No title

Biblica Arch

Perspectiveson the Ancient Worldfrom Mesopotamiato the Mediterranean

P

OTS

Vol.58 No.4

1995 DecItember

&People

Biblical

Perspectiveson the Ancient Worldfrom Mesopotamiato the Mediterranean A Publicationof the American Schools of OrientalResearch 181

Volume58 Number4

December1995

Ethnicity,Pottery,and the Hyksos at Tell El-Maskhutain the EgyptianDelta CarolA. Redmount

Once a mysterious presence in Egyptian history, the Hyksos (ca. 1663-1555 BCE) offer a fortunate case where a particular material culture can be associated with a specific people. Pottery unearthed at Tell el-DabCaand Tell el-Maskhuta provides complementary evidence for defining Hyksos material culture.While exhibiting a dominant Middle Bronze Age Canaaniteheritage,these ceramics show that the Hyksos produced a culture that joined Canaanite and Egyptian traditions with the addition of locally developed traits. 191

Ethnicity,Pottery,and the Gulf Olmec of Ancient Veracruz,Mexico

PhilipJ.ArnoldIII

ge181

The issues raised by pots and peoples, such as social variation and cultural change, are common to archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic. These issues are especially wellillustrated by the Gulf Olmec, one of the earliest complex chiefdoms in Mesoamerica.Maize growers in the area of southern Veracruzand northern Tabasco,the Olmec (1200 BCEto 400 BCE)are renown for their megalithic sculpture. Analysis of their pottery traditions and settlement patterns leads to an intriguing hypothesis regarding one region of the Olmec "heartland" and how its inhabitants, the Tuxtlas,were caught up in a process of ethnic differentiation.

200

Ceramics,Ethnicity,and the Question of Israel's Origins WilliamG.Dever

The archaeological population groups that we now know in the early Iron I highland villages of Canaan meet many of the tests for a distinct, new ethnic group. From cooking pots to storage jars, an analysis of the ceramic corpus of the Late Bronze IIB/Iron IA horizon offers sufficient justification for recognizing a distinct population group. Defined by other categories of material culture as well, this complex deserves the appellation "ProtoIsraelite."

214

Why PaintedPotteryDisappearedat the End of the Second MillenniumBCE

H.J.Frankenand GloriaLondon

The pottery of Palestine at the close of the second millennium BCEis notoriously ugly.Yet the quality of the ceramic repertoire did rebound. Did the same Late Bronze Age potters who produced the heavy wares with cracked bases relearn their craft somehow? Did the innovations emerge from within or enter from outside the society? A study of how a vessel is made and its clays selected and treated is vital in any consideration of pots and peoples. Ceramic technology permits a move beneath the shape of the rim or the decoration of the surface.

223

The Iron Age Fortressesat qEnHaseva

RudolphCohenand YigalYisrael

For three centuries or more, a series of fortresses at 'En Haseva dominated a crucial southern crossroads and offered protection to those who traveled in their shadow. The main periods of the fortress's life reflect the ebb and flow of the region's Iron Age history as control of the region shifted between the Judahites, Edomites, and Assyrians. In the final stratum of the IronAge,'En Haseva sheltered a small shrine from which excavatorsextracted assemblage of arresting clay and stone cult vessels.The restoration of these artifacts from what was probably an Edomite cultic installation adds further celebrity what was one of the most immense fortresses of biblical times.

236

Arti-Facts Pillared buildings in Iron Age Moab and the scanning electron microscope.

243

Caughtin the Net JohnYounger

page223

On the Cover:Three anthropomorphiccult stands from cEnHaseva.Recallingthe finds at the Edomiteshrine of HorvatQitmit,the sculpturesprobablydepicted human figures and represented their donors in the divine presence. Photograph courtesy of the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority.

From

the

Guest

Editor

Pottery is much more important to archaeologists than it was to the ancient peoples who manufactured and used it. As archaeologists, we use material remains to help us understand ancient life. In antiquity, everyone owned and used pottery vessels, and, once fired in a kiln, pots-though breakable-were virtually indestructible. Pottery is therefore a ubiquitous and common find on archaeological sites. Since so much else of the ancient record has disappeared, including organic materials such as leather, cloth, and wood, archaeologists rely on the omnipresent pots to fill in the gaps. Thus, pottery is not only used for dating purposes, but also as a means of reconstructing such elusive yet fascinating intangibles such as social structures and religious beliefs-in short, ancient societies. The articles in this volume demonstrate the applicability of pottery analysis to one these intangibles: the issue of pottery and ethnicity, or "pots and people." In the field of biblical archaeology, most of the debate regarding "pots and peoples" has centered on the Philistines and Israelites.The articles collected here demonstrate that the debate applies to other periods and places, though not without complications. Can specific ethnic groups be linked with, and therefore identified by,distinctive pottery types? Must the appearance of distinctive or new pottery types reflect a new population, or are other explanations possible? Can pottery alone be used to support such identifications? Philip Arnold and Carol Redmount both identify cases where distinctive pottery types or assemblages may reflect the presence of a specific ethnic group. It should be noted, however,that these types do not occur in isolation, but are found together with other distinctive cultural markers,such as new forms of art or architecture.As William Dever's article indicates, scholars have not been able to reach a consensus on the origins of the Israelitesbased on the pottery types associated with their settlements. Gloria London'sarticle,which examines the transition from the Late Bronze Age to early Iron Age, demonstrates that the historically attested arrival of new ethnic groups neither coincides with nor brings about the immediate introduction of new ceramic types or technologies. My own work on the pottery of the Byzantine and early Islamic periods in Palestine (JerusalemCeramic Chronologycirca200-800 CE,Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1993) has demonstrated that new types previously believed to have been introduced by the Umayyads shortly after the Muslim conquest in the seventh century CEdid not appear until the eighth or ninth centuries. The seventh century saw no disruption or change in the areas ceramic repertoire.I believe that the eventual appearance of these new types is due to shifts in trading patterns rather than a newly arrived ethnic group. With the exception of Cohen and Yisrael'spresentation on 'En Haseva, all of the articles in this volume were contributed by participants in a special session of the Pottery Analysis and Interpretation Seminar at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research,held in Chicago,IL in November 1995.I am grateful to the scholars who contributed their papers to this volume, and to Dr. David C. Hopkins for inviting me to serve as guest editor. I would also like to thank Dr. Andrea M. Berlin for her helpful comments on this editor's note, and Dr. Bonnie Magness Gardiner,who suggested pottery and ethnicity as the theme of the 1995ASOR Pottery Analysis and InterpretationSeminar. Ultimately, the questions we ask about the ancient world reflect concerns we have about the world we live in today. This is especially clear in the present instance. As Philip Arnold points out, in 1925 V. Gordon Childe proposed that combinations of distinctive artifacts could be used to define ethnic groups. This approach reflected the contemporaryworld in which ethnic nationalism was becoming a political reality.In today's era of multiculturalism, the identification and understanding of ethnicity has become more complicated and more crucial. Is it any wonder that archaeologists are both fascinated by its ancient appearance, and divided about its definition?

BiblicalArchaeolo on the Ancient Worldfrom Perspectives Mesopotamiato the Mediterranean EditorDavidC.Hopkins ArtDirectorBuckyEdgett,Lucky Productions BookReviewEditorJamesC.Moyer Arti-Facts EditorsBruceandCarolynRoutledge EditorialAssistants MaryPetrinaBoyd,EllenRowseSpiro EditorialCommittee

DouglasA.Knight JefferyA. Blakely ElizabethBloch-Smith MaryJoanLeith GloriaLondon BetsyM.Bryan J.P Dressel JodiMagness ErnestS.Frerichs GeraldL.Mattingly RonaldS.Hendel GaetanoPalumbo RichardS.Hess PaulZimansky KennethG.Hoglund Annualsubscription ratesare$35 Subscriptions forindividualsand$45forinstitutions. Thereis a specialannualrateof $28forstudents,thoseover 65,physicallychallenged,or unemployed.Biblical is alsoavailableas partof the Archaeologist benefitsof someASORmembershipcategories. PostageforCanadianandotherinternational addressesis an additional$5.Paymentsshould be sentto ASORMembership/Subscriber Services,P.O.Box15399, Atlanta,GA30333-0399 Bitnet:SCHOLARS@ (ph:404-727-2345; orderscanbe VISA/Mastercard EMORYUI). phonedin. BackissuesBackissuescanbe obtainedby or callingSPCustomerServicesat 800-437-6692 writingSPCustomerServices,PO.Box6996, GA30239-6996. Alpharetta, PostmasterSendaddresschangesto Biblical ASORMembership/ Subscriber Archaeologist, Services,PO.Box15399, Atlanta,GA30333-0399. Second-classpostagepaidatAtlanta,GAand additionaloffices. Copyright@1995by theAmericanSchools of OrientalResearch. All editorialcorrespondence Correspondence andbooksforreviewshouldbe addressedto Biblical 4500Massachusetts Avenue Archaeologist DC20016-5690 NW,Washington, (ph:202-885emaildhopkins@cais. 8699;fax:202-885-8605; com).Correspondence regardingsubmissionsfor Arti-Facts canbe sentto BruceandCarolyn Universite d'histoire, Departement Routledge, Laval,Ste-Foy, Quebec,CanadaGIK7P4.. shouldbe AdvertisingCorrespondence addressedto LeighAnderson,ScholarsPress,PO. Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399(ph:404-7272327;fax:404-727-2348).Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. Biblical (ISSN 0006-0895)is published Archaeologist

June,September, December)by quarterly(March, ScholarsPress,819HoustonMillRoadNE, Atlanta,GA30329,fortheAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch(ASOR), 3301NorthCharles MD 21218. Printedby Cadmus Street,Baltimore, MD. JournalServices,Baltimore,

-

Jodi Magness TuftsUniversity

frf

Ethnicity,

Pottery, and

the

Hyksos

Tell

at

El-Maskhuta in

the

Egyptian Delta Earlyview of portions of the Hyksossettlement at Tellel-Maskhuta.Hyksosfinds were earliestat the site that was abandoned for ca. one thousand years before being resettled. Thusthe Hyksosmaterialculturewas readilydistinguished.Photographsand drawings courtesyof author.

By CarolA. Redmount OFAN ANCIENT ETERMINING THEETHNICITY

people or culture on the basis of archaeological evidence is [)a very trickyproposition (Shennan 1989).Evenanthropologistsworking with living cultures(and live informants), as well as historians immersed in extensive written sources, find that ethnicity is a "slippery concept" at best and that establishingethnicdefinitionsand boundariesis no easy task.Ideally,archaeologists should strive to combine all available archaeologicaland historicaldata when studying ancient patterns of ethnicity 182

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

and ethnic groupings. This approach is certainly the most fruitful when dealing with the literateand complexsocieties of the ancient Near East and Egypt. Occasionally,a lucky combination of archaeologicaldiscoveries, inscriptions, and other historical evidence permits scholars to correlate with virtual certainty a specific people with a particular material culture. Such is the case with the Hyksos, who were once a mysterious presence in a period of Egyptian history still largely regarded as a dark age.

Mediterranean So

Delta who ruled at least part of Upper Egypt and at times may have controlled all of Upper Egypt and Nubia as well (Kemp 1983:153ff.; SaveSoderbergh1956; Giveon 1983).Latertradition recalled a brutallyoppressive rule that is generally not confirmed by contemporary references.The SixteenthDynasty,or "lesser" Tell Tell Hanun el Hyksos kings, most likely were vassals of the Fifteenth Dynasty. The Hyksos were finally driven out of Egypt at the end of the Seventeenth and beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasties in a series bah Tell el-Maskhuta .... Lke Tiro ......... ... ..? : ... of campaignsthatextendedin some cases .....'eol-eBubasts Telf [Saba into southern Palestine. . T-IIK•a ... At first,writtensourcesprovided our only evidence for the Hyksos and also Tell el-Yehudiyah gave the first indications of their nonSites of Middle Bronze age Egyptian character. Hyksos is what Heliopolis ~?.'i~?, Redfordcalls "theGreekgarbling"(RedCulture in Egypt "... ford 1992:100)of ancient Egyptian hk3w Unverified sites of MB h3swt for "rulers of foreign lands." Contemporary Egyptian texts from the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the early Eighteenth Dynasty refer Findspotsof MiddleBronzeAge culturein the Delta region mostlyoccureast of the Pelusiac branchof the Nile.The two excavated sites that are crucialfor characterizingthe Hyksosare. to these foreigners more specifically as Tellel-Dabcaand Tellel-Maskhuta.The map also illustratesthe location of the WadiTumilat. '3mw,generally translated as 'Asiatics." The majority of preserved Hyksos personal names, our most important source for the language used by the Hyksos, areWestSemitic(Redford1992:100). The texts associated with the Hyksos are generally scattered,piecemeal,and scarce.No new importanttextualdiscoveries have occurredrecently,and scholarshave discussed the known documents extensively, even exhaustively.1 Part of this discussion has included a lively but inconclusivedebateregarding the origins and affiliations of the Hyksos. Beginning in the mid-1960s,our knowledge of the Hyksos changed radically. At this time, Dr. Manfred Bietak, the directorof the Austrian Institute in Cairo,began excavatingat the large east Delta site of Tell el-Dabca(Bietak1968,1970).At Dabca,Bietakfound evidence of an extensiveoccupationbelonging to an intrusive, non-Egyptian population. The material culture of this foreign occupation was identical in many ways to that of Middle Bronze Age Syria-Palestine,with the earliManfredBietak,JohnVanSeters, and J.S.Holladay,Jr.(facing away), est Canaanitefinds coming from Middle BronzeIA traditions three seminalfigures key to the unravelingof the characterand and the latest from a "very Egyptianized MBIIC culture."2 of the now identify the non-Egyptian inhabitantsof Dabca Scholars origins Hyksos. with the Asiatic Hyksos of the Egyptiantexts,and Tellel-Dab'a The Hyksos with the Hyksos capital of Avaris. Thus the basic ethnic The Hyksos firstappearedon the Egyptianhistoricalscene affiliation of the Hyksos is securely established: the Hyksos as the enigmatic Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties (ca. originated in the Levant from Middle Bronze Age "Canaanof Egypt' complex Second IntermediatePeriod ite" ethnic stock. 1663-1555BCE) A number of other sites in the easternNile Delta also have The Second Intermediate Period is con(ca. 1782-1570BCE). with the later of the Middle Bronze of the part Age produced archaeological finds of Canaanite material cultemporary Levant (ca.2000-1550BCE). The Fifteenth Dynasty, or "greater" ture and are now associated with the Hyksos occupation of 25; van den Brink1982:55;Petrie Hyksos kings, consisted of foreigners based in the eastern Egypt (Bietak1975:102,1994:23, -g9-

j

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

183

cm

0

cm

10

10

Flat-bottomedcups characteristicof Hyksosoccupationat Maskhuta.They representlocal ceramicevolution.

1906;Redmount 1989:225-28.;Tufnell1978).Apart from TellelMaskhuta,these sites and their associated finds are generally poorly known. Almost all are situated east of the Pelusiac branchof the Nile, usually considered to be the strategicwestern limit of Hyksos occupation.A recentDutch survey,however, found two sites with Asiaticmateriallocatedwest of the Tanitic Nile branch (van den Brink 1987:19). Thus faronly two Hyksos-occupied sites,Tellel-Dabcaand Tell el-Maskhuta, have been excavated in enough detail and published sufficiently (although not completely) to provide adequate data for a preliminary characterization of the Hyksos material culture in Egypt. One of these sites, Dab'a, was a capital and a major urban center;the other,Maskhuta, was a was a more modest and less centralsettlement.Together they provide complementary evidence for defining Hyksos material culture. Canaaniteinfluence dominated the materialculture of the Hyksos settlements at both sites in aspects such as architecture (for example, Dab(ahad more than one classic Canaanite temple), burial customs (including donkey burials),jewelry and other items of personal adornment,weapons, and ceram184

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

ics. At both Dabla and Maskhuta, however, Egyptian culturaltraitswere interwovenwith the Canaanite(Bietak1992:31; Redmount 1989:251-57).At both sites there were also cultural elements that evolved locally in the eastern Nile delta. Interestingly,both Tell el-Dab'a and Tell el-Maskhuta reveal evidence of Hyksos inhabitants robbing Hyksos tombs, as excavatorsfound robber trenches into tombs sealed by later deposits that were still Hyksos. Bietakhas suggested that more than one movement of Canaanites into Tellel-Dab'a occurred (Bietak1987:50-52.);the same may also have been true at Tell el-Maskhuta.One of the key elements of Hyksos materialculture, the pottery,appears to be a highly sensitive indicator of cultural affiliationand development. Since the pottery corpus from Tellel-Dab'a is only partlypublished (Bietak1991),I shall concentrate here upon the Hyksos pottery found at Tell elMaskhuta.

Hyksos Potteryfrom Tell El-Maskhuta

Tellel-Maskhuta is a large mound of ruins located in the eastern half of the WadiTumilat,between Tellel-Retabah and Lake Timsah. Between 1978and 1985,a University of Toronto

treated as a whole, and the major characteristics of this corpus are reviewed below. Everyday household wares predominate in the Hyksos corpus, plain fine wares are very rare,and decorated fine wares are notable for their comparative scarcity.Forms include Syrian, Palestinian,Egyptian,and independently evolved eastern Delta traditions.Simple shapes far outnumber elaborate ones. The most common pottery forms during this period at Maskhuta are mass-produced,flat-bottomedcups; carinated bowls; platterbowls; ring stands; handmade and holemouthcooking pots; and a wide-mouth water jar with a squared-off,externallyfolded rectangular rim. There is no specialized lamp form: the bases of broken bowls, cups, or small jarswere used for this purpose. The vast majorityof the pottery was manufactured from either Nile silts or marl clays,the two primary raw materials used in Egyptianpotterymaking (see Nordstrom and Bourriau 1993:160ff. forEgyptianceramicfabricsand sources). Marl clays and Nile silts were usually not used for the same pot types. For The rimprofile of a MiddleBronzeAge Canaaniteamphorashows characteristicimported mostly from Nile silts. Carinatedbowls, a small jar form (about the same size as fabricwhose limestone inclusionsare strikingnext to the silt or marlclay of local ware. These the flat-bottomed cups) dubbed a "jartwo-handled store jarsno doubt arrivedas containersfor some liquidexchange item, likely let"by the expeditionartists,wide-mouth wine or oil. jars, and a number of other jar types team led by ProfessorJ.S. Holladay,Jr.conducted five seasons were made mostly from marl clays. Interestingly,it appears of excavationsat the site (Holladay1982;MacDonald1980;Red- that if a vessel occurred in the non-normative fabric for its The earliest finds consisted of six phases mount 1989:229-270). type, some effort was made to ensure the proper finished of Hyksos occupation comprising a settlement and associated appearance. For example, platter bowls formed of marl clay tombs. Maskhuta was then abandoned until the Saite Period were usually slipped red to provide the desired exterior some thousand years later (the Saite Period, or Dynasty 26, look of a Nile silt; a carinated bowl manufactured from silt dates to ca. 664-525 BCE,and is named after the Delta site of might be slipped white to resemble a marl clay. Sais, modern Sa el-Hagar, the seat of the 26th Dynasty). Imported pottery at Tellel-Maskhutacomes from Cyprus, Thus the Hyksos material culture was isolated in time, and Palestine,Upper Egypt,and possiblySyria.Of particularimportance is a group of two-handled storejars,probablyimported the pottery belonging to the Hyksos phases could be distin(presumably along with their contents of olive oil or wine) guished clearly. that ceramic from this indicates some of Syria-Palestine.These storejarshad a non-Egyptian fabStudy pottery although with ric the six strata of occurred over Hyksos occupalarge, white to gray calcite/limestone inclusions. development tion at Maskhuta,the changeswere not extensive.On the whole, CyprioteWhite Painted V1juglets formed a second group of stylistic variationover time is limited, and the pottery exhibits dearly imported wares (Merrillees1968:148);of the few exama basic uniformity through all six Hyksos phases (see Red- ples found at the site,some were genuine importsfromCyprus mount 1989:244-252;770-901for a more extended treatment while others were probably non-local imitations, most likely manufactured in Palestine. of this pottery).The Hyksos ceramic corpus thereforecan be Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

185

CanaaniteInfluences on Potteryfrom Maskhuta

Canaanite customs can be detected in many of the forms and some of the manufacturing and decorative techniques of the Hyksos pottery from Maskhuta.The use of the fast wheel for most of the pottery,the predominance of flat to ring bases (Egyptian bases tend to be rounded or pointed), the deep red slip, and the pattern and radial burnishing of platterbowls-all reflect Canaanite practices. Many of the pottery forms found in Hyksos Maskhuta also come from Canaan.Forexample,the crude,flat-bottomed, handmade Middle BronzeAge IIAcooking pots predominate in the earlierHyksos strataat the site.In the laterHyksos strata, these handmade cooking pots all but disappear and a holemouth form, also Canaanite in origin, becomes the cooking pot of choice.The blackand red polished juglets,and the punctate or grooved Tell el-Yehudiyah ware juglets from Tell el-Maskhuta all fall later in the typological sequence and are generallycharacteristicof forms common to Middle Bronze Age IIB rather than to Middle Bronze Age IIA (Bietak 1985, 1994:122-4;Kaplan 1980).A considerable number of the carinated and platter bowls, as well as a range of jar types, also find their home in the Levant. Both imported and imitation Canaanite storejars were found at the site,including two almost complete vessels used for infantburials,both missing theirrims.The remainingexamples were all very fragmentary.These storejarshad handles, which is a Canaanite,not an Egyptian practice,and slightly convexbases.The importedjars were manufacturedfrom several different but distinctive Palestinian fabrics, mainly characterizedby largecalciteinclusions.The rim forms,where preserved, appear to come mostly from Middle Bronze Age IIA or transitionalMiddle BronzeAge IIA/B traditions.However, the most distinctive, classical Middle Bronze Age IIA storejarshapes and types common to Canaan were not present at the site or were very rare.Importedjars occurred in all phases, but the percentage of imported Palestinian wares in any given stratum was low, and there were twice as many importedsherds(expressedas percentof totalindicatorsherds) in the earliest Hyksos phases as there were in the latest. Taken as a whole, the assemblage of Hyksos pottery from Tellel-Maskhutabears closest resemblance in form and in manufacturing techniques to Middle Bronze Age SyriaPalestine.The overwhelming predominance of wheel-made vessels with flat,low ring or disc bases; the deep red slip,often unburnished; the radial and pattern burnishing of platter bowls; the cooking pot types; the majority of the carinated and platter bowl shapes; the juglet forms; the Syro-Palestinian storejars; and a number of the other jar types all point towardsCanaaniteorigins.The repertoireis heavily un-Egyptian, with notable exceptions and, in broad terms, fits most comfortablywith customs current to the north. However, the absence or rarity of a considerablenumber of Canaanite pottery characteristics and forms, including a number of those considered hallmarks of the Middle BronzeAge, is also striking.These include gutter rims,double or triplestrandjug/juglet handles,high ring or pedestal bases, 186

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

s~___Ct

Among the pottery forms that derive from Canaanare handmade "MiddleBronzeIIA"cooking pots found in the earliest Hyksoslevels at Maskhuta.

elaborately profiled jar rims, thin-walled fine wares, dipper juglets, shoulder-handled jugs, triangular-rim cookpots, goblets, vases, closed carinated bowl forms,rilled rim bowls, kraters,lamps, and a good many of the jar forms. Thus at Maskhuta the undoubtedly strong cultural connection of the pottery with Canaan consists primarily of a general, macro-level resemblance. Comparison with any of the majorpottery corporafrom Syria or Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age demonstrates individual points of specific contact,most frequent with MBIIBPalestine (e.g.,two examples of MBIIBcurlicue-handledbowls, made of local clay),but no more.The totalassemblage of Hyksos potteryfrom Maskhuta does not correspond closely to that of any other published pottery corpus from either Palestine or Syria, despite the fact that individual elements may have clearparallels.Nor can the Maskhuta repertoirebe considered typical of any of the proposed chronological subdivisions (A and B-Kempinski 1983;Bienkowski1989;or A, B and C/I,II and Elf-Dever 1985, 1992) of the Middle Bronze Age, although the largest number of parallelsoccur with MiddleBronzeAge IIBor transitional Middle Bronze-AgeIIA/B. Moreover,both the geographical and temporalaffiliationsof this Hyksos pottery with the Levant are eclectic. Northern, Syrian forms appear side by side with southern, Palestinian forms,and Middle BronzeAge IIA

~

! /'

;•

I

?? :~~

..o.

MiddleBronzeAge burialsat Tellel-Maskhutaoffered up cups (top row), Tellel-Yehudiyahware juglets, and a ring stand-all Canaanite forms.The pottery traditionat Maskhutawas thoroughlyCanaanite. The Tellel-Yehudiyahjuglet (centralphotograph)representsa notable form from the MiddleBronzeIIBratherthan IIA.

types are associatedwith Middle BronzeAge IIBtypes in ways that do not occur in the Levant.Middle BronzeAge IIC types do not occur at all at Maskhuta. Indeed, there is a distinctive cast to the Maskhuta pottery corpus that warns against a too facilegrouping of this corpus into categoriesand divisions used for Canaanite Middle Bronze Age pottery.

EgyptianInfluence on Potteryfrom Maskhuta

Egyptian influence on the Hyksos pottery corpus from Maskhuta is more limited than the Canaanite, but it is still substantial. In terms of form, this influence includes wide mouth storage/water jars with elongated rectangular and externally folded rims, beakers, ringstands, everted lip bowls, some of the carinated and platter bowl varieties, and some of the jar types. In terms of manufacturing technique (Arnold 1993),Egyptian characteristics include pare cutting or scraping, which occurs frequently on beakers, ringstands and cup bases. Following Egyptian traditions,handles are rare in the corpus. Comparison with Thirteenth Dynasty pottery from Dahshur (Arnold 1982)indicates a number of similarities between the two pottery repertoires,particularly in the

form types mentioned above.

Local Delta Developments in the Hyksos Pottery from Maskhuta Local ceramic evolution also appears within the Hyksos ceramiccorpus from Maskhuta.Thus,for example,MBIIAred cross platter bowls, known from Canaan and also from Tell el-Daba,evolveinto the red starplatterbowls found at Maskhuta. A characteristicflat bottomed cup form and variety of small jar develop.Both handmade and holemouth cooking pots preserve their general Levantine form, but the types current at Maskhuta exhibit subtle yet distinctive differences in shape and decorationfrom theirSyro-Palestinianprototypes.A more rigorous typological analysis, far beyond the scope of this review, probably also would pinpoint additional local variants, particularlyamong the jar and bowl types.

Discussion The selective use and amalgamation of Canaanite and Egyptian ceramic traits,along with the evolution of local customs, reflect the development of a dynamic eastern Delta 58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

187

< ThisMiddleBronzeAge store jar was used for an infant burial;the smallredpolishedjuglet was part of the burial goods. The ware of the store jar exhibited limestone inclusions;its handles were a Canaanitebut not an Egyptian convention. Itwas unquestionablyan import.Ineach stratum,however,the percentage of importedceramicswas low. bowl > Thiscurlicue-handledMBIIB made of localclaydemonstratesa point of specificcontact with the pottery assemblagesof Palestine-most especially with MBIIBPalestine-but hardlyany comprehensiveidentity.The total assemblage of pottery from Maskhuta finds no close resemblancewith contemporaneouscorporafrom Canaan.

pottery tradition.The Hyksos pottery from Maskhutaexhibits a combinationof four basic elements:1) a dominatingbut generalized Middle BronzeAge Canaaniteheritage;2) occasional points of specific form contact with Syria and with Palestine; 3) selected Egyptianceramictraditionsand forms;and 4) new, locally evolved ceramic elements. I believe that the culture that produced this pottery probablybelonged to at least a second generation immigrant Asiatic population. Enough time has elapsed from the initial entry into Egypt (represented by the earliest Hyksos phases that occur at Tellel-Dabla,but not Tell el-Maskhuta) to allow for the development of a characteristiceasternDelta,or "Hyksos,"materialculture.This material culture is a composite of Canaanite and Egyptian traditions, with the former predominating, to which locally developed traitshave been added. Symbolic of the interaction between the two principal cultures are the affiliations of the most basic domestic pottery:the cooking pots belong to SyriaPalestineand the wide-mouth waterjarsare at home in Egypt.

Conclusions It is time now to return full circle to the question of ethnicity with which this work began. While we can state with some certainty that the ethnic affiliations of the Hyksos are Canaanite,we can go no furtherat present.I have argued (Redmount 1989:265-70.)that we should see the Hyksos as the southernmost extension of the cultural developments and population movements,poorly understood at present,that led to the reurbanization of Palestine during the Middle Bronze According to this interAge IIA period (ca. 2000-1750 BCE). pretation,three cultural provinces, all branches of a common Canaanite tree, developed as the Middle Bronze Age culture moved south.The Syrianculturalareaemerged first,the Palestinian second, the Egyptian last. Unfortunately,we have no way of knowing whether, or to what degree, such regional groupings of material culture should be identified with particular ethnic groups. 188

BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

I have argued also that in the process of settlement and adaptation to a new land, a "Hyksos" culture, representing the southernmost and latest of the three variants of Middle BronzeAge Canaanitetraditions,emerged in the easternDelta. The development of this culture can at present be understood most readily by referenceto Hyksos pottery,but this pottery is merely one aspect of a larger corpus of Hyksos data. The mature Hyksos material culture can be differentiated from the mature material cultures associated with the other two major Canaanite cultural regions of the time. As a cultural phenomenon, therefore, the Hyksos are peculiarly Egyptian, and there is every reason to question whether the term has any useful meaning in Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age contexts. The study of Hyksos materialculture in the eastern Delta is still in its infancy.ExtensiveAsiatic remains in the area were discovered only comparatively recently, and the full implications of these finds are still imperfectlyunderstood.As with most ground breaking archaeological discoveries, the early stages of investigation and analysis have produced apparent contradictions and inconsistencies. There are problems with the evidence, as well as differinginterpretations.Furtherexcavation and research,additionaldiscoveries,and the progressive accumulation of data from a wide variety of sources should help resolve many of the issues in the future and may also shed additional light on more specific questions of ethnicity, ethnic affiliations, and ethnic groupings as these relate to the Hyksos.

Notes 1See e.g., Gardiner 1916,Gunn and Gardiner 1918;Save-Soderbergh 1951; Von Beckerath1964;Alt 1961;Van Seters 1966;Helck 1971;Redford 1970,1992; Habachi 1972;Bietak 1980,1994;Giveon 1983. 2 Bietak 1991:25;1992:29;for details

on the Dabcafinds see, Bietak 1979,1980, 1983,1985,1987,1989,1991,1994; for absolute dating-a topic of some

von Beckerath,J.

1964 Untersuchlngen zurpolitischen derZweitenZwischenzeit in Geschichte Agypten.Agyptologische Forschungen23.Gluckstadt:J.J.Augustin. Bienkowski, P 1989 The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C in Palestine. Levant21:169179. Bietak, M. 1968 Vorliufiger Berichtfiber die erste und zweite Kampagne der bsterreichischenAusgrabungenauf Tell Ed-Dab'aim Ostdelta Agyptens

desDeutschen hIstituts (1966,1967). Abteilung Mitteltungen Archiiologischen

Kairo23:79-114. 1970 Vorliufiger Bericht iiber die dritte Kampagne der 6sterreichischen Ausgrabungen auf Tell ed Dabca im Ostdelta Agyptens.

desDeutschen Kairo Instituts Abteilung Archiiologischen Mitteilhngen

26:15-41. 1975 Tellel-DalfaII.Wien:OsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften.

A Egyptianbeakerforms from Maskhutamanifestthe Egyptian influence on the pottery assemblage.Thisinfluencewas, however, significantlyless powerfulthan the impactof Canaanitepotting traditions.The Egyptianbeakersincludeda drop-shapedvessel (or beakerwith pare cut base, bottom left), evidence of the significance of local manufacturingtechniques. 7 Maskhuta'sdramaticred star bowl derivedfrom Canaanite MiddleBronzeAge red crossbowls. Thusthe Hyksosceramic traditioncannot be understoodwithout positing some local developments.Thistraditionwas a dynamicone, a composite of Canaaniteand Egyptiantraditionswith an admixtureof locally developed traits.

1979 AvarisandPiramesse:Arclhaeological in theEastern NileDelta Explomtion

Proceedings of the British Academy LXV Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1980 Hyksos. Pp. 93-103in LexikonderAgyptologie III,edited by Wolfgang Helck. Weisbaden: Otto Harrowitz. 1983 Some News About Trade and Trade Warfare in Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Marhaba3:41-43. 1984 Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from

88:471-88. Egypt.American Jourmal ofArchaeology

1985a Eine Palastanlage aus der Zeit des spliten Mittleren Reichs und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem 6stlichen Nil delta (Tellel-

derPhilosophisch-historischen Dabca1979-1984). SonderAnzeiger Klasse

der Wissenschaften 121:312-49. Osterreichischen Akadenmie 1985b Tell ed-DabCa.Pp. 321-23 in LexikonderAgyptologieV1,edited by Wolfgang Helck. Weisbaden: Otto Harrowitz. 1985c Tell el-Jahudija-Keramik.Pp. 335-48 in LexikonderAgyptologieV1, edited by Wolfgang Helck. Weisbaden: Otto Harrowitz. 1985d ArchtiologischerBefund und historischeInterpretationam Beispiel der Tellel-Yahudiya-Ware.Pp. 7-34 in Aktendesviertenintemationalen AgyptologenKongressesMunchen1985,edited by S. Schoske. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1987 Canaanites in the Eastern Nile Delta. Pp. 41-56 in EgyptIsrael,Sinai, edited by A. E Rainey.Jerusalem: TelAviv University Press. 1989 Servant Burials in the Middle Bronze Age Culture of the Eastern Nile Delta. EretzIsrael20:30-43. 1991a Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OnentalResearch281:27-72.

V: EinFriedhofsbezirk dermittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit 1991b Tellel-DabCa

controversy-see 1992.

Bietak 1984,1991,1992;Dever 1985,1991,1992;Weinstein

Bibliography Alt, A. 1961 Die Herkwnftder Hyksosin NeuterSiclitBerlin:Akademie Verlag. Arnold, D. 1982 Keramikbearbeitungin Dahschur1976-1981. Mitteilgen desDeutschen InstitutsAbteilingKairo38:25-65. Archidologisclien 1993 Techniquesand Traditionsof Manufacturein the Potteryof Ancient toAncientEgyptianPottery,edited Egypt. Pp.7-102in An Inhtroduction by D.Arnold and J.Bourriau.Mainz am Rhein:Philipp VonZabem.

Teil 1. Wien: Osterreichischen Totentempelund Seidlungsschichten. Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1992 Die ChronologieAgyptens und der Beginn der MittlerenBronzezeitKultur. Pp.29-37 in Agypten und LevanteIII, edited by M. Bietak. Wien: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1994 Historische und archaologische Einfuhrung. Pp.17-58 in Pharaonen undFlmde: Dynastienlimn Dunkel.Wien: Museen der StadtWien.

Dever,W G. 1985 Relations Between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the 'Hyksos' Period. Pp. 69-87 in Palestinein the Bronzeand IronAges, edited by J. N. Tubb.Oiga Tufnell Festschrift. London: Institute of Archaeology. 1991 Tell el-DabCaand Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology: A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak. Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsof Ori-

entalResearch 281:73-79. 1992a The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E:A Review of Current Issues. Bulletinof theAmericanSchools

Research 288:1-25. of Oriental 1992b The Chronolgy of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C. Pp. 39-51 in Agypten und LevanteIII, edited by M. Bietak. Wien:

BiblicalArchaeolbgist 58:4 (1995)

189

AkademiederWissenschaften. Osterreichischen Gardiner,A. H. 1916 The Defeatof the Hyksosby Kamose:The CarnarvonTable,No.l. 3:95-110. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

Save-Soderbergh, T. 37:531951 The Hyksos Rule in Egypt.Joutrnal of Egyptian Arclhaeology 71. 1956 The NubianKingdomof the Second IntermediatePeriod.Kiushi 4:54-61.

Giveon,R.. in Fontes Helmut 1983 TheHyksosin theSouth.Pp.155-161 atquePontes. BrunnerFestschrift.Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz.

Shennan,S.,ed. toCultraml London:UnwinHyman. 1989 Archaeological Identity. Appoaches

Gunn,B.and Gardiner,A. H. 1918 New Renderingsof EgyptianTexts.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5:36-56.

Tufnell,O. Reviewedaftera Lifetime.Pp.76-100 1978 Gravesat Tellel-Yehudiyeh: edited by P in thieLevant: in Archaeology for Kathleen Kenyon, Essays R.S.Mooreyand P.J.Parr.Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Vanden Brink,E.C. M. at Tellel-DabCa. 1982 Tombs andBurialCustonms Verdffentlichungender Instituteftir Afrikanistikund Agyptologieder UniversititWien Nr.23.Vienna:Osterreichischen ArchaologischenInstitutes. 1987 A Geo-archaeologicalSurvey in the North-easternNile Delta, Helck,W. zurVorderasien im3 und2 Jahrtausend 1971 DieBeziehungen v.Chrn Agyptens Egypt:the FirstTwoSeasons,a PreliminaryReport.Mitteilirtgen desDeutschen Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowik. AbteilingKairo43:7-31. Archiilogischen Instituts

Habachi,L. 1972 TheSecondStelaofKamose. Abhandlungendes DeutschenArchilolJ.J.Augustin. ogischenInstitutsKairo8. Glhickstadt:

Holladay,J.S, Jr. 1982 Tellel-Maskhuta. Cities of the Delta PartIII,AmericanResearch Centerin EgyptReportsVolume6.Malibu:UndenaPublications. Kaplan,M.E 1980 TheOniinandDistribution ofTellel-Yahudiyeh WareStudiesin MediterraneanArchaeology62.Goteborg:PaulAstroms.

VanSeters,J. A NewInvestigatioin. 1966 TheHyksos: New Haven:YaleUniversityPress. Weinstein,J.M. 1992 The Chronologyof Palestinein the EarlySecond Millennium 288:27-46. Schoolsof Oriental B.C.E.Bulletin Research of theAmerican

Kemp,B.J. 1983 OldKingdom,MiddleKingdomand SecondIntermediatePeriod A SocialHistory, edited c. 2681--1552BC.Pp.71-182in AncientEgypt: by B.G.Triggeret al. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Kempinski,A. 1983 Syrientund Palastina in derletztenPhasederMittelbronze (Kanaan) IIBZeit(1650-1570) v.ChrAgyptenund altesTestament4.Wiesbaden: OttoHarrassowitz. MacDonald,B. 1980 Excavationsat Tellel-Maskhuta.Biblical 43:49-58. Archaeologist Merrillees,R.S. 1968 TheCypriote AgePotteryFoundin Egypt.Studiesin MediterBronzze raneanArchaeology Archaeology 18Lund:Studiesin Mediterranean Nordstrom,H.-A.and Bourriau,J. 1993 CeramicTechnology:Claysand Fabrics.Pp.143-190in An IntrotoAncient editedby D.ArnoldandJ.Bourriau. duction Pottery, Egyptian Mainzam Rhein:PhilippVonZabern. Petrie,W.M. E 1906 HyksosandIsraelite CitiesBritishSchoolof Archaeologyin Egypt Publications12.London:BernardQuaritch. Redford,D.B. 1970 The Hyksosin HistoryandTradition.Orientalia 39:1-52. 1992 Egypt,Canaan,andIsraelin AncientTimes.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress. Redmount,C.A. 1989 On an Egyptian/AsiaticFrontier:An ArchaeologicalHistoryof the WadiTumilat.Ph.D.Diss, University of Chicago,Chicago, Illinois. Rice,P M. 1987 Pottery A Sourcehtook. Analysis: Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. 190

BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

CarolRedmountis an AssistantProfessorin the NearEastern where StudiesDepartmentof the Universityof Californiaat Berkeley, she specializesin the archaeologyof Egyptand the Levant.Since1971 she has participatedin excavationsand otherarchaeologicalresearch takingplacein Egypt,Israel,Jordan,Tunisia,Cyprus,and theU.S.Dr. RedmountreceivedherPh.D.in 1989fromtheUniversityof Chicago. Tellel-Muqdamproject, She is currentlyco-directorof U C Berkeley's tell in the central whichis excavatinga large,firstmillenniumBCE EgyptiandeltaidentifiedwithStrabo'sLeontopolis.

Ethnicity, and Pottery, the

Gulf Olmec

of

Ancient

Veracruz, Mexico By PhilipJ. ArnoldIII

T

HESOUTHERN GULFCOAST OFVERACRUZ, ISFAR MEXICO, removed from the circum-Mediterranean areas usuIn fact, the only ally discussed in BiblicalArchaeologist. be the romantic ruminations of Tconnection may arm-chairhistorians who would link these regions by way of lost Israelitetribesor far-rangingPhoenicians.Giventhe unlikely prospect of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact,the archaeology of Mexico would appear to have little relevance to the ancient Bible lands. Nonetheless, important parallels exist in the issues that vex archaeologistson both sides of the Atlantic.Common questions address the distinction of indigenous from exogenous culturalforces,the formationof socioeconomic inequality,and the founding of larger-scale,urban centers. In fact, valuable insight is possible when similar questions are evaluated in terms of different data bases. In this paper I take up the issue of ethnicity,pottery,and cultural variation.I discuss these topics against the backdrop of the Gulf Olmec of southern Veracruz, Mexico. The Gulf Olmec constitutes one of the earliest complex chiefdoms that developed in Mesoamerica and are justifiably recognized for their megalithic sculpture and large-scale,earthen, ceremonial architecture.The southern Gulf Coast of Mexico has been characterized as the "heartland"of the Gulf Olmec culture and is seen by many as the point from which their distinctive art style originated and spread (e.g.,Coe 1965;Lowe 1989). Although often perceived as a homogeneous culture,new

At an impressive1.67 m in height this sculpturedhead probably portrayedan individualleader of San Lorenzo,the earlyOlmec center where it was unearthed. It may have servedto reinforcethe prominenceand prerogativesof the leader'slineage. The absence of such megalithicsculpturefrom the Tuxtlasregion suggests that its population groups did not participatein this systemof selfpromotion.Photograph? Picturesof Record.

researchwithin and beyond this "heartland"is changing our ideas about the development of this importantsociety (Sharer 1989).Here I consider the degree to which the available evidence indicates significant internal variation within the Gulf Olmec region.My purpose is to explorethe possible characterof culturalchange within the "heartland"and place Gulf Olmec transformationin a less unilineal and more dynamic light.

PotteryandEthnicity

The use of specific material remains to identify a particular culturehas a healthytraditionin archaeology.This approach was clearlyevident in the writings of V Gordon Childe (1925), Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

191

who proposed that combinationsof repeatedlyassociatedarti- proximity,and common descent. factsserve as the diagnostic criteriafor defining archaeological Ideas regarding ethnicity become increasingly varied cultures. This normative view of culture similarly informed beyond the above principles (Cohen 1978;Williams 1989).Two much of North American archaeology during the middifferent views of ethnicity dominate the anthropological twentieth century. literature (e.g., Keyes 1981).The first sees ethnicity as a "priIt is fair to say that,of all archaeological material,pottery mordial"phenomenon,an ascribedaffiliationthat links groups provides the most common medium used to identify discrete through a common ancestry In this context pottery,as an ethcultures. The working assumption behind this reasoning is nic marker,functions much like it would have according to that decisions representedin the designs and forms of ceram- the more normative interpretationsof culture noted above. ics reflectthe mentaltemplate,and thusthe culturalconsciousness, The second perspective approaches ethnic identification of the producer and consumer. One need only document as a fluid phenomenon, one that responds to different situathe spatially restrictedco-occurrenceof certaintraitsto estab- tions and circumstances. According to this "circumstantial" lish this template.Ultimately,the archaeological"culture"could approach,ethnicity may be considered as an objectiveand/or be charted across space and through time. a subjective social construct that reacts in the face of group Pottery'srestricted role as an index of culturehistorybegan to changein the G u lf 1950s,primarily through the influence of radiometricdating techniques.Freed fromtheirchronologicalrestraints, ceramof ics were used to ask a different, more Mex i co behavior oriented, range of questions. This trend was evident in the "ceramic ecology" of Matson (1965),in which he Bay of suggested that pottery be used to invesYucatan Campeche 1 Peninsula tigatethe relationshipbetween producers of Valley Mexico S and their natural and cultural environTuxtla Mts ments. This new use of ceramics was LaVenta Laguna-de los Cerros. " operationalized through the "ceramic San Lorenzo sociology" of the late 1960s.Researchby Valley of Oaxaca Deetz (1965)and Longacre(1970),among others,evaluatedmodels of descent and post-maritalresidence patternsthrough the learningframeworkof pottersas represented in variations within ceramic design elements. An added overlay to this more "cultural"use of pottery was the recognition Mapof Mesoamerica,showing the GulfOlmec "Heartland"of southernVeracruzand that style may convey informationabout northernTabasco,Mexico.Thisregion includesthe TuxtlaMountains,as well as the major the producers,users,and uses of ceramic lowland GulfOlmeccentersof San Lorenzo,LaVenta, and Lagunade los Cerros.Also shown vessels (Plog1978;Wobst1977).This infor- are (underlined)areas outside of the Gulf lowlandsthat exhibit "Olmecstyle"artifacts. mation,however,is not considered to be the passive reflection of cultural norms. Rather than viewgoals and interests. The flexibility afforded ethnicity in this a mirror of the as affiliation, "information simple group perspectiveis more consonantwith the view that style is inforing style school"approachespottery as a dynamic medium that actively mation, malleable in its message and crosscutting different transmitsmessages. Seen along these same lines, pottery also contexts with different messages. Ethnicity,therefore,is not becomes a vehicle by which individuals compete for prestige synonymous with culture. Not surprisingly,therefore,anthropologistshave not applied and/or appropriateimportant cultural identities. One potential line of information conveyed through pot- the ethniclabelevenly or consistently.Some researchersemphatery is ethnic affiliation.Establishingethnic affiliation,however, size biological origins and common language, while others is rarelya straight-forwardprocess. In fact, there is consider- believe that ethnicity is a response to various circumable discussion in the social anthropology literature as to stances.Nonetheless,all sides agreethatthe"us/them"distinction the exact nature of ethnicity. Most scholars would agree has strong politicalovertonesand may be imposed from withwith Barth's(1969)observationsthat ethnicity involves the cre- out or employed from within. In the following discussion, I ation and maintenanceof social boundaries.These boundaries adopt the perspective of Keyes (1981)that these views need are often reflected in dimensions of affiliation, including a not be mutually exclusiveand that both in combinationafford shared system of communication,common values,geographic the best line of investigation. 192

BiblicalArchaeologist58:4 (1995)

Given the above discussion, pottery would seem to provide a ready medium for ethnic identification.Potteryvessels are usually short-lived,so informationcould be easily updated. Pottery is also plastic, so a wide range of information can be transmitted.Finally,pottery performs in a variety of contexts, ranging from domestic to public.All of these contextsprovide an opportunity for an individual or group of individuals to proclaim ethnic identity via ceramics.

The GulfOlmec The term Gulf Olmec embodies both a culture and an art style (Grove1993).Nonetheless, a failure to appreciatethis distinction continues to produce considerable confusion in the archaeological literature. As a cultural entity, the Gulf

and the ilhuitlor double scroll. Recent research by a number of Mesoamerican archaeologists is clarifying the distinction between the Gulf Olmec as a culture and the Olmec as an art style. An important result of this work is the recognition that the Gulf Olmec were not the "motherculture" of Mesoamerica, as the widespread distribution of stylistic motifs has been interpreted. Rather,many archaeologistspreferto see Mesoamericansocieties during the early part of the first millennium BCEas participatingin a shared system of beliefs and ideologies that is expressed throughsimilar motifs on portablesculpture and ceramics.Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that similar motifs may have played different roles and conveyed different "meaning"at sites distributed throughout Mesoamerica (Flanneryand Marcus1994;Grove1989). We stand at an important threshold in Mesoamericanstudies,in whichthe development of socio-economic complexity, originallyattributedto the far-flungactivities of a single group,is now viewed as an interactive and dynamic social phenomenon.

The "Heartland" Given the increasedemphasis on the regionalized nature of culture development in Mesoamerica, it is appropriate to focus attention on the area of southernVeracruzand northernTabascousually referred to as the Gulf Olmec "Heartland." This area is demarcated by the presence of megalithic sculpture renderedin the GulfOlmecstyleand extends from the PapaloapanRiveron the westEarlyand MiddleFormativeperiod pottery motifs linkedto the "Olmecstyle."These designs ern edge to the GrijalvaRiverto the east includethe crocodilianprofilewith "flamingeyebrows"(upper left and right),the "paw (Lowe 1989).This region includes sevwing" (lower right)and the "double line break"(lower left). After Flanneryand Marcus eral of the largest riverine systems in 1994:fig. 12.1and Grove 1993:fig.2. Mexico,resulting in the apt designation of the Gulf Olmec as the "Peopleof the River"(Coe and Diehl Olmec occupied the area of southern Veracruz and northern Tabasco,Mexico from approximately1200BCEto 400 BCE. 1980). To date, the majority of Gulf Olmec research carried out This era spans the Earlyand Middle Formativeperiods in the in this area has been realized at only two major sites: San Mesoamerican chronology.The Gulf Olmec adaptation was based on swidden maize agriculture,supplementedwith river- Lorenzoand LaVenta(Sharer1989).Additional, albeit periphine and terrestrial resources (Coe and Diehl 1980;Rust and eral fieldwork has been conducted at Laguna de los Cerros and TresZapotes.Researchwithin the Gulf Olmec Heartland Leyden 1994). The primary diagnostic of the Gulf Olmec culture was their penchant for megalithic sculpture (colossal has spanned almost fifty years,although fieldwork at any sinheads, "thrones,"and stele) and large-scale,earthen, ceremo- gle site has been relatively short term and sporadic (Arnold nial architecture. 1994). Given the overall paucity of information regarding settleIn contrast,the use of the term Olmec as an art style refers to a suite of traits and motifs that occur on artifacts distrib- ment distributions throughout this area,characterizationsof uted throughout Mexico, Guatemala,and Belize, also dating Gulf Olmec usually concentrateon the four sites mentioned to the Earlyand Middle Formativeperiods.These artisticcon- above. In discussions of regional-level phenomena, there is ventionsincludefigureswith "flaming"eyebrows,dcleft foreheads, a tendency to treat these sites as contemporaneous, resultdown-turned mouths,and incorporateeithera feline or a croc- ing in models of discrete "polities"that are interacting with one another (e.g.,Drucker1981;Earle 1976).This treatment is odilian quality.On pottery,the "Olmec"style includes incised designs such as the "paw wing" motif, "St.Andrew's cross," unfortunate,since data from San Lorenzoand LaVentashow Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

193

that their respective "heydays" overlapped very little.Furthermore,although excavationsat Lagunade los Cerrosand TresZapotesindicateOlmec periodoccupation,this fieldworkalso demonstrates that much of the most elaborate architecturepostdatesthe Olmec culture(Bove 1978;Drucker 1943).In other words, in the absence of much needed information it would be premature to consider the "Gulf Olmec Heartland" as comprising a series of distinct, possibly competing, polities. As noted above, competition is an important context within which ethnic identificationis expressed.If Gulf Olmec polities within the heartland were not competing, does it necessarily follow thatethnicdifferencesdid not existwithin the heartlandregion?I would argue that, while the Gulf Olmec constitutes a single culture,it also comprises severalethnicgroupsdistributedacrossthe Gulflowlands. Competition between these groups may not be overtly political, but rather competition may result from environmental variation within the heartland.This ethnic variation, in turn, is reflected through differences in settlement organization, scale of socio-economic complexity, and the presence/absence of artifactsand stylistic motifs.Todate,the best evidence for this ethnic variation occurs in the Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz,Mexico.

A The TuxtlaMountainswithin the GulfOlmec "Heartland."The region is characterizedby rich,volcanicsoils and abundant rains. Naturalresourcesfrom the Tuxtlaswere exchanged across Mesoamericaduring much of the pre-Columbianera. Photographs courtesyof the author

V The settlement distributionin the Tuxtlasshows a surprisinglack of large sites duringthe Earlyand MiddleFormativeperiod.This pattern contrastsmarkedlywith the coeval settlement organization elsewhere in the GulfOlmec "Heartland."

Formative Period

Gulf Olmec and the TuxtlaMountains Although the Gulf Coast is often characterizedas a coastal plain, that description masks a considerable amount of environmentaland physiographicvariation(Arnold1994).For our current purposes, the single most important variation within the Gulf Olmec Heartland is the TuxtlaMountains, a volcanic uplift that reaches a height of 1500 m. This region exhibits some of the heaviest annual precipitation(> 3 m) and is home to some of the richest soils anywhere along the south Gulf Coast. The volcanic Tuxtlasalso provide a suite of resources that are not duplicated along the coastal plain (Arnold et al. 1993). For example,the basalt used for Gulf Olmec megalithic sculpture and utilitarianground stone utensils was quarriedin the Tuxtlas(Coe and Diehl 1980).Tropicalbirdfeathersand cinnabar are other resources that may have attracted early socio-economic interestsin the region.In fact,so richwere the resources of these volcanic uplands that Hernan Cortes, the famous Spanish conquistador, requested the labor and produce from the Tuxtlasas partial payment for his efforts on behalf of the Spanish Crown. Given the environmentalcharacterand importantresources of this upland zone, scholars have long speculated as to the connection between the Tuxtlasand the Gulf Olmec centers to the south and east.Some archaeologistseven suggested that 194

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

100

Middle

Early

Late

4-0

0 4-

50

L

E

Hamlet

Village

Center

the Tuxtlasconstituted the original "homeland"of the occupants at San Lorenzo and La Venta (Heizer 1968:22).The fact that maize was present in the Tuxtlas approximately half a millennium before it appeared at the major Gulf Olmec centers (Goman 1992) further implicates the Tuxtlas as an important region during this time period. During 1991and 1992I served as co-directorof a regional survey of the TuxtlaMountains (Santleyand Arnold 1995).This survey focused on surfacesettlementremainsand documented the entire pre-Hispanic occupational sequence within a

A Columnarbasalt, such as this outcrop in the Tuxtlas,was used by the GulfOlmecfor a varietyof tasks.At LaVenta, long pieces of basaltserved as constructionmaterialfor an elite tomb.

7 These drilled,ilmenite cubes found in the Tuxtlaslinkthe region to activitiestaking place at GulfOlmeccenterssuch as San Lorenzo and LaVenta.The function of these objects, however,remains unknown.

cm

5

0

four hundred square km portion of the volcanic uplands. As a result of this research,we now have considerable information on the Early and Middle Formative period within the upland portion of the Gulf Olmec Heartland.These data provide an important contrast to the riverine and estuarine occupationwithin other portions of the Gulf Coast during the Early and Middle Formative periods. Perhaps the most important finding from our recent settlement survey is the lack of congruence between the Tuxtlasoccupation and that documented around Olmec centers such as San Lorenzo and La Venta. First, we encounter none of the large-scalearchitecturethat characterizesthe Gulf

Olmec centers. Tobe sure, several sites in our study area boast large numbers of high earthen mounds, but these sites invariably date to the later portion of the pre-Columbian sequence. In other words, the monumental construction that characterizesGulf Olmec occupation in other parts of the Heartland is not replicated in the Tuxtlas. Another important distinction between the two areasis the lackof threedimensional megalithicsculpture in our study region.As noted above,such sculpture has been a distinguishing characteristicof Gulf Olmec occupation. Furthermore, the Tuxtlas provides the raw materialfrom which the large-scale sculpture is carved. Tobe sure, we did encounter sculptures that date to later time periods. It is surprising, therefore, to find no evidenceforGulfOlmec megalithic art in our survey area. Nonetheless, similarities in material culture do link the occupationwith the Gulf Olmec.Forexample,we recovTuxtflas ered several drilled ilmenite cubes that are very similar to examples excavatedat San Lorenzo(Coe and Diehl 1980;Lowe 1989).Ilmenite,an iron-blackmaterial,is not a naturalresource of the Tuxtlas(nor anywhere along the Gulf Coast); like the cubes from San Lorenzo, the Tuxtlas artifacts may have come from a source in Oaxaca,Mexico,severalhundred miles to the west. Lithic material from Early and Middle Formativeperiod sites in the Tuxtlasalso conforms to the generalpatternsestablished for the Gulf Coast. Our survey recovered considerable quantitiesof obsidian,all of which was importedinto the study region. Neutron activationanalysis of traceelements indicates that the obsidian originated from the same primary sources that provided lithics to other Early and Middle Formative period Gulf Coast occupation (Cobean et al. 1991).Moreover, our lithic artifacts from the Formative era mimic the flake-dominatedassemblagesrecoveredfrom otherGulf Olmec settlements. In sum, the Tuxtlassurvey data indicate important variation within the study region when compared to other Gulf Olmec occupations.Certainimported materials,such as obsidian and ilmenite, link the Tuxtlaswith other heartland areas. At the same time, the use of local materialssuch as basalt takes on a very different characterwhen the Tuxtlasare contrasted with San Lorenzo or La Venta.Furthermore,the minimal settlement hierarchy and lack of large-scale, civic-ceremonial architecture in the study region also distinguishes the Tuxtlas occupants from other Gulf Olmec groups.

Gulf Olmec Pottery

Perhapsthe most difficultarenaof materialcultureto interpret from our survey efforts is pottery.Not surprisingly,the Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

195

:'~? r~?

'' .;rr

O

??z r

5

CM

r

4 ~S~n t

;r - ... L1 4~

~rr. ~U

-_??;rt C?1

-

~.?

6.'1' ? 1 ??

,?

~

ceramicsfrom our Earlyand Middle For_L ~ u r r ^c~ccr j? '-~Sd~F"C~C&-; ;? mative period sites are neither an exact u 1 c u~ ~o rI?. * ---? ~Pt~C,duplicate nor a total departure from '' cc-~ ?v C ~a? L r -Ci assemblagesthat characterizethe coastal ?.-;L~L.Ci~ 7 T:i~?'??? r. Gulf Olmec settlements. Navigating ~C~uk~j;~r*? ~:t? ?IY~LY?Y z r '4 L ?---'-A between these extremes involves filter- .. J' ;?' ing out the products of our survey " methods themselves and exploring the -r?;t~~:72~I way in which pottery may be used to ~~f~ ~i~c~:t communicate at different scales along .~;. 1 ?. ~;C;YL~`b~~ the south Gulf Coast. ?? -?? j1~5~~~ .C I-C F ?-r Similarities in the ceramics include types that are common, not just on the Gulf Coast,but throughout Mesoamerica during this period. In fact,because our regional research A Tecomaterimsfrom the Tuxtlasare thickerand less elaborate involved surface survey,ceramic cross-dating constituted the than those from other GulfOlmec "Heartland"sites.These examples primary means by which site chronologies were established. includesuch decorationas thumbnailpunctate (top row) and rocker In other words, our researchstrategyalmost ensured that any stamping(bottom right). sites we attributedto the Earlyand Middle Formativeperiods V A collectionof surfaceartifactsfrom a GulfOlmecsite located on would contain pottery similar to that from controlled For- the lower flanksof the TuxtlaMountains.Diagnosticartifactsinclude mative period contexts throughout Mesoamerica. white-rimmedblackware (bottom right),a figurinetorso (center), Our research was certainly successful in this regard.For and thin-walledtecomate rim(upper right). example,white-rimmed blackware,usually in the form of flatbottomed serving dishes, is a common Early and Middle Formativepottery type on the Gulf Coast,in Highland Mexico, and along the PacificCoast of Mesoamerica (Lowe 1989). Not surprisingly, we encountered small percentages of this ceramic on our survey. A common ceramic form is the tecomate-a neckless, globular jar whose functions may have included storage and cooking. CharacteristicEarlyand Middle Formative period designs on these neckless jars include rocker-stamped incisions (caused by "rocking"the edge of a shell along the exteriorshoulder of the vessel) and thumb nail punctation(also found on the vessel'sexteriorshoulder);(Lowe of this type also occurred throughout the sur1989).Tecomates did as other surface treatments such as brushing vey region, and reed punctation.Nonetheless, decorationwas present on less than five per cent of the ceramic assemblage, irrespective of the settlement context (i.e.,hamlet, village) in which it A second widespread stylistic motif commonly associated was recovered. with this time period is the "line break."This simple linear For our present purposes, the absence of certain designs is as noteworthyas the presence of others.Forexample,a com- design is usually incised on the interior of bowls and dishes.Nonetheless,Earlyand Middle Formativeperiod assemmon ceramiccomplex associatedwith the Olmec style (as well as the Gulf Olmec centers) includes "boldly carved"designs blages from our survey are surprisinglylackingin this "Olmec on a hard paste white ware (Coe and Diehl 1980). Design style" diagnostic. Stark (1994) argues that a more regional elementsinclude"X"-shapesand "flamingeyebrows."Research "line-break"traditioncan be identified for Northernand Cenoutside the coastal heartland suggests that these motifs are tral Veracruz,in which "line-breaks"occur on the exteriorof vessels. The fact that this style does not extend into southern strongly associated with lineage affiliations (Flannery and Veracruzsuggests that the Olmec Heartland participated in Marcus 1994). with a no was recovered these separate social arena during this time period. The lack of designs Interestingly pottery from our survey.Instead,we find a less "robust,"local version either element in the Tuxtlas pottery assemblage implies of the carved white ware,one that is executed more in the style that this region occupies a distinct middle ground between the Gulf Olmec to the south and the Early and Middle Forof broad incision than carving. Furthermore, the hatchure to be a mative groups to the north. on these ceramics represented appears design The evidence from our survey indicates that the overderivativeof a more finely incised black-waretraditionfound whelming majorityof pottery consisted of undecorated,locally along the Gulf Coast. 196

58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

-

d OONO

Although the evidence for an internally defined ethnic group in the Tuxtlas remains ambiguous, I believe that the ;x ?~" ?Ioak% :cm occupants of the majorGulf Olmec centers were actively engaged in a process of ethnic differentiation. This process included self-identification as well as effortsto distancethemselvesboth socially and politicallyfrom other groups within the GulfOlmecHeartland.In otherwords, ethnicconstructionin the Tuxtlasresulted as much from self-legitimizationby nonlocal Gulf Olmec groups as it did from internal self-awareness and empowerment in the Tuxtlas. Incisedwhite ware found in the Tuxtlasis very different from the "boldlycarved"ceramics Severallines of evidence supportthis recoveredat San Lorenzo.Thisdifference in style may representdistinct"messages,"possibly associatedwith ethnic self-identification. positionThe colossalbasaltheads,believed to be portraitsof individualleaders,sugthat and affiliationmay have been is a for differentiation gest lineage tendency largercommunities produced vessels. There but the difference an of social life for the Gulf Olmec at San to exhibit relativelymore decorated pottery, important part dominate the assem- Lorenzo.Furthermore,certainmotifs associated with the head is not statistically significant. Tecomates gear of these sculptures are replicated on monuments at La blage, but these are not the finely made, thin-walled vessels found elsewhere in the heartland.Severalshapes that are com- Venta, suggesting a lineage association between these Gulf mon at SanLorenzo,such as the "fluted"vesselor the long-necked Olmec sites (Grove1981).The lack of Formativeperiod sculpture in our study region indicates thatTuxtlasoccupants were bottle, were not encountered on our survey. not participating in this system of self-promotion and were not perceived, either by themselves or by others, as part of Discussion It should be clear from the above presentation that Early these lineages. A similar situation may be reflected in the boldly carved and Middle Formative period occupation within the Tuxtlas was ratherdifferent from occupation along the surrounding pottery recovered at lowland Gulf Olmec centers. As mentioned above, these pottery designs have also been linked to coastal plain. Variation in material culture, especially potterystyles,combinedwith differencesin settlementconfiguration lineage identification. Again, their absence from the Tuxtlas and subsistence orientation all contribute to this characteri- survey data suggests that the Tuxtlasoccupantsdid not choose zation.The question,of course,is to what degreethese differences to access these ancestrallines.The irony,of course,is that much may be attributedto ethnicity as opposed to some other expla- has been made of the possible Gulf Olmec origins in the Tuxtnation. las, including hypotheses that the large conical pyramid at La Venta is simply a replica of the volcanic cones in the Tuxtlas Returning to our original discussion of ethnicity, it was pointed out that ethnic distinctions may be constructed inter- (Heizer 1968:19-21). The fact that the Tuxtlaswere linked to the coastal plains nally or externally.In other words,ethnicity can be established through self-identification (internal) or by the imposition of economically,but not socially or politically,need not be a point an ethnic classification by others (external).Ethnicity is not of confusion.In fact,this situationis reminiscentof what Keyes simply what you call yourself; ethnicity is also what you are (1981:12;following Barth1969:18)calls a "symbioticrelationcalled by others. ship" between ethnic groups. This relationship allows for It is difficult at this point to establish the degree to groups to carryout differenteconomic and/or political activwhich the Tuxtlasinhabitantsidentified themselves as an eth- ities, even though some groups may have greater access to nic group separatefrom other Gulf Olmec. Certainfactswould wealth and power than others. Despite these differences, it is the collective activities of the ethnic groups that permit the seem to suggest a distinction; these include the distinctive pottery designs that are not duplicated along the coastal plain successful operation of the entire society. and the lack of correspondence between the tecomatesin the Tuxtlaswith those at Gulf Olmec centers.Nonetheless, the fact Conclusion that imported goods such as obsidian and ilmenite occur Grove (1993:86) recently suggested that the term "Gulf throughout the Gulf Olmec Heartland suggests that the Tuxt- Olmec" should be confined to the Early-to-MiddleFormative las were not isolated from their lowland neighbors. The fact period culture located along the MexicanGulf Coast that prothat occupants at Gulf Olmec centers made considerable duced large stone monuments and used stone for other ritual use of Tuxtlasbasalt further underscores the probable link- purposes. Based on this definition alone, the Tuxtlasstudy region would fall outside the realm of the Gulf Olmec. ages between these areas. ~f~C

~??

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

197

Combined with the lack of a hierarchicalsocio-political organization, a non-riverine subsistence focus, and the absence of diagnostic stylisticmotifs on pottery and other media, the Formative period occupationin the Tuxltasdoes assume a distinct characteralong the Southern Gulf Coast. At the same time, it would be imprudent to divorce the Tuxtlasfrom the Gulf Olmec all together.We know that this. region is intimately connected with the Gulf Olmec, a connection that occurs geographically (as part of the heartland), economically (as a source of basalt),and perhaps ideologically (as a possible "homeland").These connections are too important to dismiss out of hand. Given the current information,I believe that there is reason to suggest that the Tuxtlas occupants constitute a distinct ethnic group within the Gulf Olmec culture.Although the Tuxtlaswas part of the Gulf Coast socio-economic system, this region did not participatein much of the activityand symbolism that characterizes coastal occupation. Unfortunately, at the present time we cannot establishwhether the occupants of the Tuxtlassaw themselves as different or were viewed as different by the people at the Gulf Olmec centers. In either case, however, it is clear that there was a lack of copying or "appropriation"of emblems and motifs between these two area.Ultimately,we note a significant distinction between the activities of individuals in and around sites like San Lorenzo and LaVentaand the behavior of individuals within the TuxtlaMountains. Unlike much of the Bible lands, in which there is a prolonged literate record, writing did not occur along the Gulf Coast of Mexico until almost five hundred years afterthe end of the Gulf Olmec occupation. Consequently,we are not in a position to discuss ethnicity from the perspective of language or based on the movement of historicallydocumented groups. Instead, we must rely on variations in material culture, especially pottery,to reveal the possible existence and interaction of ethnic groups. Although these differences may be subtle, they are no less informative. To paraphrase Cohen (1981:319),ethnicity, be it reflected through ancestral affiliation, corporate interests, or just plain pottery,is ultimately a matter of degree.

Bibliography Arnold, Philip J.III 1994 An Overview of SouthernVeracruzArchaeology.AncientMesoamerica 5:215-21. Arnold, Philip J. III,Pool, Christopher A., Kneebone, Ronald R., and Santley, Robert S. 1993 Intensive Ceramic Production and Classic-Period Political Economy in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas,Veracruz, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica4:175-191. Barth,Fredrik 1969 Introduction. Pp. 9-38 in EthnicGroupsand Boundaries:TheSocial of Culture,edited by E Barth. Boston: Little Brown. Organization

198

BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

Bove, Frederick 1978 Laguna de los Cerros,an Olmec Central Place.Journalof New World Archaeology2(3):1-56. Childe, V Gordon 1925 TheDawn of EuropeanCivilization.London: Kegan Paul. Cobean, Robert H., Vogt, James R., Glascock, Michael D., and Stocker,Terrance L. 1991 High-PrecisionTrace-ElementCharacterizationof MajorMesoamerican Obsidian Sources and FurtherAnalyses of Artifacts from San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico. LatinAmericanAntiquity2:1-96. Coe, Michael 1965 The Olmec Style and its Distribution. Pp. 739-75 in Handbookof MiddleAmericanIndians,Vol. 3, edited by G. Willey. Austin: University of Texas Press. Coe, Michael and Diehl, Richard 1980 In the Landof the Olmec.Austin: University of Texas Press. Cohen, Abner 1981 Variablein Ethnicity.Pp. 307-11in EthnicChange,edited by C. Keyes. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cohen, Ronald 1978 Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology. AnnualReviewof 7:379-403. Anthropology Deetz, James E 1965 The Dynamicsof StylisticChangein ArikaraCeramics.Illinois Studies in Anthropology 4. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Drucker,Philip Mexico.Bureau of Ameri1943 CeramicSequenceat TresZapotes,Veracruz, can EthnologyBulletin140.Washington,DC: SmithsonianInstitution. 1981 On the Nature of Olmec Polity. Pp. 29-47 in The Olmecand Their edited by E. Benson. Washington,DC:Dumbarton Oaks. Neighbors, Earle,Timothy 1976 A Nearest-Neighbor Analysis of Two Formative Settlement Systems. Pp. 196-223 in The EarlyMesoamericanVillage,edited by K. Flannery. New York:Academic Press. Flannery, Kent V and Marcus, Joyce 1994 EarlyFormative Potteryof theValleyof axaca. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 27 Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Goman, Michelle 1992 Paleoecological Evidencefor PrehistoricAgricultureand TropicalForest Clearancein the Sierrade los Tuxtlas,Veracruz,Mexico. M.A. thesis, Department of Geography, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley. Grove, David C. 1981 Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to Meaning. Pp. 49-68 in TheOlmecandTheirNeighbors,edited by E. Benson. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1989 Olmec: What's in a Name? Pp. 8-14 in RegionalPerspectiveson the Olmec,edited by R. Sharer and D. Grove. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993 "Olmec" Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution? Pp. 83-111in LatinAmericanHorizons,edited by D. Rice. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks

Heizer, Robert E 1968 New Observations on La Venta. Pp. 9-36 in DumbartonOaksConferenceon theOlmec,edited by E. Benson.Washington,DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Keyes, Charles E 1981 The Dialectics of Ethnic Change. Pp. 4-30 in EthnicChange.,edited by C. Keyes. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Longacre,William 1970 Archaeologyas Anthropology: A Case Study.Anthropological Papers 17 Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Lowe, Gareth W. 1989 The Heartland Olmec: Evolution of Material Culture. Pp. 33-67 in on theOlmec,edited by R. Sharer and D. Grove. RegionalPerspectives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matson, Frederick R. 1965 Ceramic Ecology: An Approach to the Study of Early Cultures in the Near East. Pp. 202-17 in CeramicsandMan, edited by E Matson. Chicago: Aldine. Plog, Stephen 1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis. Pp. 14382 in Advances in Archaeological MethodandTheory,Vol. 1,edited by M. Schiffer.New York:Academic Press.

World,edited by S. Johannessen and C. Hastorf. Boulder: Westview Press. Santley, Robert S. and Arnold, Philip J.III n.d. Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the TuxtlaMountains, Southern Veracruz,Mexico. Journalof FieldArchaeology.In press. Sharer,Robert J. 1989 Olmec Studies: A Status Report. Pp. 3-7 in RegionalPerspectives on the Olmec,edited by R. Sharer and D. Grove. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stark, BarbaraL. n.d. Gulf Coast Styles and Political Geography in Ancient Veracruz. In FromOlmectoAztec:RecentSettlement PatternResearchin theAncient GulfLowlands,edited by B. Stark and P Arnold. In prep. Williams, Brackette E 1989 A Class Act: Anthropology and the Race to Nation across Ethnic Terrain.AnnualReviewof Anthropology 18:401-444. Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. Pp. 317-42 in For the Director:ResearchEssaysin Honorof JamesB.Griffin,edited by C. Cleland. Anthropological Papers 61, Museum of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Rust, William and Leyden, B.W 1994 Evidence for Maize Use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites. Pp. 181-201in Cornand Culturein the PrehistoricNew

We are proudto announcethe resumptionof the

Mitchell Dahood Memorial Prize Competition

in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic

The Society of Biblical Literature and the Ecumenical Theological Seminary in Detroit, Michigan, are pleased to announce the continuation of this distinguished prize competition, which provides an opportunity for young scholars to contribute to the discussions of Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic. The description of the competition follows.

Subject: The Hebrew Bible Conditions

1.

2.

The competition is open to qualified junior faculty and graduate students who have not reached their 40th birthday by December 31,1996. a. They must be recommended by an established senior scholar. b. They must hold the Ph.D. or equivalent degree, or be in the final stages of completing such a degree. The deadline for submission of manuscripts in February 29, 1996.

Prize

1. 2. Philip Arnold is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Loyola University Chicago. He received his Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico in 1988 and for the last ten years has carried out archaeological research in southern Veracruz,Mexico. His research emphasizes craft production and the development of politico-economies along the ancient Gulf Coast. Dr. Arnold has written several articles on precolumbian pottery production and is the author of Domestic CerramicProduction A MexicanCaseStudyin miand SpatialOrganization: Cambridge University Press. He is currently Ethnoarchaeology, investigating Formative Period household economics at La Joya in the TuxtlaMountains.

A cash award of $1,500 to the winner. The author is expected to read the prize-winning paper at the SBL1996 Annual Meeting.

Competition Committee Frank Moore Cross, Jr.,HarvardUniversity Marvin H. Pope, YaleUniversity Jack M. Sasson, Universityof NorthCarolina David Noel Freedman, UC San Diego,Secretary All nominations, inquiries, manuscripts,and other correspondence should be sent to the Dahood Prize Competition Committee: Dr. Astrid Beck, Coordinator Program on Studies in Religion, 445 West Engineering Bldg. The University of Michigan Ann Arbor,MI 48109-1092

BiblicalArchaeologist58:4 (1995)

199

gl

-ww LT

irr

060t

4b4

Ceramicevidence for the existence of "Proto-Israelite" groups in the hillcountryof Palestinedoes not stand alone. Houseform represents another indicatorof the emergence of a new ethnic entity. Likethose at manyother smallIronI villages,the courtyardhouse at Kh.Raddanais an ideal farmhouseand reflectsa society based on smallfamilyholdings, kin-relatedand closely knit socialstructure,and a utilitarian, homogenous lifestyle.

By William G. Dever URING THE PAST DECADE OR SO NUMEROUS BIBLICAL

scholars and archaeologists have addressed the question of the origins of early Israel, but only very recentlyhas the thorny issue of "ethnicityin the archaeologicalrecord"beenconfronted,and thatonly obliquely in my judgment.A turning-point,however,may be the appearance in English of the volume of essays in Moshe Kochavi's honor,edited by IsraelFinkelstein and Nadav Na'aman, From andHistorical NomadismtoMonarchy AspectsofEarly Archaeological Israel(1994;expanded from the Hebrew original of 1990).This marks a considerable advance in theory and in sophisticated use of archaeological data beyond Finkelstein's own Archaeology of theIsraeliteSettlement(1988),which by and large that the several hundred early Iron I hillassumed simply settlements now known are "Israelite."In the later country treatment, however, "Israeliteethnicity" now becomes very much the point at issue, as indeed it should be, often with reference to the ceramic evidence. It is only the latter that I will address here,although Finkelsteinand Na'aman'sprovocative 200

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

treatmentof settlementpatterns,demography,socio-economic structure,and other data deserve fuller criticalcomment elsewhere.'

Ethnicityandthe ArchaeologicalRecord

Despite allusions here and there in recent literaturein our field to the problemsof recognizing ethnic identity from material culture remains,virtually no one has addressed the issue head on. Even L. E. Stager's(1985)well known article on "the archaeologyof the family"in early IronI Palestine,while seminal, begs the question of ethnicity, presupposing that the agrariancommunity and socio-economicstructurebeing characterized is "Israelite."London (1989)similarly sidesteps the issue of ethnicity,by arguing that the observable differences in the LateBronzeand early IronI ceramicrepertoireof Palestine aresimplyfunctional;i.e, they indicatenot ethnicdistinctions but variations in "lifestyle,"in this case between urban and ruralpopulations,presumablyof the same ethnicgroup.Meanwhile, a few biblical historians have not hesitated to deliver themselves of opinions on Late Bronze-IronI ceramic continuity and its supposed cultural implications, although such

topic that would seem to lend itself tosuch an indeed to demand-just enterprise.Finkelsteinhimself still uses the term "Israelite"(in quotes) to categorizethe earlyIronI assemblage, although i apparentlyonly as a kind of "shorthand," OE since he declares that "the material culture of the Iron I sites in the hill country should not be viewed in ethnic perspective" (1994:169).He sees the change from LateBronzeinto early Iron I in the contextof ecology,subsistence,and especiallylong-termcyclicalshiftsin settlement and demographic pattern along a continuum from nomadism to sedentism o and back.Specifically,he thinks that"any effort to distinguish between 'Israelite' and 'non-Israelite'hill country sites during the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE according to their finds is doomed to failure"(1994:17).That fine a distinction may indeed be impossible at this point; but what about contrastingthe hill-counWerethe membersof the new ethnic group in the hill countrypastoralnomads?Finkelstein try ruralsites in Iron I with "Canaanite" urban centers? In any case, Finkelstein has argued the resemblanceof the plan of 'IzbetSartahStrataIIIto nomadictent-circlesand viewed its creatorsas sedentarizingpastoralists.Butthe oval reconstructionof the site is follows his own admonition; he makes no use whatsoever of pottery throughninety percent imaginary.Moreover,large numbersof pastoralnomads successfullysettling down to a Mediterraneanmixed economy is both unlikelyand unprecedentedin the out his otherwisevery thoroughanalysis. settlement historyof Palestine. Does he still hold to his 1988 study of the pottery,in which he argued strongly for the distinctiveness of the early Iron I "Israelite"potteryopinions carry little or no weight in my judgment, since an argument that I have refuted elsewhere in some detail pottery is a matter for specialists. In an earliertreatment(1993a),I had adopted FredrikBarths (1993a:26-30)and need not repeat here? (1969)well known definition of an "ethnicgroup,"especially his specific traits that I thought might be testable against the Ceramicsas an Indexto Ethnicity Much of the current skepticism about recognizing etharchaeological record. Thus by "ethnic group" I mean simply a population that is (1)biologically self-perpetuating; nicity on the basis of archaeological remains rests on the observation that many of the defining "traits,"like those of (2)shares a fundamental, recognizable, relatively uniform set of cultural values, including language; (3)constitutes a Barthand others,are subjective-ethnicity as "theperception of peoplehood." And perceptions, individual or social, that partly independent "interaction sphere"; (4)has a membership that defines itself, as well as being defined by others, as may have lain behind the manufactureand use of artifactsin a category distinct from other categories of the same order; past are notoriously difficult to get at through archaeologiand (5)perpetuatesits sense of separateidentity both by devel- cal remains. Furthermore,it is often pointed out that "ethnic oping rules for maintaining "ethnicboundaries"as well as for boundaries,"even if they could be isolated in materialculture remains, are flexible and constantly changing. In short, it has participating in inter-ethnic social encounters. In my judgment, the archaeologicalpopulation groups thatwe now know been commonplace to speak of the archaeological record as in the early Iron I highland villages meet many of these consisting of "the material correlatesof behavior,"but recontests.That is, we dohave a distinct,new ethnic group here.The structingthe latteris thoughtto remainone of the more elusive only questionseems to be whetherwe can labelthem "Israelites," goals of the new or processual archaeologyof recent decades. and if so, on what basis. Tobe sure,today'spost-processual archaeologyhas someI still find Barth'strait-listuseful, if only as a matterof con- times advanced the notion of "artifactas text,"especially in venience,since the theoreticalliteratureon ethnicityis enormous the work of Ian Hodder.Yetthe rules of the vocabulary,gramand can hardly be dealt with here. In any case, I know of no mar, and syntax of such a language of artifacts have yet to other Syro-Palestinian archaeologist who has adopted and be worked out. Indeed, if artifacts do convey information tested any model.2 It is significant, it seems to me, that none (or "signify,"as currentparlancehas it),what and how do they of the essays in Finkelstein and Nalaman does so, despite a inform us?3

i~2O

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

201

0 cm 10 -.-.-m

[

Late Bronze Forms

TacanachStr.IA

Hazor

Str.

XIV

GezerStr.XIV

Aphek Str.XI2

LachishFosseTemple AshdodStr.XIV

"Proto-Israelite"

IronI forms

ClzbetSartah

ManassehSurvey,early EphraimSurvey,early

Mt. Ebal

Giloh

I Tell el-FI

TellMasosStr.III

"BullSite"

forms clearlymanifests Cookingpots of the LateBronzeII-Iron I transition.A glance at the typicalexamplesof thirteenth-twelfthcenturyBCE the continuitybetween the two periods.The rimshapes speak for themselves.Theydo develop-from short, sharptriangularthirteenth to a more rounded, elongated rim-but this is merelynormalevolution. centuryBCE

202

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

0

Iron I Forms

cm

---cm

1

,0

"Canaanite"

HazorStr.X11

MegiddoStr.VI TacanachStr.IB

...k.. KeisanNiv.11 Tellel-FarcahStr.VIIb

GezerStr.XII

Vi Lachish Str.

Pella PellaPh.9

"Proto-lsraelite"

DeirCAllaPh.A

late Manasseh Survey, EphraimSurvey,late

"BullSite"

Mt. EbalStr. I ClzbetSartahStr.II

"Philistine"

TellMasosStr. II

____

TellQaisleStr.Xii AshdodStr.XII These "new"cooking pot rims(known as "adze" rimsto some) are typicalfor all sites by the early-midtwelfth centuryBCE sites-"Canaanite," "Philistine,"and my "Proto-lsraelite"sites. Thoughthey are especiallycommon in the hill-countryvillages,the pots occurelsewhere as well, so that the cannot be relied upon alone as "ethnicmarkers."

BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

203

Ashdod XV Str

Gezer Str XIV

AshdodStr.XIVlla

0

cm

GezerStr.XIVll

10 clzbetSartahStr.III

A large deep bowl, the kraterexhibitsdirectcontinuitiesbetween late thirteenth-centuryBCE forms and early-midtwelfth-centuryBCE forms at sites likeAshdod and Gezer.The assemblageat 'lzbet Sartahcontainsthe same kraterin StrataIII,the late thirteenth/earlytwelfth centuryBCE horizon.

If behavior and thought couldbe resurrected, pottery by common consensus might offer archaeologists their most abundant,least ambiguous clues to culture change.Let us ask then: What can pottery tell us that has implications for ethnicity; and how? I would suggest that pottery,in addition to its obvious value for chronology,can convey significant information on (1)shifts in settlement type and distribution; (2)continuity and change in local cultures; (3)the degree of isolation or contact with other cultures; (4) the level of technology; (5)social structure, stratification in particular; (6)subsistence, including adaptation to the environment and trade;and, not least, (7)sharedaesthetic and religious traditions. It should be evident that all these aspects of culture and society have a directbearing on the development of a distinctive lifestyle of any population group; i.e., they tell us something at least about the tangible dimensions of ethnicity--or the "materialcorrelatesof behavior."(And to hold that there are no such correlationsis to put oneself out of business as a serious archaeologist,that is, anything more than a treasure hunter.) I cannot go into elaborate detail here, but I would argue that a close analysis of the overall ceramic corpus of the Late BronzeIIB/Iron IA horizon reveals significant data that allow 204

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

us to isolate certain diagnostic features of the three hundred or so late thirteenth/earlytwelfthcenturyBCE hill-country villages now known through survey and excavation-a complex thatI haveproposeddesignating"Proto-Israelite." Proceeding according to the categories listed above, the pottery reveals (1)There are sherd scatters at hundreds of small villages and encampments in the marginal zones, rather than concentrations on a few large central tellsites-i.e., a shift from urban to rural settlement patterns. (2)There is a strong continuity with the Late Bronze Age "Canaanite"repertoire in virtually every form; only the statistical distribution of certain types such as the "collared-rim" pithoi varies,and of course and wares are conspicuously Philistine bichrome imports absent.Even if, as London (1989)maintains,these ceramicdistinctions denote largely the functional differences between urban and rural"lifestyles,"they nonetheless have socio-economical implicationsand thus may constitute ethnic markers. (3)The similarity in local pottery at all sites indicates cultural continuitywith the LateBronzeAge;but the absenceof imports and of Philistine wares, plus the location of the early Iron I settlements, shows relative isolation of the village-pastoral from the urban morpheme of society (following M. B. Rowmodel).(4)Thelevel of technology tongwell-known"dimorphic"

The economy is that of a rural and agricultural-pastoral population, largely self-sustaining and probably based on family units, to judge from the preponderance of large storage vessels, -~ multi-purposekraters,and cooking pots. 9.•w There is virtually no evidence for anything but localtradebetween settlements, 0-probably of agricultural surpluses. (7)The pottery may continue Late Bronze traditions generally; but the aesthetic and religious values of "Canaanite"culture,as expressedin the frequentimports and luxury wares and in numerous cult vessels of the Late Bronze Age, are now either forgottenor are irrelevantin XIB Str. a frontiersociety and subsistence econGezaer XMV AdleiStIs omy. The "utilitarian"character of the pottery would seem to reflecta similarly C utilitarian society. "t Here I can only treat a few ceramic forms in detail as a "case-study"in the sort of systems-theory approach to ethnicityoutlinedabove,which all would agree are usually quite diagnostic. (1) Cooking Pots--extended comments are unnecessary,since the typical examples of thirteenth-twelfth century BCEcooking pots speak for themselves. I note simply (a)that all the Iron I forms are clearly descended from the LateBronze II forms. They exhibit only the normal, indeed predictable,evolutionfrom short, GezerStr.XM sharp,triangularthirteenth-centuryBCE to a more rounded characteristicrim. (b) These "new"cooking pot rims are typical for all sites by the early-mid The pithoi or ovoid storage jars manifestthe same continuitiesas the kraters.The addition of twelfth-centuryBCEsites-"Canaanite," "Philistine," and my "Proto-Israelite" pairof handles on jarsrecoveredat some southern sites constitutesthe only IronI "innovation."Though it was once assertedthat the collared-rimstorage jarcould be sites.These diagnostic early Iron I cookinterpretedas a "type-fossil"of ethnic Israelitesettlement, the site distributionof these jars ing pot rims belong to Mazar's (1980) has ruledout this possibility. and Zertal's(1991)"TypeB,"or the "adze" rims of other scholars.(c)Theserims may in ceramicproductionmay have declined substantiallyin Iron serve asfossilesdirecteurs for "earlyIsraelite"sites,since they are I, although pottery is made in the same basic ways.4Yet the especially common in the hill-country villages. But the fact virtual absence of decorationor the imitationsof imports char- that they do not have a distribution exclusive to these areas acteristicof the previous period, together with the preference cautions us against relying on these cooking pots aloneas "ethfor a rather limited utilitarian repertoire, suggests "cottage nic markers"(as also with the so-called "Israelitecollar-rim" industries" rather than urban production and distribution jars).(d)The distinctivelyelongated and slightlyconcavecookcenters. (5)The homogeneous characterof the Iron I ceramic ing pot rim that evolves at all sites, not unexpectedly, in the late-twelfth-eleventh century BCEstill continues Late Bronze repertoire,both inter-site and intra-site, and the absence of luxury wares of any kind probably reflect a largely unstrati- Age traditions,but it is best regardedas the "harbinger"of the fied socio-economic structure, although not necessarily typical flanged cooking pot of the tenth-century BCE. Gottwald's"egalitarian"society (more recently "communitar(2) Another diagnostic LateBronze-IronI form is the large ian"5).There are not even many cult-vessels, suggesting the deep bowl, or krater.Direct continuities are clear between late lack of an elaboratecult or organized religious personnel. (6)- thirteenth-century BCEforms from Ashdod and Gezer and

P

fBt.

*

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

205

Plat er

Bowls

(above) AshdodXIV;GezerStr.XIV;Ashdod Xllb (left &right)GezerStr.XIII;lzbetSartahStr.III

Small HemisphericalBowls GezerStr.XIV (left&right)AshdodStr.XIV; GezerStr.XIII; (below) Ashdod Str.XI11; l9zbet Sartah 0

cm

10

--1- ----Platterbowls (above) and smallhemisphericalbowls demonstrateceramiccontinuitybetween the LateBronzeIIand the twelfth centuryBCE. The LBApotterytraditionas a whole enduresthrough the twelfth century.The transitionto the IronAge dates to ca. 1100-1050 BCE with the of of in the the acculturation the "Sea and trends that would eventuate the disappearance Peoples," Egyptianinfluence, hill-country emergence of the Israelitestate.

early-mid twelfth-centuryBCEforms from the same sites,even though by the twelfth-century BCEAshdod is a demonstrably "Philistine" site. The "Israelite"'Izbet Sartah has the same krater-even to the extent of the common painted decoration-in StrataIII,of the late-thirteenth/earlytwelfth-century BCEhorizon.

(3) The same continuities are seen in the ovoid storejars, the only Iron I "innovation"being the addition of two more handles at some southern sites. Both platter bowls and small hemispherical bowls demonstratethe Late Bronze-Iron I ceramic continuities further.And many more forms could be adduced. I would argue that,contraryto Finkelstein'sview that the "Proto-Israelite"pottery repertoireis "in sharp contrast,"this pottery in its basic forms is directly in the older of types differs.6 Canaanite tradition;only the percentages Thus to judge from the ceramic forms we have analyzed, the eleventh century BCE,not the twelfth century BCE,wittradition nesses the last gasp of the LateBronzeAge "Canaanite" and the transitionto the true "IronAge;"i.e, it reflectsa period of cultural assimilation. Thus the full transition in material culture is not to be dated as conventionally ca. 1200 BCE,or even 1250-1150BCE,but rather ca. 1100-1050BCE.Culturally 206

58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

speaking, late eleventh century BCEwould seem to reflect the final disappearanceof Egyptian hegemony; the acculturation of "Sea Peoples" along the coast; the assimilation of Canaanite population groups elsewhere; and in the hill country the "proto-urban" trends that would soon lead to the emergence of the Israelitestate.The nascent tenth-centuryIronAge cultures in Israelwould then correspondto the rise of the NeoHittiteand Aramaeancity-statesin Syria,as well as contemporary early state formation processes in Ammon, Moab, and Edom in Transjordan.7Thus within the course of some two centuries,new "pettystates"-and, of course,newethnic gwupshave replaced the typical socio-economic structures and political configurations of Middle-Late Bronze Age Canaan. Anyone who thinks that such a major upheaval-ending the 2,000 year old Bronze Age in the southern Levant-took place without sweeping movements of peoples, as well as farreaching changes in ethnic consciousness, will have a lot of explaining to do, not to mention explaining away a mass of archaeological evidence.8To anticipate my conclusions a bit, speaking from the ceramicevidencealone,there is as much evidence for designating some of these groups "Proto-Israelite" as there is for calling others "Philistine"-or, for that matter,

tic device, it is still incumbent upon us as archaeologists (if not historians of early Israel)to characterizethe earlyIron I "entity" somehow.Elsewhere (Dever 1991:346-47), I have fallenbackupon Marshall Sahlins' StoneAgeEconomics(1972) and his development of the model of a "domestic mode of production,"based on householdunits.ThisSahlinsdescribes by saying that"asthe domestic economy is in effect the tribal economy in miniature, so politically it underwrites the condition of primitive society-sociCould ety without a Sovereign"(1972:95). this not serve as an apt description of early Israel?

A Multi-Factor Analysisof MaterialCultureRemainsand the Questionof "Origins"

Despite the emphasis called for here, no authoritytoday would hold that pottery alone can serve as a clue to ethnicity. Obviously an extended analysis of cultural changes on the thirteenth horizon in Palestine twelfth-centuryBCE would have to consider many other factors, such as those we enumerated above--a sort of General Systems Theory approach-in speakingof sub-systems concerning which pottery might illuminate us. Other categories of evidence Religionand cult can be of great significancefor determiningethnicity,but archaeologists that ought to reflect aspects of ethnicity have not excavatedsufficientmaterialcorrelatesof religiousbehaviorfor early IronI.The would include settlement type and pat"BullSite"of the Samarianhighlandsproducedthis eighteen centimeter long bronze statuette with its obvious continuitieswith Eland the old Canaanitepantheon. The hilltop terns,subsistence,and demographywhich have been investigatedmost thoroughly site and its round enclosuremay have servedthe region'smanysmallsettlements. by several of the Israeli archaeologists "Canaanite"or "Egyptian."But of course the ceramicevidence featured in Finkelstein and Na'aman (1994);and village laydoes not stand alone. out, house form, and technology, which have been analyzed Furthermore,even if one eschews specific ethnic labels, by Stager (1985)with very promising results. Burial customs there is still considerable justification for recognizing a new might be most revealing, but virtually no twelfth eleventhI "hillin Iron Iron call them I, early century BCEcemeterieshave been located,and we do not even population group Early or settlers," reformers," "the x-people." have more than a handful of early Iron Age individual burisimply country "agrarian In any case,I preferproperlyarchaeologicaland socio-anthro- als (Bloch-Smith1992).Religionand cult are potentiallyof very pological terminology,not theologically-deriveddesignations great significance for determining ethnicity,but again we lack like Mendelhall's (1962)and Gottwald's (1979)"Yahwists,"or sufficient data for early Iron I.Apart from Zertal'sdubious Mt. Boling's (1988) "EarlyBiblical Community."These terms are Ebal "altar,"there is only Mazar's "Bull Site,"with its obvious continuities with El and the old Canaanite pantheon meaningless this early, since we do not know their significance, just as the term "Israel"would be, at least in the later (Mazar 1982).Of ideology in general among the inhabitants of our "Proto-Israelite" biblical sense of "allIsrael,"i.e.,monarchicIsrael(some would settlements,we can say very little;and of course,to perceptionsof self-idenor It the would is even is such considsilence the extend, later, exilic). concept just say At be with material we able to ascertain some of what the evident of best, tity. may erations-together continuity but not what culture from Iron I into Iron II in the hill country-that did, they thoughtthey were doing, people actually into much less who they thought they were. As Binford (1983:31have prompted me to introduce the term "Proto-Israelite" recent literature.9 32) says aptly:"Sometimes our questions about how it was in the past involve finding out the roles which our ancestors Again, however, if one rejects this term, even as a heuris58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

207

played in their environment. The information required will therefore be behavioral and ecological, not ideological."I would remark,however (1) that behavior is often definitely the direct result of ethnic identity; and (2) that if we cannot reconstructthe ultimate ideological motivations of cultural change, we can at least document the "ecology of change,"i.e, the natural and cultural settingwithin which changemay become explicable-which constitutes,in part at least, the "material correlates" of ethnicity. This is assuming, of course, that cultural causation is partly ideological, and not simply technoenvironmental, a proposition that no longer needs defending in today's archaeological climate.10 I cannot go into detail here, but I would suggest that our ceramic analysis of the LateBronze/earlyIronI horizon Likemost of the three hundredor more highlandsites, CAilackeddefensive walls. Thisfact in thehill countrycouldeasilybe extended suggests that the newcomersto the hillcountrywere mostlynot invaders,politicalrefugees, to other categories of material culture, revolutionaries,or "socialbandits,"but simplyimmigrantsfrom elsewhere in Canaan. and the resultant picture of ethnicity obtained would be similar.Thus if we look (1) at settlement cultural economy. Overall, the various archaeological data that we have on type and distribution, we see a shift from a few large urban centers to numerous small villages and hamlets in the hill early Iron I socio-economic structure,including the above,are or areas-the and the periphery "high- indicative of what I would regard as a distinctive new popcountry adjacentsteppe land frontier" of Canaan. (2) The subsistence system in the ulation group in the highlands of Canaanby the late thirteenth latterarea is characterizednot by intensive agriculture,indus- century BCE,if not an "ethnicentity."This population group try,and trade,but rather by small-scale terrace horticulture was concentratedin severalhundred new villagesand encampments thatarenow known (plus a number of others,no doubt), and the cultivation of olives and grapes, dry-farming of cereals in the valleys, and stockbreedingas well as herding in extendingall the way from the mountains of Upper and Lower the marginalzones. (3) Demographicsindicatea marked,rather Galilee,throughthe centralhill country of Samariaand Judaea, sudden increasein the number of settlementsand settled area, as far as the northern Negev hills. This discernible Late Bronze/Iron I complex, or "archaebut with a largely non-nucleated population, an increase that cannot be due to natural growth rates alone but must have ological assemblage,"was barely suspected twenty years ago, resulted from in-migration. (4) House form and village lay- but it is now so clear and so well documented that archaeout now reflect a society based on small family holdings, ologists and biblical scholars alike will have to confront it.11 kin-relatedand closely knit social structure,and a utilitarian, But what to callit?This is a difficult question at present.It will hardly do to refer simply to "the x-people" or the like, in a homogenous lifestyle (the "egalitarianism" of some comwhich will The house, mentators). ubiquitouscourtyard develop counsel of despair.We need a label, if only for our own conlater into the pillared or four-room house of typical Iron II venience in the classification and discussion of cultures and culture change. Israelitesites, is an ideal farmhouse, suitable for a rural population.The almost complete absence of defensive walls in the three hundred or more sites known thus far suggests that the Ethnicityand the Question of Israelite Origins If we are able to recognize a distinct, new ethnic group newcomers to the hill country were mostly not invaders,political refugees, revolutionaries,"socialbandits,"or the like, but in the archaeological remains in the Iron I hill country villages, whichgroup is it, and how shall we characterize it? It simply immigrants from elsewhere in Canaan, most of them apparently experienced farmers and stockbreeders.(5) must be remembered that the so-called "mute"artifacts are, Several aspects of technological change-such as the use of in fact,supplemented by manyancient Near Easterntexts (not terraces,cisterns, silos and some iron implements-suggest only biblical texts) of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age certain continuities with urban Late Bronze Age Canaanite that document the presence of Egyptians,Hurrians,Canaanculture,but with a combination or intensificationof elements ites, Philistines, Israelites, and other actual ethno-cultural that is genuinely innovative and ideally suited to an agri- groups in Palestine at this very time. One priceless text is 208

58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

0

2

5

0

1 I0

is

20

LOMETER

2S

THOMAS STAHLHEBER

A A clusterof reconstructedcourtyardhouses at TelMasos.Village layout representsanother aspect of the constellationof featuresthat ought to reflect aspectsof ethnicity.Likethe ceramicrepertoire,the layout of IronI hill-countryvillages reflectsa "utilitarian"society, with an economy focused on self-sustainingagricultureand

-%ow

pastoralism. " /

.

-. "

"C

. .

.

the "VictoryStele"of PharaohMerneptahalreadymentioned, found by Petrie in the late ninth century at Thebes in Egypt, and securely dated to ca. 1207 BCE.12 Among the various peoples over whom the Pharaoh claims a victory is Israel: "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."The reading is crystal clear,and the Egyptian determinativesign preceding the word "Israel"is that for "people,'not "nation/state."In other words, there was a "people"somewhere in the Land of Canaancalled "Israel"just before 1200 BCE.And they were well known to Egyptian intelligence, already well enough established to be considered a threat to security in Egypt's declining Asiatic empire. If these"Israelites"were not ourhill country people, then who and where wereMerneptah's"Israelites"?And how can we accountforour hill countrycomplexif it is not"Israelite"?

< The pre-modernvillage of Zinjirli(Sam'al)Syria providesan impressionof the probableappearanceof the villages of the IronI.

Simple logic suggests connecting the two sets of facts (and they are facts);and if so, we have at hand the textually-attested ethnic label that the minimalists demand. Betterstill, the decisive evidence comes not from the later and no doubt biased biblicaltextsregarding"Israel"of the Monarchy,but from neutral,external,contemporarysources.Toput it in a nutshell, we have atleastas much warrantforusing the ethnicterm"Israelite" in the early twelfth century BCE for archaeologicalassemblages

as we do forusingtheterms"Egyptian," or"Philis"Canaanite,"

tine."13 If the matter of affixing the label "Israelite"is as straightforward as it seems, why do I hesitate and still use the term "Proto-Israelite,"and in quotation marks at that? Part of the reason is simply that caution should always attend archaeological arguments in the early stages, before the data are sufficiently abundant to be definitive.But the most important reason is that the "Israel"of the biblical texts really pertains more to the period of the United Monarchy,beginning some Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

209

two centuries later.When we reach the point of statehood--of urbanizationand centralization-we can finally be sure that the population of central Palestine had attained a clear and self-evident sense of peoplehood. Responsiblescholars would agree that at this point we confront the stateof Israel, whose citizens were certainly "Israelites."14 The rationale, then, for employing the more tentative term "Proto-Israelite" for the pre-monarchical period is precisely that here we are on the horizon where the later biblical Israel is in the process of formation, still nascent. But even with this precaution, how do we know thatthe "Israel"of the IronI period really is the precursorof the full-fledged later Israel,that is, of the Iron II periods, so that we arejustified in using the term "Proto-Israel" as early as the thirteenth/twelfth century BCE?The argument is really a simple one, and it rests on the demonstrablecontinuity of materialculturethroughout the entire Iron I-II period. If the basic material culture that defines a people exhibits a tradition of continuous, non-broken development, then it is reasonable to argue that the core population remains the same. Thus ethnic In time,with "Israelites," preceded by ethnic "Proto-Israelites." further evidence, I believe that we can abandon this tentative term and speak confidently of "earlyIsrael"and "later Israel,"with ample archaeological data to illuminate both. Since continuity is so decisive culturally,it may be helpful to note here the specific archaeological features where it is evident. (1) In the larger settlement pattern, the same areas that are settled in early Iron I continue in Iron II and indeed form the heartland of the Israelitestate,that is, Galilee, Samaria,and Judea.That pattern is clear even though many of the smaller individual Iron I villages tend to be abandoned as urbanization and centralization increase. (2) The innovative, distinctive four-room or courtyard house of the Iron I villages comes to be the standardized, indeed almost exclusive,house-typeof IronII,even in urbansites (thusthe common, although simplistic,label the "Israelite"type-house). (3)Burial customs, typified by the early Iron I borrowing of the bench-tomb (probably from the "Sea Peoples," since it has Aegean prototypes),continue into Iron II,where by the ninthseventh centuries BCEthe bench-tomb is ubiquitous at Israelite-Judeansites. (4) Potteryis perhaps the best indicator, with the late Bronzeceramictraditionlasting into the eleventh century BCE, giving way to a transitionalphase in the eleventhtenthcenturyBCE, then becoming a full-blownIronAge-Israelite tradition in the late tenth-sixth centuries BCE.In form, cooking pots, for instance, can be traced continually right through the whole six centuries. In decoration, eleventhcentury plain red slip changes into hand-burnished red slip, and by the ninth century BCEinto wheel-burnished red slip. 210

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

A Small-scaleterrace horticultureand the cultivation of olives and grapes characterizethe subsistence systemsof the highland regions, along with dry-farming of cereals in the valleysand herding in the marginalzones. Data suggest that the IronI settlerswere not novice agriculturalists,i.e., sedentarizingpastoralnomads, but skilledfarmerswell acquainted with the agriculturalconditionsof Canaan. A The "Proto-Israelite" society of the IronI period reallyis the precursorof the full-fledged later Israel,the biblicalIsrael,of the Iron IIperiods.The demonstrablecontinuityof materialculture throughout the entire IronI-IIperiod soundlygroundsthis conclusion.Among the other signs, the distinctivefour-roomor courtyardhouse of the IronIvillagesemerges as the standardized, indeed almost exclusive,house-typeof IronII,even in urbansites. Thistop plan of an eighth-centuryhouse from Tellen-Nasbehserves to illustratethe development and viabilityof IronI domestic architecture.

(5) In language and script,Proto-Canaanitedevelops directly out of Late Bronze/Iron I into a national Hebrew language and script by the early ninth century BCEat latest, then continues little-changed until the end of the monarchy.

Conclusion The thirteenth/twelfth century BCE"Proto-Israelite" entity or polity that I have tried here to characterizearchaeologically

as an ethnic group was not, of course, homogenous in the beginning, because its members were of diverse origins. We must probablythink of most of the highland colonists as "displaced Canaanites" (both geographically and ideologically), including an assortment of urban refugees, social dropouts and malcontents, migrant farmers,resedentarized pastoralists, perhaps some Shasu-like bedouin and other immigrants from Transjordan,and even some newcomers from Syria and Anatolia. All these peoples were among those displaced by the radicalsocio-economic and cultural upheavals at the end of the Bronze Age toward the late thirteenth century BCE. But the new alignments that followed soon produced, among the other coalitions, our "Proto-Israelites,"emerging movementon the highland frontier, socio-economic as an agrarian and thus with sufficient solidarity to constitute an "ethnic group."This group certainlypossessed an ideology as part of its self-awareness (although this is difficult to discern archaeologically) and perhaps pronounced "reformed"tendencies, as such dissident groups have often had.'9 The foregoing seems to me to be the most likely scenario at the moment for the origins and early development of ancient Israel. Yet it must be confessed that it is in sharp contrastto the biblicaltraditionof the Exodusand Conquesta theological dilemma that few archaeologists, those who precipitated the current crises about "Israeliteorigins"-are willing to face. I can only suggest that we must presuppose a complex,multi-faceted process for the formationof the later literary tradition of the "originstories."Thus we are dealing which does not reflect "real"life directly here with literature, or even necessarily accurately--especially ancient literature, which never claims to be historical in the modern sense. Literature reflects life imaginatively. The biblical writers and editorsarethereforeinterpretingevents;seeing the past through "the eyes of faith"; looking at monarchical Israel after its history is finished, trying to make sense of it all. When the authors of the Bible do look back, the fact that a small and obscure people from the fringes of the desert became, even briefly, a great nation; that despite their fecklessness, Yahweh revealed himself to them through prophets and priests; and that even a remnant survived the Assyrian and Babylonian onslaught and kept their faith intact-all this seemed miraculous. It must have been God's doing all along! Such a conclusionmay be somewhat skewed historically;it may seem to us naive theologically;and it certainlycannot be confirmed archaeologically.But the Bible's"explanation"of Israel'sbirth may be in some ways as good as our own, for much about ancient Israelstill remains a mystery,if not a miracle. The "Exodus-Conquest"story is perhaps really about only a small group,the central unrepresentative group, the southern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were sometimes called the "House of Joseph,"because of the obvious Egyptian connection in one strand of the early tradition.If we ask then how the story of the "House of Joseph"became in time the story of "allIsrael,"the answer may be deceptively simple. It was they who in the end told the story; and quite naturally,they included all those who later reckoned themselves

part of biblical Israel.In time most people no doubt believed that they had been in Egypt. A simple analogy may help us to understand this phenomenon. In mainstream American tradition,we all celebrate Thanksgivingas thoughwe ourselveshad come to these shores on the Mayflower. That is the myth; yet in fact, most of us got here some other way. My ancestors came from County Donegal in the potato famine 150 years ago.Yoursmay have come as slaves from Africa, or from the ghettos of Europe, or as farm workers from Mexico. But spiritually (yes!), we are all Pilgrims: that is what makesus 'Americans." So are the myths of Israel'sorigins,or ours, true?Of course they arein the deepest sense. That we can put off our religious or cultural hat,and temporarilydon the hat of the modern skeptical historian or archaeologist, does not necessarily alter or diminish the value of the tradition. We are what we believe we are,just as ancient Israelwas. Another analogy is even closer.In Jewish tradition,a vital part of Passover,which celebratesthe deliverancefrom Egyptian bondage, is the recitation of the Passover Haggadah. The Haggadah is a partly historical,partly fanciful,partly humorous retelling of the Exodus story.In the prayersand blessings that are interspersed around the Passover table,in the Haggadah, which forms the libretto,Jews say: "It is as though we had been in Egypt, as though God delivered us to this day." I believe that the biblical story of the Exodus and Conquest is best thought of as "aPassover Haggadah."Israel and Israel's descendants, Christians and Jews,look back at their own religious experience,this strangeodyssey,and conclude that their own unmistakable experience cannot be entirely explained rationally.They may be right.

Notes 1 See my fuller critique in Dever 1996a;1996b,the latter with special reference to Finkelstein 1995,which was a critique of Dever 1993a.

The most ambitious effort to address the issue thus far is IsraelFinkelstein 1995b,with full discussion of the theoretical literature.Another paper read at the Leheigh conference, by Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, which will also appear in the conference proceedings, deals provocatively with foodsystems and ethnicity; meanwhile see Hesse and Wapnish 1990. 2

See Hodder 1986;and cf. the expansion on the relation of texts and artifacts in Dever 1996c.

3

In Transjordan, McGovern (1986) has shown that while early Iron I forms continue Late Bronze Age traditions,hand-forming techniques mark a retrogression from the use of the fast potter's wheel. I would not regard Transjordan,however, as part of the "early Israelite" settlement area. See further Gloria London in this issue of the BA.

4

5See Gottwald 1993,with reference to numerous earlier works. See also the exchange of views in Dever 1992;Gottwald 1992. 6 See the wise cautions of Esse 1991.For a refutation of Zertal's(1991)use of the cooking pots to trace movements of people, see Dever 1993a:26,32. 7 See Finkelstein 1988:274;and cf. my rebuttal in Dever 1993a;26-30. 8sSee further Dever 1992b;Sader 1992;Bienkowski 1992;Finkelstein 1995a-

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

211

all recent and full treatments of "state-formation processes" of the early Iron Age.

Davies, P.R. 1992 In Searchof AncientIsrael.Sheffield: JSOT.

9Thus Finkelstein 1994;1995b,marking a radical shift from his pioneering 1988 study. On the biblical side, see the recent pessimistic statements of Skjeggestad (1992) and Whitelam (1994).

Dever,W. G. 1990 RecentArchaeologicalDiscoveriesand BiblicalResearch.Seattle: University of Washington. 1991 Archaeological Data on the Israelite Settlement: A Review of Two Recent Works. Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch 284:77-90. 1992a How to Tell a Canaanite from an Israelite. Pp. 26-60 in TheRise of AncientIsrael,edited by H. Shanks. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society. 1992b The Late Bronze-Early Iron I Horizon in Syria-Palestine, Egyptians, Canaanites, "Sea Peoples," and "Proto-Israelites." Pp. 99-110in TheTwelfthCenturyBC: FromBeyondtheDanubeto theTigris, edited by W A. Wardand M. S.Joukowsky.Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 1993a Cultural Continuity, Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record and the Question of IsraeliteOrigins, Eretz-Israel24:22*-33*(the Malamat volume). 1993b Biblical Archaeology-Death and Rebirth? Pp. 706-22 in Biblical ArchaeologyToday,1990.Proceedings of the Second International Congress on BiblicalArchaeology,Jerusalem,June,1990.Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1994 From Tribeto Nation: State Formation Processes in Ancient Israel. e IdePp. 213-29 in NuoveFondazioninel VicinoOrienteAntico:Realtuz ologia,edited by S. Mazzoni. Pisa: University of Pisa. n.d.a Cultural Continuity, Ethnic Implications, and the Question of Israel'sOrigins. Forthcoming in the Douglas L,Esse memorial volume, edited by S. R.Wolff. Chicago: Oriental Institute. In press. n.d.b IsraeliteOrigins and the "Nomadic Ideal":Can Archaeology Separate Fact from Fiction? Forthcoming in Mediterranean Peoplesin Transition:Thirteenthto EarlyTenthCenturiesBCE,edited by H. Silberman. New York:New YorkUniversity. In press. n.d.c On Listening to the Text-and the Artifact. Forthcoming in the Lou H. Silberman Festschrift, edited by W G. Dever and J.E.Wright. Atlanta: Scholar's Press. In press.

10See Dever 1990:46,55; 1991:87-8.Finkelstein first accepted the term, but now rejects it. Whitelam (1994:84) rejects it, without, however, offering any reason. 1 The

"post-processual"archaeology of the past decade has marked a rejection of the "New Archaeology's" over-emphasis on technology, which was mechanical and determinist,as well as anti-historical.See further Hodder 1986;Dever 1993b;and especially several of the essays in Preucel 1991. 12The literature on this archaeological complex is burgeoning rapidly,but convenient surveys of the basic data will be found in Stager1985;Fritz 1987; Finkelstein 1988;1994;1995a;Dever 1990;1991;1992a;Coote 1990;and especially the essays in Finkelstein and Na'aman 1994. 13The latest discussion, with full references to the earlier literature,is by my student Michael Hasel (1994). 14

Of course, the "minimalists" today are questioning whether we can use terms like "Philistine" (Bunimovitz 1990) or "Canaanite"(Lemche 1991).I am not so pessimistic. ' Again, "minimalists" such as Davies (1992);Thompson (1992);Skjeggestad (1992); and Whitelam (1994) would scarcely admit to the existence of an Israelite or Judean "state"at all, certainly not before the ninth or eighth century.This debate is only recent but is already becoming bitter.It is being brought to a head by the discovery of the new "House of David" inscription from Tel Dan; see, for instance, the statements of Davies, Lemche, Thompson, and others in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64 (1994). But the attempt of some biblical scholars to ignore or minimize the mounting archaeologicaldata will not prevail. See provisionally,on centralization and urbanization, Fritz 1995;and cf. Dever 1994,with a critique of earlier literature on "state-formationprocesses."

Bibliography Barth, E 1969 EthnicGroupsand Boundaries:The SocialOrganizationof CultureDifference.Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Bienkowski, P.,ed. 1992 EarlyEdomandMoab:The Beginningof theIronAge in SouthernTransjordan.Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuitof the Past:DecodingtheArchaeological Record.New York: Thames and Hudson. Bloch-Smith, E. 1992 JudahiteBurialPracticesand Beliefsaboutthe Dead.Sheffield: JSOT Boling, R. G. 1988 The EarlyBiblicalCommunityin Transjordan. Sheffield: Almond. Bunimovitz, S. 1990 Problemsin the "Ethnic" of thePhilistineMaterialCulture. Identification TelAviv 17:210-22. Coote, R. B. 1990 EarlyIsrael:A New Horizon.Minneapolis: Fortress.

212

BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

Esse, D. L. 1991 The Collared StoreJar:Scholarly Ideology and Ceramic Typology. Scandinavian 2:99-115. Journalof the Old Testament Finkelstein, I. 1988 TheArchaeologyof the IsraeliteSettlement.Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1994 The Emergence of Israel:A Phase in the CyclicHistory of Canaan in the Third and Second Millenia bce. Pp. 150-78in FromNomadism to Monarchy. andHistoricalAspectsof EarlyIsrael,edited Archaeological by I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1995a The Great Transformation:the "Conquest" of the Highland Frontiersand the Rise of the TerritorialStates.Pp. 349-65in TheArchae-olgy of Societyin theHoly Land,edited by T E. Levy. Leicester: Leicester University Press. 1995b Pots and Peoples Revisited, Ethnic Boundaries in the Iron Age. Forthcoming in TheArchaeologyof Israel:ConstructingthePast/Interpretingthe Present,edited by H. Silberman and H. Marblestone. New York:New YorkUniversity. Finkelstein, I. and Na'aman, N. 1994 FromNomadismto Monarchy:Archaeological and HistoricalAspectsof EarlyIsrael.Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Fritz,V. 1987 Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine. Biblical 50:84-100. Archaeologist

Gottwald,N. K. 1979 TheTribesof Yahweh:A Sociology Israel, of theReligion of Liberated bce.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis. 1250-1050 1992 Responses.Pp.70-75in TheRiseofIsrael, editedby H. Shanks.Washington:BiblicalArchaeologySociety. 1993 RecentStudiesof the SocialWorldof PremonarchicIsrael.CurBiblical 1:163-89. rentsin Research: Studies Hasel,M. 1994 Israelin the MerneptahStele.Bulletin Schools oftheAmerican ofOrientalResearch 296:45-61. Hesse,B. 1990 Pig Loversand Pig Haters:Patternsof PalestinianPorkProduction.Journal 10:195-225. ofEthnobiology

Thompson,T.L. andArchaeological 1992 EarlyHistoryof theIsraelite People fromtheWritten SourcesLeiden:Brill. Whitelam,K.W 1994 TheIdentityof EarlyIsrael:TheRealignmentandTransformation theStudyoftheOldTesof LateBronze-Iron AgePalestine.Journalfor tament63:57-87 Zertal,A. Archae1991 IsraelEntersCanaan-Following the PotteryTrail.Biblical ologyReview17/5:28-47

Hodder,I. 1986 Reading thePast:Current toInterpretation inArchaeology. Approaches Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity. Lemche,N. P 1991 TheCanaanites. Sheffield:JSOT. London,G. 1989 A Comparisonof TwoContemporaneousLifestylesin the Late SecondMillenniumB.C.Bulletin Schoolsof Oriental of theAmerican Research 273:37-55. Mazar,A. 1981 Giloh:An EarlyIsraeliteSettlementnearJerusalem.IsraelExplorationJournal 31:1-38. 1982 The "BullSite"-An IronI Open CultPlace.Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research 247:27-41. McGovern,P.E. andEarlyIronAgesofCentral TheBaqcah 1986 TheLateBronze Transjordan. 1977-1981. Valley Project, Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum. Mendenhall,G.E. 1973 TheTenthGeneration: TheOriginsof theBiblical Tradition. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins. Preucel,R.W, ed. 1991 Processual andPostprocessual Multiple Archaeologies: WaysofKnowing thePast.Carbondale,IL:SouthernIllinoisUniversity. Rowton,M. B. 1977 DimorphicStructureand the ParasocialElement.Journal ofNear Eastern Studies36:181-98. Sader,H. 1992 TheTwelfthCenturyB.C.in Syria:TheProblemof the Riseof the BC.:FromBeyondthe Aramaeans.Pp.137-63in TheTwelfth Century Danubeto theTigris,edited by W.A.Wardand M. S.Joukowsky. Dubuque:Kendall/HuntPublishing. Sahlins,M.D. 1972 StoneAgeEconomics. Chicago:Universityof Chicago. Skjeggestad,M. 1992 EthnicGroupsin EarlyIronAgePalestine:SomeRemarkson the Use of the Term"Israelite" in RecentResearch.Scandinavian Journalof theOldTestament 6/2:159-186. Stager,L.E. 1985 The Archaeologyof the Familyin Ancient Israel.Bulletinof the American Schools Research 260:1-35. of Oriental

WilliamG.Deveris Professorof NearEasternArchaeologyand Anthropologyat the Universityof Arizona.Sincethe 60s,he has includingthose at participatedin or directednumerousexcavations, Shechem,Gezer,Kh. el-Qom,JebelQa'aqir,and Be'erResisim.His ten Research Discoveries books includeRecent (1986) andBiblical Archaeological andProspects andBiblical and Archaeology Studies: (1974),and Retrospects he has authoredover200articlesand reviews.ProfessorDeverserved forthreeyearsas Directorof the NelsonGlueckSchoolof Biblical Jerusalem,and had a four-yeartenureas Directorof the Archaeology, he Research.In 1981-1982, W.E AlbrightInstituteof Archaeological was theJohnSimonGuggenheimFellowat HebrewUniversity.Dever and the officeof VicePresidentof has held the editorshipof BASOR theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch.He currentlysits on the editorialboardof American Journal ofArchaeology

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

213

Painted

Why

at

of

the

the

Second

Pottery

End BCE Millennium

TellDeircAlla,from the south. The photographwas taken in 1960,the firstyear of the Universityof Leidenexcavations.At its base, DeirCAllameasures250 x 200 m. It is situated nearthe eastern edge of the Jordan Valley,ca. 1.5 km from the WadiZerqa (Jabbok).Photographsand drawingsare courtesyof the authorsunlessotherwise noted.

By H.J. Frankenand GloriaLondon OFTHE of the ethnic identity of the potters, the nature of the Late TOTHECLOSE DATING OFPOTTERY ESCRIPTIONS second millennium BCEinclude unflattering terms such as thick, heavy, misshapen, poorly decorated, degenerated, and deteriorated.These terms describe aspects of the pottery that are related to manufacturing techniques,day selection,and surfacetreatmentas well as mere aesthetics.New manufacturingtechniques of the Iron Age would later result in changes visible on the surface, such as new shapesand finishesthatmake a necessaryimprovement in the quality of the ceramic repertoire.These superficial macroscopic changes could not have occurred without modificationsin howthe pots were made, whichclays were selected, and howthe days were treated. It is a challenge for archaeologists to identify the potters responsible for the changes. Did the same Late Bronze Age potters who produced the heavy wares with cracked bases and poor decoration change their ways and learn new techniques? Were they inspired by other potters who worked in the vicinity? Did the new techniques represent the work of different potters? Or were the pots manufactured with the newer technology made elsewhere? Since improvements in the LB II wares were necessary,does this imply that external incentives and influences were not a prerequisite for the changes? Or can it be assumed that a new and differenttechnology means differentpotters?Beforeaddressingthe question 214

58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

BronzeAge traditionof painted pottery must be understood, A study including its roots earlyin the second millennium BCE. of the ceramic technology responsible for the pottery is vital. To learn the relationship between the LB II and Iron Age technologies and the people who may have been responsible for them, the focus here is on ceramicswithout concentrating on the superficial appearanceof the pottery.It is necessary to look under the surface,behind the lines, in order to assess the relationshipbetween people and pottery.The study of ceramic technologyallows one to comparediversemanufacturingtechniques by examining the many different stages of the work, from selection of raw materials to surface finish. Studies relying entirely on the color of the surface finish have failed to resolve the issues under current investigation. It seems reasonable to approachthe subject from a perspective which still relies on pottery,but includes pottery manufacture.To do so, one needs sufficient sherds and reconstructiblepots to study how the potters worked and to recognize how individual workshops might be differentiated from one another.

Two Sites in Jordan Detailed studies of ceramictechnology for two sites in Jordan provideinformationaboutthe natureof and developments

35"E

33 N

Mediterranean

Baqcah

N

Valley

32.

Jerusalem

Dead'

(Sea 0

10

0

20

10

30

20

40 km

A large amount of reconstructiblepottery emerged from DeirCAlla's LateBronzeAge sanctuary,here viewed in a perspectivereconstruction. Otherartifactsfrom the structureincludeda faience vase inscribedwith the name of EgyptianQueen Tawesretas well as seals, beads, and Myceneanpottery.The foreign objectssuggest a supralocal usage for the sanctuary.

30mi

31 N

with the North-the source of the basalt-became more restricted.A largersample might support this idea. It is fair to conclude, consequently, that during the LB and continwithin the ceramic assemblages of the LB II and Iron I. uing into the transitionalperiod of the late thirteenthcentury, the sources of pottery found at Tell Deir cAlla remain virtuTellDeircAlla. The excavation of the JordanValley Site of Tell Deir 'Alla ally unchanged and were largely local.With this information uncovered the remains of a largesanctuarycomplex.This Late one can proceed to the next issue: did the manufacturingtechBronzeIIsanctuaryhad been thoroughlydestroyedbut yielded niques, including the surface treatment, remain the same as a great quantity of restorable pottery. Among these ceram- well? Phases E-H constitutethe last phases of the LBAge at Deir ics, Franken(1992:105)distinguishes eight ware groups based on the mineralogical study of 575 samples. Three groups are cAlla and represent different architecturalplans than earlier definitely foreign.Twogroups, comprising seventy percent of LB phases. Stratigraphically,there was no gap in occupation the sample, are made from locally available clay.Two others between phases D and E,but abrupt changes are discernible are probably non-local, but the small quantity of sherds in in the pottery manufacturing technique. Most of the phase these groups makes it difficultto characterizethem adequately. E materialcomes from the end of the phase and consequently the changes may not have been so abrupt in reality.In conThe eighth group-the cooking pot category-was possibly that the trastto the earlierLBII material,significant features of phases infers Franken well. on this as Based local data, as forof as well those the needs served E and laterinclude: the marked absence of paint,the presence locals, sanctuary with them. who to broughtpottery Throughout of heavy, thick-walled pots, and bases cut off and filled with eign the region in its six was the the time use, i.e., phases, the per- dung-temperedday.Pottershad learned to deal with the probsanctuary ware do not of each varyconsiderably(Somedifferences lem of base cracks typical of the earlier LB II period. But centages can be detected, e.g., in phase C, but the sample size is too problems with asymmetricalshapes and poorly centeredbase small to alter the interpretation).Phase E is dated to the late ringspersisted.Eventuallya changeboth in constructionmeththirteenthcentury and is the phase for which the largest sam- ods and dryingtechniques(forexample,dryingpots upside-down ple exists. Here the proportions of each type are comparable ratherthan uprighton theirbases),would be necessary to corto those at phase A, the beginning of the sequence. Basalttem- rect the crackedbases. Relativelyminor changes can result in pered wares decrease from twelve percent to five percent in majorimprovements.Crackedbases are rare,but are nonetheless present even in eleventh-century material. Phase E, but this group is too small to conclude that ties BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

215

The BaqcahValleyin the highland region of centralJordansits about twenty-five km east of DeircAlla.Thisview from the southeast includesat its center the start of Wadi Ummad-Dananir.The large LateBronzeAge cemeterywas located on the lower slopes of the hillsincisedby the wadi'sdescent to the Zerqainto which it drains.Photographfrom McGovern,1986b:pl. 2a.

Baqcah Valley At a site in the BaqcahValley,twenty five km from Deir CAlla,LBII and IronI also offermaterialsmade of locally available clays that have been examined from the perspective of ceramic technology.A xeroradiographicanalysis (in which Xrays produce images on an electronically charged surface) presents a situation similar to Tell Deir cAlla.Already in the LB II, improvements took place in changes in base formation (Glanzman1983)and in the use of more heavily tempered days thatcoincidedwith the returnto coil manufacture(McGovem 1986:44). Do the improvements at these two sites imply the appearance of new people during the LB II? Even if new people arrived,must we assume that this was reflected in the potters' behavior? Potters are thought to be conservative and traditional and thus unwilling to change their work habits unless there is a good reason. But here, the LB II potters were justified in adopting the necessary changes to produce a more suitable ware.Theirclientele,too,may have demanded better ware.

Traditionof Painted TheSecondMillenniumBCE Pottery

To understand the decline of the painted tradition, it is important to begin in the early second millennium BCEwith potterswho had masteredthe art of throwingfine plasticclays. 216

BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

Pottery manufacture is such that each step in the decisionmaking process influences each successive stage.Therefore,it is instructive to proceed from the perspective of the potters to follow developments and changes and trace the process from the initial work of clay selection to manufacturing technique, surface treatment,and finally firing technology. Priorto the painted pottery traditionof thrown wares,potters most often chose to use a "lean"or short clay containing stone and mineral inclusions in addition to the clay minerals. Lean clays feel rough ratherthan slippery to the touch and are ideal for coil manufacturing techniques. But sometime in the nineteenth century BCE,there was a shift to a more plastic, cleaner, and smoother clay known as "thrower's"or plastic clay.A change in the manufacturing process accompanies the new clay: the technique known as "throwing"pottery.Rather than adding coils one by one to shape a pot, throwing requires that a potterstartwith a lump of clay on the wheel from which an entire shape (or at least a large part of it) will result. Potters use the centrifugal force of a heavy wheel to open and widen a hole in the clay and to pull up a thin walled, curving shape. Both hands are in contactwith the clay ratherthan one hand turning the wheel and one hand on the clay. Plastic clays are not ideal for coil work, nor are they the best choice forvessels made in sections,or for pots that require accessory pieces such as handles or spouts. Handles made of plastic clays glide and slide across a pot and do not stick

securely.In contrast,lean clays present fewer problems in this respect, and potters can attach handles and spouts with relativeease as was done throughoutmuch of the thirdmillennium

with a thick white or cream colored slip display the brown painted patterns with striking clarity and represent some of the best pieces of white-slipped pottery.

BCE.

Plastic clays require slow, careful drying and firing of TheEndof the PaintedPotteryTradition With the use of thrower'sclay and the fast rotating wheel, the finished pieces because of their high shrinkage rate and in A their greaterdensity contrastto lean clays. controlleddry- potters could quickly shape thin-walled pots. Yet in the middle of the second millennium BCE,for whatever reasons, ing of the plastic clays before firing prevents cracks and a the art of throwing diminished along with the use of plastic deformities that can result if one side or part of pot dries before the rest of the pot. Waterevaporates easily from lean clays. Potters returned to the lean clay,which is not suitable for throwing pots. Nevertheless, they may have continued to clays. The abundant non-plastics they contain have the use wheels capableof centrifugal force as has been suggested effect of opening the pot's wall, thereby creating channels for the pottery known as "Midianiteware"(Kalsbeekand Lonthrough which moisture escapes. This is one of the many don 1979).Althoughthe technologyexistedforthrowing,potters advantages of lean clays over more plastic thrower'sclay. returned to a variety of manufacturing techniques that Just as attachments pose problems with plastic clays, so does the application of slips and paints. The saline nature of combinedcoiling with turning,or to the processof constructing the clays and water in the region exacerbates the difficulty. pots from separatelymade sections.These techniques allowed the potter to createshapes without relyingon centrifugalforce, Salt prevents paint and slip from adhering. A salt deposit, known as "scum" or "bloom," forms as a pot dries and yet the work proceeded with a wheel with that capacity. One commontechniqueforLateBronzeAge potteryinvolved water in the walls migrates to the surface.The water carries the interruptedproduction process,which was known in earsalts with it, but where the water evaporates,the salts become a thin,whitish surfacedeposit.This createsa barrierlayerinca- lier times. This was a technique suitable for both ordinary pable of absorbingan applied material such as a slip or paint. forms and for more unusual shapes such as a pedestaled,deepThus, unless potters remove the salt layer,e.g.,by scraping the drinking vessel. To create such a vessel, the potter fashioned surface,which simultaneously thins the walls, it can mask a the upper part on the turntable,probably by opening a hole painted pattern.Insteadof a brightdistinct red painted design, in a lump of clay to which coils were added to increase the the salt combines with the height. The clay contained largequantitiesof quartzsand. paint and results in faded After a drying period, which browns and muted patterns. allowed the upper body to One method to alleviate become slightlystiff,the lower colordistortionresultingfrom the salt deposit is to apply a part,which was already parthickslip layerof white firing tially formed as a separate piece,was added.Anotherdryclay or a double layered slip. Patternspainted on the white ing period followed before executing the surface treatslip will not be influenced by ment. A double the salt layer.The result is a slip characterized many Late sharp color differentiation BronzeAge decorated wares. between the lightbackground and the red or black paint.To Above this, potters applied the painted decoration. achieve this effect requires a white slip of high quality In contrastto painted patwhich has the precise ability ternsof a few centuriesearlier, to adhere to the wall. PotLate BronzeAge designs disters found such a solution, played a poorer quality.This but once they deviated from was already apparent in the first LB II material (phase it and began to apply a thinner slip layer,perhapsbecause A) at TellDeir cAlla.In previous eras,therewas an earnest the material was difficult to Chocolate-on-whitepots were made with a thickwhite slip in order obtain,they lost the clarityof to deal with the salt that migratesto the surfaceof the plastic-clay attempt to deal with the salt the paintedpatterns.An exam- pot duringfiring.Thethick slip covered the salt and allowed a layeron vessel surfaces,either ple of waresmadewith a thick painted design to be applied with its interference.As a result,potters by removing it or by using a were able to achieve strikingdecoration.Thejug (H:28.6 cm) and white slip are the so-called very thick white slip under bowl (D:22.2 cm) date to the early LateBronzeAge and were "chocolate-on-white"wares thepaint HoweverLateBronze and their derivatives. These excavatedfrom a tomb at Pella.Photographfrom Hombs-Fredericq Age potters used no slip or wheel thrownshapes covered and Franken1986:cover applied slips that were too BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

217

thin to serve as a strongbackground for Alternatively,they could remove more the paint. of the clay (without creating an uninButthe saltdepositwas just one probtentional hole) and then add a coil to lem. If lime was present in the clay, it make a ring base. In this sense, the distinction between a disc and ring base would influence the iron oxide paint,but concerns the manufacturing technique only if fired to temperaturesabove925oC. As the iron component of the paint for creating the vessel and its base. It requiredskillto thinthe lowerbody, became volatile at high temperatures, the color diminished and the sharp conby scrapingand cutting away excessclay. trast between the paint and the The goal was to thin,but not overly thin, walls to a uniform thickness. This was backgroundwas lost.One way to resolve done not merely for aesthetic reasons, the problem caused by lime's presence in the clay was to use a thick slip and but to preventthe thinnerareafrom dryavoid painting an unslipped surface.At ing first, then cracking away from the a sufficiently high temperature,regardthicker,wetter areas. At times, potters less of the thickness of the slip,the paint apparently chose to solve the problem of overly thick bases by purposefully colorfades.But if a non-calcareous(nonlimestone) clay with a low iron content cutting away enough clay from the lower was used forthe slip,the paintwas dearly body to make a hole. This hole would have been plugged or patched closed visible. Another solution was to use a with a clay which was tempered heavcalcareous clay that fires nearly white, while restrictingthe upper temperature Pedestaleddeep drinkingvessel or goblet ilywith organicmaterial,therebyrendering in the kiln to avoid losing the painted from TellDeircAllaPhaseB is decorated with the wall more porous so thatit could dry red paint on a cream-pinkslip coveringa at a ratecomparableto the rest of the pot. color.Thus a lower temperatureand/or faster firing was the solution. This was white slip underneath.Thisgoblet, like Normally,wet clay could not have been added successfully to drier clay.Rather also an energy conservation method many pots, was made in separate pieces than adhereat the juncturepoint,a crack whose sole disadvantage was that the which were added together--the a The would have developed at the juncture did not fire to color. interrupted production process. single pottery An inner gray core was visible,but only decoration includestwo birdsopposite an of the two clays of uneven wetness. The in brokenpots. While some might inter- abstracttree above registersof squares, solution was to produce a patching clay lines and from of differenttemperingmaterialsby adding the core as evidence of scallops. wavy Photograph inadequate pret and Ibrahim 1989:91. the was true. The Kooij organic material,such as dung or straw firing, contrary potters to the wet clay.The organics served to the to exercise the caredisplayed ability ful controlnecessary to regulatekiln temperaturesto produce open the walls to enhance drying at a rate comparable to the best pottery using the available raw materials while also the rest of the pot. conserving fuel. Gradually as the slips became thinner in the LBAge, the IronAgeI PotteryTransitions scum deposit increasingly influenced the painted pattern TellDeir cAlla by blurring it into the background. Sometimes double slips IronI ceramicsfrom TellDeir (Alla differed from their prewere used, but a technique known as "turning"provided a better solution. This required that a potter trim and thin the decessors.The changes did not occur in the surfacetreatment, walls of a pot. By removing and scraping away the salt decoration,slip, paint, or burnish. Nor did the changes occur accumulation after the pot dried slightly, it was possible to in the locally made wares. The changes were seen in wares remove as much clay as was desirable.In effect,one removed made by others and brought to the site. As a consequence it the salt while simultaneously thinning the walls. The overall is difficultto assess what happened to the local tradition.There result was a better, thinner pot which was well prepared to was continuity in the local material along with changes due receive the surface treatment. All that was required for this to the arrival of non-local material. Contemporaneous with the deterioration and disappearance of the hallmark stage of the work was time and skill. The incomplete turning process of LB pottery resulted painted patterns, new and different non-local wares were in thicklower walls.After formingbowls or closed vessels and found alongside the older tradition,revealing the non-monoallowing them to dry slightly,each piece was placed on the lithicnatureof the ceramicsindustry.Cookingpots represented turntable to be thinned or "turned"down. At times, potters a major deviation from the LB II cooking pot tradition to the extent that they were not a normal development within the either skipped this step entirely or they scraped away some of the excessclay,yet the lowerbody remainedthickand heavy. LB II tradition.But since cooking wares could have been the By scrapingaway clay from the lower body,potters could leave products of a specialized group of potters whose work had little influence or relevancefor the normal repertoire,it is proba raised area from which they created a disc base. 218

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

(Glanzman 1983:169).The Iron I bowls were thinner and made by turning from a hump of clay ratherthan with coils.At Deir CAlla,both techniques coexisted for Iron I small bowls. Jars and jugs at both sites in both LB II and Iron I were coil built. Jerusalem K M.Kenyoniexcavationof Jerusalem revealedthatduringthe LateBronzeAge, Jerusalemwas not the site of a town. H. B J. Frankenand M. Steiner analyzed the Type Jerusalemdeposits and concluded that around 1200 BCEthe "Jebusite" settlement comprised a strongholdor fortress with a village attachedto it. Fortwo centuries, or until the time of David, the potters who provided wares to the residents of Jerusalem continued to work in the thirteenth-centurytradition.There was no development of shapes during 'C the twelfth century.The excavatedmaterialincludeda merehandfulof red slipped and burnishedwares.Forthose two hundred years, the potters continued to manufacture pottery as if they worked in isolation from potters elsewhere in the country.For two centuries,no innovations were discernible other than the appearanceof the collared rim store jar,which could have been brought to Jerusalem rather than have been made there. Pottery from Jerusalem of the Therewere three cooking pot types in use at DeircAlladuringthe thirteen-twelfthcenturies twelfth-tenth centuries resembled thirBCE. TypeA is the only type found in the latest phases of the LateBronzeAge sanctuaryand is teenth century wares in form and intimatelyrelated to the IronAge TypeC in that the rim is folded inwardlyonly.Whereas fabrication.Thus, at the time of David, TypeB from the IronAge lackstraces of throwing or turning on a wheel, greater use of the the Late BronzeAge shapes finally disturntableto finish TypeC is apparent.The makingof cooking pots must meet special requirements:thus the cooking pot tradition is not a good barometerof change or stabilityin appeared through a slow process of assimilation that incorporated shapes the largerpottery repertoire.The pottery industrywas heterogeneous. Drawingsfrom and Franken1986:148. Homes-Fredericq developed elsewhere.Thus the older traditions continued in some areas while lematic to assess the meaning of new cooking pots in terms elsewhere potters changed and improved the technology. of the rest of the assemblage. Natureof the Ceramics Given its sacred character,Tell Deir CAlla,the site of a LB TheHeterogeneous II sanctuary,perhaps contained more special wares than other Industry sites. During the IronAge, occupation was seasonal, but once During the second millennium wheel-thrown pottery made of plastic clays was not just a continuation or develagain, the artifacts suggested a sacred use. The seasonal use of the site by a mobile population resulted in a different opment of pottery made using lean clays and coil work during the third millennium BCE.Manufacturing techniques using type of ceramic assemblage than that of the LB II.The local traditionneeded and eventually receivedimprovements,prob- lean clays and coil work continued into the second millenably developed by the local potters. Rather than an external nium. The two production methods coexisted. A study of a reason for the eclipse of the painted pottery tradition,an inter- pottery assemblages from most sites usually reveals that the nal technological reason is more plausible. industry was not monolithic.Not all pots came from the same workshop or household or region, not all were made of the Baqcah Valley As for the BaqcahValley site, Iron I small bowl manufac- same raw materials,and not all were made in the same way. ture changed dramaticallyfrom its coil built LBII counterparts To complicate the situation further,any aspect of the pottery

TypeA

TJyTTpe

-(rr

/r

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

219

assemblagecould changeindependentlyMost obvious is the cessation of longdistance imported wares, but specific pottery forms also were subject to differentdemands.Cookingpots were often fabricated from clays and non-plastics that were differentfrom all other wares, and developments in cooking-pot production could occur without affecting the regular or normal wares. Moreover, itinerant potters might use their own clay sources and would have been more or less active at various times. Differentmanufacturingtechniquesexisted side by side. Thus, despite the apparent decline of pinch-potproductionor coiled work, these techniques persisted alongside wheel throwing in both the Bronze and Iron Ages (Franken and Kalsbeek 1969:88ff.;London 1987:321;1988:119;London and Sinclair1991:403).Eachsource of diversity within the industry impacted the overall appearance of the ceramicassemblageand has significancefor dating assemblages and for determining who made and used the wares.Changes in the industry occurred for differentreasons. These changes might affect either the manufactureor the surface treatment or both.

Pottersin Timesof PoliticalCrisis It is normally assumed that new pottery styles accompanied every major societal change in antiquity and replace all previous traditions.Yet in traditional societies during the twentieth century potters do not cease to work or diminish their output in times of crisis. According to ethnoarchaeological research, the contrary occurs. In the Philippines and in Cyprus,during WorldWarII,the military presence of foreigners created a demand for the local wares. There was also a demand for a wide array of ceramic pieces not made normallyby the potters (London,personal observation).These included clay replacements both for objects that were normally imported and those made of metals which were in short supply. Large wash basins, new types of stoves, and regular table wares, such as cups and plates, were suddenly needed. Good relationswere maintained between the potters and the militaryas long as the firing schedule was carefullycontrolled and not carriedout at night.In general,pottersproducedwares that benefitted the locals as well as the newcomers. From this example there is no reason to assume that at a certaintime all potters practicinga certaintraditionwould suddenly cease to work.

Ceramicsand Ethnicity

Given the complexity of ancient society, it seems reasonable that change never overtook everything automatically at the same time.There is no reason to assume that all of the elements archaeologists study would have changed at once, e.g., pottery,architecture,and technology. Some elements change 220

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

KhirbetUmmad Dananir,above the spring and wadi of the same name. ThisLateBronzeAge walled settlement occupied a strategic location and possesseda commensuratesize, about 2.4 ha. The springat the base of the site providedthe claysourcefor the locally made ceramics.Photographfrom McGovern,1986b:pl. 5b.

fasterthan others,while some remain unchanged. If this is so, the implications are enormous if one expects to find material evidence of the LBA-IAtransition in Palestine from a dominant Canaanite to a dominant Israelite presence marked by simultaneous changes in the realms of technology and culture, including religion. By the time archaeologists are able to discern a cluster of features that allow for the conclusion that a new social order has emerged, it is likely that some of those "novel" features will have arisen long before the cluster was apparent.The LBIIpotteryimprovementsneeded no outsideimpetus to have occurred. It is possible that the manufacturing technology changed first and the surface treatmentchanged later. Changes occurred at differenttimes for differentreasons.Furthermore,at times changes catchon slowly as the potters learn how to incorporatethem into their tradition. Based on studies of assemblages from two sites in Jordan, improvements in the manufacturing technique occurred already in the LBII.Who was responsible for the changes and what do these improvements mean for ceramics found west of the JordanRiver,in ancient Israel?Given the severity of the flaws and the unsatisfactory nature of the LB ceramics,it is reasonableto conclude that while the changes may have come from outside the country, it is quite likely that it was the local potters who were responsible because not all aspects of ceramicschange at the same time. Eitherthe potters or their customers requiredbetterwares.The initial adjustmentswere minor,yet had greatconsequence.An improved base and drying technique allowed for lighter weight containers which were more porous well as faster and better firing. These changes and improvementshave been documented fortwo sites in Jordan,but what aboutancientIsrael?Toaddress

the questionof changesin the manufacturingtechniquerequires a systematic technological assessment of pottery found in Israel.What is most evident is the change in surfacetreatment, i.e., the appearance of red slip, which has been described for the pottery from many sites of the early Iron Age. One purpose of this paper is to differentiate between the superficial changesinvolving surfacefinish and the more intrinsicchanges in the basic stages of the manufacturing technique. It is possible for one to change without the other and for different factors to have been responsible for each at different times. It is possible that the changes in the surface finish did not occur simultaneously with the improvements in the manufacturingtechnique.The LBII improvementswere a necessary measure to produce better pottery,but they merely began a long process that led to the creation of superior wares. Each change in pottery fabrication,no matter how small, impacts each subsequent step. The changes in the surface treatment, i.e., the introduction of the red slip (which, for whatever reawere subsequentand perhaps son, is very rareat TellDeir CAlla), were made possible by an improved manufacturingtechnique. Only once the potterssystematicallyremovedthe scum deposits on the surface would a slip or paint have been able to adhere to the surface. The successful application of a slip required a better fabricationprocess than had been practiced and/or the use of alternative raw materials. Usually it was necessary to burnish or rub the red slip into the surfaceto prevent it from flaking off due to its uneven rate of shrinkage. Unlike the changes in the way the pots were manufactured, the new surface treatment may not have been adopted to improve the pottery,but rathermay represent a symbol of broader developments in the society as a whole. Whereas the initial changes in manufacturing were highly desirable, i.e., practical improvements, the changes in the surface appearance were designed to make a particularsymbolic statement about people, potters, and workshops. Not only do different aspects of a society change at different times, but developments within the ceramics industry are uneven. In addition to the uneven changes within a single tradition of pottery making, the ceramics industry was not a monolithic entity. Not every potter in the LB and Iron Ages made pots using the same methods or with the same raw materials. Alongside relatively minor differences in turning or throwing,etc.,were potters who specialized in making specific types of pots by hand, using coils or slabs or molds. This is especiallyrelevantforcookingpots.Giventhe specialrequirements of cooking pot manufacture, it was an entity unto its own and at times a distinct tradition. As such, it is feasible to discern new cooking pots at a time when nothing else changes in the normal or regular repertoire. Recognizing that the heterogeneous nature of the ancient ceramicsindustry creates a complex situation brings us a step closer to sorting and categorizing artifacts and industries in terms of the way ancientsociety operated.No one would argue for simplistic social circumstances at the LB II/Iron I transitionalperiod.Todescribeand define more preciselythe diversity within the ceramics industry enables more solid inferences

concerningwho made and used the pottery.Overallour descriptions and assessments of ceramic assemblages dating to the transitional period have changed drastically in the past forty years.WhereasLBII and IronI pottery assemblageswere once considered to be radically different (Albright 1957:285), continuity is currently in vogue (Aharoni 1979:174;Mazar 1982:170;1990:94;London 1989:46).The idea that continuity along with change characterize pottery of the transitional period has been expressedby others (Amiran,Beck,and ZevuIn additionto continuityof the ceramicstradition, lon 1969:191-2). it is essential to considerthe idea of diversitywithin the ceramics industryas a whole and in particularwithin the transitional LB II/Iron Age I, whoever its potters may have been.

Conclusion Ceramic technology offers insights regarding where and how ancient pottery was made. It can reveal subtle changes in the technology that are not apparenton the surface.Despite the conservative nature of the industry and a general reluctance to make changes without ample reason, during the LB II Age, potters had no alternative but to improve their techniques. Changes in the manufacturing technique need not immediately affect the external appearance of a pot. The heterogeneous characterof the pottery industry reflects the society itself, which consisted of different peoples, different traditions, and different ethnic groups. To cite a cluster of features typical of any single ethnic group requires an assessment of the extent to which all aspects of a society are likely to change simultaneously. Yetby the time archaeologists are able to detect a new culture,it is highly likely that various elements were introduced at different times by different people for a variety of reasons. This reality mirrors the complexity of the ancient society and contributes the complexity of our attempts to recognize the association between people and pottery.

Bibliography Albright, William E 1957 Fromthe StoneAge to Christianity.2d ed. Garden City, NY: Pelican Books. Aharoni, Yohanan

1979 TheArchaeology Translated oftheLandoflsrael. byA. ERainey.Philadelphia: Westminster. Amiran, Ruth, Beck, Pirhiya and Zevulon, Uzza 1969 Ancient Potteryof the Holy Land.Jerusalem: Biyalik Institute and Israel Exploration Society. Franken, H. J. 1992 Excavationsat TellDeircAlla.The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Louvain: Peeters. Franken, H. J.,and Kalsbeek, Jan 1969 Excavationsat TellDeircAlla.Vol. I. Leiden: Brill. Glanzman, William 1983 Xeroradiographic Examination of Pottery Manufacturing Techniques: A TestCase from the Baq~ahValley,Jordan.MASCAJournal

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

221

2:163-9. D.and Franken,H. J.,eds. Hombs-Fredericq, andPotters-PastandPresent: 7000Years ArtinJor1986 Pottery ofCeramic dan.Austellungskataloge derUniversitiitat Tiibingen,20.Tiibingen: AttemptoVerlag. Kalsbeek,Jan,and London,Gloria 1979 A LateSecondMillenniumB.C.PottingPuzzle.Bulletin oftheAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research 232:48-56. Kooij,G.van der and Ibarhim,M.,eds. atDeirAlla, 1989 Picking ReviewofExcavations UptheThreads...A Coninuing Leiden:Universityof LeidenArchaeologicalCentre. Jordan. London,Gloria 1987 CypriotePotters:Pastand Present.Report oftheDepartment ofAntiq1987:319-22. uities,Cyprus 1988 The Organizationof the EarlyBronzeII and IIICeramicsIndustry at TelYarmuth:A PreliminaryReport.Pp.117-24in Yarmouth I, edited by P.de Miroschedji.Paris:EditionsRecherchesur les Civilisations. 1989 A Comparisonof TwoContemporaneousLifestylesof the Late SecondMillenniumB.C.Bulletin SchoolsofOriental of theAmerican Research 273:37-55. London,Gloriaand Sinclair,Marlene 1991 Aspectsof EarlyBronzeand LateIronAge CeramicTechnology atTellel-cUmeiri. PlainsProject: The1987SeaPp.383-419in Madaba edited by L. sonatTellel-cUmeiri andVicinity andSubsequent Studies, Herr,L. Geraty,0. LaBianca,and R.Younker.BerrienSprings, MI:AndrewsUniversity. McGovern,Patrick,E. 1986a AncientCeramicTechnologyand StylisticChange:Contrasting Studies from Southwestand SoutheastAsia. Pp. 33-52in TechnologyandStyle.Ceramicsand Civilization,Vol.2, editedby W.D. Kingery.Columbus,OH:AmericanCeramicSociety. The 1986b TheLateBronzeand EarlyIronAgesof CentralTransjordan: Museum Mono1977-1981. BaqcahValley Project, University graph65.Philadelphia:UniversityMuseum.

GloriaLondonfocusesattentionon ceramictechnologyin muchof her research.She has also carriedout ethno-archaeological studiesof she participatesin Cyprioteand Filipinotraditionalpotters.Currently, Dr.London the MadabaPlainsProjectand the BethsaidaExcavations. trainedatTelAvivUniversity,the Universityof Arizona,and studied ceramictechnologywith JanKalsbeek,who,togetherwith Henk Franken,formulatedan approachto ceramicanalysisthatfocuseson Dr.Londoncurrentlyis a Research technologicalconsiderations. Associateat the BurkeMemorialWashingtonStateMuseumin Seattleand a memberof BA?editorialcommittee. Afterspendinga numberof yearsin Bali,H.J.Franken(pictured with R.deVauxat his right)beganhis archaeologicalfield workin Jerichowith K.M.Kenyonand has publishedseveralvolumeson the Jerichoand Jerusalemexcavationsof Kenyon.The publicationof potteryfromhis excavationsat DeirCAllaservedas the catalystfora new approachto ceramicanalysisamongarchaeologistsworking throughoutthe MiddleEast.Dr.Frankenestablishedthe Department of PotteryTechnologyat the Universityof Leidenin the Netherlands, fromwhichhe has retired.

Mazar,Amihai 1982, ThreeIsraeliteSites in the Hills of Judahand Ephraim.Biblical 45:167-78. Archaeologist 40:77-101. 1990 IronAgeI and IITowersat Gilohand the IsraeliteSettlement.Israel Exploration Journal

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation, October 1,1995

Title:BiblicalArchaeologist.

Publication Number 006-0895.Frequency: Quarterly.Four issues published annually. Subscription price: $45.00 institutions, $35.00individuals. Location of Office of Publication: 819Houston Mill Road NE, Atlanta,GA 30329.Headquarters of publisher: Same. Publisher: Scholars Press. Editor: David C. Hopkins, Biblical Archaeologist, 4500 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20016.Owner: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 3301North Charles St., Baltimore,MD 21218. The purpose, function, and non-profit status of this organization and the tax exempt status for Federal income tax purposes has not changed during the preceding 12 months. The average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months are: (A) Total number of copies printed: 4231; (B) Paid circulation, mail subscriptions: 3434; (C) Total paid: 3434; (D) Free distribution: 102;(E)Totaldistribution:3536; (F) Copies not distributed: 665; (G) Total:4231.The actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: (A) Total number of copies printed: 4396; (B) Paid circulation: 3594; (C) Total paid circulation: 3594; (D) Free distribution: 230; (E) Total distribution: 3824; (F) Copies not distributed: 572; (G) Total:4396. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. Harry W.Gilmer Director,Scholars Press.

222

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

lop

*3

Afr .

-,-

?i 4

IF

I.It-

ff

if~llcF~fl .,? i~t

~'t

J41, .

''6

It-

A-

-Z

?.

7?r're II

Ar a

j. if' .~frf.;f,

IA .. ",, 11

0

P1.

-; -~3

?.44

-

i! A? jivAv hf

~iZ;I;C74 I

.-

yt

4A ..*4r

,?Li' .%..-

',P

~fl "1p?:;I

.,j

-

e3P.

*4.

.,?ri ?lI '''

I%

'?$;-.'

LT Sj LT` ,,

'.I

'j'

E~f ilkil~j

-f3

fir

Aerialview of cEnIHaseva.The gate complex of the massive100 x 100 m StratumV fortresslies in the upper right hand quadrant(northeast). The fortress'sinset-offsetwalls peak through at the perimeterof the excavatedarea. The wall systemconnectsthree towers in the northwest, southwest, and southeast corners.The western wall of the Romanera fortress,Stratum2, is prominentnear the center of the photo, to the left of the modern building.Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority.

By RudolphCohenand YigalYisrael

The Iron Age Strata (Strata4, 5, 6)

The work at En has now distinguished six .Haseva levels the latest to the earliest): (from occupation OF AND and Islamic Periods (sixth-sevVESSELS STONE ALTARS Late ASSEMBLAGE CLAY (1) Byzantine Early ASTONISHING at the the discoveries unearthed enth centuries recent CE) highlights Arabah site of (En Haseva.1 The fortresses at this (2) Late Roman Period (third-fourthcenturies CE) crucialcommercialcrossroadswere among the most (3) Nabatean and Early Roman Periods (first-second centuries CE) immense of the region during the Iron Age and Roman Periods.In an articlelast year (BA57:4[1994]),we outlined the (4) Iron Age (seventh-sixth centuries BCE) and at (En and Iron remains Roman, Nabatean, Haseva (5) Iron Age (ninth-eighth centuries BCE) Age with the for the identification of the site (6) Iron Age (tenth century BCE) presented arguments Of three fortresses attributed to the Iron Age, the earliest biblicalTamarand the Tamaramentioned in Romanand Byzantine sources.The terminationof fieldworkat the site at the end (Stratum 6) probably dates to the tenth century BCE,to the of this past summer (July 1995) offers the chance to display period of the United Monarchy.The Stratum 5 fortress, the the reconstructedvessels from what was probablyan Edomite largest and best-preserved of the three,has been ascribed to The latest fortress (Stratum4), the ninth-eighth centuries BCE. shrine and to supply further details concerning(En Haseva' Iron Age history. In particular, the remains of an additional apparently concurrent with the Edomite Shrine and accomfortress (Stratum 6), earlier in date than the two previously panying cult remains, and possibly constructed by Josiah uncovered (Strata 4, 5), now complete the stratigraphical (second half of the seventh century BCE),was destroyed after a relatively short existence around the time of the at the site. sequence

AN

58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

223

~jr~t~"'~c destruction of the FirstTemple (586 BCE). Stratum4 As previously reported (Cohen 1994:208),only the eastern side of the Stratum 4 fortress (ca. 36 m long) with two projecting towers (ca.14 m apart)was cleared.The southeastern tower (11xl m; its walls ca. 1.5 m in width) was completely cleared. One side of the northeastern tower was built atop an earlier Stratum 5 casemate wall, while the other side lay beneath Late Roman and Nabatean period remains (Strata23). The ceramic assemblage from this stratum belongs to the seventh-sixth centuries BCE. On this basis, we suggest that the Stratum 4 fortress was constructed during the reign of Josiah (639-609BCE)and destroyed at about the same time as Cohen 1994:208). the FirstTemplein Jerusalem (586 BCE; Though the last three seasons of excavationuncovered no majorarchitecturalremains that could clarify the plan of this structure, the area near the northeastern tower offered a very important find in 1994:a circular,polished seal. Made of choice stone,the hemisphericalseal measures 22 mm in diameter and is 15 mm thick. Two standing, apparently bearded, male figures are skillfully and delicatelyengravedon this seal. They face one anotherand are dressed in long gowns. Between them is a tall horned altar.The figure on the left stands with one hand raised heavenward in a gesture of blessing, while the figure on the right stands with one hand raised in a gesture of offering.Above the figures are two lines of engraved Edomite script (deciphered by Prof.Joseph Naveh): lmiktbn whzm ("belonging to mikt son of whzm"). This seal may havebelonged to one of the priestsserving in the shrineuncovered at (En Haseva (see below). A seal discovered at Horvat Qitmit depicts a similar figure (Beit-Arieh1991:99;Beit-Arieh and Beck 1987:19). The group of cult vessels,describedbelow with the Edomite Shrine in which they were found, also belongs to this time period. The Edomite Shrine The crowning discovery of the 1993excavatingseason was without a doubt the group of vessels of a cultic nature found in the northern part of the site. Excavatorsfound the assemblage at the foot of the fortifications of the large (Stratum 5) fortress, near the remains of a small structure (6.5x2.5m) whose walls are 0.7 m thick. This shrine appears similarin plan to a structureexposed severalyears ago at was vat Qitmit, some 45 km northwest of CEnHaseva, whichH.oridentified as an Edomite shrine (Beit-Arieh 1988;1991).The vessels-smashed by ashlars of varying sizes which were placed on top of them and which probablywere removed from the shrine -were found in a pit nearby and east of the shrine. The nearly six months of intensive work required to restore these important finds proved worthwhile in light of the overwhelming results.2Our restorationsconfirmedthatthe shattered vessels had been placed in the pit intact:we were able to find and restoreevery piece of each vessel. At orvat Qitmit, only H. a few objects were complete even after restoration. The assemblageincluded sixty-sevenday objectsand seven 224

58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

Unearthedin the final stratumof cEn Haseva'sIronAge life, this circularstone stamp seal (22 mm in diameter)bearsan engraving of two bearded, robed figures standing before a horned altar.An Edomiteinscription runsabove their heads: Imskt bn whzm ("belongingto mskt son of whzm").Courtesyof the Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.

The architectureof the Edomiteshrinesurfacedoutside the Stratum 5 fortificationsat the northernlimitsof the site. The smallstructure apparentlydates to the late seventh or earlysixth centuriesBCE. The smashedvesselswere found nearby.The elongated style of the building,dissimilarto domestic buildingsof this period, reinforcesits identificationas a culticbuilding.Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquities Authority.

stone altars of varying sizes. Though the scientific study of this important collection is in its preliminary stage,we have discerned nine types of vessels among the ceramic objects (Cohen and Yisrael 1995,Cohen and Yisrael in press): three anthropomorphic stands; eight stands; fifteen incense

burners in the shape of fenestrated pedestaled bowls; eleven incense burners decoratedwith projectinglugs; eleven chalices; five tripod-perforated cup-shaped incense burners; five small bowls; two incense shovels with projecting handles;threetiny whole pomegranatesand four largerincomplete specimens used to decorate incense burners. One of the anthropomorphicstands recoveredmay be the figure of a woman carrying a bowl. The head and body were wheelmade; facial and other features-eyes, ears, nose, mouth and chin-were marked by added pieces of clay modeled by hand. Long locks of hair were affixed to the head, and traces of reddish-brown paint remain visible. The stands included one which served as the base for one of the anthropomorphicfigures,cylindricalstands, and cylindricalstandsadornedwith figuresin relief.Verycrudely-fashioned human and animal figures were attached to one of the decorated fenestrated cylindrical stands. The upper part of the stand was decorated with two sheep, one opposite the other, with two identicalclay human figures between them.A string of lugs encircles the stand, and above it four doves in flight grace the top of the stand.Tracesof the join marks are visible. One other objectdeserving mention is a stone sculptureperhaps representinga god-with what may be very stylized human attributes. The anthropomorphic figures, as well as other objects in our assemblage, are reminiscent of finds from the Edomite shrine at Horvat Qitmit .3 Apparently this unusual collection can be ascribed to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth centuries BCEand can probablybe connected in some way to the remains of the late Stratum 4 Iron Age fortress.We attribute this fortressto the reign of Josiah (639-609BCE),the last period of efflorescenceand expansion of the Judeanmonarchybefore the Babylonianconquest.The smashing of the cult vessels may have been part of JosiahWs religious reform (2 Kings 22-23; 2 Chr 34-35). Accordingto the biblicalhistorian,the wide-rangingreforms instituted by Josiahin Judea,initiated because the Book of the Law was found in the Temple in Jerusalem,included repairing the Temple,removing the worship of strange gods from Jerusalemand the surrounding villages, and dismantling the high places found within the boundaries of his kingdom. Although our investigations and analysis of the material are still in progress, both the archaeological record and biblical accounts lead us to believe that the shrine was a high place dedicated to one of the "abominations" which King Josiah destroyed in Jerusalem, Beth-el, and other cities of Judea (2 Kgs 23:5-20),and throughoutall the land of Israel(2 Chr 34:37).

The cultic nature of the shrine at cEnHaseva is suggested its distinctive architectural features, which are quite difby ferent from ordinary residential structures. There is some noteworthy architecturalresemblance between the remains of the shrine at CEnHaseva and that at Horvat Qitmit. The prodigious presence of cultic vessels and ritual installations at the site also points to the presence of a shrine.

Head of an unusualthree-hornedgoddess from HorvatQitmit.This as yet unidentifiedgoddess was partof an assemblageof about five hundredcomplete or fragmentaryfigurinesand reliefsgathered at the site. The collectionsharesmany iconographicsimilariteswith that of 'En Haseva.Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority.

Moreover,some of the En Haseva find-especially the anthropomorphic stands-are similar to those from Horvat Qitmit. The stand decorated with relief figures of sheep and humans apparently also has a parallel among the finds from Horvat Qitmit, where, however, the figurines were unearthed separatedfrom the stands (Beit-Arieh1991:109-110, fig.19;Beit-Arieh and Beck 1987:14-15). What was the function of the anthropomorphicpottery in a shrine-were these idols of the gods? The clay human figures likely represent the priests from the shrine or other worshippers; they are probably not representations of gods. Beck came to a similar conclusion regarding the Horvat Qitmit assemblage,suggesting that the statues represent"worshippers, who donated them to serve as constant reminders before the gods, in order to obtain their blessing and protection"(Beit-Ariehand Beck1987:26?. Thehomed goddess figurine from Horvat Qitmit is the obvious exceptionto this (Beck1986; Beit-Arieh1991:110-111; Beit-Ariehand Beck 1987:27-28). Where does one look for the origins of the artistic tradition of the pottery? Beck found Phoenician elements and various Transjordaniantraditions in the iconographic material from Horvat Qitmit (Beck 1986; Beit-Arieh and Beck BiblicalArchaeologist 58:4 (1995)

225

The

Edomite

Shrine

Artifactsfrom CEn Haseva The collection of restoredcult vessels (above) includescult stands, pottery incense burners,chalices,tripod-perforatedcupshaped incense burners,incense shovels with projectinghandles, and diminutivestone incense altars.Movingclockwise:a multiple tiered fenestrated incense burnertopped with four birdsin flight; anthrpomorphicstand of a woman carryinga bowl; a profile view of one of the anthropomorphicstands;three large pomegranates, decorativeelements for an incense burner;and one of the small limestone incense altars,a prominentaspect of the religiousmaterialculturein Judea and elsewhere. Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority

226

BiblicalArch/aeologist 58:4 (1995)

Biblical 58:4(1995) Archaeologist

227

1987:23-31).She stressed the fact that although the remains from Horvat Qitmit are "well rooted in the religious iconographyof the Near Eastin generaland of the Levantin particular, ...there are ...aspects which...mark a departurefrom old tradition by the creation of new artistic forms" (Beck 1995:189). We agree with her that the human figures cannot be the work of Judeanartists,but may very well be that of Edomiteor some other foreign artisans (Beck1995:189-190). Furthermore,these two assemblagesmay representthe archaeologicalexpression of what is known in current literatureon the ancient cult in Judea as popular religion (Ackerman1992;Dever 1994). Several vessels from this assemblage were used for offerings or burning incense. Potterscreated these vessels in two parts:the upper partis a bowl whose edges are (almostalways) decorated with projecting triangles,also called denticulated fringe decoration (Beit-Arieh 1995:253).A long, narrow clay pipe protrudes from the center of the bottom of the bowl to fit, funnel-like,into a largerpipe emerging from the top of the base of the incense-burner.The decoration of projecting triangles at the edges of bowls or other vessels is known from the finds exposed in the Edomite stratum at Tellel-Kheleifeh (Glueck 1967:37,38, figs. 2:6a-6c,5:2; Pratico 1985:25,fig. 15:9) and at Buseirah (Bennett 1974:Fig.16:4)and Kadesh-Barnea (Cohen 1983b:xx).Sometimes the projecting triangles found on 'En Haseva bowls are pierced so that an object-perhaps a pomegranate like those found in the 'En Haseva assemblage--could be hung from them.The threetiny pomegranates in our collection may have been intended for hanging on just such a small vessel, while the largerpomegranateswere meant for a largervessel. Similar pomegranates were also found at HorvatQintmit (Beit-Arieh1988:41;Beit-Ariehand Beck1987:17). The bases of some of these two-partculticvessels were engraved prior to firing in a kiln; one of them is engraved with a bull. A significant proportion of the 'En Haseva assemblage includes both clay and stone incense burnersof differenttypes that are known from several sites in Judea and other regions (Gitin 1993). A major difference between the (En Haseva and Horvat Qitmit assemblages is their discovery location. The objects found at Horvat Qitmit were found on the floors of the shrine, while the finds from cEnHaseva were uncovered in a pit or favissa.Furthermore,they were found crushed by ashlars.This and other differences between the CEnHaseva and Horvat Qitmit assemblages suggest that there is also a chronological difference between them. While the Horvat Qitmit finds are dated to shortly before or soon afterthe end of the Judean state, the collection at CEnHaseva, as well as the construction of the shrine, may have emerged earlier from religious trends existing during the time of King Manasseh (ca.698-642 BCE).Manasseh is charged by the biblical record with engaging in idol worship (2 Kgs 21:1-16;2 Chr 33:1-19),setting up once again the high places, and installing a sculpted image in the holy Temple (2 Kgs 21:3,7; 2 Chr 33:3,7). The historian J. Bright,based on biblicalpassages,describes Manasseh thusly: a totalbreak with that of ...Manasseh'spolicy represented Hezekiah and a return to that of Ahaz... [As a vassal of 228

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

The large gate complex of Stratum5 measuredca. 15X13m and consistedof six piers,creatingfour chambers,and a corridoror courtyardthat may have led to an outer gate. Similarstructureshave been unearthed at TelJezreeland Tellel-Kheleifeh.Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority.

Assyria]...Manassehapparentlyfeltimpelledto pay homage to his overlord'sgod; altars to astral deities, probably of Mesopotamian origin were erected in the Temple itself. But Manasseh'sactions went much farther than this and constituted a thorough-going repudiation of the reform party and all its works.The local shrines of Yahweh,which Hezekiah had attempted to suppress,were restored.Pagan cults and practicesof both native and foreignwere allowed to flourish, with apparatusof the fertility religion and the ritual of sacred prostitution being tolerated even within the Temple...Divination and magic...were the vogue in Jerusalem...as were foreign fashions of various sorts..." (1981:312). Stratum5 (The Middle Fortress) Remains of an earlier Iron Age fortress (ninth-eighth centuries BCE)were first discovered in 1987in well-recorded stratigraphy(Cohen 1994).The 1992-1995seasons were dedicated principally to exposing the plan and outline of this fortress. The large Stratum5 fortress (100x100m) was surrounded by an inset-offset casematewall with three cornertowers projecting approximately3 m from the wall. Casemate-rooms(21 m in width) appeared on all sides of the fortress,but no tower was found in the northeastern corner; builders had intentionally filled most of the rooms with earth.Theirwalls exhibit various states of preservation-from a height of ca. 4.5 m to

1.3 m thick, most preserved to a height of 3 m. No floors were found and, like the casemate-rooms,the storeroomswere filled with earth. A long parallel corridor (ca.3.5m in width, its walls 1.0-1.2m wide) separatedthis complexfromwhatever structures may have stood to its north.Structuresof this type, considered to be storehouses (Currid 1992:102-7; stables (Holladay1986), Shiloh 1970:184), barracks (Fritz 1977),or market places (Herr1988),are known at various important sites of the IronAge II,like Beersheva (Aharoni 1973:14-15;Herzog 1973) and Horvat Tov (Cohen 1985;1988/89). Twogranariesemergednearthe magazines.The largest,east of the storeroom unit, was ca. 3.5 m in diameter,built of undressed stones, and preserved to the height of ca. 0.5m. Its plastered floor offeredburnt wheat and barleyremains. of two The granary also contained two comA granaryconstructedof bricksand paved with flint stones was a probablesecond excavatedand associatedwith the Stratum5 fortress.The first-a circularstructureplete vessels: a largedecoratedflask and a jug. The outer wall of the second graemployed a plasteredfloor upon which excavatorsdiscoveredcarbonizedwheat and barley seeds. Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority. nary,which stood to the northof the long storeroomcomplex and was built above Stratum 6 wall remains, was constructed of clay bricks and nothing more than foundations.4 Excavationsalso exposed casemate-rooms on either side preserved to the height of approximately1.2 m. Its floor was of the beautifully preserved, four-chambered gate (Cohen paved with crude silex (flint) stones. Since remains similar to 1994:210).Two of these rooms yielded a pottery assemblage those found in the first granary were not uncovered in this which included a number of complete ceramicand stone vesstructure,we cannot be sure that it was, in fact,a granary. a cooking-pot, The immense size of the Stratum5 fortress(1ha) suggests of the ninth-eighthcenturiesBCE: sels characteristic juglets,a storagejar,and an Achzib-type jug (Phoenician red- that 'En Haseva should be considered a fortified city and not slipped ware).Alongsidethis collectionwas a stone bowl placed merely a fortress.Its groundplan has several features in common with thatof the fortressuncoveredat TelJezreel(Ussishkin on a stone stand; in the bowl was a pottery bowl that conand Woodhead 1994),thought to be the central military base tained a clay lamp. Nearby was a round stone massebah(?). The last three years of excavationsaw to the final clearing in the IsraeliteKingdom (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1994:47).5 of the large gate-complex (ca. 15.0x12.8m). In addition to the Furthermore,it is not surprising that its first phase resembles four chambersand piers found inside the gate (Cohen1994:210), the plan of the fortressat Tellel-Kheleifeh(StratumII) (Glueck m wide) was found a long open corridor/courtyard (13.6-14.0 1939;1940:12-13;Pratico 1985;1986) since they were all most immediately outside,probablyleading to the outer gate of the likely built during the same time period. Stratum6 (The Early Fortress) fortress.The walls of this corridor/courtyard were 2 m wide and the length of the easternwall was 25 m. Therewas a strucAmong the earliest remains uncovered at 'En ture attached to the 18 m western wall. The structure (9x4 m), are those of a rectangular structure (ca. 13.0x11.5H.aseva m) that Uncovered beneath the a bastion or rooms related to the outer gate, contained two may belong to the tenth century BCE. adjacentchambers.In additionto its resemblanceto the fortress- piers of the fortress gate and to its west and south, the walls fig. 1; Pratico1985; of the structurewere built of silex.The impressivesouthwestern gate at Tellel-Kheleifeh(Glueck1939:9,13-14, corner,built of large silex blocks, is preserved to the height 1986), this fortress-gate is also very similar to-although better preserved than-the gatehouse uncovered at TelJezreel of more than a meter.It appears to be a fortress,similar in plan to those found at several Iron Age sites in the central Negev (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1994:13-24) Excavationsalso uncovered a storeroom complex (maga- (Cohen 1995). (Cohen1994:208-12). zines)and granariesin Stratum5 stratigraphy Diggers retrieveda complete handmade Negbite cookingThe storeroomcomplex consisted of three parallellong rooms. pot, made of rather coarse ware and exhibiting very crude They were located south of the gate and adjacentto the inner manufacturing, from the southeastern room of this fortress. southwestern corner of the gate complex (Cohen 1994:208). Negbite ware has been found at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Glueck The rooms were 1.5-2.6m wide and 172m long, with walls 1.0- 1939:13f;1940:17f;Pratico1985:23f)and in all three fortresses 58:4(1995) Biblical Archaeologist

229

uncovered at Kadesh-Barnea (Cohen 1981;1983a),dating from the tenth to the beginning of the sixth centuries BCE.

TheIronAgeHistoryof 'En Haseva The history of cEnHaseva is a rich and varied one. We are now able to tell the story of a site at the center of religious, political, social, and military activities. Sitting at a major crossroads, it served local inhabitants,travelers,commercial caravans,and soldiers not only during the IronAge but throughout the later Nabatean and Roman periods as well.We have described the Iron Age finds. Now it is time to interpret them. The small Stratum4 shrine and its assemblageof clay and stone cult vessels establishes cEnHaseva as a cult site along one of the Arabian trade routes apparently already in existence (VanBeek 1960:75-82;Ephal 1984:12-1 7,232-33;Tadmor The site may be connected to pastoralnomads 1961:245-46).6 or caravaneers who were active on the southern fringes of Judea (Ephal 1984:60-71).The apparently deliberate destruction of these cult objects-many of which show greatsimilarity to the Horvat Qitmit artifacts,while others parallelfinds from other Judean and Edomite sites-may be attributableto the religious reformsof Josiah,described in 2 Kgs 22-23 and 2 Chr 34-35 (Dever 1994).This period represents the last period of and expansionprior to the Babylonianconquest. Judeanfloruindt If our historicalunderstanding is correct,this may explain the link between the cult objects and other Stratum 4 remains; i.e., King Josiah may have built the fortress during his reign eitherprior to or afterdestroying the shrine and (639-609BCE), its vessels. As in the periods preceding and following, (En Haseva of the seventh-sixth centuries BCEstood at an important junction with tradeand communicationarteriesleading northwest, south, east,and west. The northwesternroute led to Beersheva by way of HuorvatcUza, Horvat Qitmit, Tel Malhata,Tel(Ira, and TelMasos.Alternatively,from HorvatCUzaone could travel to Arad, Horvat Tov (Cohen 1985;1988/89a), and from there to the Hebron area and on to Jerusalem.The southern route led to Ezion-geber(Eilat).Travelingeast took one to Edom and beyond, and to the west, the road led to Kadesh-Bamrnea. There are several good candidates for the builders of the Stratum 5 fortress. The results of the most recent excavations at the site have contributed to a change in our thinking concerning the initiator of this construction project.We now believe that it may have been built in the ninth-eighth centuries BCEratherthan a century lateras previously suggested. A look at the relations between Judea and Edom as they are described in the Bibleis necessary to understandwho the possible architectswere and how we have arrived at our choice of the most likely candidate. cEnHaseva Stratum 5 may represent a militarybase that was enlarged as necessitatedby the 230

58:4 (1995) BiblicalArchaeologist

The middlefortress (Stratum5) from the ninth-eighthcenturiesBCE occupiesroughlyfour times the areal extent of contemporaneous Negev fortresses.Perhapsthe site should be regardedas a small administrativecity,likethe Judeanfortified city of TelBeersheba, ratherthan a large fortress.Courtesyof the IsraelAntiquities Authority.

political climate of the times. The initial early phase, the gate complex,may have been constructedby Jehoshaphat(867-846 BCE)when "therewas no king in Edom, a deputy was king" (1Kgs 22:48).1Kgs reportsthat,in an unsuccessful attempt to repeat Solomon'sachievements, "Jehoshaphatmade ships of Tarshishto go to Ophir for gold, but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber" (1 Kgs 22:49; Bartlett This attributionwould also find support in 2 Chr 1989:115-6). 17:2:'And he [Jehoshaphat]placed forces in all the fortified cities of Judah,and set garrisons in the land of Judah."Later, perhaps at the end of his reign, the fortress was enlarged to accommodatethe Israelite/Judeanretaliatorycampaignagainst Mesha, king of Moab (mid-ninth century BCE;2 Kgs 3:4-15), who mentions his rebellion against the king of Israel in his Stele (Bartlett1989:116-22;Dearman 1989).The large Stratum 5 fortress may have served as the deployment center for this invasion. This would not only lend credence to the biblical statement that Jehoshaphat built fortresses and storage cities in Judah(2 Chr 17:12),but would also serve to strengthen the identification of the magazines at CEnHaseva as, in fact, a storeroom complex and not a building of some other kind (e.g.,stables,barracks,or marketplaces).The similarity in plan between the Stratum5 fortressat CEnHaseva and the IronAge fortifications at Tel Jezreel (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1994) suggests that they may date to approximately the same time, i.e., the ninth century BCEor some time thereafter. Anotherpossibilityis thatthe fortresswas builtby Amaziah the son of Joash,who was diligent in fortifying (798-769BCE), his kingdom both from within and without, and, after instituting reforms in the army,went to war with Edom. He defeated the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, in the northern Arabah, and then went on to conquer Sela (2 Kgs 14:7),

35"E

33"N

0*

Hazor

Mediterranean

os i

Tel Jezreel

"

-

Sea

Tell Deir 32N

•CAlla

u Jerusalem dah ,Judah

~shdod

Latkish \-

Gaza i

31 N

.

Hebron

**

En Gedi )Dead

..

*

TellHalif

Sea

Tov Tell Serac *AH. va Tel CArad ./ *H. IUza , : •e ,rs Tel Malhata H. Rogem Qitmit