may have as an antecedent pl. 12:8 [StratumIV]). 35 Ai (Callaway1972: 65, fig. 17:26; 1980: fig. 37:16, and p. 58, where he refers to, and agrees with, Hennessy's for the form); Tell suggestionof a North Syrian"backround" Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 5:4; 1948: fig. 6:1; 1961: fig. 3:5); and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. IV:9). Similarities can also be seen in a later (EB IIIB) form from Jericho (Hennessy 1967:pl. IX:93a). 36Gezer (Dever 1974: pl. 7:24; note that this type is consideredto "falllate in EB II or earlyin the EB IIIperiod" [p. 22]); Kinnereth (Amiran and Hass 1973: fig. 6:27); Jericho(Kenyon 1960: 148, fig. 51:2 [Tomb F3], Type B.2.a [p. 54]; p. 175, fig. 67:1 [Tomb A114], Type E.l.a [p. 55]); Ai (Callaway1972: 329, fig. 80:2 [Phase VIII]; note also the unburnishedexample from Phase VII [fig. 68:1]); and Rosh Hanniqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1979: 76, fig. 5:2 [StratumI]). 37Hennessy 1967: 19. Cf. also his pls. VII:68,X:95. For the possible appearanceof the type at Jericho in EB II, cf. pl. VI:63, which, however, may actuallybelong to (EB III) level F (p. 12). 38 Ai (Callaway1972: 258, fig. 59:26 [Phase VI, EB IIIA];for its Chalcolithicantecedents,cf. p. 65 and fig. 16:21; Callaway1980: 160, fig. 110:13 [Phase VI]); Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 52:21 [StratumI]); and Gezer (Dever 1974: 21, pl. 7:16 [FieldI, Stratum12]). 39Callaway 1972: 298, fig. 68:2 (Phase VII), unburnished (p. 307); Callaway1980: fig. 90:3 (Phase V), 109:12 (PhaseVI). 40 Gezer (Dever 1974: 21, pl. 7:17 [Field I, Stratum 12]), EB IIA;Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 23:10, 11 [StratumII], but cf. also pl. 8:10 [StratumIV], dated to the latter part of EB I). 41 For a good exampleof this, see the Phase VI material from the cAi Sanctuary(Callaway1972). Compareespecially the "type-bowl"(fig. 59:27) with the unburnishedbowl (fig. 59:26) similar to pl. 12:17. At cAi the best parallel comes from a Phase VII (EB III) deposit from Site C (Callaway 1980: fig. 131:15). An earlier appearancecan be seen in Phase V (EB IIB) material from the sanctuary(Callaway 1972:fig. 57:3);and possiblyPhase VI (EB IIIA) (fig. 61:23). ForArad,cf. Amiran 1978:fig. 34:8. 43There may be some relationshipbetween these two vessels and a "band-slip"decoratedjar from de Contenson's sounding at Tell esh-Shuneh (de Contenson 1960a: 27, fig. 13:4),LevelIII,datedEB I.

61

44 For the earlierparallels,see above, n. 33. The form also appearsat 'Ai in Phase IV (EB II) (Callaway1972: fig. 37:28), and possibly Phase VI (EB IIIA) (fig. 61:7), in the Sanctuary;and in Phase VII (EB IIIB) on Site C (Callaway 1980:fig. 132:9). 45 Tell Yarmouth(Ben-Tor 1975b:78, fig. 7:22); Arad (Amiran 1978:pl. 40:3 [StratumII]); Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor and Prausnitz1959:fig. 5:20 [StratumI]); Ai (Callaway 1972: fig. 46:4, 5 [Phase V, EB IIB]; Callaway1980: figs. 87:21 [Phase IV, EB IIA]; 111:36 [Phase VI, EB IIIA]; 132: 15 [Phase VII, EB IIIB]);and KhirbetKerak(personalcommunication,D. Esse). 46For example, the form can be traced through the successivephases of the Sanctuaryat cAi (Callawayl972:fig. 18:13 [Phase II]; fig. 29:5 [Phase III];fig. 38:21 [Phase IV]; fig. 47:23 [PhaseV]; fig. 63:17 [PhaseVI]). 47Hennessy 1967:15, pl. IX:90.Cf. also at Ali(Callaway 1980: fig. 93:17 [Phase V]; fig. 114:3 [Phase VI]; and fig. 136:21,etc. [PhaseVII]); and at Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 8:15 [Stratum IV], pl. 18:26 [Stratum III], and fig. 48:23 [and pl. 48:10 for its coexistencewith Hennessy'smore thickened form,Hennessy 1967:pl. IX:90]). 48 Cf. FitzGerald1935: 18; Hood 1951: (chronologically) 137 ("appears to be handmade");Amiran 1952: 89-90; 1970a:68; and Hennessy 1967:74. 49Jericho:unfortunately,the methodof manufactureof the Khirbet Kerak Ware vessels in the Jericho tombs is rarelyspecified.Of the two bowls for which methodof manufacture is described,one is said to have been wheel-made (Kenyon 1960: 120, fig. 38:27, from Tomb D12), while the other is said to exhibit a combinationof a wheel-maderim and a handmadebody(133, fig. 44:10,from Tomb F4). The Amuq:concerningthe Red-BlackBurnishedWare in Phase H, Braidwoodand Braidwoodnote that "this... ceramicmay be handmadein largepart"and that "theremay be wheelmarks(horizontalscratches)on the untreatedinner surfacesof narrow-neckedjar sherds,but such cases are rare and not completelyconvincing"(1960: 358). With regardto the same fabricin PhaseI they state: "it seems possiblethat a fairpart of this potteryis still handmade"(p. 398), suggesting that at least some of these vessels were (wholly or partially)executedon the wheel. 50Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication), Trench E, Phase IV and Road Station 5; Amuq (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 399, fig. 304:1-5); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 133-34, fig. 7); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:8); Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. X:12, 14, 17); Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XXVIII:13, 14); and 5li (Amiran 1967: 185:86,figs. 1:6 [1252], 1:7 [1298]). 51 Hood 1951: 133-34. Comparefig. 7:b,c (plain) with 7:f fig. (unpiercedlug). 52Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967: 12, pl. VI:6a[Phase H], pl. VI:62 [PhaseG]); JerichoTomb A127 (Kenyon1960:55, 87, fig. 25:5);JerichoTomb D12 (Kenyon 1960:55, 118, fig. 38:12). The flattened rim also appears on several platters from Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 59, 98, 111, figs. 33:21 [Type O.l.a], 33:22 [Type O.1.c], 36:15 [Type 0.2.b]); cAi

62

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

(Callaway1972:257-58, fig. 60:2); and Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor and Prausnitz1959:76, fig. 5:14 [StratumI]). 53Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 54, 118, fig. 38:7 [Type C..d], 59, 111, fig. 36:12 [Type N.2.a], 59, 120 fig. 38:22 [Type N.2.a]). Tomb F2 (Kenyon 1960: 58, 159, fig. 57:21 [Type L.Le], where the holes are "vestigial"and not completely pierced [pp. 59, 160, fig. 57:32 [Type N.2.a]). Note that the presence of the lug is not a criterionfor Kenyon's Type N.2.a (p. 59). 54Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 361, fig. 281:1-6 (Phase H); 399, fig. 304:13-17 (PhaseI). 55The exception to this statement might be found in the cAmuq material (cf. Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 399, fig. 304:8 [Phase I]). It is also possible that they could be consideredvariantsof Tabarael-AkradType 15 (Hood 1951: 133-34, fig. 15, esp. 15a,b). 56This concavitybegins to be noticeableeither at the end of EB II or the beginningof EB III (cf. Hennessy 1967: 12, pl. VI:63). 57For its earlyappearanceat Ai, see Callaway1972:64, fig. 16:17, 19 (Phase II). For later occurrencesat Ai, figs. 60:17, 61:1 (Phase VI), fig. 68:3 (Phase VII). Note also Callaway1980:figs. 61:3 (PhaseIII),92:17 (PhaseV), 108:28 (Phase VI), and 126:3, 7 (Phase VII). Other sites: Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmorand Prausnitz1959:76, fig. 5:7 [Stratum I]); Gezer (Dever et al. 1974: 22, pl. 7:24 [Field I, Stratum 12]; 27, fig. 9:3 [Field I, Stratum11]; a somewhatlater date for the appearanceof the type is given [p. 22]); note also its presence in Arad StratumIV (latter part of EB I) (Amiran 1978: pl. 8:3); and in later deposits as well: Stratum III (pl. 13:9 [and 40?]), StratumII (pls. 22:51, 23:13), and possiblyStratumI (pl. 52:21);JerichoTombs (Kenyon 1960:fig. 25:6 [Type D.4.b], from Tomb A127; fig. 38:14 [Type E.l.a], from Tomb D12; fig. 57:39 [Type P.2.b], from Tomb F2); and in the Kinnereth Tomb (Amiran and Hass 1973: fig. 6:25). 58Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967: 19, pl. XI:4); Jericho Tombs (Kenyon 1960: Tomb D12, pp. 55, 97, 118, fig. 33:2 [Type D.2.b], fig. 38:9 [Type D.l.b]; Tomb F3, pp. 55, 128, fig. 43:8 [Type D.2.a]; and Tomb F4, pp. 55, 148, fig. 51:4 [Type D.2.a]); Ai (Callaway1972: figs. 16:24 [Phase II], 26:18, 19 [Phase III], 36:3, 5 [Phase IV], 45:1-7 [Phase V], 60:21,61:5 [PhaseVI], 74:7 [PhaseVIII];andCallaway1980: figs. 62:2 [Phase III], 92:10 [Phase V], 108:2, 109:12, 23 [Phase VI], 123:4, 124:5, etc. [Phase VII], 141:8 [Phase VIII]); Gezer(Dever et al. 1974:21, pl. 7:18 [FieldI, Stratum 12]); Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmorand Prausnitz1959: 76, fig. 5:12-14, 29 [Stratum I]; cf. also its earlier appearancein StratumII [fig. 6:33]); Arad (Amiran 1978: 42, 45, pl. 8:2, for its early appearancein StratumIV [latterpart of EB I]; pls. 23:20 [StratumII], 52:17, 18 [StratumI] for its continued use in EB II); and at Kinnereth (Amiran and Haas 1973:fig. 6:30). 59Cf. Amiran 1952:92, fig. 1:4 (left); Hood 1951: 134, fig. 7; Hennessy 1967: 76, pl. LXIII:1,2, 4-8, 10-12 (not all of his examples,however,are good parallelsfor the Tell eshShuneh material);Kenyon 1960: 61, 121, fig. 38:32-34 (al-

though some of these examples have slightly outsplayed rims); and Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 360, fig. 282:2 (Phase H); 399, fig. 304:10 (Phase I); cf. also the Second MixedRange (pp. 458-59, fig. 358:1). 60 Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication), especiallyin Trench E, Phase IV; less frequentin Road Station 5 and Trench D; Ai (Amiran 1967: 185-86, fig. 1:8 [No. 1251]; Amu2q(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 361, fig. 362:9-11 [Phase H]; 399, fig. 304:11 [Phase I]; 458-59, fig. 358:2 [SecondMixed Range]); Jericho(Hennessy 1967: 76, pl. LXIII:3, 9). The closestexample to the Shunehbowls illustratedby Hennessy is includedwith his "simple bowl with upright sides" (1967: pl. LXIII:11,from Tabara elAkrad).Note its similaritiesto pl. 14:12, 13 in the present corpus. 61Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951: 133, fig. 7, "deepbowl with bead rim and sunkenbase");Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personalcommunication;TrenchE, Phase IV, and RoadStation 5); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:3-5); 9Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 283:5 [Phase H]; 399, fig. 304:20 [Phase I]); Jericho (Kenyon 1960: 61, 121; fig. 38:32, 35, includedwith her bowl Type R.5.a; cf. also Garstang 1935: pi. XXVIII:18, 19, from Room 109). Note that some of the Shuneh pieces are similar to vessels from 'Ai, which are said to show "KhirbetKerak Ware influence,"or to be "in imitation of" Khirbet Kerak Ware(Callaway1972:258, fig. 60:8,with references[Building A, Phase VI]; Callaway1980: 160, fig. 108:18-19,22 [Site A, PhaseVI]; p. 193, fig. 125:43[Site C, Phase VII]). 62 Amiran 1952: 92, fig. 1:2 (left) from Beth Shan; Hennessy 1967:76, pl. LXIV.Similaritiesalso exist to some examples in his categoryof "smalljars"(p. 77, pl. LXVI), but they are consideredhere to be nearer to the deeper Shunehbowls (pl. 17:4,5), discussedbelow (Hood 1951: 133, fig. 7, esp. Type 13b). 63 Jericho,Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960:60, 121, fig. 38:28 [bowl type R.2.a];fig. 38:29,30 [bowl Type R.3.a];fig. 38:31 [bowl Type R.3.b];fig. 38:42 [bowl Type R.3.c]); Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960: 60, 133, fig. 44:10-11 [bowl Type R.3.a]); Tomb F2 (Kenyon 1960: 60, 160, fig. 57:41 [bowl Type R.3.b]; fig. 57:42 [bowl Type R.3.c]; for similarforms from the Jericho tell, cf. Garstang 1932: pl. III:9, 10, 12); Ai (Amiran 1967: 185-86, fig. 1:2-4 [nos. 1252, 1248, and 1261]); Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 18-19, pl. VIII:4,7); Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. X:18-20); KhirbetKerak(D. Esse, personal communication,Trench E, Phase IV); TarabaelAkrad (see above, n. 61); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 19:9); and the cAmuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364 [inter alia], figs. 281:19, 23; 282:5, 6 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 305:6 [Phase I]; pp. 458-59, fig. 358:4,5 [Second MixedRange]). 64 Amiran 1967: 92, fig. 1:2 (right), from Megiddo; Hennessy 1967: 76, pl. LXIV:5 (from Jericho),pl. LXIV:7 (from Megiddo);Hood 1951:135, fig. 7:13d. 65TrueKhirbetKerakWare:Jericho(Kenyon 1960:60, 160, fig. 57:43 [bowl Type R.4.a];Garstang1932:pl. VI:1-3

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh [but note fabricdescription]);Megiddo(Loud1948: pl. 5:14 [StratumXVII], with two handles); Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 281:24 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 305:8,9 [Phase I]; p. 459, fig. 359:1 [SecondMixedRange]). Imitation Khirbet Kerak Ware:Jericho(Kenyon 1960: Tomb F2, p. 62 and fig. 58:6, 7 [cup Type B.l.a and B.l.b]); Ai (Callaway1980:193, fig. 125:44[Site C, PhaseVII]. 66Amiran 1967:92, fig. 1:1 (examplesfrom 'Affulaand Jericho); Hennessy 1967: 76-77, pl. LXV:1, 2 (examples from Jericho); Hood 1951: 134, fig. 8:17 (esp. 17b, and possibly17d). 67Jericho (Kenyon 1960: 60, 160); Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication,Trench E, Phase IV); Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. X:1); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:10, 13); and the Amu2q (Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 283:21 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 307:1 [Phase I]). 68Amiran 1967: 92, fig. 1:2 (center), from Beth Shan; Hennessy 1967:77, fig. LXVI;Hood 1951: 134, fig. 8. 69 Jericho(Kenyon 1960:Tomb D12, 60, 120, fig. 38:27 [bowl Type R.l.a]; Garstang1935: pl. XXVIII:21-23);Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 18, pl. VII:6);Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:11); 'Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, [inter alia] fig. 283:5 [Phase H]); 'Ai (local) (Callaway1972:257-58, fig. 60:11 [BuildingA, Phase VI]; 1980: 193, fig. 125:37 [Site C, Phase VII], both with referencesto Jerichomaterial).Althoughthe influenceon the local forms is apparent,they are quite different from the Shunehvessels. 70Amiran 1952: 3, fig. 1 (esp. 1:1 [left], from Affula); Hood 1951: 134, fig. 8:18; Hennessy 1967: 77, pls. LXVII, LXVIII. 71 Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 18, pl. VII:8); Affula (Sukenik1948:pls. X:1-3, XI:2); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969:64, fig. 10:1); Amu2q(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 364, fig. 283:10, 11 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 306:1, 3 [with a more "vertical" profile,Phase I]. 72 Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication, Trench D, Phases A and C; Trench E, Phases IV and V); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 134-35, 8:19a [and possibly fig. 8:z]); Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 364, figs. 283:20,284:3 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 304:29 [PhaseI]). 73Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication, Trench E, Phase V); Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951: 134-35, fig. 8:19b);Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:76, fig. 18:12); Amuq (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 283:2 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 304:21[Phase I]). 74Hennessy 1967: 78, and pl. LXX; Hood 1951: 135, 7:20, 20a; Amiran 1952:92-93, fig. 1:6. fig. 75Amiran 1952:92-93, fig. 1:6 (far left), from Khirbet Kerak; further, for Khirbet Kerak, cf. Amiran and Haas (1973: fig. 6:27). It is also found in Trench E, Phase V and Road Station 5 (D. Esse, personal communication).Arqub

63

el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 66, 72, fig. 17:208); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 19:1, 6-8); Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. X:23-25, illustratedas bowl rims). 76 Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 19, pl. VII:5); Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 62, 72, fig. 17:214); 'Affula(Sukenik 1948:pl. XI:1);KhirbetKerak(D. Esse,personalcommunication, Trench E, Phases IV and V; Trench D, Phase A); Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951:135,fig.7:type20); Ras Shamra (de Contenson1969:64, fig. 10:4 [decoratedwith zig-zag and concentriccircles]); and the 'Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, figs. 282:13,284:6-8 [Phase H]; p. 400, figs. 306:4, 307:7 [Phase I]; p. 459, fig. 359:3 [Second Mixed Range]). The fact that the decorationneed not cover the entire vase-supportleaves open the possibilitythat some of the "plain"stands of the precedinggroup are actuallythe undecoratedportionsof flutedstands. 77 Amiran 1952: 92-93, fig. 1:6 (second from right); note her reference to similar forms from Alishar Hiiyiik (1952:99, n. 39). 78 Amiran 1952:93, fig. 1:7;Hood 1951: 135, fig. 7:21, 21a; Hennessy 1967:78, pl. LXXII. 79Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 17, pl. X:1-4); Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. XI:3-6); KhirbetKerak(D. Esse,personal communication,Trench E, Phases IV and V; Trench D, Phase A); Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951: 135, fig. 7:21); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 19:1-5); the Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 364, 368, figs. 282:10, 11; 285:14, 15, 17-19 [Phase H]; p. 400, fig. 307:10 [Phase I]; p. 459, fig. 358:6 [SecondMixedRange]). 80 At Ras Shamra and Tabarael-Akrad some of the white filling was still present. Ras Shamra (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 368, 459); Tabara el-Akrad (Hood 1951: 135). 81 Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 19, pl. VIII:6); 'Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. X:5, 6); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 135, fig. 7:21b, 21c); the Am2uq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 368, figs. 282:12, 285:3-13, 16 [Phase H]; p. 400, fig. 307:11,12 [PhaseI]; p. 459, figs. 358:7,8; 359:4). 82 Amiran 1952:93, fig. 1:8.This classof objectsis also discussed by Hennessy (1967: 78) and by Hood (1951: 139-40). 83 'Ai (Marquet-Krause 1949:pl. LXXV:1521).On this piece, cf. also Callaway(1972: 303, fig. 73:8), with references to its identificationby Amiran (1967: 185-86, fig. 1:9); Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935: 17-18, pl. X:18); Khirbet Kerak (Amiran 1952: 93, pl. 6:D); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 139-40, fig. 9, pl. XI); Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:64, fig. 10:5); the 'Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 371, figs. 290, 291 [PhasesH, I, and the SecondMixedRange]). 84 Cf. the burnishedcross on the base of a vessel from Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 120, fig. 38:27 [Type R.l.a]). Incised crosses appear on an omphalos base in Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960:60, 133, fig.44:10, 11).

Tell

Abu

Habil

Tell Abu Habil is describedby the excavatoras a low, extensive (ca. /4-1km long) site locatedto the west of the -212 m contourline and just to the northof a rise in the groundcalled"el-Qurn"and the small "Wadiel-Qurn."The center of the site was said to be markedby a ca. 3-4 m high mound and cut by an old unpavedroadthat crossedthe site in a north-south direction.Southeastof the main part of the site lay KhirbetAbu Habil, which was not tested by Mellaartbut whose surfaceis said to have producedmaterialdating to the Iron II, Roman, and Byzantineperiods.Mellaart'ssmall sondage was locatedon the top of the higher center of the site.

The Stratigraphy Mellaartdug his 2 x 3 m sondage,Trench I, at Tell Abu Habil in 13 layers,which he saw as events is not easy to representingfive stratigraphiclevels or "periods."This sequenceof archaeological it to in seems so best the material here two interpret, present major groups: an upper group, consisting of Mellaart'sPeriods III, IV, and V; and a lower group, consisting of his Periods I and II-the dividingline being the stampedclay floor (Layer9) and its makeup(Layer10) (figs. 15, 16). The lower group consistsof a series of three pits cut into the white huwwarand/or the natural gravel and their associatedstratigraphy(fig. 14).

The Lower Strata (PeriodsI and II) Pits 1 and 2 The relationshipbetween Pits 1 and 2 is difficultto determine,especiallyin the light of the apparentstratigraphicdifferencesto the north and south of Pit 1 (figs. 14, 15:SectionC-D). Pit 2 appearsfrom the plan (fig. 14) to be the earlierof these two pits, since the southernthirdof its outline (if, in fact,it was originallycircular)has evidentlybeen lost to the cuttingof the deeper(and hence subsequent?)Pit 1. MellaartinterpretedPit 2 as a "doorway"to Pit 1, which he hypothesized might have been utilized as a granary.Pit 1 has two layerstentativelyidentifiedby the excavatoras floors (fig. 15), a lower one of clay (Layer llf) and an upper one of mudbrick(Layer lid).1 It is therefore possible that Pits 1 and 2 were contemporary,used as an occupationalunit (dwelling?) entered on the north by stepping down into Pit 2, with the Layer1Id mudbrick(and previouslythe Layer1lf clay?)serving as a floor. Unfortunately,we do not have any evidencefor the natureof the superstructureof this "house,"if indeed its 1 m depth (on the south side) would have requiredone.2 According to the excavation notebooks, the Pit 2 "doorway"was filled in when Pit 1 was "surroundedby at least two coursesof mudbrick."SectionsC-D (fig. 15) shows two such courseson the southernside of Pit 1 and five courseson the northernside. Although the top of this mudbrickis cut or eroded at approximatelythe same level (the interfacewith Layer 10), there is a noticeable differencein the materialon/in which this mudbrick"wall"was founded:on the south it is built on accumulation(?)Layers 12 and 12a, while on the north it is built into unspecifiedlayers in the depression of the Pit 2 "doorway."It is uncertainfrom the section, however, whether or not a foundationtrench was utilizedin either case.3 64

Tell Abu Habil

A

65

ROAD

I,.

-

-, / -212

,01'

N?

N

WADI

f

Fig. 13. Tell Abu Habil. Sketch map of the site from the excavationnotebook. No. 1 marks the location of Mellaart's sounding;No. 2 recordstracesof walls visibleon the surfacewhen Mellaartwas workingon the site; and No. 3 callsattention to "Khirbet"Abu Habil,the surfaceof which is said to have producedIron II, Roman,and Byzantinepottery (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

The differencesin both the foundinglevels and soil types, in such a small area,4combineto make it difficultto visualizethe appearanceof this part of the soundingbeforethe buildingof the mudbrick "wall"aroundPit 1. The utilizationof Pit 1 after it was surroundedby the mudbrickwall is also difficultto interpret,since most of the deposit above the mudbrickfloor (Layerlid) consistsof lenses of ash. It is probablyfor this reasonthat Mellaartsaw this featureas a possiblegranarythat had been later used as a rubbishpit. Such an interpretationof the later use of the structure,while probably correct,still raises a major question:upon which (stratigraphic)level were the ancientoccupantsof Tell Abu Habil standing (and hence living) when the installationwas constructed?5 Furthercomplicatingthe entire questionof Pit 1 and its relationto the archaeological stratabelow Layer10 (cf. fig. 15: SectionC-D) is the observationin the notebooksthat the sides of Pit 1 had been whitewashed.Unfortunately,the importantverticalextent of this whitewash is not recorded.Such informationwould be extremely useful. If, for instance,the whitewash went down (or up) only to Layerli1dor 1 f, this wouldbe additionalevidencefor the internalphasingof the pit. If, however,the entire depth of Pit 1 had been whitewashed,it would indicatean act (the whitewashing)that would

Tell Abu Habil

66

C

A

I. MU6DSRICK WALL C

WALL A

-

2

0 *o

__

.-

-

.

'.1

WALL B

'

Fig. 14. Tell Abu Habil.Plan of the excavationarea (TrenchI). Serion A-B can be seen in fig. 16, and SectionC-D through Pits 1 and 2 in TrenchI (J.Mellaart).

C

I^

e-.:t.

^

*'H 'Jf'*^^

^

A4X'*~ uWWAP^

h FLoOR

*^^/^NCH'

H ow
22

f

h

e

d

c

29

a

b

24

26

23

25

27

?

[133]

32

PLATE6

TellJamid

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

521 527 526 525 524 528 523

II.2 II.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 I.1

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

JA 010 JA 011 JA 012 508 519 520 517 515 516

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

512 514a 513 514b 518 JA 006 510 509 JA 004 JA 005 511

Wheel-made;buffware,blackgrits;tracesred wash outside Wheel-made;buffware,minutegrits;smoothed,tracesred wash Wheel-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,minutegrits;hardfired;buffslip, polished Wheel-made;brown/redware;hardfired;red polishedsurfaceoutside Wheel-made;buffware,blackgrits;soft fired,red wash at rim outside Buff ware, gray core, blackgrits; at rim outside:crimson-redwash, polished, worn Buffware,white and blackgrits;red wash inside;worn off outside Wheel-made;buffware;hardfired,red burnishedslip insideandoutside,worn Wheel-made;brownware,white grits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,blackgrits;hardfired;tracesbandslip Hard fired;buffware,blackgrits;brownbandslip Wheel-made;buffware,blackand browngrits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,grits;hardfired,red wash Wheel-made;buff ware,largeblackgrits; hardfired;buffbandslip outsideand over rim White grits;buffware,gray-greencore;wheel made,plain Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired;red wash Wheel-made;buffware,blackcore,white grits;hardfired Wheel made;buffware,smallblackgrits;hardfired;bandslip, brownwash Wheel-made;brownware,gritty (mica?);hardfired;brownsurface,plain Wheel-made;buffware,no grits;hardfired;fine buffreservedslip Wheel-made;buffware,white grits, red wash Wheel-made;hardbuffware,white grits;smoothed Wheel-made;grayware,micagrits;brownsurface,plain White grits;brownsurface,blackcore;wheel made,plain White grits;buffsurface,graycore;wheel-made,hardfired,smoothed

[134]

1.1 II.1 1.1 1.2 II.1 II.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 11.1 II.1 II.1 IL. 1.2 II.2 -1.2 1.2 --

PLATE 6

2

)

4

6

7

10 ,el

8

I

a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,

11

9

t

161*

14

13

12

15

)

7

17

18

19

20

21

22

)

23

24

5

25

)

(6 26

27

[135]

PLATE7

TellJamid

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

JA 013 522 529 JA 014 JA 008 JA 009 JA 007 534 535 530 533 507 531 532 JA 003 JA 002 JA 001 506 JA 015 502 501 503

11.2 II.1 11.1 I1.2 II II II 11.2 II.2 11.2 II II.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 II.2 Surface 11.2 Surface

23.

505

24.

504

Wheel-made;brownware,white grits;brownsurface Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;soft fired;red wash Buffware,blackand white grits;hardfired;buffsurface,polished,worn Wheel-made;brownware,white grits;brownsurface Brownware,white grits,crumbly;red surface Wheel-made;brownware,white grits, soft fired;blacksurface Brownware,white grits,crumbly;mediumfired;red surface,smoothed Wheel-made;brownware;fine smoothedblacksurface Wheel-made;brownware,gritty;brownsurface Wheel-made;brownware,grits;brownsurface Wheel-made;buffware,smallgrits, mediumfired Wheel-made;blackware,white grits;buffsurfaceinside,red outside;scored Red ware,blackgrits;plain Buffware,largewhite grits;brownwash,bandslip Wheel-made;blackgrittyware;hardfired;red surface,combed Buffware,wheel-made,veryhard;combed,then smoothed Buffware,largeblack& redgrits;pink surface,combed Grayware,grits;red surface,combed Buffware,largeblackand white grits;mediumfired;brownbandslip Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;buffsurface;red paint Hand-made;red ware,white grits;white slip outside,matt redpaint Khirbet Kerak Ware; ribbedstand;buff surface,blackcore, small white grits; worn red burnishedslip Wheel-made(heavy wheel marksinside);brown ware,small white grits (lime inclusions?);red burnishedslip outside Wheel-made;red ware,blackgrits;hardfired;orange-buffslip, burnished

[136]

11.2 11.2

PLATE 7

3

0 lcm

5

10

8

4

5 9

10 -

/

/111! millll lllR!ttltt^ ^,lllltll;l\\\ltI

~~~ ~ ~ ~

13 14

12

4)

&8 19

15

fl

r~~~18

16

I

k *t

1'

W/ /f^I I/liI//__J 24

6

16

25

17

26

18

27

8

9

[153]

PLATE16 No.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Field No.

41 42 77 76 68 70 72 69 35 110B 43 67 74 31 25B 39 30 73 71 66 61

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator's Field Description

KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

[154]

Provenience

11.4 11.2 11.2 11.3 II.3/6 11.3 11.4 11.3 II.1 II.4(?) 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.1 11.2 II.5 11.4 I1.2 11.3/4

s

-A211

?-I

1-

-

(nA _

t

to

V

I ~

- O(_

Co

./

I_

4'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,x 0 oI,,


I

P?-

(0

V00

s-.

.0mZ-

-~~~~~~~

11

II

~~~~ ~

K

I

;|

Io

II

~~~~~~~~~~-

I

-1-

PLATE18 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

50 51 52 121 122 123 137 124 46 48 157 80 79 78 81 129 132 131 130 136 138

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

[158]

Provenience 11.2 Surface 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.1 11.4 11.2 11.2 11.3/4 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.3

PLATE 18

\

I

I,"; ,,r:,, ,I

.9

.

9 /I t r(

m

I

I1J

{z1El

l"C;*"'ij

10

Il 2

f

.--

-

...

-

-

i'a11

3

5

12

13

14

15

X-"'- ''""s 17

16

6 \ 18 18

19

f HH H H H 0 1cm 5

I

H 10

/ 20

21

[159]

I

PLATE19 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

133 134 135 116 118 119 120 127 128 111 112 114 113 115 148 117 125 126 147 144 90 91 140 145 146

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

[160]

Provenience II.3 11.4 11.3 II.4 II.3 II.4 11.2 11.2 11.4 11.4 11.3/4 11.3/4 11.3/4 11.4 Surface II.3 11.3 I1.2 II 11.2 --11.2 11.2 11.2

PLATE 19

\'

-

f2

I'

8

1

9

\

;;'/~~~ la~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 10

t

I 3

16 1

4 17

12

5

'

........

18 13

6 19

0 1 cm 01 cm

14

5 5

10 10

20

7

c 7c~~~~~j~~~, 22

[161]

23

24

25 25

PLATE20 No. 1. 2.

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

9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

FieldNo.

Tell Abu-Habil

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

Hand-made;gray core, buff ware, largegrits; smoothedinside and outside,red wash outside Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; red/brown wash inside and outside; polishedoutside Buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;yellowoutside,red paint inside Buffware,smallgrits;soft fired,smoothed;brown/graypaint Buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;smoothed Buffware,very smallgrits;mediumfired,smoothed,red paint Hand-made;black core, red surface,grits; hard fired; smoothed; red wash outside;worn Buffware,gritty,hardfired;wet smoothed;washyred paint insideand outside Buffware,mediumgrits;smoothed;red paint,outsideand inside Graycore,buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint Grayware,manygrits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint insideand outside Hand-made;buffware,grits;soft fired;matt redpaint;mat-impressedbase Hand-made, buff-red ware, large grits, hard fired; red paint/wash inside/ outside,smoothed,worn Grayware,grits,dull brown/blackslip/wash outside/inside Gray/browngrittyware;wet smoothed Buffware,largegrits;creamslip inside;red paint insideand outside Buffware,grits;tracesof redpaint on rim;worn Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed,red/brownpaint Hand-made;buffware,small grits; hardfired;smoothed;matt red paint inside andoutside Hand-made;buff ware, few grits; hard fired;smoothed,buffpaint/wash inside and outside Hand-made;buff ware,very gritty;hard fired,red wash; fire-blackenedinside/ outside Hand-made;buff ware, large grits; hard fired;smoothed;red paint inside and outside Buffware,largegrits;hardfired,smoothed;buffpaint insideand outside Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;smoothed;tracesof red wash outside Graycore,red/buffsurface,grits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint on lip

1.11

[162]

1.4 1.112 1.112 1.112 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.11

1.7 1.7 I.llA 1.7 1.12 1.11

1.4(?) 1.112 1.4 1.7 1.11 1.12

1.3 1.3 1.11 1.2

1.3

PLATE 20

I

I

3 7 2

[

I

I

6

4

1

-I

W 17

I

17

13 13

-1 I

18

14

I

I

10

1

i

15 ly 19

20

/

11

16

FF0 1 cm O lcm

55

I

110

21

12

i-~-'p

25 25

23

26 24

[163]

S

PLATE21

Tell Abu-Habil

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2.

--

1.7 1.4

3. 4.

--

5. 6. 7.

----

8.

--

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

----

14. 15. 16.

----

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

----

Hand-made;buffware,grits;mediumfired;smoothed;matt brownpaint Hand-made;buff ware, large grits; medium fired; smoothed, matt red paint inside and outside Buffware,largegrits;smoothed,buffpaint outside Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; hard fired;smoothed, matt buff/red paint Hand-made;fine buffware,small grits;hardfired;smoothed,washyredpaint Buffware,white grits;underfired;smoothed;red paint Hand-made;buff ware, largegrits; hardfired;smoothed,thickred paint inside and outside Hand-made;thickblackcore,buff surface,largegrits; mediumfired,smoothed, red paint;fire blackened Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;soft fired;brownwash outside Hand-made;graycore,buffsurface,very largegrits;smoothed;red wash Grayware,largegrits,crumbly;smoothed;redpaint;burnt Hand-made;buffware,gritty;soft fired;smoothed;washyred paint Hand-made;graycore, red surface,mediumgrits;hardfired;red wash outside; burnt Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed;red surface Buffware,largegrits;soft fired;smoothed;blackto brownsurface Hand-made;thick gray core, buff surface,grits; medium fired; matt brown paint Buffware,mediumgrits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint Buffware,largegrits;red paint outside/inside;smoothed Hand-made;graycore,buffware,grits;hardfired Hand-made;grittybuffware;underfired;darkred to brownpaint Black/grayware,largegrits;smoothed;red wash outside;fire blackened Buffgrittyware,red slip

--

[164]

1.3 11.8 1.11 1.7 1.4 1.11 1.11 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.3 1.3 1.12 1.3 1.11 1.11

PLATE 21

/ 1

I

~i

.?

N

14

9

15 10

I 3 dXI -3

11

16

11

17

18

12 4 h KMH 0 1

J-H 5cm

5 19

N

13

6 20

7 21

8 22

[165]

H 10

PLATE22 No. 1. 2.

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

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

FieldNo.

Tell Abu-Habil

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

Hand-made;buff ware, gritty;soft fired;brown/red paint inside and outside; misfired? Buff ware, grits; soft fired, smoothed; orange surface;faded black to purple paint Buffware,gritty;light buffsurface,deep red paint Buffware,largegrits;hardfired,smoothed;redpaint Red ware,no grits;creamslip, red and black(polychrome)paint Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;red wash insideand outside;partiallyburnt Buffware,very small grits;smoothed;matt redpaint Buffware,smallgrits;matt impressedbase Buffware,largegrits;smoothedsurface,red paint Hand-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired;tracesof red wash Buffware,grits;smoothed,red paint Red ware,verygritty;brownto blacksurface Buffware,hardfired,wet smoothed Buffware,smallgrits;smoothed,red paint Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;red paint insideand outside Unbakedclay Graycore,buffware;largegrits;red paint Red ware,grits;smoothed Basalt Basalt Basaltor serpentine Basalt Basalt Basalt

I.7

[166]

1.11 11.8 1.4 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.3 1.12 II.8 1.11 1.11 1.2 1.11 1.7 1.11 1.6 1.3 Surface Surface 1.3 Surface Surface Surface

PLATE 22

I

/

1

-

I

24 2

5

8

7

10

9

l 12

16

15

/'S~

-\\ ,01t

14

13

I I1

IX' 11

=: I 18

20

23

24

-19 19

17

t

l1

21 10

[167]

Iw

PLATE23

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

2

1.8

2.

4

3.

5

4. 5.

14 1

6. 7.

3 8

8. 9. 1L0.

11 17 12

11. 1L2. 13.

15 9 6

1L4. 1L5. 1L6. 1L7. 1L8. 19. 2!0. 21. 2!2. 2!3. 2!4. 2!5.

18 19 20 7 16 10 13 108 110 107 106 54

2!6. 2!7.

58 53

Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired;brown slip and highly burnished exterior Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired; brown slip inside and outside; highlyburnishedexterior;blackenedrim suggestsuse as lamp Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired;deep red slip inside and outside; finelyburnished Wheel-made;graycore,buffsurface;hardfired;self-slipped,polishedexterior Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired;brown slip and highly burnished, exterior Wheel-made;buffware,no grits;hardfired;red wash,polishedexterior Wheel-made;buff ware, minute grits; soft fired; red slip inside and outside, polishedsurface Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;buffwarewith grits;hardfired;roughlysmoothedexterior Hand-made;gray core, buff surface,small grits; hard fired;coarselysmoothed exterior Hand-made;graycore,red surface,smallgrits;hardfired;used as lamp Buffware,no grits;red to buffslip outside,over rim;polished Hand-made; red ware, no grits; hard fired; surface not preserved; (or: no surfacetreatment);used as lamp Hand-made;red ware;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;buffware;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;pink ware with grits;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;no surfacetreatment Red ware,white grits;red burnishedself-slip insideand outside Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfiredsmoothedsurface Hand-made;buffware,no grits,soft fired,coarselysmoothed Hand-made;buffware,white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired,smoothedsurface Hand-made;red ware,white grits, hardfired,roughsurface Hand-made;red ware,white grits, hardfired,roughsurface Brown Esdraelonware; black core, grits, hand-made,soft fired, brown slip, highlyburnishedinside/outside Wheel-made;buffware,verysmallgrits;soft fired,wheel marks,washedrim Hand-made;red Esdraelonware, medium grits, hard fired, highly burnished surfaceinside and outside

[168]

III.4 II1.3 III.3 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 III.3 1.9 1.9 III.3 1.8 III.3 1.7 1.8 1.9 III.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 III.5 1.9 III.5pit.

PLATE 23

/

E

1

19 10 1\

2

20 11

18

3

I-

I

12 21

4

L I

13

5 ,Is

__

~//

h 22

14

6

\ /1 //

\

7

15

\

t/

23

8 16

HF-I 1-4 }-4 H 5ev

1-4~

0 1

10 24

9

* e

r ;0

26

k

.3 N.j 25\

T 25

[169]

tI

PLATE24 No.

FieldNo.

1.

55

2.

53

3.

56A

4.

57

5. 6. 7.

56B 80 76

8. 9. 10.

196 77 78

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

75 74 81 71 197 73 70

18. 19.

72 210

20.

178

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription Provenience 1.9 Light gray Esdraelonware; buff ware, small grits, light gray surface,highly burnishedinside and outside Red Esdraelonware; red ware, medium grits, hand made; hard fired, highly III.5pit burnishedinside/ outside Light gray Esdraelonware; buff ware, white grits, self-slip, light gray surface, highlyburnishedinside/outside BlackEsdraelonware;buff ware, small grits, self-slip, highly burnishedsurface 1.7 insideand outside Same as No. XXIV: 3 (56A) above III.3 Red ware,small white grits,slow wheel, hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.7 1.9 Hand-made;buff ware, large blackgrits, medium fired, brown wash outside, smoothedsurface II.5 Wheel-made;buffware,largegrits,polished 1.7 Hand-made;red-brownware,white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.7 Hand-made;buff ware, large grits, medium fired, red painted band at rim insideand outside 1.7 Hand-made;red-buffware,white grits, hardfired,smoothedred surface 1.7 Hand-made;redware,blackgrits, mediumfired,smoothedred surface 1.8 Hand-made;brownware,small white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.7 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothedsurface buff surface II.5 Wheel-made; ware,largegrits;polished 1.7 Hand-made;red ware,largewhite grits,hardfired,smoothedpurplesurface Slow wheel; buff ware, small grits, hard fired, smoothed gray to pink to red 1.8 surface 1.8 Hand-made;buffware,small white grits,hardfired,smoothedbuffsurface Hand-made;buff ware,white grits, hardfired,light white-yellowwash, yellow II:2/III:2(?) band-slip III.2 Hand-made;buff ware, medium to small grits; hard fired;red wash/slip, very worn

[170]

PLATE 24

F

-r

i r_3

Bi 14

6

I

/'

v

1

---- L

I 8

X

/

~~~I 17

9

r\

L 10 10

Z, 11

11

HH 1 H H 0 lcm 5

[

H 0

N 13 19

[171]

20

_~qk*

PLATE25 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2.

101 102

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

89 114 118 116 95 109 104 135 --

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Provenience Excavator'sFieldDescription 1.8pit Hand-made;buffware,verysmallgrits;hardfired,polishedinside andoutside 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,small grits; mediumfired;burnishedred self slip inside and outside 1.7 Hand-made;graycore,red ware;gritty,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.8 Slow wheel;grayware,small white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface III.3 Slow wheel;red ware,graycore,no grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.8 Wheel-made;red-buffware,no grits,hardfiredburnishedself slip 1.9 Slow wheel; red ware,smallgrits, hardfired,finelysmoothed Slow wheel; red ware,graycore,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.9 1.9 Wheel-made;buffware,grits,hardfired 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,small white grits,hardfired Variantreconstructionof XXV:5 (?). Drawn at half scale

[172]

PLATE 25

7

)

7

2 ( r ~f rrrfrrffI t{ ff rr mHfa (fm

...3 fI

3

I

4

9

?~KKh~~Mh~l ...... ". v b btblUlrtblOUX

iA

btthiSd3

._/

-- -

/7 \1

"I

:, _, /_ _ ._ _ _

1c ,-.,

.

--l

gflunenDp1eiI11ij

ummmmmmmmft-z

u

j

6

H-I 1 0 1 cm

H 5

H

HI 10

1 11

[173]

?

PLATE26 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

94 112 91 113 123 115 117 96 97 111 103 93 -174

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription Slow wheel;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Slow wheel;red ware,small white grits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits, hardfiredsmoothed Slow wheel;red ware,small white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,white grits, hardfired,smoothed Slow wheel;buffware,small darkgrits;soft fired;smoothed Slow wheel;red ware,no grits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-madeor slow wheel;red ware,smallgrits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired Buffware,smallgrits, red burnishedself-slip insideand outside Wheel made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,finelysmoothed Variantreconstructionof No. XXVI:6(?).Drawn at 1/2 scale Variantreconstructionof XXVI:7(?).Drawn at 1/2 scale Hand-made;graycore,buffsurface,grits,hardfired,smoothed

[174]

Provenience 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 --1.7

PLATE 26

F

Pak\qdlLIIIOOOOQI

8 7) 1

,_

*..

.\

9

VI 3ivqmi

tISI I

V10

2

10

I

1

/ 11

I

4

12

5

\VVV

wI

lvv 13

II / / //

// //

//

14

I 6 ///

dOO I0000000( 00O00uO000 800OO0

15

11H I 0 1cm

71 7

[175]

H 5

IH --J 10

PLATE27 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

47 31 22 32 21 25 27 42 43

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

46 49 48 51 45 41

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

26 23 24 61 62 28

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Provenience Excavator'sFieldDescription 1.9 Buffware,smallgrits;red-brownwash, highlypolished oval mouth hard red 1.9 small buff surface; fired, ware,very Hand-made; grits; 1.8 no hard smoothed red fired; Hand-made; ware, grits; surface red III.3 buff small ware, Hand-made; grits;smoothed,pebble-burnished, III.3 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed soft fired III.3 buff ware,verycoarse,largegrits; Hand-made; III.2 hard smoothed fired; Hand-made;red ware,very smallgrits; III.4 Hand-made;buffware,smallgraygrits;hardfired;deep red wash,worn 1.7 Hand-made;buff ware,small grits;hard fired;creamyred to gray-brownwash, verticalburnishingmarks 1.9 Buffware,small grits;red wash,polished 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.7 Wheel-made;buff-creamware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.7 Buffware,smallgrits;red wash, strokingburnish III.3 Hand-made;buff ware, small gray grits; hard fired;deep red wash, shadingto buffoutside;polishedrim, worn 1.8 Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;red washed;smoothed 1.7 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;burnishoutsideand interiorrim 1.9 Hand-made;light buffcoarseware,largegrits;hardfired 1.7 Slow wheel;buffware,smallgrits;soft fired;red paint 1.8 Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed III.2(?) Hand-made; light gray core, buff ware, medium to large grits; very soft; smoothed

[176]

PLATE 27

15 8

Ba

9

(

,, 16

10 2

_ 11 3 17

N

12 4

13

18

5

I \

/

19 I

14

6 20

[177]

PLATE28

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

1.

31

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

59 63 128 60 66 65 64 29

10. 11.

30 50

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

130 131 132 133 134 98 127 99 124 100

Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; hard fired;red surface;burnishedat rim and handle Hand-made;buffware,grits;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;graycore,red ware;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;brownware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;brownware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffcreamware,grits;hardfired;yellow slip, burnishedoutside,at rim Hand-made;buffware,gritty,poor, soft fired;red burnishedwash Hand-made;gray core, red ware, black and white grits; hard fired;red paint inside,red slip outside;highlyburnished Wheel-made;pink ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Wheel-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,manylargegrits;smoothed Hand-made;graycore,red ware,grits;hardfired;smoothed Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;graycore,red ware,white grits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;smoothed

[178]

Provenience __

1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 III.2 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 III.2 Surface 1.7 1.9 1.9

PLATE 28

.<x

>,>c. .^

o^i^Y

.

. __ _

_

l

A 12

9

I

S

v

;i^ti^'^'^.e

10 13

J 2 I

I

( C

ce eee eecc f\c

etoo ?46444

Oa*A

? tl Ot of

aHStt-ifWiWt2E^

14 11

1 15

t0t000 ~7

v016 16

5

17

6 18

7

19

S

8

HH 01

H-

H 5cm

20

H 10

21

[179]

PLATE29

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

52

1.8

2. 3.

40 36

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

38 37 35 39 177

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

34 44 181 180

Hand-made;buff cream ware, small grits; hard fired; red wash outside;wet smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;redpaint inside Hand-made;buff ware, small grits; hard fired; fine red-buffwash, polished; partlyburnt Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;slight polish Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;fine red polishedsurface Hand-made;buffware,small grits;hardfired;fine red-buffwash,polished Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made; gray core, buff ware, minute grits; hard fired; pale red slip, burnished Buffware,small blackgrits;redpaint;slight burnish Hand-made;red ware,smallwhite grits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;red-buffware,small white grits;hardfired;smoothed

19.

173

20. 21.

199 86

184 119 120 170 171

Hand-made;gray-buffware,small grits;hardfired;smoothed;mat impressed Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,small white grits;hardfired;smoothed Buff ware, small white grits; buff surface,creaminterior;brown paint outside; grainwashedor bandslipped Hand-made;pink-buffware,small white grits;pale buffsurface;dull red paint; hardfired Hand-made;buff ware,grayand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;grayware,smallwhite grits;mediumfired;smoothed

[180]

1.8 III.4 1.7 1.9 III.3 1.7 III 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.3 1.9

PLATE 29

-- I/ ///^\\

/ 1

II

3/

/

t2

2

1

3

4

5

6

/

-,

'

I 1

11

12 12

13

13

14

7

9

8

10 ccy--r---?ri-cc

15

16

2(

17

18

21

19

[181]

PLATE30 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

126 67 68 69 79

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

87 198 82 92 90 88 121 122 84 83 85

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription Provenience 1.9 Hand-made;buffware,white grits;soft fired;worn surface 1.7 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Slow wheel;graycore,buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 black and buff white self buff-red band III.3 Wheel-made; ware, grits; slip; slip; smoothed 1.8 Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed small fired 1.4 buff medium Wheel-made; ware, grits; small hard white grits; 1.7 fired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware, 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,burntblack;hardfired;smoothed Slow wheel; red ware,grits;hardfired;polished 1.9 1.7 Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.7 Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired 1.7 Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,smallwhite grits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;red ware,smallwhite grits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;red ware,small white grits;hardfired;smoothed

[182]

PLATE30 OO00000W 00

4'

1

212

13 4

-

N

5 14

6 15

N

, , [Z.I..ILLUJL_LLLj-

7

16

N 0 1

5cm

10

8

[183]

PLATE31

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3.

206 207 209

1.2 11.2 III.2

4.

200

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

202 204 201 203 205 137 149 140

--Wheel-made(slow wheel) Buffware.White grits, hardfired,buff-graysurface, slight polish Wheel-made;green-buff ware, minute grits, hard fired, not smoothed, thin metallic Wheel-made;red/pink ware,hardfired Wheel-made;red/pinkware,hardfired Wheel-made;green-buffware,hardfired Wheel-made,red/pink ware,hardfired Wheel-made;red/pink ware,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallblackand white grits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,graycore,smallgrits,hardfired;smoothed

156 147 158 143 154 155 157 169

Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash outside,worn Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallwhite grits,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, red wash Hand-made;buffware,graygrits;hardfired,red slip, polished Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash outside,worn Hand-made,grayware,largewhite grits,hardfired,coarsegraysurface Buffware,largewhite andgraygrits,painted:dull red/brownto black

[184]

11.2 1.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 Surface III.4

PLATE 31

^^^^

(

)

^~~~~~~~~ 47

I

(-

)(

58

9

6

-

I/

3

f:

A

Jr 18

19

14

10

I

15 20

15 11

16

12

21 13 1

[185]

1-A I Sr

V

1 10

PLATE32

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2.

152 141

1.8 III.1

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

153 145 148 163 167 151 146 142 144 139 159 164 150 138

17. 18. 19.

136 161 160

Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed,brightredpaint Hand-made; red ware, gray core, small black and white grits, hard fired, impressed Hand-made,grayware,smallgrits, hardfired,graysurface Hand-made,buffware,hardfired,impressed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made,buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red paint Hand-made,red ware,smallgrits,hardfired,impressed Hand-made;red-buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,dull red paint Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired;smoothed,brownpaint Hand-made;buffware,small grits,hard-fired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,very smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;grayware,mediumblackand white grit, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,graycore,smallgrits,hardfired,buffsurface,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,mediumwhite grits,hardfired,red washedand painted Hand-made; buff ware, large black and white grits, hard fired, smoothed, impressed Hand-made;buffware,blackand white grits, mediumfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,buff-redwash Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,coarse

[186]

1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Surface 1.9

S*'

.i

I

?.T.

I

(C)

C-C

I V-WNAO

D r;

_;j;j .

.

._

.

_

.qf aN'

sss

,-

ou./ '

>,':.41'

==

Sb s'."s

e@

a;iA

I

_

O0

I _-

!

/

fI

(D

I

'I Co

00 00

00 0

PLATE33 No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

FieldNo.

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription

168 125 125c 125b 185 183 175 176

Hand-made;gray-buffware,white grits, hardfired,smoothedred surface Wheel-made;buffware,white grits,hardfired,red slip Hand-made;grayware,white grits, hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,white grits,hardfired,red washed Leg of animalfigurine.Hand-made,graycore,smallgrits,hardfired Hand-made,buffware,strawcasts Serpentine,smoothed Serpentine,smoothed

190 189

Side scraper,brownflint, bluntedback Knife,gray-brownflint

208 194 195 192 193 186 187 -188

Canaaneanbladesegment,lustre Sickleblade,brownflint, lustre Sickleblade,lustreon both edges Bladesegment,darkbrownflint Bladesegment,light brownflint Serpentine,smoothed White limestone,smoothed Thin copperplaque,perforated Thin copperplaque,perforated

Provenience Surface 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5(?) III.5pit. III.surface

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

III.2 III.3 1.2

1.8 1.8 III.3 1.7 III.3

[188]

PLATE 33

9~~~

11

T?

7

5

-7 8

21

1 12

13

0 4

14

5 r

15

16

17

0

[189]

18

19

C

I 20

PLATE 34

No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

4 6 7 9 8 12 24 1 2 3 5 10 11

Tell el-Mefaliq

Excavator'sFieldDescription Hand-made;buffware;smallgrits, soft fired;buff-graysurface,smoothed Hand-made;pink ware,largegrits;hardfired,smoothed Wheel marksinside;redgrittyware,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;redgrittyware,soft fired Hand-made;redgrittyware,hardfired,grayoutside/redinside,smoothed Hand-made;red grittywarewith verygrittygraycore;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,mediumgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired,smoothed.Incisionon rim Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;mediumfired;thin red wash, polished Hand-made;blackcore,small grits,hardfired,buff/redsurface,smoothed Hand-made;red grittyware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;redgrittyware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed

[190]

Provenience Surface 1.1 1.2 1.2 I.1 Surface 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Surface Surface Surface

?

I

I/ 0)

I 9

L_______. 1.,

_

I

I

A f 4

rp 4

1

IF5 11

1 I

15 lt? T15

I p 0

_~~~~~~~~~~

W

t

R

R w

., __

a

L

A

PLATE35

Tell el-Mefaliq

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

17 15 16 19 13 21 20 14 18

Hand-made;buffware,largegrits, hardfired,pink surface Hand-made;graycore,mediumgrits,hardfired,red surface Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,yellowsurface;impresseddesign Hand-made;grittybuffware;rough,white grits on surface,hardfired Hand-made;red ware,verygritty,largegrits;graycore,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,soft fired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash (?), smoothed Hand-made;buffware,hardfired,red wash Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, mediumfired,red wash

Surface Surface Surface Surface 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Surface

Flint;brown,hanchetaxe;chipped,polishedcuttingedge, broken Pithos.Hand-made;red ware,mediumgrits,hardfired,smoothed EsdraelonWare. Wheel-made (?); (poor) gray-blackware, grits, hard fired, surfacehighlyburnished

-I.1-I.2 --

Not Illustrated 22 25 26

[192]

'K 0L

I4

I

I

I

I

E L

I I =

r. ,/I

!

I

/I

l|

0

PLATE36 No.

FieldNo.

1.

10

2.

6

3.

7

4.

2

5.

15

6.

17

7.

12

8.

11

9.

13

10.

14

11.

8

12.

9

13.

16

14.

3

15.

4

16.

5

17.

1

18.

18

Tell el-Mefaliq

FabricDescription Provenience Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and gray grit sand-sizedto Surface 2 mm and fine straw casts. Thick core 5YR 6/4 (Light Reddish Brown), surfaces10R 5/6 (Red)-6/6 (LightRed). Exteriorslipped,interiorplain Hand-made.Poorly levigatedday. White grit 2-3 mm, straw casts to 2 mm. Surface Core: gray, fabric 10R 6/4-6/6 (Pale Red). Slip: interior 10R 6/8 (Light Red), exterior5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigatedclay.Heavy concentrationof gray and white grit 2-4 mm. Core: 5YR 7/4 (Pink), surfaces:2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Slippedexterior? Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Heavy concentrationof white grit Surface 1-3 mm and occasionallystraw casts to 2 mm. Core:10R 5/4 (WeakRed)5/6 (Red), slip exteriorand over rim on interior10R 6/8 (LightRed)-5/8 (Red). Interiorand fabricas core Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and gray grit sand-sizedto 2 mm, infrequentlyto 4 mm. Thick graycore towardsrim. Fabric10R 6/66/8 (LightRed), surfaces(slipped?)as fabric Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and gray grit sand-sizedto 2 mm, and fine straw casts.Thick gray core, fabricand interiorsurface10R 6/8 (LightRed), exteriormottled 10R 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigatedclay.Frequentwhite and gray grit sand-sizedto 3 mm, infrequentlyto 7 mm, occasionalfine straw casts. Core: as interior surface10R 5/3-5/4 (WeakRed), exteriorfiredblack Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. Frequentwhite and gray grit 25 mm. Core: 7.5YR 7/4 (Pink). Interior surface plain 7.5YR 6/8 (Light Red), exteriorslipped (?) 2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. White grit sand-sizedto 2 mm. fabric 7.5YR 10R Thickgraycore, 8/45/6 (Red). Slippedinterior/exterior 7/4 (Pink) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigatedclay.Very frequentwhite and gray grit 3-7 mm and chaff casts.Core:7.5YR 6/4 (LightBrown), interiorfiredgray,exterior O1YR8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigated clay. White, gray and red grit 1-2 mm. Core: 5YR 7/4 (Pink) to 7/6 (ReddishYellow), interiorsurfaceas core, exterior slipped2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed) Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White andgraygrit 3-5 mm. Core: as surfaces 10R 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Slip exterior and over rim, interior plain Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigated clay. Occasionalwhite grit 1-3 mm, infrequentlyto 5 mm, straw and chaff casts. Thick gray core, fabric and interior/exteriorsurfaces10R 6/8 (LightRed) Hand-made.Well levigatedclay.White, grayand redgrit to 1 mm, infrequently Surface to 2 mm. Core: 10R 4/3 (Weak Red), fabric:10R 5/8 (Red), slip: interior/ exterior10R 5/6 (Red) Surface Hand-made.Well levigatedclay.Graygrit 1-2 mm and fine straw casts.Core: 5YR 8/4-7/4 (Pink),surfacesinterior/exterior5YR 7/4 (Pink) Surface Hand-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit to 1 mm, occasionalfine strawcasts.Core:7.5YR 7/4 (Pink), interior/exteriorsurfaces10R 6/6-6/8 (LightRed), tracesof 10R 4/6 (Red) wash (?) on exterior Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigated clay. White and gray grit to 2 mm. Core:7.5R 5/6-5/8 (Red), surfaces:10R 6/8 (LightRed) Surface White limestonedigging-stickweight [194]

PLATE 36

?

11

12

0

i; f

00000 0

0

00

r-w

\ 2

r--J

13

3

14

4

-

sfi

-

15

5

^ ixx]xnii":-' ~~~~II_

16

'*-j 3 6

I-

17

I

7

8

lof

~~~~~~~I

18

10 Hf-0

10

[195]

k-' -

I -4 5cm

10

PLATE37 No.

FieldNo.

1.

Si

2.

S2

3. 4.

S3 38

5.

63

6.

52

7.

51

8.

55

9.

58

10.

39

11.

53

12.

56

13.

43

14.

61

15.

62

16.

60

17.

49

18.

48

19.

64

20.

47

21.

46

22.

45

23.

59

24.

41

25.

40

Tell el-Mefaliq

FabricDescription

Provenience Surface

Sugarpot. No fielddescription Sugarpot. No fielddescription Sugarpot. No fielddescription

Surface Surface

Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. White grit 1-2 mm, occasionallyto 3 mm. Thick gray core "sandwiched" by 2/5YR 6/8 (Light Red) fabric.Thick slip interior/exterior10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Occasionalwhite and graygrit 1-2 mm. Fabric2.5YR6/6 (Light Red), interior/exteriorsurfacesslipped7/5YR 7/4 (Pink) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Infrequentwhite to 1 mm. Core:2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red), thin below surfaces.Surfacesas core gray "sandwich"

Surface

Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Occasionalwhite grit to 1 mm, frequentstraw casts. Core and surfaces:5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow), exteriorrim fired(?) 10YR 8/2 (White) to 8/3 (VeryPale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit to 1 mm. Core:fabricand surfaces2.5YR 5/6 (Red) Wheel-made.Very well levigatedclay.Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit rarelyto 1 mm. Core:5YR 8/4 (Pink), interiorsurfacebetween 5YR 8/4 (Pink) and 5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow), exterior slippedwhite (no Munsell)with decorationin 2.5YR 5/8-4/6 (Red) paint Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. White grit sand-sized to 1 mm. Fabric:5YR 6/6 (Reddish Yellow), slippedinterior/exterior10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Frequentwhite grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Thick, light gray core, fabricand interiorsurface2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red), exteriorslipped (or fired) 10YR 8/2 (White).Traceof white on interior Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and pink grit 1-2 mm. Thick blackcore with Int. surface2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed), exteriorslipped (or fired) 2.5YR 5/6 (Red) "sandwich." 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm, occasionallyto 2 mm and fine straw casts. Fabric:2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red), interiorsurfaceas fabricmottled to gray. Slipped white (no Munsell)on exteriorandover rim on interior Wheel-made.Very well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit c. 1 mm. Core:5YR 7/6-7/8 (Reddish Yellow), interiorsurface5YR 7/8 (ReddishYellow),exterior5YR 7/8-6/6 (ReddishYellow) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Frequentwhite and gray grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Thick gray core,exteriorsurfacegrayas core (fired)interior2.5YR6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Frequentwhite sand-sizedgrit. Thin 10R 4/4 (Weak Red) core. Fabricand interiorsurface10R 6/8 (LightRed), exteriorsurfacemottledto 10R 4/6 (Red) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. Infrequentsand-sizedto 1 mm white and gray grit, fine strawcasts.Thickcore 5YR 6/6 (ReddishYellow) to 5/6 (YellowishRed), interior/exterior surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Coreand fabric:10R 4/8 (Red) to 2.5YR 4/8 (Red), slipped (?) 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White and graygrit to 1 mm. Core:5YR 6/6 (ReddishYellow). Slip interior/exterior2.5YR 5/6-5/8 (Red), slightly mottled at rim to 2.5YR 4/4 (Reddish Brown) Wheel-made. Moderatelywell levigated clay. Sand-sizedwhite grit, infrequentlight brown grit (ceramic?)to 3 mm. Fabricas surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigated clay. Occasionalwhite grit sand-sized to 1 mm. Fabric: 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Traces of white wash on exterior above carination.White, no Munsell,as MF 43 Wheel-made.Very well levigatedclay,no traceof temper.Fabric:7.5YR 8/4 (Pink). Mottledslip (streaky)interior/exterior2.5YR 5/8-4/8 (Red) Wheel-made.Well levigatedday. Frequentsand-sizedwhite grit occasionallyto 1 mm. Core: 10R 4/8 (Red), interiorsurfacefired (?) gray,exteriorwhite (no Munsell,cf. MF 43) slip over grayof interiorsurface Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit. Core/fabric:5YR 7/6-6/6 (ReddishYellow), thickslip interior/exterior2.5YR 5/6 (Red) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Frequentwhite sand-sizedgrit 1-2 mm. Core:as interiorsurface 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red), exterior mottled (secondarily?)from color off interior surface through2/5YR 5/6 (Red) to black

Surface

[196]

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface

Surface

Surface Surface Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

PLATE 37

V

K(13 13

14

/

15

16

L.

^

17

~ ~1'1

~

18

T

4

I

I

I

r

-

t

19

(

---I

) 20

2 21

5

23

6 22

lz~~

I 8

I

tk

f

*I 9

l/ I

e~~ l 1

24

10

7

44

_

' 25

12

[197]

PLATE 38

Tell el-Mefaliq

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

22

Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. Sand-sizedwhite and occasionallygray grit. Thick gray core, interior/exteriorsurfaces2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed)

Surface

2.

19

Surface

3.

29

4.

34

5.

25

6.

26

7.

33

8.

27

9.

50

10.

31

11.

20

12. 13.

32 28

14.

21

15.

54

16.

23

17.

30

18.

24

19.

42

20.

44

21.

37

Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Sand-sizedwhite grit. Graycore with 2.5YR 5/8 (Red) "sandwich,"interior/exteriorsurfacesc. 10YR 5/1 (Gray) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Occasionalsand-sizedwhite grit and fine straw casts.Fabricand interior/exteriorsurfaces2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red), slightly mottled on interiorto 10R 5/4 (Weak Red) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White and gray sand-sizedto 1 mm, occasionallyto 2 mm. Core as surfaces5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Sand-sizedgrit and occasionalfine straw cast. Core:as interior surface10R 6/6-6/8 (LightRed), exteriorsurfacewhite (no Munsell) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. Sand-sizedto 1 mm white and red grit. Thin, light graycore,fabricas surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Sand-sizedwhite grit, very frequentstrawcasts.Gray core,fabric2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) slippedinterior/exterioras fabric,exteriorfiredblackin places Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Occasionalsand-sizedwhite grit. Thick gray core, fabric5YR 7/6-7/8 (ReddishYellow), interior/exteriorsurfaceseither mottledor coveredwith streakywash 2.5YR 5/2-4/2 (WeakRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit. Core: 10R 5/8 (Red), thin gray "sandwich" below surfaces.Surfaceswhite (no Munsell)as MF 43 Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm, infrequentlyto 2 mm. Core:gray as surfaces.Possiblycoveredinterior/exteriorwith streakywash 10YR 7/3 (VeryPale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Occasionalsand-sizedwhite grit. Core:2.5YR 5/6 (Red), interior surface mottled from core color through 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown) to gray, exterior surface mottled 10YR 7/3 (VeryPale Brown) to 7/1 (LightGray) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Core:gray,surfacesfiredblack Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Occasionalwhite grit sand-sizedgrit. Fabric2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red), interior/exteriorslippedbut mottled2.5YR 4/4 (ReddishBrown) through2.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red) to gray Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentsand-sizedto 1 mm white grit. Thin graycore, fabric as surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit to 1 mm and fine straw casts.Core,fabric and surfaces2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Very frequentsand-sizedwhite and occasionallygray grit to 1 mm. Core: as surfaces2/5YR 6/8 (Light Red) and mottled (?) to 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigated clay. Sand-sizedto 1 mm white grit, occasionalgray grit to 2 mm. Core as exterior surface,between 10R 5/8 (Red). Slip (?) on exteriorfired in places to 10R 6/4 (Pale Red) andon interiorto 5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White sand-sizedto 1 mm grit. Core and interiorsurface2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed), exteriorsurface2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentstrawcasts and sand-sizedwhite grit. Thickblackcore "sandwiched"with 2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red) exterior slipped 2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red), interior mottledto gray Wheel-made. Very well levigated clay, no trace of temper. Fabric: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown).Good,shiny slip c. 2.5YR4/8 (Red) interior/exterior Wheel-made. Moderatelywell levigated clay. White and gray grit 1-2 mm. Thick gray core, surfaces2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) mottledto 6/4 (LightReddishBrown) Three-leggedStone Bowl Lightgraystone White limestone White limestone Flint

22.

--

23. 24.

57 35

25. 26.

36 --

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

--

--

Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint

Surface

Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface

Surface Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface Surface

Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface

[198]

PLATE 38

10

1 _ ^^-

11

\

2

1

1

17

7

3

I

18

13 8

4

oI 9

29 _I I

-

^J-a^

a

-

19 I

X

,

30

26

O 20

I..c

2CL

H

I SC";cm

2703

2

,

222731

23

24

,

,....-

F

I

_

K

25 28

[199]

32